Glengarda

View Comments

• I would have at least been satisfied with the Norwich block if Chrysler at least hollowed it out and built the tower in the center of the block, leaving all the facade intact as their ground floor.

• I was one of the people who were actively involved in trying to save this building and preserve the grounds for an art and cultural centre. It is absolutely NOT TRUE that Mady was prepared to incorporate Glengarda into his design. I suppose his suggestion that we were not prepared to compromise is premised on the fact that there was substancial community support for an art centre as opposed to his money-making condo-venture.I would suggest that it was the negative community fallout from his refusal to negotiate that prompted his mean-spirited destruction of the entire building.

  The planning department maintained, and city council agreed, that a condo development was the "highest and best" use - i.e. it would generate revenue for the city and an art centre would be a financial burden - the same type of arguement that gains so much currency even now.

  Unfortunately, this happened at about the time that the Mayor Mike Hurst wanted to "sell" his Canderel building downtown - to do that, he needed to show that it would have tenants. (It was originally designed to be much taller than it actually is today). One of those tenants was to be the new Art Gallery of Windsor.

  I will never forget Jim Yanchula, as head of the planning dept. at the time, explaining to all and sundry that Canderel was going to be a signature development that would bring life back to downtown.

  Given the positive results in terms of identity-stamping and tourism that other cities have developed with signature art & cultural museums - it should shock no one that city planners are never right about these things anyway - as the rather fanciful string of academic theories about city planning shows.

• Carol - Thanks for chiming in. Sometimes I wonder if there is anywhere in Ontario that's suffered from as much bad planning, and poor land use as Windsor...

• Yeah well Jim, bless his heart, has said a lot of things which did not pan out. He still says things that are untrue. And I'm not sure if it is because he has been worn down by the city administration itself or if he just doesn't care anymore. Either way if he seems this unhappy perhaps he should quit?

• hey hey hey....relax on the Yanchula bashing....this guy is highly competent and doing his absolute best....his hands are tied and any complications and cause for hostility happen above him. If something isn't going right, or you see that we're being lied to then its up to us "the citizens" to take control of the situation and demand higher quality in our living environment..."if" we weren't ripped off huge by the developers then Jim would have been correct with his statement about bring life back in....its up to us not to be ripped off any more. Write that letter to Mady...write that letter to Candrel...let them know....you think they read these blogs?

• I am a Planning and Engineering Consultant who worked in the Windsor/Essex County area in the 90’s.
  I was retained extensively by the Developer of the Glengarda project prior to its construction commencement. …as such, I have intimate knowledge of that development and its history.
  It has been interesting to say the least to observe the MISINFORMATION that has been bandied about in this publication about this particular development. At times I felt it was so blatant that I was concerned it might be intentional misinformation as those writing I felt had a serious obligation to find the truth….i’m not satisfied that this was done.
  For those of you who want the facts and the truth I am pleased to share my FIRST HAND knowledge as follows:
  1] The booklet entitled “ A HISTORY OF GLENGARDA AND THE URSULINE RELIGIOUS ORDER” was authored by noted Windsor Historian Michael Gladstone White. It was Mr Gladstone’s comment “THOSE PLANS WERE SCUTTLED WHEN THE COMPANY ENCOUNTERED STIFF RESISTANCE FROM LOCAL HERITAGE GROUPS WHO WERE UNPREPARED TO COMPROMISE.” The International Metropolis article calls this “a spiteful reaction.” I fail to see how this is a spiteful reaction by the Developer when the comments were made by a local historian. The misinformation here is that you are lead to believe that these are comments of the Developer.
  2] In an effort to save what could be saved of the old Glengarda building , the Developer came up with a plan that managed to save and incorporate into a new development, fully 60% of the Glengarda building. It featured 2 new condo towers, one at each end of the building which itself was being refurbished into condo suites while the exterior was being preserved. I thought this plan was actually stunning…it was a thoughtful ly planned melding of the new with the old and I actually congratulated the Developer on what I was sure would be and incredible development and one that all parties would strongly endorse. When this plan was presented at a meeting with the Windsor head of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario it was LAUGHED AT! I was at that meeting and I was shocked and embarrassed for the Developer and what great pains he had gone through to develop such a fabulous concept. The Developer was told in no uncertain terms that the ENTIRE Glengarda building was to be preserved and the proposed 2 towers should go behind the Glengarda building. I can tell you that that was a very unreasonable and unrealistic request as 5 floors of what was a proposed 12 storey building would literally have NO views whatsoever. But the ACO people were unmoving on this point. Therein was the impasse. The only remedy that remained available to the heritage people was to request City Council delay the project for 180 days which was their right under law at the time---they did so which caused a further deterioration of good will. The result of this was the demolition of the buildings. It is my belief that the Heritage Group representatives were unknowledgeable and unsophisticated in dealing with this matter and that is what caused the total loss of this property.
  3] Heritage groups today, through their Municipal Councils, have the authority to designate buildings and prevent their demolition. This “AUTHORITY” I believe is a whole other issue. When the community at large wants a property saved from demolition and re-use, the Municipal Council can now simply impose its will to do so. In my opinion this amounts to expropriation without compensation…something you generally see only in Communist countries. I predict that this will be taken to the Supreme Court of Canada and ultimately the law will be changed as it is a violation of rights.
  At any rate…we live in interesting times.
  I hope this serves to shed some light on the entire Glengarda issue!
  Charles Robinson

• No comments on Mr. Robinson's post?

• Charles are you serious?..Communist??...like America???
  Thats a pretty wild statement...In Canada..(until recent) the Hertiage committee has been a "pretty committee"....otherwise, they had no rulings on what you can do and could only offer aesthetic guidance...perhaps a tiny compensation if available. Stateside i have worked on multiple "historic" projects...there they have "rulings"...these "rulings", like it or not, create true preservation..even on heavy renovation they still create "preservation"...Preservation is an act of awareness by citizens or other of the cultural significance of a piece of Architecture....I really don't see how saving articles of our great history for the betterment of a community as a whole is communist???....You stated "its your opinion"....but still...WOW.

• Elementary my dear Woods....it is EXPROPRIATION WITHOUT COMPENSATION..plain and simple. It doesn't matter what you choose to wrap it in...a piece of architecture, land for a road or a hospital...hey now that's a most worthy cause. If the public wants it ..they MUST pay for it and not simply IMPOSE their will and TAKE private property.

• Back around 2 years ago I posted a picture of
  Glengarda on the Windsor Group page on facebook.

  One of the readers posted this comment on the picture. "Before the first world war the property or farm was sold to a Mr. Tracy McGregor A citizen of the USA.It was the Janisse's farm.He built the mansion ( known as Glengarda)After the war He put the property up for sale and ownership was transferred to the Ursuline Sisters.The property consisted of 70 acres of land .398 feet wide that went to Tecumseh Road.In 1951 more of the land was donated the the Diocese of London to build a church witch became Our lady of Guadalupe." I found it interesting how Glengarda, Our lady of Guadalupe church and Brennan Secondary school all line up almost in line which each other on what would have origonally been the same peice of land. The post also mentions that a lot of this information was found in the "OUR TOWN The history of Riverside Ontario.1921- 1966" book,