A sketch of Glengarda Ursuline School, designed in 1938 by J.C. Pennington.
The building opened in 1939, and stood until 1998, when despite being designated, the Mady Corp tore it down for this…
In a booklet issued about the history of Glengarda, to coincide with the new Condos the following is stated:
The reaction was so spiteful that even the Gates along Riverside Drive were taken down so no trace remained. Thankfully the Ontario Heritage Act was strengthened a few years back to prevent this type of demolition from occurring again. At the time, even though a building was designated it’s demolition couldn’t be stopped, unlike today.
At least the demolition of Glengarda featured on the cover of the report on the Loss Of Heritage Properties in Ontario, published in 2002.
______________________________________________________________________________________
I think the new Glengarda towers are a pleasant addition to the riverfront. I don’t miss the convent building at all. It always seemed menacing.
Wow, that is venomous…’98 was a busy time for me so I might have missed some of the discourse on this–I do remember Mady saying they planned to reconstruct the bell tower–I guess that was thrown out with everything else? I guess I can stop waiting to see that ever built. Gates of Glengarda…yet…no gates.
i’ll agree that they’re nice buildings, but i don’t think they should in anyway bear that name.
is Mady finished finishing off our heritage?
thanks Andrew!
Well… the OHA may have been strengthened, but we still have instances like the former fire truck factory on Walker.
How many people where aware that the building on Walker Rd. had any historical past? The signage on the walls was Border City Fence, that has been gone formany years. When did they build fire trucks in Windsor? What about the Studebaker plant in Walkerville?
If people are not made aware of the history and value of buildings, how can they be protectd?
Maybe if the local heritage committe made avable a list of buildings and sites of interest to
the public other could to preserve them
Here ya go, Richard… http://www.citywindsor.ca/000246.asp
I agree though… wider awareness of these heritage properties would probably make preserving them a bit easier.
Hopefully events like Door Open Windsor will help with that.
Just another waste of some of Canada’s history, like the death & destruction of St Mary’s Academy.
I will never understand the reasoning behind this needless need to take away the heritage value & beauty of this city.
I agree with Aaron. If you tear history down, you should not be privy to continue to rub salt in the wounds of those who believe in preserving history & continue to bear the name.
This is a common theme for developers in this town….give them a view and they will take it ALL….a SMART developer would have built (regardless of how ugly) the 2 new towers in behind the existing “historic” architecture…they would have afforded all of the same views, preserved and important part of our community, won the hearts of the citizens and could have built a mild less program into their development by transfering some of the program to the historic…re: health club, food ammenities, meeting rooms, and even a small guest boutique hotel….sorry chuck
i’ve used this same theory before…if daimler chrysler had built their tower a block back, the Norwich block would have been preserved and filled with small businesses to service this new influx of density…coffee shops, printers, lunch joints etc…..it also would have done wonders for chatham and pitt streets….oops.
everytime we allow some “under devoloped” developer to drop a tower right on the waters edge, we kill the value of all property behind it and completely discourage development.
WOODS — if the Norwich block was still standing it would probably be mostly empty.
Jim
ya you’re right…it was a better idea to yank it down…now we have an empty parking deck instead..much better.
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,
Sorry to revive this blog but it is important to know the FACTS in this case.
We have two eye witness accounts to the planning proceedings and both are in direct opposition to the other.
Either Mady was planning to incorporate 60% of Glengarda or he wasn’t.
Which is it?
In my opinion, if a plan was put forth by Mady to incorporate as much of the building as possible (at least 60% of it) and was “laughed at” as Charles suggests, then the ACO is entirely responsible for the “complete” loss of Glengarda.
My Mother and my Father-in-Law worked at Glengarda for years and I hated to see it go.
However, those who are legally entitled to re-zone or re-build on that site don’t owe anyone an apology for what they did IF and I stress IF, they provided a reasonable compromise to incorporate 60% of that structure into the new one.
So, whats the truth of it?
The sketches for what I would call “The Compromise” which would have saved most of the building were delivered to the Mayor’s office. I believe it was Mayor Kerts [?]. I’m quite sure they were never retrieved as I never saw them again…so hopefully they reside somewhere in the City of Windsor Planning files. Maybe someone can check on that. OR…perhaps the Architect who drew the plans could be contacted.
But in response to the query from Chris…make no mistake..the compromise was clearly and unequivocally offered!!
on the corner of Raymo road and wyandotte where the new gaudaloupe church presently stands way back in the 50’s there was a farm on that corner house barn chicken coup,the only reminder that Glengarda once stood on the riverfront is on the north side of wyandotte at raymo there are 2 old concrete pillars with balls mounted on the tops they look ancient standing there i think they mark the original entrance onto the Ursilene property from the south
thanks for pointing out those pillars gary, I’ve never noticed them before. they even have the old wraught iron gates attached. for anyone looking for them on streetview they are a little east of the intersection at the end of the glengarda property.
you should go get yourself a picture of those Andrew before they get ripped out of the ground!
or maybe even make a move to have them preserved since they probly are the only things left of glengarda.
Charles Robinson , even with his first hand knowledge, has confused the issues. He explains that…”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.”
Mr. Robinson’s comments are misguided; the ACO had and has NO STATUS when it comes to the city’s decision on matters under the Heritage Act. The ACO (Architectural Conservancy of Ontario) is a separate provincial organization whose mandate is to preserve places of historic significance and natural beauty in the province.The direction for matters under the Heritage Act comes from the City’s Heritage Committee and Heritage Planner. If Mr. Mady’s “stunning” compromise was abandonned because someone from the ACO laughed at it, I question the degree of commitment that Mady Development Corp. had to it in the first place.
I’m not sure what version of the “stunning” plan that Mr. Robinson saw – As I recall, Mr. Mady took a marker and drew new features onto his existing blueprint – I would not describe the result as stunning.
While the Representative from the ACO did make the suggestion about putting the towers behind the existing Glengarda building, there was no reason given about why this could not be done – unfortunately, I think the ACO rep. unwittingly gave Mady a convenient excuse to say that the ACO was being unreasonable because they had the temerity to put forward a different solution than the one Mady had proposed.
Mr. Robinson’s attempt to pretend that Mady came with a settled intention to do the right thing in this case is simply an attempt to re-write history!
I stand to be corrected but I believe Mady commissioned Michael Gladstone White to write the history on Glengarda. It was Mayor Michael Hurst by the way, and I would be surprised as all get out if those drawings were found at city hall. Mayor Hurst had his own loyalities and getting everyone in town to do the circle-jerk (including Mady by the way)over the Canderel Building was his highest prioroty. If that meant being nice to Mady and letting him demolish history, so be it.
yuck…..now i know why nobody wants anything to do with the Canderel building. i wouldn’t invest in the byproduct of a circle jerk either. 😉
I think the only thing thats ever gonna breath life back into the core is a reasurgence of retail like we had 50 years ago and i don’t think thats ever gonna happen no matter what these so called experts say i was thinking they should have the art section of the city all in the pelishier street coridor like torontos queen street and i think some of the art should adorn parts of the street the only risk is one of these little graffiti assholes defacing it with spray paintkeep it all in the same area
To Carol…
Either you have a bad memory or you are an out and out LIAR!!!
and what does candarel have to do with Glengarda??
and the sketches presented were COLOURED ARTISTS RENDERINGS and were spectacular.
but you are not interested in the truth….you SPIN the truth …you are a mean spirited person and i feel sorry for you. You and some of your cronies are the reason Glengarda doesn’t exist today. SHAME ON YOU!!
I will pray for you carol.
Glengarda was a residential school for intellectually challenged children during that heartbreaking time in our past when a child born with Down Syndrome or some other disability was hidden away from view.
The nuns used to take the kids for walks in the park across the street, always walking along the south sidewalk to the light at the corner of Pillette to cross. Almost every time, some group of snot-nosed kids would shout obscenities and call them names. Every time I pass that corner I think about those sweet, innocent kids, and the human garbage that would find it funny to be that mean.
Just before demolition the place was opened to the public. Few places have felt more haunted and lonely. The presence of these children was palpable. I tried to imagine being institutionalised from early childhood that way, sleeping in these tiny rooms, marching to showers with ragged curtains, built especially for little kids with tiny toilets and sinks, then down to the basement dining room for breakfast. It wasn’t hard to imagine what that must have been like on a cold, bleak January morning. To cry or be hurt and never have their mommies around to hug them and kiss their booboos … it was an atmosphere of heartbreak.
The whole time during the open house people were taking crowbars and screwdrivers to everything – hardwood flooring, tile, fixtures, trim, you name it. Whatever they could pull out was theirs.
The building was a work of art. It was the one place in Windsor you could imagine artists setting up easels to paint the gardens with Glengarda in the background one one side, and Belle Isle on the other. Losing the building made Mady a Riverside pariah, and I don’t think he will ever be forgiven by those who grew up with Glengarda. No matter how you slice it, the condo and the Sunrise buildings just claw at the scenery. There’s nothing organic or romantic about them. I’m sure many a bride and groom have asked the photographer to make sure the buildings aren’t in the shot. That wouldn’t have happened with Glengarda.
Regardless which side of the slapfest opinion falls on, the loss is tremendous. Compromise, no compromise … to-may-to to-mah-toe … it’s gone.
HOW WOULD I GET A COPY OF THE BOOK HISTORY OF GLENGARDA AND URLINE RELIGIONS ORDER AND WHERE TO BUY IT
I was a student at Glengarda. It was a beautiful place to spend my youth. So many beautiful memories and surrounded by infinite love. Generally speaking I was a misunderstood child and it was at a school like this where all the boundaries dissolved and simple kindness flourished. I am sad the building is gone but most of all I hope the spirit lives on through teachers and mentors that just giving of your self to others and being a positive influence to others means everything to someone. It was a beautiful place, a work of art, every hall way, every room was home to me and countless other kids who thrived in the sacred surroundings. It was an honor to have had the experience. I wish everyone could have an experience whether it be in a school or in a family, with friends or simply in life where you can measure the things that truly matter. The building was the framework within which many miracle occurred. I remember the day I went to visit and it was gone. I was living in London and it felt like part of my soul was ripped out. I had gone back a few times it visit the sisters who where my teachers. I will never forget the whole experience of Glengarda.
Just found this site and felt I needed to share on it. I wish I had a pic of the old building.
Thank,
Mike Prout.
Charles Robinson, thank you for your comments.
Woods, if they had put the Chrysler HQ on the block behind, everyone would be lamenting the loss of the Paul Martin Sr. building, Ye Olde Steak House and the Fish Market/Pogos/The Loop & the Coach & Horses.