I have always wondered about this building on Caron Ave. near Riverside Dr. I figured it was some kind of utility building like a Bell switching station or something. Looking over my architectural list, I noticed this building listed as being built in 1965, by architect Robert Langlois. It’s listed as the C.P.R. Communications Building. Sometimes you stumble across some neat old history on buildings.
So Rail Experts (I’m looking at you Doug), what would have happened in this building?
For those of you wondering what else Langlois is responsible for in the city, here’s what I have on him (Location, Year, Building):
Langlois, Robert Prince Rd. 1959 I. O. D. E. Memorial Hospital (additions & alterations)
Langlois, Robert 445 Glengarry Ave. 1959 Windsor F. P. .5/59 High Rise Apartment Building Phase II
Langlois, Robert 834 Raymo 1963 Our Lady of Guadalupe Church
Langlois, Robert Goyeau St. 1965 Bell Telephone Co. (addition)
Langlois, Robert Caron and Riverside Dr.1965 C. P. R. Communications Building
Langlois, Robert 7830 Edgar 1966 St. Thomas the Apostle Church
Langlois, Robert 2000 Talbot Rd.1968 St. Clair College of Applied Arts and Technology
Langlois, Robert 4401 Mt. Royal 1976 Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church
Langlois-Jordan Associated Architects Institutional Sunset Ave. 1977 Business Administration Bldg.- University of Windsor
That’s fascinating. I probably ran one of the last Telex locations in Windsor during the late 80’s, early 90’s when I worked at HMCS Hunter. The network we were on was a CN/CP telecom backbone. We still used a traditional teletype complete with tape and reader to transmit all our unclassified messages. One of the last things I did before I left Hunter was make the business case for dumping the teletype in favour of “modern” computer communication system.
Seems like so long ago.
Blech! With that list you provided, there isn’t much in terms of what I would consider decent architecture. Lucky for Windsor he didn’t produce more.
Thanks for the interesting info anyway.
I’d have to disagree D. Couvillion….Guadalupe Church is quite a nice building that fits in nice with its surrounding neighbourhood’s architecture.
In fairness to Mr. Langlois, the same can be said generally of much constructed from 1960 onward: Blech!
I think builders were struggling to to be more modern and practical. But the designs of that era haven’t aged as nicely as buildings from earlier periods, imho.
John> What a ridiculous statement — 1960 onward is just fine. Lots of the pre-1960 junk has been torn down, so you’re left with just the good stuff.
It’s “imho” indeed — there is an ongoing and growing appreciation and calls for preservation of modern architecture. In 1960, quaint Victorian “garbage” was as out of style as you think modernism is now.
We’ve got a book coming out in the fall here in Toronto that celebrates post-war concrete architecture.
Hey Shawn, keep me posted when that book comes out.
Also don’t forget there will be an exhibition in the Fall at the Art Gallery of Windsor on local Modern Architect (photographs by yours truly)
Shawn, you’re entitled to your opinion as I am mine. But the “growing appreciation” you speak of for modern architecture seems more significant to you than it really is presumably because you are so deeply immersed in it. Fine, but if you were to survey the general population and not just the strong minority of Guesthouse mourners on this blog, you’d find my “imho” is widely shared. And this isn’t gratuitous old = better thinking. The fact is, for reasons that weren’t all necessarily the fault of the architects of today, structures built before the first half of the century employ a great deal more imagination and creativity generally speaking. Architects of today design buildings that are practical, functional, and most importantly within budget – but not beautiful, sorry…
You are of course entitled to your opinion John, and it’s respected. But when you make a wide claim like you did, or in your response here that suggests architects in previous times didn’t design buildings that are practical and functional and that now they aren’t beautiful…is ridiculous. It’s EXACTLY the opinion people had in, say, 1950, of Victorian architecture — and it was widely held, and it’s why we lost so much great “old” stuff when modernism came around. There no perspective in your view. It’s fine to like and celebrate certain kinds of architecture, but the claims your making about more contemporary structures are all about what’s fashionable at the moment.
There is plenty of perspective in my view of this, Shawn – it just doesn’t line up with what you believe is right, so you just discount it as “ridiculous” and assume I’m just going with whatever is in fashion right now (whatever that is) and not my honest outlook on things. So be it.
Andrew….
I’m more of an operations type guy than a communications type railfan, but I think BBS has it pretty much nailed. In days gone by, railroads ran their own communication network involving telephone, telex and code key. Most of that (along with various train order stations like Walford….if you look at that Then and Now picture, the semaphore signal above the depot tells an aproaching train if the agent has an order for him) are gone, being replaced by radio, with orders at division points being transmitted to crews before they board the train by computer.
….