Canal Dreams?

View Comments

• The mayor's proposal is absurd on so many levels it is difficult to know where to begin, but I'll give it a try. a)trying to draw visitors to a riverwalk won't work for eight months of the year. that's why all the restaurants in the old Norwich block eventually failed. Tuesday nights in February will kill you. The plan makes perfect sense in Savannah Georgia or San Diego where the facilities can be enjoyed year round.b)I don't know how yo break it to you all but there is little natural demand for the type of high density urban housing most of the plans backers support. Firstly, if there was demand it would be built. Market forces would compel its construction. Realize that high density housing is generally built in areas of high land values to maximize the return per acre. A hundred years ago people needed to live near where they worked so the land immediately adjacent to the downtown business district had high intrinsic value. Managers built fine homes along Victoria and workers built in higher density along bruce and church etc. Nobody works downtown anymore. The buildings like the Canada Building are two thirds vacant. No one NEEDS to live downtown. c)the mayor is talking only about building the infrastructure for this proposed development. the 120 million gets you a canal and a couple bridges. He is relying on private developers to fund the 500 million dollars worth of pretty building in the drawing. I find it hard to believe that developers will be chomping at the bit to invest that kind of money into an area that is likely to shrink 20-30,000 people over the next decade as the full effects of the collapse of the north American auto industry plays itself out. When I first saw the proposal in the Star my initial reaction was to suggest the entire area be rezoned agricultural. At least that would be unique. But I have another proposal, Look again at the pictures of the existing homes in the area. They are all quite beautiful, if lonely sentinels. Why not give them some company. The city could create ,through zoning,its own Greenfield Village by making this area the repository of the various endangered buildings in our community. Owners ar busually agreeable to donating such buildings as it saves them the cost of demolition.Each would be under private ownership. Not urban villagers, more like pioneers, The cost to the city would be buttons. Then the city could use the money saved by aborting the canal project to purchase the soon to be vacant Canderel building and build a row of reproduction 19thcentury commercial buidings to beautify our waterfront

• The mayor's proposal is absurd on so many levels it is difficult to know where to begin, but I'll give it a try. a)trying to draw visitors to a riverwalk won't work for eight months of the year. that's why all the restaurants in the old Norwich block eventually failed. Tuesday nights in February will kill you. The plan makes perfect sense in Savannah Georgia or San Diego where the facilities can be enjoyed year round.b)I don't know how yo break it to you all but there is little natural demand for the type of high density urban housing most of the plans backers support. Firstly, if there was demand it would be built. Market forces would compel its construction. Realize that high density housing is generally built in areas of high land values to maximize the return per acre. A hundred years ago people needed to live near where they worked so the land immediately adjacent to the downtown business district had high intrinsic value. Managers built fine homes along Victoria and workers built in higher density along bruce and church etc. Nobody works downtown anymore. The buildings like the Canada Building are two thirds vacant. No one NEEDS to live downtown. c)the mayor is talking only about building the infrastructure for this proposed development. the 120 million gets you a canal and a couple bridges. He is relying on private developers to fund the 500 million dollars worth of pretty building in the drawing. I find it hard to believe that developers will be chomping at the bit to invest that kind of money into an area that is likely to shrink 20-30,000 people over the next decade as the full effects of the collapse of the north American auto industry plays itself out. When I first saw the proposal in the Star my initial reaction was to suggest the entire area be rezoned agricultural. At least that would be unique. But I have another proposal, Look again at the pictures of the existing homes in the area. They are all quite beautiful, if lonely sentinels. Why not give them some company. The city could create ,through zoning,its own Greenfield Village by making this area the repository of the various endangered buildings in our community. Owners ar busually agreeable to donating such buildings as it saves them the cost of demolition.Each would be under private ownership. Not urban villagers, more like pioneers, The cost to the city would be buttons. Then the city could use the money saved by aborting the canal project to purchase the soon to be vacant Canderel building and build a row of reproduction 19thcentury commercial buidings to beautify our waterfront

• I believe that the idea has merit and the concept is a good one. Most of the comments that I would have made have already been made by the posters above. I would like to see the same sort of enthusiasm exhibited by the mayor for re-vitalizing an already existing area- Walkerville, In any other city this would be a treasure waiting to be discovered.
  Rather than improving on what areas we already have such as Walkerville and Downtown Eddie shoots for something that is in all practicality, out of reach.

• This might be a bit besides the point, but was the architect who drew this up named Escher by any chance? How does the water come in from the river, flow down the canal, over what looks to be some small falls into yet another canal and then back out into the river again? Unless the river level drops 15 feet or so in the space of a thousand yards, (unless things have changed in the past couple of years) I don't see how this would work.

  Other than that, why does Windsor need a canal? Everything north of Riverside Dr was torn down to open up park space along a body of water, now they want to dig a ditch and put buildings up close to another body of water? Why not just build over part of Dieppe Park then?

• A much cheaper method might be to simply build the marina outward from the main land without any dredging like they did around the highrises on the other side of the Detroit river. The developers could still build the three luxury highrises on Riverside Dr. and no one would have to worry about heritage buildings being leveled and it would only cost a fraction of the cost of a dredged marina and canals. The planned dredged area could simply be turned into a parking lot for vehicles that launch boats from the marina.

• I have to chuckle about comments complaining about terraforming Earth. Give me a break. Humans have been changing the Earth as long as humans have lived here. I'm not moving off. I think this an interesting idea for an area of the city that pretty much no one visits now, except to park. Yes, there are a few nice homes in the area. I am sure the preservationists will pony up the money to buy and move them, just as they always do. In a nod to high tax paying residents, I would think they would want MORE high tax paying residents, not less. Bringing in more poor people won't lower your taxes. Windsor needs to boost its image as a retirement haven, since the auto industry is in its death throes, especially if the dollar stays high. There is no way that a marina will be built into the river at that location, it would be a hazard to navigation. Have you been in the river when a loaded freighter goes by? You would need a huge breakwater to protect it - more terraforming. The Coast Guard would never allow it. I think this is a better idea that an arena that is empty most of the time, except for Spits games and the odd boat show. It would probably freeze in the winter, too, so you could skate on it. It's tough for Windsor to think big, that's why it's a small town. I doubt all those parking lots will be replaced by any revenue generating properties, based on Windsor's lack of interest in becoming anything more than a used up factory town.

• looks like bubi's would be coming out

• DJW - "a)trying to draw visitors to a riverwalk won’t work for eight months of the year. that’s why all the restaurants in the old Norwich block eventually failed. Tuesday nights in February will kill you. The plan makes perfect sense in Savannah Georgia or San Diego where the facilities can be enjoyed year round."

  What are you talking about?!!!! Windsor gets 1-2 months of cold weather and snow, in January and February. I dont see it snowing 8 months of the year???? This is not 1970's Windsor, when it would start snowing in October. Also, even in the cold weather, areas like this can still be used. Ever heard of the Rideau Canal in Ottawa.....ya, they use that even in the winter....and I am pretty sure that Windsor does not get as cold or as much snow in February as Ottawa. And, in the winter, they have this festival called Winterlude, they dont just hibernate in their houses.

  I have to give you credit, you did come up with a doozy of an excuse!

• Saying Windsor only gets 1-2 months of cold weather and snow is a big doozy too. You are both guilty of exagerating, each in the opposite direction. Much as I'm leary of the Canal, I don't buy the cold weather argument against it anyway. We're Canadian. Enjoying winter is part of the package deal. And that hasn't changed since the '70s either.

• Sorry...3 months. December, January and February is when we get actual snow and it gets really cold at night. But October and November have been pretty darn warm the past few years.