Whats wrong with Windsor’s Waterfront?
Why doesn’t our Waterfront spur more development and attract more residents and visitors?
Project for Public Spaces would probably conclude that Windsor’s Riverfront is an underused waterfront park with too much passive space that doesn’t connect to enough destinations or have any programming beyond the summer season.
In the end its a strong argument about why the canal project is so necessary, the riverfront park would connect it to odette sculpture garden, festival plaza, the casino, downtown, bert weeks memorial garden getting us closer to the power of ten.
We all know and love Windor’s waterfront as the “jewel” of the city of roses, but what if we take off the rose colored glasses. How would outsiders evaluate our riverfront. Project for Public Spaces has a lot to say about waterfront development and reading their material might offer some perspective on what our waterfront leaves to be desired and how we can make it better.
As humans we are naturally drawn to explore the water’s edge, which makes it deeply disappointing when all we find there is a highway, fenced-off industrial facilities or, just as bad, a mediocre shopping mall or underused park.
A waterfront project opens up the debate about the soul of a city for all to see.
Making the transition from working waterfront to public gathering place is full of challenges, be it providing public access or identifying the activities best suited to a particular community and place. Today, more and more cities and towns are boldly taking on these challenges.
Start here at the Great Waterfronts of the World. How about the pedestrian bridge planned for the canal vision. Click on the picture in the link below and see some of the worlds greatest pedestrian bridges
1. Create multiple destinations: The Power of Ten
PPS has found that an effective way to structure a vision process is to set a goal of creating ten great destinations along the entire waterfront, an idea we call the “Power of Ten.” This focus on destinations, rather than “open space” or parks, enables a genuine community-led process to take root. Once ten destinations have been identified, then nearby residents, businesses, community organizations and other stakeholders begin to define the uses and activities they want to see at each place. Ideally, each destination should provide ten things to do, which creates diverse, layered activity, ensuring that no single use will predominate.
This process is open-ended–so that the result can fulfill the hopes of people involved in the process. This cannot happen when it is assumed from the outset that the goal is to build, say, a park, which may narrow the range of possible outcomes and prevent some of the best ideas from ever seeing the light of day.
4. Connect the destinations
The next idea to keep in mind is that each of the ten destinations should be incorporated into a vision for the waterfront as a whole. The key is to achieve continuity, especially when it comes to the pedestrian experience. A walkable waterfront with a wide variety of activity along it will successfully connect destinations, allowing each to strengthen the others. Creating these connections is a fascinating challenge that entails mixing uses (such as housing, parks, entertainment and retail) and mixing partners (such as public institutions and local business owners).
Creating connections also means enticing people to the waterfront on foot or bike, rather than relying exclusively on the car. Helsinki, Finland, possesses perhaps the best example of this kind of connection–The Esplanade, which masterfully leads from the heart of the city down to the water. Lined with trees and flower displays, the path is a gentle lure, rewarding us with a magnificent plaza with sweeping, unobstructed views of the harbor. It guides you on a pleasurable stroll straight to the waterfront’s main destination.
8. Use parks to connect destinations, not as destinations unto themselves
In a similar vein, parks should not serve as the raison d’être of the entire waterfront. Passive open space puts a damper on the inherent vibrancy of waterfronts, evident in cities such as New York, Vancouver, and Toronto that have relied too heavily on “greening” their waterfronts without mixing uses that draw people for different reasons at different times. The world’s best waterfronts use parks as connective tissue, using them to link major destinations together. Helsinki, Stockholm, Sydney, and Baltimore have employed this strategy to fine effect.
11. Integrate seasonal activities into each destination
Rain or cold is no reason for a waterfront to sit empty. Indeed coastal and lakefront places are often known for their chilly winds and gray skies. Waterfront programming should take rainy-day and winter activities into account, and amenities should provide protection from inclement weather. Waterfronts that can thrive in year-round conditions will reap the benefits of greater economic activity and higher attendance at public facilities.
In another article PPS talks about mistakes that you can make
Mistake #3: Too Much Passive Space or Too Much Recreation
Passive areas where people can sit or stroll are successful when they connect to destinations where more activities are available, forming a diverse whole. But when the waterfront is limited to natural areas, which are often seen as a healthy contrast to the city, the place loses the vibrant qualities that draw many people to the water. By the same token, recreational activities that use up a large amount of space, like playing fields, are especially difficult to integrate into a waterfront if you want to have a lively setting throughout different times of day and different seasons. Natural areas and recreational areas work best when mixed with other sorts of destinations.
In the end, I would conclude that the downtown marina and canal project would go a long way to addressing these concerns. It creates a new destination on our riverfront. It turns our park into a corridor that connects destinations along that waterfront.
Post Feedback
Can’t say I argue with the points above. That is exactly what we tried (trying) to do with Gateway Public Park http://www.gatewaypublicpark.com
Connect neighbourhoods with the waterfront.
But what is missing crucially on our waterfront is small cafe’s like the peace beacon (minus the parking lot) dotted throughout the 6 kms of parkland. Not only can they be restrictive in height to keep the wonderful views but they serve a purpose in getting people to spend more time in the park. The only difference I see would be that no hot preparable food could be sold only sandwiches and finger style foods to eat with a glass of wine or pop.
The other issue is tha tour current waterfront is anything but “world class” )why does everything have to be world class?). Where is the meticulous landscaping that we see in Conventry Gardens where all those high rise condos are getting built (but not in downtown? What does that say?)? Where are the wonderful meandering paths using different landscaping textures like cobblestone, interlocking brick, slate, etc?
Great that there is a 3 meter wide asphalt path but what else is there besides expanses of burnt grass and a few shrubs and trees?
What is wrong with having buildings or structures extending higher than Riverside Drive? Seems to me that we are protecting the river view for people in vehicles, rather than forcing them to park and to stroll down to the riverfront. The beacon at Ouellette was reduced in height because of the cost (and probably because Counc. Valentinis thought it was too tall).
The riverfront park is 4.5 km long. A few buildings (and a few trees) won’t kill the ‘view’ from one’s vehicle.
You do make a good point about the walkway. Did you know that there are no benches along the riverfront in front of the Festival Plaza? Not a single place to stop, sit, relax and take in the view.
A couple of years ago I travelled with some students to the Canadian National Concrete Canoe Competition in Sherebrooke. On the Friday afternoon I left the students at the hotel to finish their preparations and went to the park where the display and racing events were to be held.
The park surrounded a lake above a dam, adjacent to the city’s business centre. It was a Friday afternoon, in May, overcast about fifteen degrees celcius. The place was packed. The paths around the lake were full of walkers, joggers, roller-bladers, cyclists. The areas overlooking the lake were covered with people lounging, reading, picnicing. I had to park two streets over because the park’s lot and surrounding streets were full.
This park offered no amenities save for a public rest-room. The water-skiining and canoe/kayak facillities were still shut down. There was a mini-golf course but it too was also shut down. I guess May is still off-season in Sherebrooke.
To me, it just seemed that the people of Sherebrooke really loved their park. The Saturday and Sunday we were there it was just as busy. Those people weren’t there to see concrete canoes they were there to enjoy their park and be outside. Most people didn’t know about our competition it just became something interesting and different to check out.
I think the whole ‘World class” thing is simply to deal with our inferiority complex. Whatever gets people to rally behind this, works for me. Its placemaking at its finest.
This past Weekend my 3 yr old and I biked from the bridge to the NFL playground and quite enjoyed it. Recently I learned from a Parks and Rec rep that the flying men sculptures are valued at approx $3 million.
As far as other riverfront criticism. I think that it works fine as long as we use it to connect destinations and not a destination in itself. We’ve got one cafe (albeit with an attached ugly parking lot) We’ve got a sculpture garden, goldfish pond, cool landscaping in front of the art gallery, a bunch of playgrounds and the Bert Weeks Memorial Garden. Everything we add to it makes it work. Which one thing will put it over the top and gain it critical mass. I think a marina, residential development like this could be the one. I think that it will raise property values from Huron Line to Walker Road which will become a return on our investment.
Thats why I supported starting the streetscaping at Riverside Drive instead of on the opposite end of Ouellette. (again, not that I had much say either way). We need more connections to our waterfront. The Marina is awesome, it likely needs the canals to make it work much better.
I’ve walked along waterfronts all over the world and yeah, I think ours is in the same ballpark. I think it could be even better with a ferry service, marina and new mixed use neighborhood alongside it.
If not this, what? If not now, When? If not here, Where?
Not to mention that the riverfront connects to Walkerville, Downtown and the Casino/Convention center. What it needs is residents and this gets us that
Power of Ten
I count an easy Baker’s Dozen.
From West to East.
1. Olde Sandwich
2. Assumption Church
3. University of Windsor
4. Viet Nam Memorial
5. Odette Sculptures
6. Art Gallery of Windsor
7. St. Clair College Centre for the Arts
8. Ouellette Avenue
9. Festival Plaza
10. Casino
11. Bert Weeks Fountain
12. Canadian Club Distillery Tours
13. Olde Walkerville
Also…
Monuments to soldiers and saliors at Dieppe Park
Playgrounds - four of them
The old pump house could/should be used to display some of the waterfront’s history.
Spirit of Windsor (steam engine)
Stunning view of sunsets over the Ambassador Bridge
Anyone else care to add to this list…
Oh, here’s some more responses to some of the attacks
“…the people at Beztak whom he ran out of town? They had a wonderful idea about how to develop the downtown including paying for the Arena.”
Lies are perpetuated in this comment. Beztak who has a very cool development in Canton, MI has only ever proposed to do a feasibility study on an arena in CCW. THey wanted 6 months and then they would consider paying for the arena, thats when the real offer and negotiating would begin. No one will ever know what they would really have offered. Oh, btw, we would also have likely reduced the convention center to 25,000 ft2 and the arena shrunk to 1,500 seats. No one ever likes to acknowledget those pesky little truths.
The residents in and surrounding that neighborhood vehemently opposed an arena located there as well..
” I am sure that there are a number of local developers who also would have brilliant ideas abuot what could be achieved since they understand the local market so well.”
No local developer has ever expressed interest in the city owned CCW lands. Dave Mady has said on CKLW that companies such as Mady Corp would only ever be interested if infrastructure was provided in addition to the financial incentives. Farhi has all but said the same thing. The heavy construction association has also endorsed this plan I defy this critic to produce one local developer who would express interest. However if the feasibility study fails then RFP’s should come immediately.
“why aren’t we setting up an international competition inviting the best architects and planners to come up with ideas for this area? ”
Yes, a good idea but Design Charette’s cost lots of money and would likely take far more time than this one feasibility study. After 90 days we could cost one out
“Who said that anyone wants a canal in the downtown?”
Virtually everyone who attended the press conference, the Casino has also endorsed this project as did the Heavy Construction Association. As a member of the CIty Center WEst Community Improvement Plan Committee, this fits exactly under the established criteria. In fact only a handfull of people have actually said they don’t want a canal in the downtown. Even Chris Schnurr only criticises the financial aspect of the canal and not the proposal itself.
“We cannot sell condos on the river today given the horrible real estate market in this city. ”
You mean we can’t sell condo’s adjacent to a very busy road which is adjacent to the riverfront. Apples and oranges to a marina and canal front condo’s.
“Even Mr. Farhi of London who was so enthusiastic when he took over the property beside the Art Gallery chose not to buy it for up to three years. That has to tell you something in the strongest possible terms about the market for luxury homes, even on the river, in Windsor.”
This is the same writer who said Farhi was furious with francis a day before he came down and gave the mayor $25,000. I think Mr. Farhi speaks for himself and has spoken that he would invest with this plan. sure Mr. Farhi got a sweetheart deal, can I get past that 1 acre sweetheart deal to see 50 acres of development. Yep.
“makes anyone think that there are people around who will spend a half a million dollars or more to buy a complex on a river canal? There are very few homes in the City that are priced in that range so that I believe it’s highly unlikely that people in the ‘burbs are going to be coming rushing back to the downtown especially when so many people are leaving Windsor for jobs elsewhere. As for empty-nesters, they generally trade down not trade up into something much more expensive. Just ask renovator, Gord.”
As I’ve said before, it would be more a matter of new to Windsor homebuyers choosing an urban location. I was at an IDA conference where they showed that up to 10% of new entrants to a city chose an urban location. That means many graduates from the new Medical School, Engineering School will never choose windsor if we don’t offer them an Attractive urban location.
But yes, a housing market study should be part of the project.
As for a retirement community, this would offer an active and healthy lifestyle which is essential for a retirement commmunity strategy.
James,
I think many destinations that you have mentioned fall into one of the grey area.
First, does our waterfront truly connect to the neighborhoods across Riverside Drive??? Does Riverside Drive do for Windsor what the Gardiner Expressway do for Toronto. Many of the attractions you have listed are near our riverfront, but are they truly connected to it?
Second, many of those items you have mentioned are attractions, beautiful and wonderful but are they destinations. Maybe they’re destinations for some but not all. What makes an item a destination vs an attraction. I’m not truly sure but the Canal plan definitely meets that criteria with Marina, canal, walkability, connectivity etc…
Portofino condos are along a two lane section of the drive that is well kept, with cross walks nearby. It’s pretty empty.
Mark, if the city implimented the traffic calming and street scaping measures in the Riverside Drive Vista plans from the Casino to Walkerville it would be much cheaper than digging a huge hole downtown. Riverside Drive is four lanes but there are traffic controls for park users at Lincoln and Parent Avenues. The views from a home on the south side of Riverside Drive are not affected by the road.
We’re back to getting the city to encourage development where it would be most advantageous, in neighbourhoods that already exist, require no new infrastructure only upgrading. Lower taxes, increase police presence, pressure on absentee landlords, negotiating with out-of-town land owners to help develop and restore the urban area between Walkerville and the Casino. These things offer more bang for the buck than $60 million plus to begin the CCW project.
I tink the Riverside Vista plans should be implemented regardless of this marina.
Just to be clear
Do you oppose the creation of a Marina Downtown?
If so are you saying the reason for opposing it is simply that it would compete with the actions you described in the last paragraph that we both agree on.
If action was taken on each item in the last paragraph, would you then support the creation of an Marina/Canal Project that could also gentrify and densify the core.
“That means many graduates from the new Medical School, Engineering School will never choose windsor if we don’t offer them an Attractive urban location. ”
How much will their attitude change if an attractive urban location is provided though?
Anecdote time.
I’m a local who graduated from the University of Windsor’s engineering program about a year ago. The sad truth is, the majority of engineering students who are not necessarily from the area have very little good to say about Windsor. Those that do stay do so because the handful of remaining automotive engineering jobs available are in Michigan. They definitely do not do it out of a desire to stay in Windsor. (To give myself credit, I’m not in the automotive field but I chose to stay in the area because I believe in it)
At this time I’m looking at purchasing a house, but I will admit that I am being scared away from Windsor due to the high tax burden (and the possibility of an increasing tax burden due to the “entrepreneurial” shenanigans of the current city administration).
I should also mention that tiny parcel accomodations like condos do not really do it for me, especially as I look to start a family. I don’t need much, but something like a condo would definitely cramp my lifestyle. I know many young engineers who feel the same way, so to think that recent grads will come flocking to this development is a bit of tenuous thinking, in my opinion.
“Even Chris Schnurr only criticises the financial aspect of the canal and not the proposal itself.”
Interesting considering that you stated my “opposition” was grounded simply in being opposed to anything that the Mayor proposes.
Good to see you finally admit that I”m not “opposed” to the proposal per se.
What is this, say one thing to one audience and another to another?
I suspect the part of the riverfront in the photo is underutilized relative to the downtown/Peace Beacon section for a couple of reasons: parking isn’t perceived to be as plentiful , it’s quite a steep hill which makes the space psychologically less accessible. There also isn’t as much open space for congregating as there is on the other side of downtown.
I bike along there quite a lot and although it seems to be less busy than the sections to the east, I am frequently amazed at the improvements we have had at the waterfront compared to the mid 90’s, when it was little more than a wasteland.
I didn’t grow up in Windsor and for me, the new riverfront made all the difference between being wanting to stay here and wishing I was in a more upmarket city. And really, it is easier to bike or rollerblade there when there aren’t large groups of people congregating on the paths, so I for one, am not complaining
I do agree that the area would benefit from some food concessions, but it would be great to see some quality providers, rather than more of the same old tired type of fast food we can’t seem to get away from in Windsor. We don’t need another Tim Hortons! How about an independent provider of really great coffee? Or a couple of Asian or Middle Eastern restaurants?
The downtown canal idea is good. It’s a unique proposal that will take years to start and many more to finish.
There still needs to be more done for the rest of Windsor, today, not after the downtown core is “fixed”. The fix has been going on for years.
Wasn’t the Canderal building suppose to save the core?
Whats interesting about Chris is that he thinks there can only be one reason behind anything.
I quipped that I’m anti anti, so he concludes it must be the only reason I’m writing about city center west. I can be against those who show a continued bias at the same time as supporting CCW proposals on their own merits
Or the fact that Chris thinks that I can only say he opposes this plan because the mayor favors it while at the same time he opposes it for financial considerations when, again, both can be true at the same time.
Today’s blog by Schnurr appears that he’s bringing all kinds of reasons to the table, servicing industrial lands or not following a proper RFP process to date.
All of these ignore the fact that this project should be judged on its own merits as to what the benefits it provides to the costs. If he held the same standards up to servicing the industrial lands, there can be no proven benefits as there is no expression of interest by a manufacturer.
You can’t suck and blow at the same time. If you think this money should be spent on another project, then you have to compare benefits to benefits.
You can’t say that this project is inadequate based on unknown financial returns but the other one is better when you know even less about the financial return it would yield.
Schnurr also failed to mention that Rosatti Group just bought a very large serviced industrial parcel that housed a former assembly plant and are marketing it.
Mark, the Rosati’s are “marketing” a new industrial/office park. Again we see offices not being built downtown but instead otside of the core areas.
Chris is also correct in that the city NEVER released the RFP period! Not once! yet they are goign ahead with yet another feasibility study!
The BIGGEST deterrents to people moving downtown are:
1) The NUMBER ONE REASON…CRIME! You got it! Perceived or not percieved (my little oasis has very little crime but 2 blocks south is a war zone). Who wants to spend oodles of money next to potential crime and real crime? That is the reason why the lands east of Ouellette on Riverside Dr have NOT been developed. Because people are not going to move to a high crime area.
Again, I have to ask why isn’t the proposed canal going south and wiping out an area that will NEVER gentrify? Yet a perfectly good neighbourhood that has all of the amenities and going through a partial gentrification would be considered to have the canal?
2) Noise. I have talked to over 20 people who USED to live downtown but don’t anymore. The reason. No decent housing stock or condos (no VPP doesn’t answer the call with the amount of call girls and 19 year old kids who live there) to entice them and the amount of noise DUE TO THE PROLIFERATION OF BARS!
Interesting that EACH AND EVERYONE of them stated they would move back downtown IF the urban village was built (prior to this new idea from city hall).
3) Taxes. My taxes for my parcel of land are astronomical! Compared to the suburbs and elsewhere in this city my taxes are horribly high . why? Mixed use zoning has a much higher tax rate than residential. Yet I get very little benefit from the so-called mixed-use (omni-use or whatever you want to call it in this day and age) that my area is zoned. I stil have to travel to the ‘burbs to get my clothing, lumber well just about most things. Shouldn’t it be a benefit to live in such an area and ot be a problem paying these taxes IF I was supposed to get what my taxes pay for?
Where are the empowerment zones? Where are the incentives? With the legalese of the so-called Gold, silver and bronze “enticements” the average joe could not figure out what they get if they were to do any work on their property.
…and there you have the reasons as to why people don’t move downtown or the reason there is little development. The city itself discourages it by their own actions and that of a dis-interested police force. (By the way they sure act quickly in sending me a bill for a false alarm).
If the city would stop paying lip service the areas would get developed.
Tackle the percieved and real crime where it is happening, allow for gentrification through empowerment zones (and if they point their finger at the province then it should be the city that steps up to the place and organize with other cities to demand this be changed. But then again change the millage rate), put forth the Bellmio report and clamp down of the noise. If the council can talk about taking away from the parking enforcement to tackle yard issues then they can tackle the noise issue.
This from someone who knows
“That is the reason why the lands east of Ouellette on Riverside Dr have NOT been developed.” Do you mean the Glengarry neighbourhood or the Western Super Anchor area?
Noise travels. Exactly how would the urban village mitigate the noise from downtown? Wouldn’t there be noise in the urban village from all the young professionals and outdoor cafes?
What proliferation of bars? We peaked about 4 or 5 years ago. Since then, several bars have closed down or have gone upscale as lounges. Border delays and the higher dollar have kept the bars in check.
Don’t confuse zoning with property classification. There is no mixed use property tax class rate. If all of your property is used for residential purposes, then it is taxed at the residential rate - just like us poor saps in the burbs.
Are you sure you are “someone who knows”?