Downtown Windsor – Part III

View Comments

• I'm not a big fan of relying on "major anchors" to save downtown as it goes against this vision of an idyllic mix of indy businesses making for a unique downtown experience, but after seeing how much worse things are than I even imagined, it needs all the help it can get from anyone that isn't peddling alcohol. And I suppose if a major anchor like Ikea happens to represent a departure from the current crop of kiddie bars, then it can't be all that bad of an idea to at least consider. The parking concerns can be addressed as David proposed, underground.

• Oh and additionally to the parking concerns, remember we're supposed to focusing on walkability and more reliance on better public transit anyways, so parking shouldn't be wrench in downtown's gearbox to begin with - I hope.

• Anchors are ok if they're the right anchors. We missed an opportunity of having the 400 city hall building become an anchor in a mixed used development. ANy progressive city hall that is rebuilt today in North America is not done as a stand alone but as a commercial, residential mixed use anchor.

  A campus makes a good anchor in a mixed use since you can build residences and commercial, the arena probably wouldn't have since it was to big to allow ancillary development.

  In the end, we don't need to wait. Flooding the cut adjacent to caron avenue and allowing boats to dock would itself draw enough commercial, residential to make a good anchor. The mayor spoke of a previous cost estimate for flooding the cut at 12 million, I doubt that is the true cost but even if it is double that cost it would yeild enough development and property value appreciation to justify it.

  BTW for the sustainability, walkability, environmentalists in us, those boats I refer to could be sailboats, paddle boats, kayaks etc..

• Mark! don't flood the cut just yet! That cut happens to be a rail bed with grade seperations already in place at university and wyandotte. VIA will still see this as there new Windsor Station yet.

  If you want to flood something, how 'bout one of those parking lots at the river!

• I wonder why it would cost $12 milion to flood the cut next to Caron Avenue? A crane and a dump truck to remove the mud can't cost that much. Even if they put up a retaining wall, it couldn't cost that much. How far would that extend to? University and Wyandotte? Doesn't BASF Chemical need rail lines beyond that? Would that include the cost of a bridge for Riverside Dr? It sounds like an interesting idea. How would someone be able to view this study the mayor did a cost estimate for?

• But its already a rail bed!!! It was once used a for rail and can be used again! The tracks are right there at universty!! they're already there!! They just need to a little further!!! This cant be a bad idea!

• What about Docherty's hole? You could've filled that in for boats too? Maybe still can!! You can dig a hole anywhere and fill it in! We have the technology! But try and get a new ROW for rail. This shouldn't be dismissed to quickly!!!!

• I agree with Fausto, giving up the ROW really limits our future potenital to adapt to rail and/or light rail along the exisiting corridors as a viable alternative form of mass transit.

  I have heard some pretty strange ideas tossed out of the years, but flooding the rail cut at Caron shoots towards the top of the "dumb" list pretty quickly. Even at $12 million dollars, I bet I could come up with 12 other things that could use a million dollars more than flooding a rail cut.

• I went to Caron's slit earlier today just to see how viable this whole Francis flooding it for a canal is. There are bridges on University and Riverside Dr. You'd have to move the flying saucer in front of the Riverside Dr. bridge though. But, that's a a lot of land that needs to dredged from the valley to make it work. It looks like the lowest point is about 30 feet above the Detroit River waterline, then you need another 20 or so feet to accomodate the hulls. So, like 50 feets. It's probably more trouble then it's worth digging up.

  I'm curious. This isn't some kind of previously approved project hidden somewhere in the Riverfront redevelopment plan? Or was that plan completed with the bunker? I'm just puzzled as to why the mayor would be costing it out. Where's the city supposed to get that kind of money anyway?

  Fausto: As for Doherty's Hole, if you're referring to that put next to the Radisson, I drove by today and it was completely filled in.

• I think this flooding of the cut was previously appoved by the city. I faintly remember reading something a year or two ago about the city putting up a marina somewhere around the Ambassador bridge. Maybe, it was meant to be at the belly of this canal. I guess if the city was renting out docks to a new marina it could pay for itself. Now, I found something. Downtown waterfront marina approved by the Ministry of the Environment for 271 watercraft in 1996. http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/env_reg/ea/English/EAs/windsormarina.htm