Could Windsor be the master of our DOMAIN?
Now I’m not referring to the Seinfeld episode. In Austin I visited a place called “the Domain“. It was probably the best example of a lifestyle center I have ever seen. My Pictures. The distance from end to end at the domain happens to match exactly the distance from one end of City Center West at 1400 feet
A lifestyle center (or lifestyle centre[1]) is a shopping center or mixed-used commercial development that combines the traditional retail functions of a shopping mall but with leisure amenities oriented towards upscale consumers.
Now, when In Naples Florida Recently I visited successful lifestyle centers and ones that were struggling to get retail tenants. They all seemed to get the hospitality sector portions filled but that was it.
Look at this parking lot in a suburban plaza At least its somewhere I’d feel safe having my kid walking or bike riding to.
Another nice but struggling lifestyle center in Naples was the Mercato.
Anchored by a whole foods store on one end and an upscale theater fully licensed even in the screening room. filled with restaurants but only a few retail stores with most vacant.
Coconut Point in Naples was a successful lifestyle center filled but not as nice as the Domain, with less public spaces and art. The Domain seemed to be the full package
If Im correct the same firm who designed our festival stage has designed the Domain. What a resource we have right here right now.
Why not give them a listen
I guess I ask the question again, in city center west, could we be the master of our domain?
Post Feedback
yes, we could
Texas is a place that (sometimes) does community right, both in large and small scales. Consider “Legacy in Plano”.
Wander some of their StreetView streets:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=post+legacy&fb=1&gl=ca&hq=post+legacy&hnear=Texas&cid=0,0,6435681331017529221&ei=Ip22S_2KI5H4NdrXzLkJ&sa=X&oi=local_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CAcQnwIwAA
At the intersection of two heavily-used highways (with frontage roads, Texas’ best contribution to highway design), you have a pleasant walkable mixed-use (office, retail, residential) neighbourhood with restaurants, cafes, apartments, townhomes, movie theatre, hidden parking garage, shops, hotel, office towers, and a giant reflecting pool. You don’t even need a car. But if you do, the highways take you everywhere. I would fault them for not having much support for bicycles, but I believe that could be easily fixed.
There’s places like this all over Texas. Windsor deserves something like it, on our scale.
I must say I am surprised to read this post by Mark Boscariol. There are many ideas being floated about as to what should go in the lands known as the western super anchor site (WSA). People seem to hate the canal proposal. If not the canal then what? I’m not crazy about the canal idea either but what would I put there? Not sure. But I would not put what is basically a nice, pretty mall. Leisure and lifestyle center I mean. What Mark is proposing is, on a smaller more concentrated level, the same kind of development that he is so vehemently against on the outskirts of the city (Ojibway). Downtown as a microcosm of Windsor is over serviced. It has extremely high vacancy rates. Empty storefronts everywhere. Do we need more commercial space? Obviously not. Can those leisure/lifestyle businesses be located in the core? Yes. Why would we create more space at an inflated rental rate that would most likely attract chains because they’re the only ones that could afford the inflated rent (ex. Chrysler Building & The Keg). We consistently read on this blog what has been done in other cities and how those ideas etc can save Windsor. Why don’t we look inward and ask our creative class to help conceive and conceptualize what will help elevate that area of downtown to better compliment our downtown. We need residents. Why don’t more people live downtown? In other posts here that question has come up. The answer will never honestly be found unless the people that work so hard at promoting downtown and the idea of urban villages etc answer that same question. Not to put anybody on the spot but why doesn’t someone like Mark live downtown? Again, that’s not an attack but a step at trying to honestly answer what is needed downtown before people really want to live down here.
See, I don’t see it that way and this is why I put it out for discussion
We’re talking about building infrastructure for a new neighborhood. A neighborhood that is mixed use.
What I liked about the Domain is that in incorporated local public art. I’ve not seen much of that in our city. (other than the orange Ibeam art by city hall)
An urban village is not 100% residential, it is mixed use.
Do we need more commercial space? if you add 10,000 residents in the core, I maintain you will.
Before I was married I have lived downtown for a while at Royal Windsor Terrace and before that a smaller apt on Ouellette
I would love to live downtown or Walkerville (I begged my wife to join me in buying the Paul Martin House before it sold to the pharmacist)
Sadly my wife is not converted scaledowner and it is not the best place to raise a child.
My wife’s main complaints are that Crime, Panhandling, Noise from emergency vehicles, Hospitality management have not been dealt with.
Police say crime is low but over on Bruce and Caron across Wyandotte from City Center West is a mess as is Glengarry Marentette.
Thats why I advocate for the first residents to be from that “Singles, Mingles and Jingles” group as they will be the first ones to pave the way for families.
However, too much of anything is no good. Thats what mixed use is all about. I don’t see anything wrong with The city building infrastructure for a development like the domain if they conduct the proper market research to ensure a demand exist (Many like C.Schnurr assume it doesn’t and he may very well be right)
I have a feeling that your definition of infrastructure is, well, different from the standard definition of infrastructure. Seeing as the downtown is well served by roads, sidewalks, sewers, watermains, hydro and so on, what infrastructure does the City have to build?
10,000 new residents sounds good, but where will these new urban village residents work? Not too many companies coming to Windsor with high paying jobs to support a lifestyle centre or an urban village.
Mark, if demand was there, Farhi would take title of ‘his’ lands downtown and start developing them. But like I said, where are the high-paying jobs? Green Shield left their downtown fringe location for Twin Oaks and there wasn’t a peep from Council. MPAC is moving out. I don’t see Chrysler Canada being in Windsor much longer, at least not downtown. The new TD bank is a good investment, but it means the closure of two other downtown locations.
You’re probably right Vincent but we haven’t measured what the demand is
My understanding is that first we find out what the market demand is and what the citizens of Windsor want for that area. Then we find out from developers what they are willing to build and pay for.
Then its the city’s job to decide whether it is a good taxpayer investment to bridge the gap. Whether its tax incentives, a canal, a marina, subsidies etc…
No one has asked the taxpayers what they want.
That’s the same kind of thing they plan to build on Banwell, if they ever get around to it. A lifestyle centre, or the so-called canal plan aren’t much different and neither solve the two problems that Rino pointed out - there are still too many vacant store fronts and too many empty condos, apartments, etc.
Until it is affordable for small business to set-up downtown, until it is better financially for building owners to rent out their space rather than keep them vacant and avoid taxes, until city hall acknowledges the need for small business as part of the city’s economic recovery downtown will continue to exist as it is.
Two pro-downtown articles in the Star in one day, that’s a good start. Making downtown an election issue that is perhaps the next step.
More residents help but unipurpose areas are on the outs. Maybe its just work live spaces that we need for web and graphic designers, self employed . I dunno, no one has asked potential residential recruits
As I understand a ‘Domain’ like feature would be mostly commercial and some residential. Even if there are 10000 more residents downtown I still think we’re amply serviced. Not only are there all the vacant spaces in the core but there are tons of vacant spots in the near core that can benefit greatly from more residents. near west and east side commercial space can be filled and utilized fully. concentrate on the core and what’s there now with respect to business and residents etc will slowly trickle in, then expand if necessary. similar to detroit we need to right size. there are lots of spaces up and down university ave west that would benefit greatly from more downtown residents. james….downtown is an election issue of course. small business is the life blood of any city. that has to be fully realized here and more emphasis on that fact so we don’t see our economy rely heavily on one main thing. mark… i wasn’t putting you on the spot, i just think we need to evaluate the true facts as to why people aren’t willing to live down here. your wife makes some valid points as you obviously agree to if you live elsewhere. the crime, the lack of schools etc are issues that need to be addressed. we focus on all kinds of new legacy projects like that would solve all the issues especially residential but thats not really the case. we need to start with more grass roots level issues and build from there. if we can plan to have double the number of residents downtown 5 years from now that would be a great start. businesses would come and fill the vacancies and more people would continue to flow downtown. as well we need more jobs downtown. maybe more post secondary campuses and more tech firms to come into the downtown area.
All I’m saying is that it would be wrong to develop singular purpose developments.
Just like we shouldn’t build office/commercial parks without residential
I saw a Beztak development in Canton that I thought was a very nice example. It was 3-5 story condo’s that had main floor apt’s (Bachelor apts mostly) that could be converted to commercial spaces
They had the best of both worlds. The spaces were rented out to residents until they obtained enough new residents to justfiy converting main floor units from residential to commmercial.
Also if you had a professional that wanted a live work space, he wouldn’t be denied
Look, I don’t want land thats zoned agricultural to be rezoned commercial but I think it would be wrong to prevent commercial from being built on land that is already zoned for it. At that point the market should prevail. You can’t limit yourself to what ideas may come forward from developers.
I’d love to see a urban hardware store built from scratch in City Center West if that tenant doesn’t want to lease an existing space. As long as we get a hardware store downtown, who cares?
Rino, the problems I listed are for families with small children. Lack of schools, panhandling and massage parlors aren’t as big of a problem for new graduates, yuppies etc… Thats why we should target them
ONce you get enough of them, you will get an even stronger residents association that will be able to demand those problems get solved.
THere are no quick fixes, thats why its frustrating to see Windsor ignore the long term fixes while they look for the “SILVER BULLET”
If we would have started tax incentive financing 10 years ago, if we would have had a residential recruitment plan 10 years ago , we’d be 10 years into it. LONDON IS AN EXAMPLE OF A 20 YEAR PLAN SEEING RESULTS NOW
Mark… i agree with you with not developing single purpose things. i also agree that many of the problems with residential issues downtown are for families but there is still a negative perception that hinders yuppies etc. mostly perception i believe. i also agree that we should have had a long term plan to develop that sort of growth. I like the example of using condos as bachelors then transforming them into commercial units when market dictates. i’m not against letting the market work but if and when the city is going to invest in an area I would rather see emphasis on strengthening what is already here and not just allowing more development because a hardware store may prefer that location. there are many locations near that are that could support a hardware store, just as an example. for the most part we agree Mark. I just would like to see a better plan where the current businesses are solidified and growth occurs after that.
As a downtowner, a booster of downtown (not pollyanna) and a businessman one thing I do know about downtown is that the perceptions are killing it.
1)crime. Yes there is crime…in the surrounding neighbourhoods (mostly B and E’s in cars or domestic with drug deals thrown into the mix. Downtown the crime is assault between drunken idiots. Some cars being broken into and of course vandalism from the same drunken idiots.
2) business owners (ie: retail and the like) do not want to be close to where the bar action is. See above vandalism and the result of scaring away customers even though this happens mostly at night. Many buildings look shabby or worn out.
I hear this from would-be entrepreneurs and business owners alike. They want a fresh look.
3) a true perception of high costs of downtown taxes (add rent to the idea as well). Also many areas of downtown are owned by a few people who are speculators at best but absentee landlords at the worst. These landowners don’t keep up their buildings and don’t contribute to the esthetic of downtown.
4)the ugly head of parking. There is ample parking but poor signage.
The perception of not seeing your destination adds that it is further away than the mall. In fact I actually used a metering gauge to measure the distance from parking in the middle of the parking lot at the mall to a generic destination inside and found that formost of the time the distance at the mall was longer.
Now downtown merchants would serve themselves well if they were open later. How about opening from 12:00-9PM? This is one complaint I hear often and one I do myself…frequently. No one said owning a business was easy and should be done from 9-5PM.
With the above being said. I agree a single use purpose for CCW lands would be a very stupid thiing to do.
By the way your last picture looks exaclty like the development at Banwell Rd (except the for the palm trees). I wouldn’t mind that in the CCW lands along with historic looking row houses to blend in with West River Village.
We really need to study what the malls do. They are masters of retail, everything is perfect, convenient, modern and exciting. The owners of downtown retail space need to analysis all what the mall does to attract customers and come up with a plan for implementation.
I hate doing it, but go to Devonshire, take a walk around and just see whats happening. All the store fronts are required to follow strict guidelines, they are new, clean, and inviting. Look at the density, sure you need to walk from the parking lot, but once inside everything is right there. It’s easy, pleasant (to most people) and fun. Like Dave said, look at the hours, most people work until 5, how can a merchant expect to attract business during regular working hours? Most malls close at 9 or 10.
An aggressive, strategic plan is the most important thing we can do for downtown. I agree with Rino but not entirely, lets use the property we have, 100%, but if someone wants to build, we need to do everything we can to encourage that (in a manner suiting the urban plan - not anything goes)
We don’t need to study what the malls ‘do’. In a mall, you lease your space from a single property owner who dictates the terms. For example, many malls require their tenants to upgrade their storefront every 5 to 10 years. The idea is to ensure that the mall looks fresh and make it look like something is ‘happening’. Misbehave in the mall? You get kicked out.
In the downtown, you have multiple land owners who dictate their own terms. There may be some co-operation via an association such as the DWBIA, but that doesn’t mean much legally. The DWBIA can’t tell people what to do or not do with their property.
Having a plan sounds good. Having districts where certain uses go also sounds good. All looks good on paper. The most difficult part is having a Council that sticks to the plan and gives it a chance.
Thats right Vincent….
don’t study what the malls do (or what you see as being a mall these days) and you will get exactly what you have now.
shane…. i’m not against any new builds etc. i just think it needs to follow a plan just as you say - not anything goes.
As a downtowner, a booster of downtown (not pollyanna) and a businessman one thing I do know about downtown is that the perceptions are killing it.
1)crime. Yes there is crime…in the surrounding neighbourhoods (mostly B and E’s in cars or domestic with drug deals thrown into the mix. Downtown the crime is assault between drunken idiots. Some cars being broken into and of course vandalism from the same drunken idiots.
So whats the answer? continue to stick our heads in the sand? Crime in the surrounding neighborhoods is huge and doesn’t just detract from downtown but from Walkerville, Wyandotte Town Center, Sandwich and what should be the next BIA of Asian Village (University and Wyandotte West)
You have purse snatchings, muggings and just a general people not feeling safe before and after dark. You have aggressive panhandling and no controls on where and when it is allowed (I keep saying that panhandling at 3am outside a bank machine is WRONG, panhandling outside a cafe railing where a customer doesn’t have the choice to walk away is WRONG)
2) business owners (ie: retail and the like) do not want to be close to where the bar action is. See above vandalism and the result of scaring away customers even though this happens mostly at night. Many buildings look shabby or worn out.
Downtown has a 3am violence problem that would be solved if we had the intestinal fortitude to clear it out like I tried and failed to do. There was a 4am closure passed but I think it was conditional and don’t even know if it was enforced.
And Now I REPEAT You have aggressive panhandling and no controls on where and when it is allowed (I keep saying that panhandling at 3am outside a bank machine is WRONG, panhandling outside a cafe railing where a customer doesn’t have the choice to walk away is WRONG)
I hear this from would-be entrepreneurs and business owners alike. They want a fresh look.
That has been dealt with, yoiu have the DWBIA awarding $10,000 in matching fund grants to anyone fixing up their storefront. A dentist office on Pelissier, The Pour House, Coffee Exchange, Holiday Inn, soon the Box office will all take advantage of this
3) a true perception of high costs of downtown taxes (add rent to the idea as well). Also many areas of downtown are owned by a few people who are speculators at best but absentee landlords at the worst. These landowners don’t keep up their buildings and don’t contribute to the esthetic of downtown.
I don’t know about the blame game, its pretty bad when you blame landlords who are losing thousands each year on property taxes or renting out bldgs for pennies
4)the ugly head of parking. There is ample parking but poor signage.
There is a wayfinding signage program that should be the responsibility of the city but has again been downloaded onto the DWBIA, they will be putting up $10,000 worth of signs this year (Yep that amounts to 2)
With the above being said. I agree a single use purpose for CCW lands would be a very stupid thiing to do.
Mark B, for the crime I have always advocated zero tolerance. Screaming obscenities across the street and you get a warning (as you would at the mall). The second time you get a fine. Plain and simple.
If those landlords can’t afford to fix their property then maybe they shouldn’t own them or all of the land they have. Mind you the property taxes are quite high due to MPACs assessments (they don’t mind they are in Tecumseh).
Can anyone explain why it costs the city $10,000 for 2 signs? Are they neon? LEDs? Or are we just that stupid?
Nope, just that stupid, sign must be made and installed by our traffic department. Don’t know the exact cost per sign but its pretty darn high.
consultant must say where sign goes and what goes on sign. ALl must be approved by city hall.
I’m sure those landlords who can’t afford to fix up their properties would gladly sell them. If a 11,000 foot bldg like the box office goes for $96,000. What do you think they’d get?
Some have been listed without even lowball offers made.
Oh and btw, the people that make the screwball low offers, no guarantee they’ll fix em up either
Forgot, that includes the pole the sign goes on too!
Doesn’t cost the city that much, the DWBIA must pay 100%
Neighborhood to City: Project Is Too Suburban
http://www.planetizen.com/node/43633
Here’s one you don’t find often - a neighborhood may sue the city of Sacramento for approving an infill project they categorize as ‘too suburban and car-oriented’, while the city council woman extolls the infill qualities, citing SB 375 and AB 32.
The project, known as Curtis Park Village is a 72-acre, abandoned rail site, a brownfield, adjacent to an affluent, historic neighborhood, Curtis Park near downtown. The city council just approved the environmental impact report, 9-0.
“If we can’t develop this, we can’t do infill. If we can’t do infill, we can’t meet the objectives of SB 375 (a state law to encourage more development in existing areas),” said City Councilwoman Lauren Hammond, minutes before voting on a Curtis Park Village project years in the making and located on a toxic state Superfund site.”
“A potential lawsuit by the Sierra Curtis Neighborhood Association over the project’s size and character remains possible. Association leaders told the council Thursday the project’s 522 houses and 259,000 square feet of retail space are still too suburban and car-oriented for their early 20th-century neighborhood south of downtown.”
“Please don’t view the neighborhood as being against this project. We want a better village. We want an urban environment,” said Andrea Rosen, SCNA board member.”
Full Story: Sacramento council OKs environmental report for Curtis Park infill project
Source: The Sacramento Bee - City News, April 3, 2010
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/04/02/2650818/sacramento-council-debates-curtis.html
NOPE
You can’t just grab a project from another town and propose to drop it in an empty plot of land and expect it to perform similar??
The Domain is a multi-use “lifestyle center” designed in place…not designed to be “anywhere”…there are over 1400 linear feet (2 sided) of street level performance retail tenants…rolling streets that acknowledge the high importance of the 100 plus year old live-oak trees that have been saved (a million bucks spent on moving and salvaging some of these)…4 additional levels of 1000 plus “rental” condo’s as well as 180,000 sq feet of office space…and all of the neccessities to make a project like this work. The IDEA can work, but only when mixed appropriately in scale with City elements….arts, civic buildings, high rise, medical, grocery etc.
You can’t look at this and assume it can be simply laid in place and made to work….these projects are site specific and although they share a similar arrangement of physical parts they are custom per location, environment and physical landscape and adjacencies.
I would much rather see a project (not single developer driven) like this infused into the city as opposed to a river front lined with tall buildings and a dead flat decaying infrastructure in behind.
And maybe I haven’t said it but that is what struck me about the Domain was that it fit so much in with the natural environment. It didnt’ have that artificial feel that so many of the other lifestyle centers’ that I mention did.
Coconut point and most of the other lifestyle centers I saw seemed like they were some sort of cookie cutter main street.
I’m not a designer and can’t explain all the things that made it fit so nicely but those elements added up to simply having a good feel about the place
What strikes me is how so many people think of an Urban village as 100% residential. I’d like to see an educational campus component, a residential and a commercial component (thats in demand and suitable)
I would like to see this anchor the CCW lands, then develop residential and retail around it!
https://scaledown.ca/2010/03/22/new-libraries-revitalize-cities/
2 things.
1 As much as I would also love this, I see it being 100% publicly paid for, like the canal. I sadly worry that while the senior levels of gov’t would easily fund a canal, they wouldn’t fund a library
2. maybe it could/would work better as part of a college/UofW campus faculty
I hear the UofW could use a business school in addition to the music school currently being discussed.
I’d love to see marketing students making the mrketing of downtown, it’s businesses and events as part of their curriculum. Actually, it should be required, regardless of the campus location