Report on Phase One Public Consultations May to October 2013 Contents Community Stakeholder Interviews 2 Online Parcipaon 5 Cizen Workshops 7 Key Observaons and Conclusions 10 Appendix A 11 Appendix B 12 Appendix C 18 Introduction Phase One of the Rail Side Lands and Parcel Four Planning Iniave public consultaons process included three components: stakeholders interviews, online parcipaon, and cizen workshops. When combined, these three methods provide rich and meaningful direcon for the plan. This report will summarize the methods and findings of the three components and will provide key observaons and recommendaons emerging from the process to date. 1 Community Stakeholder Interviews Twenty‐three individuals were interviewed in this component of the Phase One Consultaon. Those interviewed are not meant to represent an exhausve list of community stakeholders, and many others will be consulted over the next year through various forums and methods. Rather, these individuals were selected based on the proximity of their organizaon to the rail side and parcel four lands (i.e. neighbours) or their organizaon’s mandate to promote and crically analyze the revitalizaon of downtown Winnipeg. Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg The Asper Foundaon The purpose of the interviews was to solicit feedback about potenal land uses, Canadian Museum for Human Rights design consideraons, and approaches to the planning for rail side and parcel CentreVenture four lands. An interview guide (Appendix A) was used to provide structure to City TV the discussions. Downtown Winnipeg BIZ Economic Development Winnipeg Land Uses Entreprises Riel Exchange District BIZ This secon of the interviews To iniate discussion interviewees were Exchange District Residents Associaon underscored that Winnipeggers hold asked about the previous water park Fergie’s Fish (Market Tenant) strong and somemes diverse views proposal for the Parcel Four lands. Inn at the Forks Foremost, nearly all expressed the about what The Forks is, and should be. Instute of Urban Studies opinion that there should have been Further, there is a high expectaon that Manitoba Children’s Museum more public consultaon and careful and thoughul planning should Parks Canada opportunity for dialogue before the guide any new developments on the Riverside Management (Shaw Park) project was proposed. However, there site. VIA Rail was no consensus about the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce appropriateness of the water park use “People have a sense of The Winnipeg Foundaon on the site. ownership of The Forks. What goes there should be a showcase Some said that a commercial water for the city. We need to have this park does not “fit” the site, elaborang [plan] be a model of ‘best practice’ for the city.” that it doesn’t complement the Community Stakeholder intellectual purpose of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights or reflect When asked what other land uses the historical and cultural significance should be encouraged on the rail side of The Forks. and parcel four lands, nearly all interviewees supported the sites being However, some said that The Forks is a revitalized with a mix of commercial modern gathering place with mulple uses, in addion to public and cultural/ aracons like the skateboard park and community spaces. Variety Heritage Adventure Playground. Those interviewees acknowledged that a high calibre indoor water park “could work” if it was well designed and accessible. 2 Nearly all interviewees suggested bringing a unique educaonal facility Some said they were unsure about the encouraging street‐level retail, with to the site or a centre that recognizes market demand for more housing in unique shopping and bars/cafés/ the Aboriginal history of The Forks. the downtown due to the recent restaurants with outdoor seang, to Others suggested a Chicago Waterfront Drive projects and projects create pedestrian acvity and an Millennium Park style water feature, a in the planning and development aracon unto itself. Some said this large outdoor ice skang complex, or a stages in other parts of the would provide amenies to retain giant ferris wheel aracon. downtown. They expressed concerns CMHR and Shaw Park visitors in the that housing at The Forks might downtown aer events and that the compete with other developments. Forks lacks enough acvity in the Although some also acknowledged evenings. Some expressed cauon that The Forks may be a locaon that that the retail should complement and could draw people who would not not detract from exisng retail at The otherwise consider living downtown. Forks and the rest of the downtown. Those interviewed were asked how “I think a restaurant and café much of the lands they think should configuration with a piazza and When asked specifically about mul‐ be developed as public space (i.e. fountain would enable people to unit housing development on the park space, green space, or open come to The Forks and stay lands, more than half of the space) versus commercial space. Only down there and dine and hear interviewees supported the concept. one interviewee favoured the lands live music, etc. Right now The Others either did not support housing being developed enrely as public Forks is completely dead after 6 or said they were unsure about merits space. Most others could not pinpoint p.m. except for one or two of housing at The Forks. a proporon of public space to restaurants.” commercial space, but rather stressed Community Stakeholder The most commonly cited reason for that the lands should have a mix of uses in order to draw a variety of Few interviewees suggested office support of housing was the asseron people there. Many said that without space to revitalize the site. Those who that a year‐round residenal other year‐round uses, acvies, or did said that it should be on small populaon would beer support reasons to be there, a park may be scale or that it should have a “unique” exisng businesses at The Forks and underulized and may feel unsafe, quality to it. For example, some would improve safety of The Forks site cing similar challenges with other suggested creave businesses or non‐ in the evening. Those who favoured downtown parks. All agreed that governmental organizaons (NGO’s) housing however, conveyed no clear quality, well‐designed public spaces that have a “synergy” with the consensus on the preferred tenure of will need to be an integral part the rail mandate of The Canadian Museum for housing, either condo or rental. Many side lands and parcel four Human Rights. placed different provisos on housing development, including that it must revitalizaon plan. Many interviewees advocated that have strong design aesthecs, must be some kind of aracon or a cultural/ high‐quality construcon, must be an “Making it all green space would be easy, but wouldn’t solve a community project should be located appropriate height and density, must more complex problem. A park here. However, there was no be unique in some way when would be covered in snow most consensus about the nature or compared to other projects, or must be inclusive with a mix of affordability. of the time. We have to content of that project. Some recognize that we are a winter suggested that the project should city. You won’t be able to draw A few interviewees did not support augment the Canadian Museum for people there with just a park.” the concept of housing at all, cing Human Rights, such as a centre for Community Stakeholder peace or a globally branded instute. that it does not fit the “public” Others talked about the value of gathering place theme of The Forks. 3 Urban Design Consideraons “draw” of The Forks should be leveraged Other common suggesons included: to the benefit of other downtown create a beer sense of arrival or entry Talking about design criteria in the aracons and amenies, through beer to The Forks site from the north; abstract was challenging for most physical connecons and access. consider and maintain key sight lines to interviewees. However, all said the the Canadian Museum for Human Rights; design of the rail side and parcel four “We are seeing the beginning of a add lighng to improve evening safety; lands should be of the highest quality, pedestrian network in our incorporate quality and unique public and that design standards should be downtown. We need pedestrian art; and ensure that that buildings are established and strictly adhered to. connectivity between our busy accessible to the public at street level. Many acknowledged that the “wow” downtown anchors like The MTS factor of the Canadian Museum for Centre and The Forks. How do we Interviewees were asked about whether Human Rights has “raised the bar” for get people to walk through this the development of the rail side and site to rest of the downtown - that other projects at The Forks. Some said parcel four lands should be disnct or is the question.” that the rail side and parcel four lands integrated. Many said that the two Community Stakeholder should reach for that bar, while some parcels of land don’t necessarily need to said they should maintain the character have the same “look and character,” Many suggested a trail, bikeway, and feel that exists with the original however the plan should ensure that promenade, or some kind of linear older buildings at The Forks (i.e. The they both complement and support the element through the site to draw people Forks Market, Johnston Terminal, needs of The Forks and the Canadian into the Forks and provide a pleasant Children’s Museum). Museum for Human Rights. Others way to explore from The Forks to the Exchange District and the rest of the noted that developing one parcel, while Nearly all interviewees talked about the leaving the other vacant, would not downtown.