Suburbs Hate Heritage Too!

View Comments

• I thought I read somewhere that this demo was part of the deal of getting the $25million seniors center being built; otherwise, the developers weren't going to build it. Whether it was parking for the center or blocking the view of the river and grounds for the center or whatever. The center was a monster compared to the size of this place, not that it could even fir on the footprint of this place. That's what I meant, that the building was on part of the overall grounds for this new center.

• Here's a picture of the proposed senior's center across the street. http://www.windsorstar.com/business/fp/Waterfront+seniors+residence/1275996/story.html It looks like something right out of Cranbrook. It looks 10x better than Willistead. If I were the developers, do you think I would build something like that with this plain looking structure with siding right across the street from it?

• Before complaining about losing heritage, it would be good the read the actual Windsor Star article....
  "With one councillor dissenting, Tecumseh council agreed Tuesday to tear down the almost century-old Lakewood golf course clubhouse after recent consultants’ reports found little historical value in preservation"....
  read that last sentence again.......a heritage expert found little historical value.
  Just because a building is old, does not mean it has heritage value.

• The only downside to demolition and rebuild in an area such as this, is that there may not be any public access to the lake with the new facility going on that site. We need well maintained public access points on our waterways. just my opinion.

  BTW, my parents were remarried in that building back in 1968, I can't recall what it looked like, but I seem to recall it wasn't that impressive of a building, as compared to say, Beachgrove, and/or Essex Golf Club and Country Clubs.

• In a previous post I was not implying that the clubhouse possessed any architectural or historic value. This golf course was not in the same class or standard as either Essex or Beach Grove Golf and Country Clubs. Lakewood was an open golf course and membership or green fees was not expensive in comparison; hence the support facilities were practical and not extravagant.
  The point I was trying to make is that the municipality had an opportunity to examine waterfront usage and to place this property in the public domain. The clubhouse, despite its lack of distinction, could have served as a beach house, museum, or nature centre and could have been an economical addition to a waterfront park.
  Opportunities to regain waterfront properties for ‘the public good’ are few and far between. Several years ago the City of Windsor permitted the construction of the Holiday Inn/Odeon complex despite its policy of denied construction on the riverfront. Only because of a fire was this property regained. The Town of Tecumseh had an opportunity to ameliorate the riverfront when the Rendezvous property became available. Instead, developers won out and constructed a walled community in its place.
  If you want to build people friendly cities with appropriate population density, you have to provide the populace with friendly space. Park space fits this category. This is why I believe that the entire Lakewood property should be ‘developed’ with this in mind. Just my opinion!