More Parking Lots

View Comments

• I think that the problem with that area of downtown is that you have one of the premiere locations in the city, that should attract mid-to-upper class residents, but the housing style doesnt fit those people. The houses are too poorly maintained in that area, and the lots are crammed to tightly together. Surely this region between downtown and Walkerville (as well as the region between downtown and the University) are prime targets for gentrification. The question is: how do you start it? What is the catalyst? Does it start with people that care that move in first, and the shops and amenities follow? or is it the other way around? What are the schools like in that district? What is the current demographics for these neighborhoods?

• The city won't allow these historical homes to be torn down. Same as per Indian Road.

• I wouldn't say the land is worthless. The building is worthless, lowering the value of the land. The land is worth a lot more with nothing on it. Vacant downtown land across the street from any commercial building is anything but cheap anywhere in downtown. Not sure why they weren't demo'd a long time ago, esp. the ones on the street with the shingles falling off the roof.

• It is bizarre to me as well. A block from the waterfront and so close to downtown yet a stagnant dead area.
  This neighbourhood in almost any other city would be prime real estate. But nope, not here. We really are a backassward's region with little future planning and implementation.

  It doesn't matter what the city, province or feds build if there is crime or even perception of crime, no one will move to that specific area.
  The same goes for neighbourhoods that are full of rental property. The facts remain that those with a true vested interest (owning one's own home) in a neighbourhood are the true catalyst for rebuilding it or taking care of it.
  All it takes is two or three lazy landowners who don't care to start the decay. Add in a few renters who don't care either the the ball starts rolling. Landlord's today have a helluva time trying to get decent tentants and keep up their property with the plethora of laws that protect tenants (while ignoring those who invest in their property) is it any wonder that they make any money at all (many are just breaking even today). Add in high utility bills (Thanks Windsor) even higher taxes and the dis-investments grow. Increased crime is the final nail in the coffin.

• Perception, it starts with people taking a chance and that is all. Too many times people in Windsor have been promised one thing only fo that very thing to never happen or to be so altered it doesn't resemble the original promise.
  Whether people move first or shops, is the chicken and the egg problem. Both have to move together gradually from my experience. The locals must support what businesses move in there.

  Depending on the gentrification (using it as a positive not a negative) a large factor is what type of schools are in the area. Windsor hardly has any schools in their downtown because of the demographic shift and the one's there are not very good (except Bagley where they have made great progress).

  If schools gave MORE money to lower income schools (as they should to make up the difference in being able to raise funds)than to the wealthier schools then the gap would be much shorter. This fact has been backed up since the late 1980s. I challenge the readers here to read Savage Inequalities, though based in the U.S. it can be applied to Canada.

• All it would take is for a half a dozen friends to swoop in with their $40,000 and buy up a bunch of adjoining houses and fix them up. Look at what they're doing in Detroit! Not only would these trendsetters be getting one hell of a deal on a house and close prox. to great urban amenities, but they would see their ROI skyrocket as they successfully raise the value of the neighbourhood.

  Now, get the school-thing figured out and I'll be right there with you. I'll take two!

• There are currently no online for sale listings for houses on Glengarry or Alymer. Those ones on Glengarry for $40K were power-of-sales from speculators who bit off more than they could chew. Out-of-town speculators are still scooping those properties up. I think they see the value in the land. Even as parking lots they offer a much better net return. But, those houses aren't worth restoring. Those are small bungalows built for the poor. There isn't much you can do with them. The other side of downtown with rows of two and a half storey homes and long lots would be better suited for gentrification and restoring like Church St., Bruce, Dougall, Victoria, etc. because they were built for wealthier clientelle to begin, so the potential is there in that area of downtown. Not this area. There's maybe one brick one on Alymer worth saving. The rest of this area is just good for cannon fodder.

• David, I disagree with you. Those houses weren't "built for the poor".

  When those houses were built, in the 1850's-1870's, that's how people lived.

  Back in the olden days people didn't need big McMansions, with 10 bedrooms and 5 bathrooms, and driveways and garages.

  These were modest houses for the time. When they were built Windsor was in its infancy, bricks had to probably come from the Robinet brickyard in Sandwich.

  Moving bricks from Peter street to Riverside and Glengarry I can assure you, was not an easy task in 130 years ago... Materials were not easy to come by, the community was isolated at the end of Canada, and houses like this were built because they were easy to build, and didn't require tons of scarce building materials.

  There was no Ye Olde Home Depot to hit...

• Memories,memories.....Got a soft spot for this part of town. Spent the first few years of my life in the early 1950s on the corner of Chatham and Louis - big empty lot there now, the house my grandfather rented and the one next door, where we rented the upstairs were torn down decades ago. The little park where I used to play is still there although the wading pool and many of the amenities are long gone. This neighborhood was run down then and is still deteriorating, albeit at a snail's pace. It is acquiring a mangy, depleted look as bits and pieces of it fall prey to neglect, poor planning and the on-going demographic shift to the ever expanding "outer limits". We moved out of there in 1956 to become home owners in a better area - Bruce and Erie - another core neighborhood that has been slowly sinking since the 1970s. Every time I come back for a visit the old city appears a bit more diminished and down at the heels, while the forces of "progress" are busy gobbling up prime Essex County farmland for yet another cookie cutter development or mega-store. Large public gathering spaces - ie the temple of our national religion, the ice arena - are relocated to the outskirts. Forty, fifty years ago we had a vibrant city center, a dense and highly varied mix of architecture and commerce(within walking distance, no less) that was teeming with activity. It drew energy from and pumped life back into the surrounding residential areas. The old city center is on life support now. Although the decline began long before the advent of gambling, the Casino, in my opinion, was a huge mistake - a one-dimensional monolith that destroyed the diversity of the area, such as it was (Windsor Market, Silverwood stables, the Drake House, to name a few vanished ikons of the old days) and sucked out the remaining life. Note that the torched residence was across the street from the Casino parking garage, not exactly a prime view. I'm afraid that in the absence of any significant historic commercial architecture (Wyandotte St.?) and with the generally low quality of the housing, not to mention the lack of money in these times, gentrification is not going to happen here. Land close to downtown and urban amenities should be valued at a premium. Where are the urban amenities? I would argue that there is no longer a "downtown", downtown.

• Andrew, if you think people today who could afford $250K houses in Emeryville would ever consider gentrifying tiny shacks like this, you're dreaming. Times have changed and the kind of working class people who'd live in something like this 150 years ago, wouldn't consider something this small today. But, they might consider gentrifying some of those two storey ones on Church and Bruce and turning them back in single families instead of triplexes if the right kind of leadership in the city was in place. My dad grew up in a shack like this with his parents, brother and sister all living in one room. His parents were poor and that's all they could afford. He called it poverty living and vowed he'd never live in a house that small again. Not trying to be an ass, but that's just the reality of 2009.