I’m sure by now everyone has seen King Eddie’s latest legacy scheme. I’m not quite sure what to make of this plan, but I don’t like the idea of removing the last remnants of the residential area west of downtown for a hair-brained scheme like this.
It seems like this mayor is always after the silver bullet solution, rather than trying to fix the things in this city that are broken… But I digress…
If you haven’t seen the plan yet, click here for high res version of the photo above.
Judging by the concept drawing supplied by his highness, it looks like all of the area shaded in yellow will be obliterated. In fact Chatham St. will cease to exist west of Church St.
I took a little cruise through the area last night to show off the sights to those of you that aren’t familiar with the area. Here’s a mid-century hydro sub-station.
A nice, well kept little house on Bruce.
Next door to that one, at the corner of Bruce and Pitt is the J. H. Beattie house, listed as being built c. 1892.
This currently commercial section of row houses along Chatham was formerly the offices of the Walkerville Times.
An old early 1900’s duplex.
Hard to tell from the renderings, but it looks like these two older buildings along Pitt St. between Chatham & Janette may be saved. One is currently the home of Acapulco Delight, who already had to move once when their building on Victoria just south of University was demolished for a much needed parking lot.
A view south along Janette from Pitt.
I suppose we’ll have to wait and see, but if Eddie’s track record counts for anything, than there’s nothing to worry about as it will never get done…
What do you guys make of this plan? For the out of towners, click here to read the media’s coverage…
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…
An unremarkable end to a part of Windsor's history. The large vacant house at 841…
View Comments
George:
Don't think you have thought this through. Locally owned and operated businesses will not survive downtown if there is nothing that draws people INTO the downtown. Thats why everytthing has been closing up shop in recent years. All the locally owned commercial stores have left because there is no reason/attraction (other than kiddie bars and the Casino) to bring people to downtown Windsor. And, no, a canal does not HAVE TO serve an economic purpose in the way you are saying it does (comparing it to Welland). The Rideau Canal is used soley for recreational/pleasure purposes. The "economic purpose" of a canal in Windsor would be to attract people and with that comes economic spin-offs in commerical and entertainment sales. And even you, not just tourist would find this development beneficial and enjoying.
I think it's a great idea but I think that the city needs to pick a few things to finish before starting this. Plus, I think doing it one piece at a time is silly. "Welcome tourists, we can take you on this lovely boat 1 block; come back next year and you'll be able to visit 3 blocks."
As for some of the negative comments, I wanted to address those.
- There are people that DO visit Venice for the water. We went to see how people live, to ride a gondola, to see the bridges, etc.
- Charles Clark Square gets used even on sub zero days so why wouldn't a canal?
- There are undesirable areas that have been turned desirable by development and have ended up successful (search for Cardiff Docks/Cardiff Bay...once a poor, abandoned neighbourhood but they built a children's museum and started adding restaurants and condos and now it's in demand to live there).
- Why do we need it? Have you heard that we don't have any doctors or other professionals? You need to create a vibrant downtown to give them a reason to move their families there.
Good comments Victoria!
MAN! i've been waitting for days to see what you guys had to say about this lol! i gotta be honest, i didn't expect everyone to hate it. i thought it was something totally out of the box for this city and would actually look really really nice running into the city. the marina itself will be river water, but i guess the canal will be municipal.....so it's "cleaner"
i would go for walks and shops or whatever was put down there. at least it's filling up all those parking lots and would be something to bring this "urban village" to fruition. i thought we were all for putting some density into the core? everyone has valid points on both sides of the fence....but what else do we do with this property? it was a nice idea anyways.
Although I have already commented on this it may have came accross as negitive, but its just frustrating to see a number of ideas come and go and then this one comes along, Im all for change and this plan does look interesting I just hope it does happen and the city does not debate it for years to come like everthing else, I do love Windsor and want to see this city turn around I just had one question if someone could hellp me, Why does it cost so much for a feasibility study and what is involved???
A feasibility study is basically an essay using free CMHC data to show that the project won't lose money in the long run and they might even offer several suggestions for improvement, even though inevitably the City of Windsor almost always has huge cost overruns. But, because KPMG or an independent company did it, the city can place the blame for the overruns on the feasibility study. It's a waste of money and if it weren't for private donours paying for it, the taxpayers would be screaming. Definitely not worth $100K. The $100K feasibility study to show that spending $50million to convert the armouries into a money making concert hall will be yet another bondoogle.
THESHAFS - i hear ya. we'll probly go thru all these studies spending 1000's of dollars. and the day before the shovel goes in the ground, some turd will pipe up and say something about drunk people falling in and the liability issues and then, then it's over. because we all know this city's greatest fear.
although, i sure wish the city would give me 10K to draw a picture of what i think downtown should look like!
hmmm......looks like ceasars thinks this is a pretty good idea. i wonder what king eddy will have to say about that? i wonder if they'd like to help foot the bill?
The people of Windsor who are resistant to change are partly responsible for the same 'backwards thinking' that they so strongly fight against.
Shawn, that comment just pisses me off. I'm not resistant to change. I agree that we need a marina there. But, why do our politicans find ways to force these overpriced projects down our throats at taxpayers' expense?? I'm already screaming at my high tax bill only to see new ways for the city to fu-ck up and raise them. We can have a marina built there for a fraction of what's being proposed without dredging and it will pay for itself with well rental fees and launching fees. If a developer wants to build a high rise on Riverside, let them build it at their own expense. We already have two story houses in that area. Why do we have to demolish those houses to build new houses and urban blight and end up getting stuck with a huge expropriation/demolition bill? Why is it only an either Yes or no proposition? Either we let Eddie and his cronnies screw the taxpayers with this overpriced project or no marina. How about a plan C--build a marina without dredging or anything else? Take a look at the AGW. The casino moved and gave them a beautiful brick historical brewery building that could have turned into a world class looking gallery. It was already retrofitted to house slots and gaming tables. Instead, they demolished it and built that hunk of junk with a lot of useless space they got there today. It would have saved the taxpayers a lot of money by using that building. The bunker cost several million when we could have just kept the Cleary guest house. There was nothing wrong with it. Why did the taxpayers have to be stuck with a huge expropriation bill for the Norwich block? Why couldn't that highrise be built somewhere else? Maybe, people should have been more vocal and resistant to that change. Yet, you call us backwards even though all this crap was built.