Canal Aesthetics - a valid issue for all of Windsor
On a previous discussion thread a point was made
“The argument that the canal may not be pretty is my own. I had the overwhelming sense at the mayor’s presentation that his vision of the canal is to look something like the the area around the casino. In other words, generic, out of place in a historic city, tacky, etc. More Ontario Place than the Distillery District. More Devonshire Mall than Old Walkerville. I know a lot of people like that kind of design, I just don’t happen to be one of them. And when I host visitors here from other places, and in particular those places in Ontario we don’t do well at attracting, they tend to agree.”
BROTHER, you said a mouthfull and I agree wholeheartedly. I also don’t think this is an “eye of the beholder” issue. All the successful restaurants in this city have a warm inviting atmosphere. all the cold “Toronto” and “South beach” desigins haven’t been so successful. Its because the vast majority of Windsor’s population agrees with you Tristan. Yet decisions are going another way
When discussing streetscape downtown, I objected to the design as sterile and antiseptic. Exactly what you state above. I was told if I tried to change it, or debate it, the streetscape project would be lost.
I’ve come up with a compromise that no one has discussed which is streetscape the different districts of “the Arts” and “Pelissier st. village” with a design more favorable to what you describe in Walkerville. I’m assuming since Pelissier was submitted already, those design elements are not included.
When the clock tower was announced as a generous donation by a private citizen, I was told administration guided its design and that if I questioned what I thought was a crappy design It would be a huge insult to the generousity of the individual who made such a selfish donation.
When The IDA panel task force came down to windsor, 4 experts walked the streets with me and they informally stated that after seeing our police station, 400 city hall design and other public bldgs that Windsor had one of the worst asthetic design of public bldgs of any city they had been to. I don’t know if they’d admit to that statement today, but I heard it first hand.
Look at how sterile and antiseptic the bistro is at the foot of riverside. I have to hand it to Naples for trying to work with the restrictions our city has placed on him
Our planning department has stated that they are designing for a blank slate that we have to decorate so that it doesn’t go out of style. I vehemently disagree with their strategy. Someone needs to tell them that warmth and traditional will NEVER go out of style
In Richard Florida’s book “Chose your city” and when he came to Windsor, he stated that the NUMBER 1 criteria for choosing a city is the aesthetics of that city. We need to have an open and honest debate about how we want our city to look.
Thanks Tristan for bringing, what I feel, is a very important issue to light. One that needs to be discussed before the Canal area is designed
In order to regain peoples trust in light of Canderel et al., I think that the city government has to undertake a sort of Hippocratic oath, whereby it would adopt the notion that doing no harm to our existing stuff be paramount in any initiative.
Why start the consultation conversation with the bureaucrats? They have a lot of expertise. They’ve been around longer than most elected officials and they tend to take a longer term view. While some may have political agends (everyone has political preferences) I just think that they’re the most objective starting point to ask the open-ended questions and provide useful information to those who pose questions, with a bit less spin.
I have never argued that it should be the canal or the armouries. It’s just that the mayor’s tact–we should do everything under the sun and get as much federal cash as we can–is a dishonest characterization of the political process, infantalizes people and is not strategic. Grant programs always ask applicants to prioritize their requests. If this one doesn’t then it will get sorted out behind closed doors. It doesn’t seem ridiculuous to me to ask him which of the two projects he would prioritize and expect to get an answer.
I have never recommended we hold a referendum on this issue, so I’m not sure how your question is relevant. I recognize that referenda have a spotty history in producing good pubilc policy. I’ve been trying to make the case for meaningful consultations between elections.
Post Feedback
BTW, the fact that valid arguments are coming out as obstacles of the canal is a great thing, not a negative. As a canal proponent (in principle) I feel that everyone of these obstacles that gets addressed or can be overcome leads to a far more successful canal project
Oh and btw, oklahoma’s and San Antonio’s canals are colorful warm and inviting. No cold, sterile designs there
BTW, the fact that valid arguments are coming out as obstacles of the canal is a great thing, not a negative. If they can’t be addressed or overcome then let the canal die a natural death through debate and democracy instead of the process of a funding application. As a canal proponent (in principle) I feel that everyone of these obstacles that gets addressed or can be overcome leads to a far more successful canal project
Oh and btw, oklahoma’s and San Antonio’s canals are colorful warm and inviting. No cold, sterile designs there
I want what Oklahoma City has in their Brick Town Canal see picture in link http://tiny.cc/rzKb6 A small picture but worth a thousand words.
With all the artists, good architects and designers in this city..our city seems to come out of a standard Parks and Recreation catalogue! I hate our riverfront park, well I hate most of our parks., it’s empty, devoid of attractions and people looking for something to do besides watching turds float down the river, it is so Edwardian it isn’t funny! People want to do things, be seen doing them and watching others, mixing, interacting.. I grew up using High Park in Toronto for various things but it was always alive with people do something, playing music, cricket, running, fishing, swimming in the pool.. On our waterfront you get the chance to dodge dog poop!
What I am afraid of is getting a tidy bowl blue trough with no activity on it, just sit there and what….wonder went wrong…
Your using a to big of a word for this city Mark and especially the mayor and council:
Aesthetics! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetic
I mean if they can find heritage and beauty in 1940 and 50’s track homes on Indian Road then we are in real trouble. As far as I am concerned there isn’t one significant architectural building that you can point to in the last fifty years that has any merit to it in this city. The architecture of Windsor is gas stations and fast food and big box joints!
So my fear is that we will get a gloried ditch to small to do anything on and not big enough for any kind of WOW affect.
And it was me that labelled it a Pee trough and I stick by it!
I agree with your argument about aesthetics. We could be well on our way to looking like the main drag in downtown Cleveland.
Here is the real rub. As you and others are peeling off the layers (inch by inch, line by line, and thought by thought, we are learning that this is indeed a very complex issue which requires proper and full process. Given your partisanship towards San Antonio and your interests downtown it is easy and understandable to see how your enthusiasm works (no issue with that). By the same token, no one can argue that the Mayor’s approach to this has been totally wrong and very underhanded. At this point in the game even his apology is meaningless because nobody will trust him now. Arrogance is an understatement. One might say that at this point in the game he is tryiing to vet the vetting. Loading the deck would be the simile.
All of that aside, did it ever occur to anyone that even if this area was developed, for example, with no canal it would be just as effective. Imagine, for a minute, a rolling (more or less) at grade walking path with the same footprint and path as the proposed canal, similar too those found in New York’s Central Park or those along the St. Charles River in Boston. People could walk, jog, bike or roller blade the entire trek. They could stop and take in the sights from the vantage of park benches. Perhaps there might be an area for picnics and volley ball, gardens such as those in Jackson Park and…heck you could even have a huge pond with swans and row boats for rent. The point being made is that this is what genuine, honest and public vetting is supposed to sort out. Not the ususal pre-canned public workshop where citizens can contribute all they like as long as it doesn’t go against what has already been decided. Now imagine this: If the canal project will cost mere $50 million (LOL) then a land project like this could be done on the cheap and on the fly. Just cut Don Sadler and his gang loose with the project. They know what to do. With a cost reduction like that we won’t even have to worry about having an anchor. If we get one fine, if we don’t it’s no big loss. The area will become that much more attractive and less risky to investors and developers with this minimalist incentive. There is also a better chance of this being shovel ready because of it’s simplicity. Others are totally correct in pointing out that the Detroit River is already the best water feature and the only one needed. Take the boat slips and call it a day. By the way, boat slips and marinas were already proposed on a number of occasions; most recently during the Hurst Administration but in the end the Harbour Commission had their issues (whatever they were).
After all you have pointed out, the most troubling issue is the “behind closed doors” approach. Any ammendments to this now can only appear as spin and re-packaging. The only right thing to do now is stop the whole process in its tracks and start fresh. If the higher governments cannot live with that we should not sweat it either. At least this way we can sort out what we really want, what we need and what we can afford. There is a lesson in this if anyone wants learn it. This weeks council meeting will tell all.
M.O.M. now your getting to the point
1. “At this point in the game even his apology is meaningless because nobody will trust him now.”
The penalty for the mayor’s error should not be the loss of a development plan that may be good. To me that would be like saying that if we found a massive diamond deposit beneath windsor and the screwed up its presentation we would never be allowed to mine it!
Just because the mayor supports the plan does not allow him to own it. In fact the DWBIA owns a fraction of the plan as does the WFCU. bringing water inland was told to me first by Fulvio Valentinis. As far as I’m concerned that makes it more his plan than the mayor’s. Do not give the mayor something that belongs to so many others of us
2. rolling walking path. WE have miles of those, the problem is that our riverfront is a passive attraction and the majority of windorites (wrongly in my opinion) want to keep it that way.
THe central riverfront plan rocks but its a no go because not building on it.
The canal plan lets us connect our downtown to our riverfront with an active attraction that allows people to program that space with ACTIVITY.
Boat slips would be great for downtown, it would allow those with a higher spending demographic to access our casino and our downtown businesses. That could get retailers attention
Heck, I’d like to see the onion become a stage like in chicago’s millenium park. I have no idea why the Greater Windsor Community Foundation will not look at funding a plan that falls directly in their mandate
3. The process is open now, just look how many issues, obstacles arguments for and against that we’ve uncovered on this one blog alone. Your points are important as are many others. They definitely need to be addressed before we green light this project. But killing the project without allowing the proponents to make their case doesn’t seem fair
Unless I’m missing something, Tuesday is only a vote to keep the plan alive and gain more information for the “Cost-Benefit” equation (that information being whether Windsorites get 2/3rds federal funding for the project)
At 50 million this maybe a no go, at 15 maybe its a go. If I gave it to you for a dollar, would you buy it.
I get that we should wait to vote for it until we know its true costs. Makes sense, thats why I always try to clarify that I support it in principle and reserve my final decision. I’d like to hear what other projects could go in this area for what cost that would achieve the same effect. Maybe there’s a St. Clair health campus waiting in the wings? Whats Farhi got to say? (since we ridiculously gave him the most valuable acre without having an accepted plan)
But How do you vote against it when you don’t even know its full cost or benefits? Lets keep it alive until we can make a fully informed decision
Not the same kind of walking path as what we are used to along the Detroit River. This one will be surrounded by and integrated with all of the anchors possible. Cafe’s, store fronts, condos, housing etc. It will be a winding neighbourhood with positive connection to the downtown, to the gallery, to the river, to the casino etc. I was serious about the pond too. Self contained water is self contained water.
pedestrian only walkway through the western super anchor site…i love it
I’m with you M.O.M. The KISS principle works very well, especially when we’re talking about municipal development. Municipalities suck at being developers because they’re not playing with their own money.
If the vote Tuesday is only about continuing to keep the plan alive, then that’s a good thing. What I’m hearing is that one Councillor is ready to switch and move for reconsideration. Another Councillor who voted against the project is out of town on pre-arranged trip. If a vote for reconsideration does happen in these circumstances it will effectively poison the well for ever on this project.
Sounds interesting… Who’s going to council tomorrow?
I don’t understand why a vote for reconsideration would “poison the well forever” under these circumstances. What if the vote is more than 5-4, what if its 7-2, 8-1 or 9-0?
Tomorrow night will be very interesting especially to hear councilors give their rationale for why they vote the way they did.
I believe that the vote is simply to keep the plan alive and agree that this is a good thing.
Will council be televised.
Poison takes a very long time to dissipate. Are we supposed to believe that two weeks of “cool down” is supposed to make things OK? Who, in their right mind thinks or believes that our city council NOW, all of a sudden, out of the blue has all all of the necessary facts and background to reverse their decision? No one is that fickle. If the Mayor uses this meeting to twist the tide in his favour then we all know he is still being deceptive. The plan can always remain alive wether we are held at gunpoint or not.
The meeting will NOT be televised, Cogeco hasn’t covered council since the inside workers strike started.
I urge everyone to go down at watch it in person.
So the only way you’ll objectively look at this is if we kill it’s funding
Do you not see the absurdity of that condition
If you kill it, I’ll consider it?
No Mark that’s not what I’m saying, but you know as well as I do, if we rush this through, and request and receive funding it will be built, regardless of if it’s a good plan or not. Once you get the money, it will be spent, that’s the problem.
If the Mayor wanted it to happen, he shouldn’t have been such a secretive little dictator. We are the citizens of Windsor, we are the taxpayers, we are the electors. Why was it kept hush, hush? Why such disdain for the citizens of Windsor? You don’t keep good ideas a secret.
Who is not looking at it objectively? Those with an obvious vested interest and no patience or those who simply want to know all of the facts and have much needed dialogue. No one can make a qualified decision to move forward with no background or facts and nobody wants to just sign over a blank check witdhout knowing what they are buying. Windsorites are smarter than that.
Andrew, I disagree with the fact that getting the funding forces us to build it.
Getting the funding simply gives us a new cost benefit equation with which we can make a decision with. Acceptance for funding is exactly that, information. No more, no less.
I want the canal debated more just as much as you do. I’m concerned that no new downtown strategy meetings have been called. I’m afraid that no ones working on a comprehensive downtown strategy.
You see even if the canal fails it will be replaced with another silver bullet. Whether it be a post secondary campus, symphony hall etc…
What pisses me off is that until they pick one, the city council refuses to work on the rest of downtown. So, heck if keeping a canal plan alive allows us to work on the rest of downtown, that works for me. I’m into horse trading.
Mark - of course you disagree.
If we get the funding, we’re trapped. It’s a done deal.
If this canal gets built, consider Ouellette the dead zone, this is the “new downtown”.
Andrew, how do you reach that conclusion? I don’t see the logic. The possibility of real retail coming downtown, diverting regional dollars from the malls in Michigan and the suburbs to downtown, the potential for a quarter of a billion dollars in private investment diverted from the city edges to the core; how could that hurt Ouellette? Not to mention the increase inbound tourism.
We need to remember this area is empty parking lots. Frankly, if Chrysler proposed to park newly built unsold minivans in this area I would support it. We are doing nothing with this area other than cultivating weeds and adding to the heat island effect.
I’ve read a lot of straw man arguments to oppose this proposal. I think we need to keep the facts in mind. This is simply an infrastructure project to extend the riverfront into the streets of our downtown. To be successful the population and development patterns need to change. To be successful the pride Windsorites have in their riverfront park needs to be extended to downtown and the city at large. Yay, yay, yay!!! We’ve won city hall is looking to adopt our policies.
Andrew, I wouldn’t say that the canal district would necessarily mean the end to Ouellette. Lets face it, Ouellette as a shopping district is already done. What I see working out (if its possible, i dont know) is if this canal district manages to attract exclusive and eclectic shops (both high-end designer, and local artists), as well as cafe’s and multicultural food establishments with a something “different” to offer. (Such as a “aperitif” or “aperitivo” time from 4-7 where attendees can enjoy free small finger food appetizers while enjoying 1 or 2 drinks with friends after work). I feel that Ouellette would still exist as a bar/club area, as it already is, because i doubt that people will tolerate these kiddy bars in the new district. Take for example the outlets… as much as i hate going to stucco-parking lot facilities, i do go there because they have something different to offer than the normal mall venues. The big question is: how do you convince developers and these sorts of retail shops to set up downtown, if they are not there already. One unique shop will not bring people, but maybe 5 or more will. So, how do you get 5 or more shops to commit to this with all its risks? The 2nd factor is housing… how do you convince people that its worth moving to and investing in housing there with a promise that things will come? what if they do not? Will retail set up without existing new housing? Its a tough chicken-vs-egg problem. Whatever happens: canal vs. pedestrian street, vs park: it must be aesthetically pleasing, nice buildings of brick or stone, and no cheap stucco. The #1 thing that will attract people is the overall appearance, and the feeling that you are in some special place.
JP - What I meant was the end of Ouellette as a retail strip. As it is, I believe the potential is there to have Ouelllette be everything that the canal is dreamed to be. The problem I see is that it is always neglected. No one ever tries to fix it. Too much time has been spend trying to put a band-aid on a fatal wound.
The plan as I have heard it, calls for the canal to be built and that’s all. It would be up to developers to build the buildings around it. This city has a clear lack of vision and decent planning regulations. Look at the “rehabs” that are done around town on old commercial buildings and houses. Cheap stucco that looks like crap. I have no faith that anything nice would be built. Let’s face it a developer only wants to build the cheapest thing he can get away with.
All the energy post ditch would be spent on trying to attract developers to build on the canal, while Ouellette will only become more neglected. In June when the passport laws come into effect we will see more, and more bars & restaurants on Ouellette close. As the economy in Windsor worsens it will only speed the decline of Ouellette. We’ll end up with a dead, more vacant Ouelllette, and a ditch with no buildings on it.
At the end, I see a mostly vacant Ouellette, and that will be an impediment to attracting anything viable to the canal zone.
Do you want to see a canal surrounded by stucco clad crappy buildings, filled with tacky t-shirt and souvenir stores? That’s my fear.
I see the biggest problem as the elephant in the room no one wants to address. For too many years, all of our downtown eggs have been put in the “attracting Americans” basket. That has driven out the kind of retail people claim to want downtown.
When I moved to Windsor in 1989, downtown was vibrant place you could get anything at. There was a City market, a Canadian Tire, several book stores, and much more. Today it is a desolate wasteland. There’s more to a downtown than bars and restaurants.
If a canal gets built, and no retail comes, and the same mix of “businesses” that are on Ouellette move to the canal would you be happy? Full of restaurants and cigar shops? As long a people continue to embrace the suburban lifestyle, I don’t see residents being attracted to live in an urban environment in condos with no yards, regardless of if they are on a canal or not…
Amen! But, read the business case it echoes everything you are saying.
From:
Windsor Canal Project Business Case
What is Required for the Canal Project to Be Successful?
???? Investment Must Be Viewed as an Investment in Windsor’s Future Not a “Quick Fix” – As with any major urban
redevelopment project, the canal should be viewed with the long term goals in mind and not as an immediate
panacea.
???? The City Must be Committed to Revitalizing the Core – The City must endorse a continued commitment to
revitalizing the core through its own investment, by encouraging investment by other levels of government and the
private sector, and by adopting policies aimed at ensuring that downtown is able to attract a share of future
growth in Windsor.
???? The Project Requires Anchors – In conjunction with the canal, should be the development of one or more anchor
attractions, which may include: cultural venues, recreation facilities, entertainment attractions, unique commercial
establishments, or extensively programmed public spaces.
???? Windsor Residents Must Embrace It – The canal is intended to function not only as a visitor attraction, but also as a
special place for Windsor and area residents, to experience, to live and to work. In addition, visitors tend to be
attracted to urban neighbourhoods that are supported by the local population.
???? The Canal District Must Be Attractive to Visitors from Across the River – On its own Windsor’s market size is relatively
small, but with the added market from the Detroit metropolitan area, development opportunities are expanded
many fold. This market is simply too large to be ignored and should be recognized in the design, programming and
marketing of the canal.
???? Creativity by Public and Private Sectors – In order for the canal to become a special place for Windsor residents
and an exciting place for visitors to visit, it will rely on creative leadership in all aspects of its design and operation.
Is should rely on a combination of international vision and local knowledge.
I think the canal gives us the retail we need downtown while the existing downtown continues to be the entertainment district it has been for 15 years. Though, the kiddie bars will be mostly gone! Hurray for that!
that aside, going after the funding does NOT mean it has to be spent on that project. A secondary project on a list can be used or the money goes back to the feds.
The aesthetics are already in the guidelines that exist currently. Depending on the design of the buidings the developers get the gold, silver, bronze incentives.
Andrew, the canal isn’t all condos and you know that. It is developed to embrace giving those who WANT an urban lifestyle a place to live. Where else are you gong to be able to attract residents downtown? All there is currently are condos. It ISN’T trying to lure suburbanites because they WON’T live there regardless of what is built. But they may visit and spend $$$.
Plus I am glad for the land $$$ that will come into the city’s coffers. It helps to keep the residential portion lower. In the next few years, we property owners are going to get screwed if we don’t find replacements for our dwindling tax base.
Retail isn’t coming downtown because there isn’t the base of customers IE: residents for them to survive. Residents come before retail! There is little to bring new residents downtown. So the infrstructure must be built to do just that.
From What I understand there is no council vote today. Whoever started that idea was wrong
Edwin, thats exactly why I say bring on the canal if it brings us the conditions you have written
Other than another phase of streetscape, Downtown planning has been on hold since the bus terminal and bistro were completed. Events are taking the place of real change,