This century old Riverside mansion is the next one due for a date with the wrecking ball. In the 1990 the property was purchased by the current owner for redevelopment. Until such a plan was finalized, the owner leased the property out for use as a Bed & Breakfast. The owner has finally decided that the time for redevelopment is now, and a demolition permit has been applied for. Under the Ontario Heritage act, there is a 60 day waiting period for demolition of heritage listed buildings. The 60 days on this one is up at the end of September.
The house was built c. 1890 by the original owner Robert Barr who according to the city directories was at one time the Editor of the Detroit Free Press. Although a bit of research was done, and the Free Press has no records of Mr. Barr. The house remained in the Barr family until 1942.
This house, and the Joyce House at the end of the of the block are the only remnants of what was once known as Millionaire’s Row. The house was originally scheduled for demolition in 1997.
Also of interest is the iron fence along the front of the property. It dates to about 1879, and was originally from the downtown Windsor Post Office that was demolished in the early 1930’s for the current Paul Martin Building.
Always good times in a city where a shitty ass highrise holds more interest than a 117 year old mansion.
From the Border Cities Star - December 6, 1924, almost a century ago to the…
Built in 1929, the house at 2177 Victoria Avenue was originally numbered 1545 Victoria, pre…
Crescent Lanes first opened on Ottawa Street in 1944 at 1055 Ottawa Street, opposite Lanspeary…
Above is a photo of the home of Mr & Mrs Oswald Janisse, located at…
in 1917 two Greek brothers Gus & Harry Lukos purchased a one story building on…
Photo from Google Streetview A long time reader sent me an email the other week…
View Comments
John - the house discussed this AM on the radio is not this one.
The action that will or will not be taken is as of yet undetermined. Maybe if Windsorites in general (certainly not the reader here) seemed to care a little bit more about things like this, they wouldn't happen so often.
Too many people in this city could care less about our built heritage, and that's why developpers like Mady know they can pretty much demolish what they want with little repercussions. ie Glengarda.
My point is ... how can you designate the Joyce house and not this one? The City can't pick and chose which developments they want to stop and which they let proceed. This seems like an identical situation so can't we get the same heritage protection by using the same arguments?
JT, it's not that simple to use the same arguments as the Joyce House. That's like comparing apples to oranges. While it looks like it's in good shape on the outside, it's hard to tell what confition it is on the inside as it's over 100 years old. Suppose the foundaton is no longer sound or the support beams were infested with termites. Those would be legitimate grounds for demolition. The Joyce House, on the other hand, is a solid building and was retrofitted over the years for the expansion. It would be interesting to know what his arguments are for demolition, whether it's just for redevelopment or whether it's based on safety reasons. I'm not sure what the arguments were for the Glengarda, or whether it was just based on market demands for redevelopment.
Andrew, with all this talk of demolition I had sent you some pictures the other day to your e-mail, and I don't think they actually went through. If they didn't let me know and I will try to resend, I am sure they will be of interest.
Heritage is no excuse for progress.
Donald, what is progress? Other cities realize that their heritage helps them to be progressive...
Blair, I didn't get them, I've sent you an email.
Thanks.
Donald> I'm the first person to defend condos --- too many times people have kneejerk reactions to them as "bad" or whatever. But condos help prevent sprawl.
But in a place like windsor...with vast tracks of underdeveloped wasteland (parking lots, crappy clapboard housing, etc) there is no reason to tear down structures that are important to the community -- either because of their history or their built form.
So, I think you're being a troll, unless you can explain how saving one of windsor's FEW extant heritage buildings is blocking progress.......
sigh...another loss of a beautiful house...and a beautiful piece of land if you ask me...if a condo goes in the property won't remain as is either...there goes the fence....the lot....the building..... it's funny how they teardown whatever so quickly...put in a hole...sit on the hole for a while....start to build...sit on that for a while...or forever in some cases....and then once it's up...it sits half vacant with no buyers for how long?
but the move to demolish is a quick and hasty decision.... it's understrood that not ALL historical properties can be saved ALL the time...but our riverfront was once a beautiful ride through statley old homes and historic ocnnections....seems every day we loose more and more of that.....
I believe this home situated between the Joinville and Palazo apartments once belonged to the late Dr. Albert Wilson a Windsor Dental Surgeon
I live on Riverside Drive East.
The house should be a hertiage building. I suggest the city should give the hole in the ground on Riverside Drive West next to the art gallery to the developer because for more than 20 years that hole makes that area look like crap. So what if the build is 117 years old it has history which Windsor needs to save.
For the record another highrise condo on Riverside Drive East will just make taxes go up, add more traffic which makes it unsafe for cyclist, more rolling blackouts, lessen water pressure, make it more crowding and property value of houses along the river lower.
The developers should look at buiding around downtown or the vacant land near The Drive magazine building.