Suburbs Hate Heritage Too!

View Comments

• OK, here's the only problem I have with not tearing down a building. Somebody come up with a use for it in its exsisting state that's viable. I'm not saying that tearing down the Lakewood Golf Club clubhouse is not a bad thing, but what would happen to the building if it were not leveled? Without a viable preservation plan, it just becomes another ruin......

• I think it would not have taken much effort to find a new use for the building. Currently the Town of Tecumseh has but a small 'museum' with limited hours. This site would have served well as a museum/park much like Willistead. The property north of Riverside Drive is extensive, on the lake front and such property should be kept in the public domain when and where possible. Properly equipped, many events could have been hosted here. This is just one possibility.
  I am sure that the town could sell off the property north of the drive and build huge mansions and make lots of bucks.... which is likely what will happen. Just like the Rendezvous site. (just West of Lesperance Road)

• Is that the original chimney in the pic, peeking out from all that vinyl?.

• I believe I read the property north of Riverside is going to be kept by the town and turned into a park.

  Doug, as you can see here http://bit.ly/IAbAe this a map of the area. The part south of Riverside was purchased a while back, and a developer wants to build housing on the Golf Course part. The town is keeping the section between Riverside Dr. and Lake St. Clair.

  I agree with you, but in a suburban town that's short on any part of history, with a bit of thought, there could be plenty of uses for a historic building located in a waterfront park.

• I can't say that I've ever been in there, driven by many times though. It's fairly common for golf courses to be converted over to residential (hopefully trees are saved). For the people living in view of the course, it will be devastating to give up their park-like views, which may have increased their property values.

  I guess it's the old argument of historic/dated vs highest and best use. A golf course could easily be built out in the county somewhere to replace Lakewood. When it was built, it was in the middle of nowhere.

  If I were a rate payer I would certainly not want to see more money go toward legal fights or maintaining an aging structure. Yes, it's sad for people who have memories there but perhaps something good can come of this in the long run.

• Andrew, I realize that the intention is for the town to retain the North portion as some sort of park but I think that in time it will also succumb to the pressures of development.
  True, Lakewood Golf Course was "in the middle of nowhere" as JB states but there will never be an opportunity in the future to retain this property as a true park. Yes, towns and cities provide mini-parks for adjacent residents but for the most part these are little more than playgrounds. As urban development continues, residents will long for larger tracts of parkland with trees and trails in their core (much like Central Park in New York; at least Windsor has Jackson and Memorial Parks). I believe that the current plan for the Lakewood property will not retain the park characteristic. Perhaps this discussion will surface again when Beechgrove Golf Course will face the same dilema... perhaps with a more learned outcome.

• Agreed - I'm not a golfer or a golf fan. What they do with the course part isn't going to upset me one way or the other, but to lose the club house is sad.

  We have constant fights in Windsor over our dwindling heritage stock, so it makes me sad when a town gives up one of only two or three heritage buildings in their town for no good reason.

• Referring to the land parcel south of the drive, I am only an occasional golfer so I am not upset about losing the property in the sense that there will be no golf. I see this as an opportunity to rededicate usage to real parkland with trees and walking trails, etc. and open to all to enjoy. To have the property populated with various types of townhouses, etc. and have but small 'parkettes' for the children to ride swings or whatever would be a great loss to future generations.
  Referring to the property north of the drive, it is sad that the structure is going/gone as it did have some historic relevance. It could have been the nucleus to a waterfront park and have acted as a museum (which the town needs). Could there have been a "Friends of Lakewood" much like the "Friends of Willistead"? We will never know.

• I wish there were pictures of the inside so I could see what all the hoopla is all about because I really don't see it from the outside. All I see is siding, simple architecture and no brickwork. There's tonnes of houses along Riverside Drive like this done up with quality brickwork. It's not even in the same ballpark in terms of architecture to Willistead to have an organization behind it like "Friends of Lakewood". And, to top it off, the inside may even be completely destroyed from being vacant for so long. There's too much of a romantic view of this place that's been built up of this place that I don't think wasn't even there anymore a year prior to demolition. I've also seen the architect's renderings for the new brickwork structure going up in it's place, which is worthy of Riverside Dr. That and the $25 million being spent into the local economy when it's needed the most has me thinking that is a very good result.

• David, once again you're wrong. The rendering you saw is not going on this site, but across the street in the golf course section.