Time’s up!
It’s hard to believe that there’s still things left in this city to tear down, but here’s another one…
So, see you later Christ The King. Built in 1954, it’s outlived it’s use in a little more than 50 years. I’m sure that’s not what the parishioners who built this church had in mind. South Windsor sure is a victim of changing demographics too…
Looking back on this post on Christ The King from September, it looks like George hit the nail on the head. 🙂
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…
An unremarkable end to a part of Windsor's history. The large vacant house at 841…
One for the lost Windsor files, is this house that once belonged to Joseph Reaume…
View Comments
This is to bad...But soon, it will be Assumption Church that will be making the same kind of headline...
sooo sick. because the 3 other commercial buildings on each of the other corners isn't enough?
This history of this parish even goes beyond the 1954 structure that stands there now. There was originally a building north of it that served double duty as school and church. I believe it is partially visible in a couple scenes in the late 20s movie Building the Bridge.
John - Only not not really because Assumption is protected by designation under the Heritage Act, plus there is a heritage easement on the property.
The idiots in London may try to close it, but they can't tear it down.
To demolish that building for a boring, square, cheaply built commercial building (mostly likely incorporating elements of our unpopular stucco) that will never be rented because there's already too many vacant commerical buildings in Windsor is just shocking!! I bet the inside looks just as amazing, solid, pristine and rich in materials as the outside. I wish I could see a few pictures of this inside.
The inside has large wooden arches that hold up the ceiling, some nice stained glass, rear balcony, etc. etc.
10 years (J.K. through 8) at Christ the King school gave me plenty of time to sit bored in church and look around at the building.
The intersection won't ever seem the same without the large church taking up that corner.
Most of the time your entries are about buildings that I have only seen, or don't know about at all, this is the first one that hits close to home though. I always wondered what someone would do with a purchased church when I noticed a bunch of them in South Windsor were for sale.
I'm sure the parishioners who gave their hard-earned money to build the church thought it would be there forever. I doubt that the church will be sending checks out once the sale is complete to refund the money.
I think a used church is the hardest building to find an alternate use for, other than as some other religious purpose. Wasn't there a church in Pontiac converted to a nightclub? A lot of people don't like that idea.
I guess churches depend on parishioners, if they leave, the church becomes "unprofitable".
But then the church will be asking for more cash to build a church farther east. They should just convert an empty big box store to a church - and only rent it out. There's plenty of empty retail available. Maybe if Laz-y-boy can leave some recliners, attendance might actually go up - more comfortable than wooden pews. Maybe with massage too.
If more commercial/retail is going to be built, that is the place for it. This would lead to a more walkable, pedestrian-friendly "mainstreet" for that community which has lost a lot of it's close retail to the big-box inspired move out to the boonies. I have always believed that this is an important intersection that should be the focus of redevelopment, as there must be thousands of residents living within walking distance.
However- I question why the building has to be torn down to accomplish this? This is another landmark "GateWay" structure for the community (which was built up at the same time period as this church, the early '50's) that a visionary developer would incorporate into a successful pedestrian-scaled development. Where are these visionary developers? Build your crap disposable single-storey stuccoed retail out in the farmfields, as the life-expectancy of of those buildings and the sprawl surrounding them is only 20 years (ask any realtor or developer - they'll concur) but this is an established community in the city that has survived and flourished for over 50 years.
We need to start demanding a better built environment in this city. Something that is worth caring about.
As Windsor keeps trying to re-invent itself, it must consider all of the things that make great cities and towns. When people visit places one of the things that they admire are all the ancillary things. Many towns and cities have signs that point to "Historical District." Windsor could put up signs directing people to all the places that have been destroyed. That would keep them busy for hours! One could almost forguve them if there was any REAL progress.
Typical of the diocese to not care about the parishioners at all.
The sad thing is I have never once read in the Bible where it states that the church has to be PROFITABLE in order to serve the parishioners. Maybe our illustrious diocese should petition the vatican to open up their coffers a bit more because the more churches they close and the more parishes they cluster sure don't seem to translate into more bodies in the pews.
The irony of this all is that the diocese has no problem closing down these supposed money pits but they seem to have a lot of money for new churches being built in the 'burbs. It is really sad that most churches in the core are closed and the diocese seems to turn their backs on those who need the church the most (the poor).
As for Assumption, no they can't tear it down but they sure can do the demolition by neglect angle strategy. Considering they were supposed to upkeep the church according to the Ontario Trust contract to which they have not done at all, I wouldn't be surprised that they would try this tactic.
Maybe if Bishop Fabbro would surround himself with peope who have the parishioners in their best interest instead of themselves we wouldn't be having this issue. But when they have people like Dave Savel who only serve themselves, is it any wonder these majestic buildings are left to rot or are sold? I truly believe this is Bishop Fabbro's way out. He can state at anytime that he "didn't get the info" or "he didn't know"...how convenient?