Photo from 2002 when the Nisbet was still open
One of the most frequent questions I’ve had lately has been the status of the former Nisbet Inn at 131 Elliot St. West.
Here’s the scoop.
The property owner is an out of country investor. Apparently he owned the building a long time ago, and sold it to the proprietors who ran the Nisbet Inn. When she sold the building, he bought it back.
On the east half of the lot there is a parking lot that has 26 spaces. The lot was originally the side yard of the Nisbet Inn property. The plan was to knock down the house and make 26 more.
The Heritage Committee informed the representatives that the building was listed, and an application for a demolition permit would trigger a move to designate the building.
A Bit of History on the place…
The house was originally built in 1915 for A.E. Bowman, and when completed its address was known as 5 Ann St. at the time. He’s listed in the 1919 City Directory as living in the house, his occupation is listed as “City Veterinarian”. The 1923 Directory lists Mr. Bowman as Chief Analyst of the Board of Health, but shows his residence as 828 Ouellette Ave.
What seems interesting is that was appears to be the second owner, Dr. J Wilbert Brien, Physician & Surgeon, converted 5 Ann St. into his office by 1922. Despite being built in 1915 as a residence, the building quickly became converted to commercial use.
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
Whoa, that building is wayyy too beautiful to demolish. If he really needs parking, he should do what they used to do and buy a vacant parcel on Bruce/Janette St and move it there, but to even apply for demolition deserves a swift kick to his moronic head. Thank God for it being on the list.
It is a unique building in Windsor as there is not another one like it. Having talked to a few people on Victoria, they are all in agreement they want this building to stay as it is a part of their neighbourhood. they are getting very tired of the parking lots that are starting to surround their properties.
I find the owner of the land a little bit off that he needs the extra parking. There is a ton of parking in the area. In fact about 100 meters north is a large city owned lot. Why doesn't he work with the city to see if he can use it?
Why does every developr or landowner need to have their own parking lot? It doesn't work like that in other cities so why here?
David. moving a building? In Windsor? That would require foresight and a little work. We can't do that here. We must always take the easy way out or do things half-assed and twice as long.
You know it is a great idea! Why not have the city help to move buildings that may be torn down and start to put them in the City Centre West Lands? Not only does it save a buliding from demolition but it increases density in that part of the city and increases the tax base on those lands. An absolutely fantastic idea!
As for a lack of parking, we couldn't help but point out that there's about an acre of now vacant land about 50 east of there since Jokers was demolished. We kindly suggested that if parking was an issue that they look at leasing some space there, rather than knocking down the house.
But you see Andrew it isn't HIS parking. These people want their OWN parking and don't want to lease. People like this guy will state that in order to attract business in his office he has to have parking. Leasing parking from others will drive up the cost and people won't move downtown because the office parks, err, I mean industrial parks all have free parking.
Well something like that anyway. Our illustrious leaders will then capitulate and the building will come down.
Either that or the Heritage Committee will be told that it is another red tape organization that impedes "development" downtown.
Of course this is all nonsense but that is the spin that will be taken. Just wait and see.
I don't understand. Because back when 801/819 was on notice for demo, I made several trips to that intersection and had no trouble finding a convenient parking space. I think I even managed to comply with the 20-steps bylaw mentioned elsewhere by Urbanrat. If there's a demand for more parking, I sure didn't experience it. I agree with the Andrew's suggestion about using the property of the former 801/819 buildings. Lots of room there to paint white lines without giving downtown another kick in the nuts, demo style.
This is such a beautiful building, They really should have laws against selling buildings like this to out of town investors, as they have no real ties to the community, and therefore no responsibility to the community. This type of remote capitalistic bullshit makes me want to throw up my freedom fries. Where are the visionary people in this city? The ones who could really change the attitude and philosophy of this city and its politburo?
Andrew.....
....does the City of Windsor have a space requirement regarding parking for commercial buildings? Out here you're required to have X number of parking spaces for every Y square feet of floorspace. BTW, this requirement is waved in downtown areas.
er....wait. is this extra parking for a buisness??? i can't think of an office building near there except for a small one across from the library. this can't possibly be just so he can put a coin operated parking lot and make an extra $200 in quarters every month from the kiddie bars.....can it? the city can't possibly go thru with this with all the F-ups with buildings lately. has the windsor star caught wind of this yet? maybe if there's enough public outcry.....things would change???? (yeah, i know...i know)
Aaron, yes, it was in the paper last week.
Doug, yes there is a parking requirement, and I asked the planners, and the half of the lot that is currently designated as parking for the other building met the planning requirements at the time. There is no "legal" shortage of parking.
thanks andrew! god, imagine having the cash to snatch that ol' girl away from this guy?!!! i'd also buy up that crap parking lot and give her her yard back. what a shame. by the time i have the money to have the house i want this stupid city will have them all torn down. i can't stand this constant assult on out heritage.