What did PAC1 really say about new commercial?
Apparantly last night Thom Hunt said that I misinterpreted the Q&A contained in PAC 1. Thet there was never any recommendation to limit the building of new commercial space. I think you should read the PAC 1 Q&A as I maintain and hope I did not misinterpret it. (IF I did, so did Karl Tanner and probably you will too)- PAC 1 will be attached here.
Please read PAC 1 and tell me whether I misinterpreted. pac1
What amazes me is the complete disgregard to the facts contained in this report by ALL councillors other than Alan Halberstadt
- that it was quoted that these commercial developments do not integrate into our neighborhoods,
- that we have one of the highest commercial vacancy rates in Canada
- that actions need to happen to protect main streets
I’ll never understand how developers have some sort of Rasputin like hold on our councillors, that the concern of how we’re viewed by the outside reigns paramount over the utter disregard of how we’re viewed by the people who actually live here and own small businesses here.
Its instulting to me that these same developers would never consider living next to the developments they want us to have in our cities and many don’t even live within Windsor’s limits. They have the audacity to say that Limiting commercial growth in Windsor won’t work as long as Lasalle, Lakeshore and Tecumseh won’t cooperate while they actually live and have influence in those same communities that are obstacles.
I call on Alfie Morgan, chair of the small business task force (whose only concern was red tape while big box plaza’s were completely unaddressed) to debate and discuss this once again.
Here is my speach but again - read PAC 1 and decide for yourself how much I “misinterpreted” or “misrepresented” the comments by Thom Hunt and Urban Metrics Rowan Faludi
Before you this evening is the Official Plan Report - a document that exemplifies the very reasons that I chose to become a communitarian, active involved in my community and scaledown.ca.
You have qualified analytical consultants and city administrators confirming what Chris Holt, James Coulter and I have been saying day-after-day for the past 18 months. The question becomes .. NOW,
will you take a stand?In clarifying my presence here tonight .. which “HAT” am I wearing:
Scaledown
Mission: To promote the cultural identity, social fabric and economic prosperity of Windsor, Ontario through open discussion and grass-roots advocacy.
Vision: To connect every Windsorite to their own walkable neighbourhood that has its own public spaces, vibrant local independent businesses and artists.
For several years, I have listened to and heard professionals from the International Downtown Association, CEO’s for Cities, Project for Public Spaces and The Brookings Institute. All of these experts have recommended that the key to revitalization is to fix your core and create great neighborhoods
It is now time to follow their recommendations. Many complain about the costs involved in hiring consultants and experts, and the time spent preparing studies and developing long-term plans. They’re only a waste of money if you ignore their advice. If you embrace and act on their recommendations, it can and should be the best investment we’ve yet seen.
And then along comes the Official Plan Review. You now have a choice. To ACT on it or not. To ADOPT and follow its recommendations, or not. I tell you this, what you have before
you is nothing less than the choosing between right and wrong. This may seem melodramatic but this
is about our future, this is about doing what’s right.Very simply, the consultants, professionals, experts and the City’s own planning department have said:
1. “Infill residential development, no new greenfield sites.”
2. Residual Market Demand and Impact analyisis - freeze on commercial bldg until 2011 to protect main streets or until commercial vacancy rates drop below 12%The only problem with this is that the target is so low due to Windsor’s current and short-term economic climate. I understand and appreciate that our economy plays a major role. However, you need to at least acknowledge that other areas in Ontario have set targets as high as 40%. In order to mitigate and address this issue, we need to get specific. We don’t need some vague wishy-washy target of approximately 10% that affords us some sense of satisfaction when we come close to achieving it.
What we need is specific unit targets - how many rental units created, how many vacant units filled, how many single unit development, and how many condominium units created. And then we need to develop a critical path that clearly indentifies the tactical deliverables necessary in order to achieve each individual target. That’s how successful cities fulfill their objectives. Not by asking whether there
are any consequences to missing the target, and in so doing implying that it’s not something we actually HAVE to DO but just one of those projects that we need to approval ..simply, a platitude. This is Windsor’s FUTURE, and every resident and small business owner is counting on you. Their livelihoods and quality of life depend on it.2. Residual Market Demand and Impact Analysis - No new commercial building until 2011
Why? We need to scaledown our development. We need to create density in our core. We need to protect the small businesses on our main streets such as Ouellette, Pelissier, Wyandotte, Erie, Tecumseh and others.
What is the biggest threat to these businesses? It’s the decrease in population in the core areas and the creation of new big box retail on the edges of our City. Is doing the right thing easy? Of course not, but as Councillors your duty is to make the right decisions.
What are the challenges to doing the right thing? It’s simple, there are primarily three challenges.
Developers, Lawyers and Engineers . OH MY!
You have developers in this City that will tell you that you are costing jobs and that the economy will suffer. The answer to that is that the jobs created in these big box stores are simply transferred from the closing of businesses on our main streets. There is a zero sum gain. As far as the economy goes, the fact is that 68 % of monies spent at small businesses stay within our community versus 43% of monies spent on big box. As you may have read in this report, big boxes do not integrate into neighbourhoods.
You have the lawyers telling you that this will expose you to OMB challenges. Well the expertise of the consultants you’ve hired will protect you from that. Also, just like our border crossing, we need to do the right thing regardless of the legal ramifications and costs.
You have engineers that will tell you that this will not work if it’s not a regional approach. Are we going to let towns like Tecumseh, Lakeshore, Lasalle and Amherstburg dictate our policy? If Windsor doesn’t show leadership in this region, are we expected to wait for these smaller communities to lead the way for us? Are they the proverbial tail that wags the dog?
But most importantly, your consultants and your planning department have been faced with all three of these challenges. They did not perform their work in a vacuum. After they were confronted with all of these concerns and challenges they decided to stick to their guns. Basically what leading
experts as well as your own planning department are saying is:- We acknowledge that Tecumseh, Lakeshore and Lasalle may not cooperate - stay the course. We acknowledge that new construction jobs will be lost but in order to protect existing jobs on our main
streets -stay the Course- We acknowledge that there could be OMB challenges but our experts who can support their findings in court say - STAY THE COURSE
You now know what you must do. Will you stand firm? Will you do what’s in the best interests of the residents, small businesses and main streets of our City? I call out to all small businesses and all residents to pay very close attention to your actions on this report.
I’m asking you tonight to listen to the experts and your own planning department. Hear their recommendations and how they’ve addressed the questions put before them. We’re not breaking any new ground on this issue. We’re following the same direction as other cities
including Kingston, Ontario.Infill residential development and protecting our main streets is what scaledown is all about. It’s the means in which to accomplish our mission and vision which I believe this Council shares. If there was ever any misunderstanding or confusion about what our group wants or promotes it’s sitting right in front of you in this Report.
I’m asking you tonight to THINK OUTSIDE THE BIG BOX.
Tags: big box retail, local business, Official Plan, PAC, planning department, Urban Design, urban sprawl
Post Feedback
Well said? Great information, keep up the great work!
Great speech Mark! But I do not see a “freezing” of commerical development. They are stating that the commerical element will be very slow until 2011 and that in fact the core and main street areas see commercial development FIRST before MORE big box stores are built on the fringes.
I am glad to see that Mr. Hunt agrees that parking isn’t always a necessity when building ashe rightly indicates it will lead to yet more surface lots and thus take away from density (so why was Jokers allowed to be levelled? Why was the Bank Building in Walkerville allowed to be levelled? Why was the Seagraves building levelled?).
In one part of the report it is stated that no area has consideration over another when doing infill. Why? Shouldn’t the city be trying to tackle the areas that need it most? If not they will continually be neglected and thus have no development at all!
Then it goes on to say that the core should be looked at first when dealing with commercial development but that development can be o.k’ed as long as it doesn’t take away from the core.
Sorry but the core has little retail or shopping period! What is there to take from it? With that rationale the only thing that won’t be built on the fringes is bars. As it is, the city hasn’t followed through with numerous reports and studies doen onthe core (streetscape comes to mind quickly).
I think the PAC has good intentions and is done relatively well but it is only on paper and I am sure it will be ignored for any developer coming in with some money (see Farhi and the arena lands now).
If only I knew this was coming up I too would have spoken at council.
I also want to note that the PAC shows that ther are no federal or provincial monies for grants. So why doens’t Windsor get a lobby group going with other municipalities to get this funding? Windsor just received $20 million why not use some of that? What about the $75 million loan Eddie wants for his tunnel “vision”? Wouldn’t that be better used for attracting new business?
If Windsor is stating they don’t have the cash, they are lying. We have the money but we are using it for all of the wrong reasons!
No new business is going to come to this area if we have a freeze on commercial development. The commercial vacancy rate is high but we have many low quality commercial properties. Look at downtown, how many stores sit vacant. Then actually look at the buildings, there are in poor condition and substandard amenties no company aside from a local person wanting cheap space for a new small retail store or the like will consider these. The vacancy rate in the new commercial developments is very low, because the new buildings have what tenants want. I’m in real estate, I show these commercial building downtown to potential clients and they just walk due to the amount of renovation needed. If you force them to use these building by blocking new developments they’ll simply go somewhere eles. Truth is 30-40% of the building downtown should be torn down and new ones built. The current lot is old, outdated and not rentable.
Me,
If you go to pg. 16 of the report about halfway down…
“Mr. Faludi: states that it was suggested that the Report (by Urban Metrics?) is recommending a 5-year moratorium; however, they are recommending a 3-year term ending 2011.
Don,
Fair enough, downtown properties are in rough shape. This PAC document wants downtown and existing commercial corridors to be redeveloped for commercial/retail. Unless the building is a designated heritage building developers may demolish and build new.
When you say they will bypass us, can anyone give an example of a city that any giant company such as Walmart, Best buy, chapters etc.. Bypassed due to land use policies?
My main point is that there is absolutely no action or plan to protect main streets and the small local independant businesses in them. Thats our culture and our quality of life as well as our sustainabiliy. We know that the banwell and sprucewood developments will hurt these businesses. We know they do not integrate into neighborhoods. WHy are we allowing them to be built?
Whats the alternative plan.
Once Windsor RE-establishes a sustainable transit/ light rail system in the established neighbourhoods and mainstreets, residential as well as commercial activity will naturally gravitate to these areas.
Alternatlely we can keep buying fuel powered busses and watch the fares rise along with the gas prices and development continue to occur on the fringe.
It’s almost like light rail is solution to a lot of Windsor’s ills.
I don’t think those buildings necessarily need to come down. But I believe good incentives to rehab them could make the changes necessary.
Explain why buildings in europe can stand for a hundred plus years, go through a myriad of changes and still come out for the better. But in Windsor and N. America as soon as the building looks like it needs some work we balk and want new, new, new?
I believe, and I do not mean to sound rude Don, but a real estate agent should do more than just walk someone through a building. Shouldn’t they being selling them on the merits of the location, the type of store it can be, possible rental space in the upstairs areas…I am not suggesting you are not doing that but if we had good incentives from city, provincial and federal gov’ts this type of issue could help to be solved.
Mark, I am not sure what plan it is but the freezing (as shown by James, sorry I did miss it) isn’t the way to go and unless the surrounding municipalities buy in I am afraid it will be the status quo.
Personally, I think Windsor should allow the big box stores to locate in the ‘burbs and then concentrate on giving the best incentives to businesses and offices to locate on main streets and in the core. But paying lip service as Mr. Hatfield has doesn’t do a damn thing to correct the problem (he did after all support the big box development on Banwell).
Interesting to note that these new subdivisions get fancy new pedestrian street lights while the core retains the ugly ones we still have. Even in decent neighbourhoods where they would make an impact.
But ME, the surrounding munipality buy in is a trick and trap. Don’t fall for ir.
Guess where all the Developers who want to build big boxes in windsor live and have influence. We’re talking sprucewood and Banwell.
If you answered lasalle, tecumseh and lakeshore you answered correctly. No developer would live within a mile of the various “costco badlands” they’ve helped to create in our city
Are we going to let cities with populations of 20,000 dictate the planning for Windsor, when they acknowledge that they care not about our welfare? We need to show leadership.
Remember all the big box stores have urban concepts that they can use if they need to, but for them, cheaper will always be a superior solution.
To ME:
That depends who I’m working for. If I’m working for the person looking for a commercial spot then my job is to do what’s in their best interest. If that means taking them to a new development that doesn’t need updating, has higher traffic (pedestrian and vehicle), and costs the same then that’s what I have to do. My job is too look out for my clients best interests. Not mine, yours, the cities, etc. Unfortunately you, like many people are of the belief real estate agents just “sell” property. Our real job is to look out for our clients best interests. I live downtown and wish we had a really nice downtown. I lived in Toronto for 11 years and miss living in a “real” city. Windsor’s development problem is one of regulation and red tape. Until the city removes regulations, offers incentives, and gets out of the way of development nothing will change.
Thanks Don for the reply. What do you think the city should remove in their red tape in order to move the core forward?
Mark, I don’t disagree with you. But if we make these big box stores confimr to what we want won’t they just move to the ‘burbs anyway because it will be cheaper or are you saying they will stay pu tanywya and make those necessary changes?
Dealing with this city on any matter is a red tape nightmare. Not just development. Look at the old Top Hat restaurant Burger King fiasco. They city has stood in the way of that deal for years now merely it seems out of spite. Burger King has now had to take it’s case to the OMB and now the city is fighting it because of an entrance driveway. In the end BK will win, the city will waste time and show other business how difficult it’ll be to do anything as simple as move your BK 2 blocks, the owners of the Top Hat have had to carry an empty building for 1-2 years on borrowed money. A widow none the less. Fulvio Valentinis would get int he way of this project everytine and only say that “we have big plans for this property” Property the city doesn’t own and what big pans have come out? Just an example. Go to the west end and look at houses falling apart and because of the interim control by law you can’t get permits. It’s not one thing. It’s a bunch of different overlapping requirements that over time have been put in place for one reason and get in the way of other things. So instead of jumping through 1 hoop to get something done now there are 10. Toronto went through this too when I lived there. Barbara Hall and Mel Lastman got in office and forced the city to streamline it’s permit and development process and cost and it has been a boom town for development ever since. The whole process needs to be overhauled. Unfortunately this city is a labour union town and our city administration and council reflect that. They have nobody there who is pro business. The workers are protecting there jobs with make work projects which just mean more hassles for developers, permit rates go up like crazy for housing and commercial, and council just isn’t business minded. I the last 5 years the cost of permits has gone up easily $10,000 for new homes. Why do you think people are moving to the burbs. Same house $10,000 cheaper. It’s not rocket science. It’s business which is mainly one thing, numbers.
Ignore the spelling mistakes…I should proof read.:)
I’m for Don and Alfie Morgan! This city must get rid of it’s mind set that they actually build this city. The city should get out of the way and drag their roadblocking bureaucracy with them. And the building stock of the core is antiquated and should be razed and made shovel ready, forget landing planes and start landing core development.
And before ME gets on my case, look at the commercial building stock on Ouellette! There are stuccoed facades stuck on 19th century or very early 20th century structures still there! Would I show that to a potential developer? I don’t think so!
Thanks Don, I agree with the red tape issues at city hall. I didn’t know however that the fees were so much different between Windsor and the burbs.
Urbanrat, I have never been on your case or on anyone else’s. I just spout my opinion and how it affects the entire city.
Another example is the TD has indicated they want to build a new tower downtown. Nothing has been anounced officially and at council meeting a couple weeks back someone from the heritage com. wanted council to insist they used the old facde from the former bank building. Fortunately council didn’t, well Ron “please don’t make me make a decision and offend someone” Jones I believe made them put in they’d suggest it to the developer. It’s little things that developers hate. I love Paris, London, Ireland and the old city architecture and wish our downtown was like that, but it isn’t and isn’t reasonable to expect developers to pay extra to conform to something that we don’t have but wish we had. Right now any developer or business wanting to build downtown should have his butt kissed until he does it.
Don, are you stating that we should take what we get when it comes to developers? Because that is the way it has been for many years in Windsor.
Let’s look to Detroit where that mentaily has reigned for decades and nothing came of it. Now we have a stronger DEGC and a stronger community behind demanding what it is they want and Detroit has reaped the benefits over the last 5-6 years.
Your thoughts?
I have to correct you on this one Don. Heritage committee only asked that someone ask that they consider it.
But then again Don, it has been proven that heritage properties increase surrounding property values. Sometimes regulations are needed when short term interests.
The best downtowns in the world are managed downtowns. Allowing a unregulated “free for all” won’t save downtown. Its similar to when I get asked “Mark, would you rather have a vacant space than a massage parlor?” Of course I would when I know the massage parlor will create far more vacancies in surrounding buildings.
Look at Pelissier struggle, the answer isn’t to let anyone come in and do whatever they want. Its to sell the vision of the “Pelissier street Village” and offer incentives until it becomes a reality.
finally…now lets see if words can turn into actions…
From AM800 website:
The city should be encouraging development in older neighborhoods in Windsor. Ward 4 councillors Bill Marra and Ken Lewenza Junior are pushing for incentives from all levels of government. Lewenza says development fees should be reduced or eliminated in established neighborhoods.
You know, it helps when your pushing for incentives to put your money where your mouth is.
Sustainable Downtown Plan, Glengarry-Marenttette could already be seeing incentives offered (Property tax increment financing is partially funded by province) if we took the darn CIP’s off the shelf and blew the dust off.
Hopefully they’re saying this to gear up for this years budget talks
I agree things have to be managed and the massage parlours should go. Thats a different topic though. Honestly I think their should be more management in certains areas. Just my opinion I wish the city would put in mandatory sign regulations and storefront facades to give the downtown a more unified look.
I should qualify my former post. My opinion is if a big development is proposed (Like TD, Casino, etc) we should pretty much get out of the way and let them do what they want, within reason of course. I could use one fo the many areas proposals by the private sector that we’re studied, delayed, reviewed literally to death.
Arena proposals not area proposals.
Just to support my point a bit. This was in the Windsor Star today.
Recently, the committee tried to convince TD Canada Trust to incorporate the historical 19th Century facade of the bank once located at Ouellette Avenue and Riverside Drive, preserved by the city in storage, into its planned new downtown building. The proposal was “met with shockingly venomous direct threats of legal action” by the developer involved, Heil added in his resignation letter.