It’s time to take a stand…
Mark, in a thread, asked me to clarify my position on the “Canal”.
Based on our Mission and Vision Statements I cannot support the plan as drawn. Our cultural identity and social fabric have much to do with our history and our neighbourhoods and architecture. The residents in the area feel threatened that they may lose their homes and community. Scaledown.ca has to make every effort to stand behind these people. Even the notion of moving these homes from their sites will damage the community. The homes and businesses are arranged in a short block, grid pattern. How the buildings relate to each other has a significant affect on how the people that live in them and use them relate to each other. I would not favour any proposal that affects in any way the existing homes and businesses in the foot print of the development. This neighbourhood is just about everything the scaledown.ca vision statement asks for. Therefore, I can’t make an exception for this plan.
For the record I am deeply concerned about how the questions of the feasibility study will be worded. I am deeply concerned that the release of these renderings is merely a distraction from other city issues with even greater implications. I am deeply concerned that an enclave of significant historical homes that are owned by people that care for their property and neighbourhood may not have a place in this plan. I am deeply concerned that the city will promise to carry large up-front costs that will never be recouped. I am deeply concerned about the folly of pouring millions of gallons of “city water” through the inland canals.
I have more, lesser issues that will need to be addressed but, if someone can prove to me that this effort will pay for itself, raise the community’s awareness of urban living, increase the population of the downtown and improve commercial and professional properties in the downtown without compromising our Mission and Vision Statements then I will consider supporting it.
Here is an alternative to consider. For the amount of excavation that will be required why not cut the canal between the AGW and the property that is controlled by Mr. Farhi? Why do we need to use land that is not owned by the city? A cut in the area near the AGW would make more sense in that it would be the centre of activity for development.
Post Feedback
I agree fully James with your above statement. We must preserve our neighbourhoods and with this plan integrate them into the larger scheme and the scale of these proposed new buildings, they must be to a human street scale, unlike the condo Victoria Park Place which is really a monster of a building in the core! Totally out of scale for tis city, it’s a small town in its own right!
As the canal plan appears to stand now, is that we the citizens of Windsor will again be subsidizing private enterprise with no return or a return well below today’s market and future market value. I’m for incentives to private enterprise but giving away the farm so to speak, is becoming the norm in this city. We as citizens should demand that we get a market rate return on our investments unlike the Spitfires who get all the profit but none of the bills!
After visiting downtown today I will have to scratch my suggestion to make the cut adjacent to the AGW. Just not enough room.
But there is enough room to put it down Chatham St?
For all of those who love this idea so much how about I go to your business or home after you have sunk a ton of cash into it because the city told you they were going to do great things with the area and you as a person of action, not words, decides to do just that! Then have the city tell you to take a hike we are taking your property for a PRIVATE ENTERPRISE and we will give you market value for your house? Which of course we know isn’t the amount of money you put into it because you wanted to spend the rest of your life (and family) there.
Tell me where can anyone live in the downtown area that can buy a house in an area with little crime, have all of interior and exterior in relatively good shape for a decent cost? Anyone? Because it doesn’t exist but for the one area they want to potentially tear down!
Is it any wonder why nothing has been done with those lands for 20 years?! Every 3-5 years A new plan is touted and those who live there must once again put the gentrification on hold! Why not just build the damn urban village as they envisioned only 3 years ago? If they can’t get it to a mixed-use (omni-use for the 21st century buzzword crowd) state then put back residential houses/row houses. You know, like the one’s they tore down 2 decades ago. You know, the URBAN VILLAGE that existed at that time!
Besides, there is a shit-load (windsor style) of vacant stores in the downtown now so why expand the footprint? Bring the residents downtown FIRST and then expand downtown towards the east where there is yet another plethora of vacant lots that have been there since the 1950’s! PROBLEM SOLVED!
Can anyone refute what I stated or will I hear yet more of the same nonsense typical of broken record?
Me,
I was trying to find a different location for the big cut, for the marina. I was hoping there was a way to do it so that the development would be centred on the city owned lands to keep your neighbourhood intact. I am totally committed to preserving that enclave of very well kept homes and the community that you and your neighbours have made.
As a matter of fact my kids and I walked through there after lunch at Bubi’s today. I showed them a copy of the rendering while we walked around and they couldn’t understand why anyone would want to change the area.
Obviously James and I have interpreted our mission and vision differently. Based on Scaledown’s vision and mission, I feel that we must support this plan
Scaledown has never been based on anti growth, only based on smart growth. I believe that this plan without a doubt will
“raise the community’s awareness of urban living, increase the population of the downtown and improve commercial and professional properties in the downtown without compromising our Mission and Vision Statements then I will consider supporting it.”
As to paying for itself, that will be determined by the feasibility study.
I believe as james that the interests of the existing residents should be protected
I believe that connecting to our waterfront is our culture, heritage, birthright and our future.
Scaledown has supported densification and reinvestment in to our city’s core
Not to mention the fact that if this plan adds say 500 residential units to downtown that it would go a pretty long way to making the businesses and areas sustainable which again is Scaledown’s main purpose
Mark, the 500 additional residential units will only help make businesses and areas sustainable if there are 500 people/families willing to relocate there. I’m sure there will definitely be a draw to the area, and I know that it’s premature to try and guess at numbers, but I’m cautious about the degree of relocation downtown because of the canal plan.
I think that once feasibility studies start being cranked out, then we’ll have a better idea.
That is crap Mark! What you are advocating is tearing down an area that has is ripe for gentrification, and thus destroying yet more of Windsor’s heritage so that 500 people (or it is families?) can move in.
In Scaledown’s own statement you are taking only one point an dpushing it ahead of the rest. Jame’s belief in the statement rings much more true as it encompasses more of the vision and statement of Scaledown.
Explain how raising the awareness of urban living has been done yet? It hasn’t!
Improving commercial development and property. Well incentives for signs is a step i the right direction buth that is all I have seen done to date.
The smart growth you expect should not come at the cost to a liveable viable neighbourhood (unlike the rest of the downtown area where it is not advantageous to live) but instead embrace it and build upon it.
Explain to me why everythin needs to be torn down in Windsor so that we can build? Why can we incorporate instead?
By the way James I wasn’t attacking you in anyway. I was just making a point that Chatham St. isn’t very wide either. : )
Raising the awareness of urban living would work if we had a true mixed use development that had a depth beyond a single street.
Mixed use usually means 5 story bldgs (or less) with commercial on main floor, residential above that. We don’t have that in the area that in City Center West.
You want to raise awareness of urban living, then show Windsorites a true mixed use urban living development.
I don’t know whether the existing neighborhood or some part of it could be
incorporated into this plan. I would hope it could.
The current area isn’t sustainable.
You say why you believe residents won’t live in the core, have we ever asked them????
If scaledown isn’t about sustainability, what is it about.
Mark I have done just that on a previous post under “What’s Wrong With Windsor’s Waterfront”.
Explain to me why it has to be mixed-use? We have a downtown that is full of vacant storefronts. Why expand an area that isn’t fully rented?
Why are we pretending that core areas of the city aren’t losing 10% of their population? Where will these residents come from if we are losign population? Do you not think it better to attract residents through the building of a new neighbourhood and then once that is established look to expand business areas downtown (perhaps moving eastward where there has been a ton of vacant lots since the 1950s)?
Why isn’t the DWBIA or the city looking to convert the office space above storefronts in the downtown area into lofts? There have only been a few of thse done (above Beer Market & Chatham St. Grill). Could it be that no one wants to put up with the proverbial crap that happens on a weekly basis downtown?
As I stated on another post I talked to more than 20 people who used to live downtown and all of them said they would move back downtown if there was a viable neighbourhood. I then asked does that mean houses, row houses low-rise, high-rise condos, I received replies of about 10 that wanted row houses that mimicked 19th century row houses made of brick. The rest liked low-rise condos and with a few that wanted individual houses and high-rise condos. But NONE stated they would move back if the shenanigans of downtown were to continue.
Your definition of urban living is not totally true. Urban living is living in a downtown area with high denisty with a high concentration of businesses. It does NOT have to be living above a storefront.
As for “sustainability” there is a sustainable neighbourhood that currently exists now and has for the last 110 years despite the efforts of this city’s attempt at destroying it! What needs to be done is corect the mistake the city did when it tore the rest of the area down. By putting the urban village back on those lands without destroying what is already existing will achieve exactly what you want; more sustainability!
Mark if you are for protecting the rsidents that live here already then why do you advocate tearing down this wonderful little neighbourhood to build something so other people can move in instead? It isn’t like these houses are worth $50,000. In fact the last few houses that sold in this area were sold for more than $225,000 each! This area is unique to the city and should be encrouaged not disregarded as it is every 3-5 years.
Terms of Reference for Feasibility Study
1. A project initiation meeting with key City administration, City Council to confirm the objectives, scope, schedule and reporting standards for the study;
2. Collection and review of all available information (eg. mapping, drawings,
surveys, reports, etc.) of relevance to the proposed undertaking;
3. Pre-consultations with key approval agencies to assess general interest,
preliminary design criteria, general permissibility of the undertaking and approval protocols;
4. Consultation with Stantec Consulting Ltd. to confirm the general feasibility (and associated design criteria) of installing the invert siphon across the proposed marina inlet;
5. Further identification of critical design criteria and constraints for principal project components;
6. Preliminary evaluations of alternative designs for major project components
7. Identification of preliminary preferred designs and definition of critical designs criteria;
8. Refinement of preliminary cost estimates for major project components; and
9. Preparation of report to present study findings
Unfortunately the feasbility study does not appear to analyze demographics; resident surveys - it is simply an engineering feasiblity. There is no business plan to determine what impact the project will have or analysis of the impact on development. Which proves only further that developers are demanding this so they can either flip their properties through increased value.
No mention of municipal budgets.
The Mayor has not indicated whether or not the city will conduct a business plan.
Me - in fairness, increased high density development is in line with Ontario’s smart growth program. It’s not so much the development I am wary about - it’s the canal proposal. I’d rather see that $60-million used for streetscaping on University Avenue, or used for development incentives. If the developers want canal infrastructure - they fund it. Isse the damn RFP’s and see what developers are willing to undertake.
Other cities, as I’m gathering information make those very demands of developers.
Should current residents be incorporated? Absolutely wherever and however possible.
Your neighbourhood, despite the vast expanse of CITY OWNED land - and let’s be clear about that and who is truly responsible - is beautiful. I love it. It has elements of Cabbage Towne in Toronto which must be preserved.
The city has done nothing except bungle this entire process for the last 20 years; and has all appearences of doing the same again.
IF the city is truly serious about this proposal they will acquire iron-clad agreements with the current developer; including fines and/or penalities should they fail to adhere.
Developers should also pay for the majority of the cost of the project since they are prime beneficiaries. They can recover the costs through sale prices of homes and/or condo’s.
We’re giving them free land and possibly other tax incentives as permitted under the Planning Act and as per the recommendations stated in the Urban Village community consultation documents.
This doesn’t mention soil analysis.
I would suspect that the soil at the bottom of the cut may be contaminated just as the old CN rail lands along Riverside Drive were. Special consideration would have to be given for containing and disposing of soil material removed during the excavation.
Also, I seem to recall a PCB issue with the CBC tower’s utility building above the rail cut.
ME. the 6.5 acres of city land in that area was originally expropriated for an arena. When you bought your home, what were your expectations for that land? What was its status at the time you bought your home?
I’d like to hear from residents in the entire downtown and in the area west and south of City Center West. They might believe that a development like this might reverse the existing ghettofication of their neighborhoods as well. Do they have some say as well?
Is it realistic for those who bought houses in that neighborhood to think that the city would not leverage that lands as best it could. I think the city government has finally listened to the people of Windsor with this proposal.
They are trying to create a destination that focuses on residents as much as tourists.
They are building on assets that we already have instead of trying to create new assets.
They are recognizing the importance of the core, density, gentrification.
I look at every issue through the same prism. Will it increase the residential population of the core. Even when I support use of educational institutions, my primary reasoning is that the graduates would become the prime candidates for new residents.
I will always support any use that increases residential population of our core. It is why I joined Scaledown
In the end, the residents must decide, but it must be the residents of the core not just “in” but also surrounding this development
I truly wish you well with the neighborhood, but I want whats best for the entire downtown. Always have and always will.
“They are building on assets that we already have instead of trying to create new assets.”
How so? They are proposing building a canal, during which a large chunk of an established neighbourhood could potentially be removed. They are creating new assets and destroying assets we already have. There is a massive stretch of waterfront that is “developed” only so much as we have replaced what was abandoned train tracks and gravel with grass and an asphalt path and a few hundred (a thousand?) parking spots. If they want to develop waterfront, develop the waterfront, don’t build a new stretch of water just so we can develop along there. They also managed to remove almost everything that made the waterfront interesting. If you walked down there 8 years ago, there were a ton of leftovers from the rail yards, huge things built in the water that were interesting to look at. Now, just grass and a path and an occasional plaque telling us what used to be there. I would expect, like everything else the city does, that this new canal would be a “fresh start” for that area, meaning they would destroy pretty much everything and start new, leaving little of what makes Windsor Windsor behind.
“Even when I support use of educational institutions, my primary reasoning is that the graduates would become the prime candidates for new residents.”
Mark, care to address the issue of students and graduates of the University of Windsor having very negative and bleak views of the city, as I’ve mentioned before in some previous posts?
Most of my fellow engineering graduates want very little to do with this city. Whatever progress has been made in Windsor hasn’t even dented the less-than-flattering opinion that these people hold.
Engineers are funny people. We want to have jobs. As nice as it would be to sit on our condo decks and look down at a canal filled with municipal water supply in our lovely gentrified area, it would be hard to make those rent or mortgage payments if there’s nowhere to earn our money. Even harder to patron the businesses of this “omni-use” area when we have no money to pay for our goods.
Does true sustainable development not strive to integrate economic, social (both human constructs) AND the environmental/ecological components? It seems that the way the term is being used is to integrate only the social/cultural and economic aspects into the arguments for or against the ‘canal’ development.
From the comments so far, it seems that the entire ecological argument has been overlooked. I’m not an expert in ecological matters, but won’t dredging a canal through the downtown of Windsor and connecting it to the Detroit River potentially pose some serious ecological changes if not damage to the ecosystems already present in the area? Granted the feasibility study will probably examine this aspect, but I question to what extent.
Reading Scaledown’s mission and vision statements, it seems that the environmental/ecological aspects of sustainable development are implied but not explicitly stated. Maybe I’m way off base with the ecological concerns and their relevance to Scaledown, but I fully believe that the ecological/environmental aspects of any proposed changes to the physical environment must be paramount if you are discussing being truly sustainable.
Again, shouldn’t Windsor be focusing on the local neighbourhoods and determining the true sustainability of them and addressing the deficiencies instead of looking for a ’silver bullet’ solution?
Its difficult to address your cmments juxtaposeur. The same malaise that affects windosrites probably affects university graduates.
Why does it take visitors to our city to tell us our positives. Every visitor I’ve entertained from Scaledown, BIA, WIFF have been very impressed.
Would this project instill more pride in Windsorites? Yes I think so.
But you readily admit that the perception of this city is broken. I say that no other project could address that perception more than this project
Redefine yourself. Ecological change is not necessarily ecological damage. Your correct in your statement that it has been unaddressed. I’ve had this discussion before about environmental and ecological arguments. I believe in a better environment for the purpose of making quality of human life better, not for itself in its own sake. If one were concerned with the environment for its own sake they would have to recommend extermination of the human race as the biggest threat to the environment.
As long as this does not create ecological damage to the environment “Which would degrade the quality of life for windorites” then I am for it.
What has been raised so far is the fact that this may be a diversion of the Detroit River. This and other issues must be balanced against the good that this could do for the environment. Ferry transportation across the river, densification of the population which would reverse sprawl, connecting residents to their neighborhood. etc. etc. are all positive things for the environment, positives that help quality of life of Windsorites..
Someone mentioned somewhere that there was once a canal in sandwich which would imply to me that this type of development is part of heritage
Chris,
I agree that this proposal is in line with Ontario’s Smart Growth Plan. But does increasing density mean obliterating an existing neighbourhood? I don’t think it does and it seems to me that you are also in agreement with my point.
You are correct that this seems to be an engineering study only but what many residents are afraid of is that this study will then balloon to another whereas the residents will be ignored like they were with the first expropriation which has given us the deserts of parking lots we have now.
Mark,
My house was vacant at the time of purchase to which I spent a great deal of money (still ongoing) to start to restore my home.
My expectations of that land were the the designs of the first urban village as described and drawn up by the City of Windsor itself. The CITY OWNED LANDS were to be built up wit low-rise condos on some blocks, high-rise condos on waterfront land and possible row houses for land closer the the existing neighbourhood with retail fronting University Ave. That is what was told to me by the city in two seperate meetings that the city put on.
What is this ghettoification that you speak of happening in my neighbourhood (west of city centre west lands)? We don’t even have one vacant storefront! If there was ghettofication happening south I would state unequivocally that CRIME has more to do with that than anything else. The second largest factor is the city not setting up what exactly they want to do with the lands. People won’t invest if they don’t know what is happening from what year to the next.
Are you seriously going to tell me that if this proposal goes through that the area south of University will be gentrified? The majority of those homes are rental property that have been seriously cut up as rooming houses or apartments with assessments barely reaching $100,000 or slightly more because of the potential for income. The majority of the rental properties are owned by people who don’t even reside in this city!
We did know the city was going to leverage THEIR OWN LAND with all of the hub-bub they created when they stated they were going to release an RFP to which they NEVER did! Never once was it indicated that the neighbourhood was going to be levelled to acheive yet another idea.
Who has the city listened to? According to the CKLW Poll 67% didn’t even think this would get off the ground? But they sure as hell haven’t listened to the residents of the area that this will effect have they? If you thin majority should always rule Mark you in are in for a rude awakening because the minority should always be protected from the majority. Personally I think all of Tecumseh should be levelled and returned as a forest and naturalization area. Do you agree with me considering essex County only has 3% forestation?
You can still build a destination without destroying the fabric of the existing neighbourhood. As Chris elegently pointed out this area is a great rminder of CabbageTown in T.O. Imagine if T.O. destroyed that area for some vinyl clad low-rise condos? What would the fabric of T.O.’s downtown then be?
What assets are they building on? They are, according to their drawings (for $10,000 mind you) building a complete new asset.
The first proposal would still increase density without destroying what is already in existence and thus you have your density you crave and to which I am not opposed.
As for your talk of educational institutes and those who are going to stick around. Are you stating the vast majority of graduates will stay downtown to live when Windsor isn’t retaining jobs all that well? Look at Juxtaposeur’s post…straight from the horse’s mouth!
As well, if you thin students are going to be the answer then why hasn’t the area around the University grown by leaps and bounds? Yet they have 15,000 FULL-TIME students! Are they a part of the puzzle? Absolutely but not the be all, end all.
Where are the people going to come from to fill the vast area of new development considering this proposal kicks out approximately a few hundred people if not more? They sure aren’t going to come from the ‘burbs we already know that. They are going to come from those who are waiting for new units to be built in a safe and secure area. They will also come from out of town. But those from out of town MUST have a job to go to correct? You can’t just put your eggs in the basket of seniors because once those boomers are gone then what are you going to do? We will be in the same position we are in now in 20-25 years!
Sure they are a part of the demographics but again they can’t be the be all, end all.
In fact it was just in The Star today that there is a glut in Canada for condo’s yet they are still being built for speculators that want to make a quick buck. What happens with a city that already has a high vacancy rate and a glut of houses on the real estate market with little job growth in the next 3-5 years?
What are we doing to try and attract families to the core? The city seems to be foucsed on DINKS (Dual Income No Kids), singles, students and seniors. Where are the families?
I too want increased population and density in the core but not at the sacrifice of those of us who are pioneering the trend! Let’s incorporate what is here and build on it, not destroy it. The first urban village proposal will do exactly what you want it to do so why are you advocating destroying an existing well established neighbourhood? It seems you have only focused on one point of Scaledown at the detriment of the others.
If this idea is so great and it will do what the developres want then why not do the canal development south of University? Not only do you gentrify an area that will never see the light of day but you also get rid of a high crime area, increase assessments and thus city coffers and then the existing neighbourhood could be expanded upon with the original design.
FEEDING 4 BIRDS WITH ONE PIECE OF BREAD so to speak.
Now that I have responded to your questions yet again. Will you be kind enough to answer my questions in this post and the one above your retort? Or can you only ask questions and dodge everyone else’s?
“FEEDING 4 BIRDS WITH ONE PIECE OF BREAD so to speak.”
what a great line. surely a genius of a person created it
Explain to me why it has to be mixed-use?
That was the determination of the City Center West Community Improvement Plan Committee which included residents, businesses and others in the communty.
Mixed use means walkability to me
Why are we pretending that core areas of the city aren’t losing 10% of their population?
I’ve referred to that several times, I think this could reverse that trend
Do you not think it better to attract residents through the building of a new neighbourhood and then once that is established look to expand business areas downtown (perhaps moving eastward where there has been a ton of vacant lots since the 1950s)?
This is that new neighborhood
Why isn’t the DWBIA or the city looking to convert the office space above storefronts in the downtown area into lofts?
The city put the “Sustainable Downtown” CIP on hold which would have provided incentives precisely for that particular purpose. The DWBIA even allowed the scope of the plan to be reduced to only focus on residential to show how high it ranked that as a priority.
As I stated on another post I talked to more than 20 people who used to live downtown and all of them said they would move back downtown if there was a viable neighbourhood.
I then asked does that mean houses, row houses low-rise, high-rise condos, I received replies of about 10 that wanted row houses that mimicked 19th century row houses made of brick. The rest liked low-rise condos and with a few that wanted individual houses and high-rise condos. But NONE stated they would move back if the shenanigans of downtown were to continue.
Mark if you are for protecting the rsidents that live here already then why do you advocate tearing down this wonderful little neighbourhood to build something so other people can move in instead?
I don’t, I would like to see existing homes saved if possible. I also stated that I inferred that when the city said their role would begin and end at infrastructure they would not be involved in acquiring property for devellopment of anything more than that. What if 9 out of 10 could be saved? Are you willing to concede anything at all to see 500 new homes and a marina that could bring people by ferry
Technically, no one has made the community any offers yet but you seem ready to turn them down
ME, look, I always have and always will believe that the residents in your area should have a voice
I also plan to bring every concern voiced here to experts in the field of downtown revitalization in September. I’d be the first to publish their views even if they are contrary to mine.
Whats missing here is Chris Turner’s example of how the island of windmills got community support
Yes, and since we brought Glenn Murray to the city of Windsor, who has written extensively on preserving and incorporating development into the existing fabric, a discussion along that line would be beneficial.
And what a spectacularly silly comment that canals are part of our heritage - used to justify the proposal.
Why not simply build a pond with domestic plants as part of the village? Toronto has done this with some of the high rise condo’s THAT DEVELOPERS PAID FOR. See the condominium behind the Delta Hotel on Yonge as an example. A fountain or outdoor plaza for community events would be great as well.
Turn the “cut” into a botanical garden or woodlot preserve.
Much more affordable and much more sensitive to the existing fabric.
“I also stated that I inferred that when the city said their role would begin and end at infrastructure they would not be involved in acquiring property for devellopment of anything….”
How do you propose then the city construct a canal system across the site? Homes will have to be voluntarily sold or expropriated. The city only owns approximately 5 acres of the proposed site. Based upon the drawings, that’s a lot of homes and/or land to acquire to make the canal happen.
You are absolutely correct that ecological change is not necessarily ecological damage. The difference can be a matter of scale, context and perspective. You suggest that you ‘believe in a better environment for the purpose of making quality of human life better, not for itself in its own sake’ and that ‘if one were concerned with the environment for its own sake they would have to recommend extermination of the human race as the biggest threat to the environment’. That is where I believe we differ in opinions on what entails the ‘environment’. We as HUMANS and MAMMALS, are an integral part of the web of the ecology of this planet or ‘environment’. We are PART of nature and NOT a separate entity. Sure we are unique to all other species on the planet, but we are a part of the web of life as well. To me putting the quality of human life above the very foundational ecological network that has taken billions of years to develop is exactly the type of attitude engrained in most humans that has led to the severe environmental consequences we are experiencing around the world.
“As long as this does not create ecological damage to the environment “Which would degrade the quality of life for windorites” then I am for it.” ? In essence, this is the type of argument that has lead to the development disasters that have occurred over the last few decades. There is absolutely no way to determine what the exact long term effects of creating a canal of this size and diverting water from the river could have on the local ecology. Erosion, diversion and destruction of species habitat, and daylighting of potential hazardous substances just to name a couple.
Suppose that a house was built on the edge of a town’s centre on a greenfield with the view by the builder/owner that because it is just one house the ecological damage is minimal. Then another person sees this new house and thinks the same thing to themselves. Before you know it you have houses going up far into greenfield areas causing tremendous damage to the large functioning ecologies of the local area which in effect being to alter the large ecological systems that rely on them. Sound familiar? Who is to say that within this one canal, this one river, this lake and river system, this watershed area—that one seemingly insignificant change to a portion of the ecology can cause no ecological damage? One canal might not do much damage, but imagine if other cities/towns and businesses located along this waterway thought the same way….what may seem as a small ecologically insignificant change could turn into an unforeseen catastrophe.
Balancing the positives and negatives of both river diversion and many of the human benefits you mentioned such as ‘ferry transportation across the river, densification of the population which could reverse sprawl, connecting residents to their neighborhood. etc. etc.’ is definitely a must. All I am saying is that the ecological/environmental considerations SHOULD be given more weight and consideration in decision making.
Hmmm, Mark, how many windmills will it take to power up this canal, along with its share of clean drinking water its fill with?
I’m not convinced this canal is all that much of a panacea. I am, however dissappointed that this former rail bed will not be available as an option for future public rail transit if this things goes through. Why cant developers get behind transit as a project? Or even the city, since their new focus is infrustructure!
…Airport hub way south of the city, bus depot by the art galery , and new VIA station proposed in the west end. Yup! its a good thing we got Planners! All we need now is a canal to get from a to b.
personally I am still holding out hope that the cut is used what is was originally intended for…rail. Place a new Via/Light Rail station there. and build everything else, including trenching and flooding if there is still room, around it.
i’m not worried that the cut from university to Riverside will not be available for rail transit. Its just not that far of a walk. If mass transit works up to university on the cut, trust me, those on Riverside drive can weather the trek
“There is absolutely no way to determine what the exact long term effects of creating a canal of this size and diverting water from the river could have on the local ecology. Erosion, diversion and destruction of species habitat, and daylighting of potential hazardous substances just to name a couple. ”
There is no species habitat that will sustain on this land as this is residential lands that will be developed. Its like saying that if a species habitat developed on the undeveloped city owned lands that we should never build on it. Thats why we have zoning, to protect and buffer. Land in the city core is not meant to sustain species other than humans, the alternative would be to sprawl which would do far more ecological damage
Building on the field of dreams
“LeBreton Flats has long been a field of dreams for Ottawa residents. In the 1960s, the National Capital Commission expropriated and bulldozed one of the city’s poorest neighbourhoods there with the promise of great things to come.
For nearly half a century, the land sat vacant, awaiting a plan, an urban wasteland a short distance from Parliament Hill. Now, as the first phase of a housing development meant to be the heart of the revitalized LeBreton Flats takes shape, Ottawa residents are finally getting a look at what they have waited for. Those who were expecting a landmark of architecture on this historic piece of land feel disappointed….”
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/editorials/story.html?id=0dda52d0-3d3f-48dd-b3e3-a0cdda4030ff
There seems to be a somewhat universal malaise in cities in trying to spur development of any kind between an official stance and a public wish to be involved in the process, with the city backed developers giving us what they think we should have.
It appears from the editorial in the Ottawa Citizen, we aren’t alone in this matter.
Mark, I don’t know if you’re being deliberately obtuse here, but I doubt anyone is suggesting that there are herds of animals currently eking out a living in the concrete jungle that is city owned lands.
In my interpretation, what is being suggested is that by diverting large quantities of water from the Detroit River tributary system, there exists the potential for unmitigated effects, whether it be aquatic ecosystems, or, based on the degree of diversion of natural water systems, terrestrial ecosystems through disruption of the natural watershed and water levels.
Exactly juxtaposeur….and adding onto what you said, the potential for unmitigated effects on the terrestrial ecosystems reaches far beyond just the large animals that are visible on the surface. Like underwater aquatic ecosystems, the invisible subterranean organisms serve a valuable and critical function to ecosystems. The soil and rocks are not inert!
What I am suggesting is that before even thinking about moving large quantities of earth and diverting huge volumes of water that will undeniably affect terrestrial and ecosystems, the long term repercussions of the potential actions MUST be considered.
Since the social and economic components of the sustainability argument have voices, they tend to drown out the environmental/ecological component. The region has long ignored or at the very least downplayed the importance of the ecologic component of the equation and must turn things around if it truly believes in creating sustainable communities to live in.
Using the what are now becoming the traditional conceptual arguments of increasing density, increasing public transit, making communities more walkable, decreasing dependence on the automobile are all critical to the arguments for creating a sustainable future. It is my belief that we need to start going further (as many other places) and begin quantifying the ecological/environmental impacts of potential developments and factor them into the decision-making process. It is not an easy thing to do, but it can and must be done.
Anybody got some flint arrowheads and or old bones, maybe a skull or two? While everybody is gnashing their teeth we can go in the middle of the night a bury some archealogical evidence in the cut, that will slow them down! Much like their doing in Sandwich right now, looking for any heritage or archealogical stuff to stop the bridge company
I wasnt being obtuse, I should just acknowledge that I have no expertise about the topics you speak of. I’m only assuming that the amount of water required is not significant relative to the Detroit River and water diverted through erosion.
I assume an environmental assessment would have to be done but it I just think perspective is needed. To desire absolutely no disruption when revitalizing a city core is unrealistic.
Are we going to weigh that distruption or damage against the damage that will be done if our transit system fails due to lack of density in our city?
What about the damage done from building a city that is dependant on the automobile?
What about the damage done from building that big box center adjacent to lasalle near a sensitive area?
To assume that preventing this development would yield no negative environmental consequences is very wrong.
Mark, to say this canal may pose some disruption and damage and then say its ok because theres lots more damage thats been done in the past is pretty weak.
I like to ask how this canal fits in to the bigger picture of windsor and the core 25 and 50 years from now. As it stands, its just another silver bullet scheme. Lets see the city and developers try a mixed used project first. A project that doesn’t rely on the car. When successful then lets try a canal then.
I’m not saying its ok, I’m saying that one must be weighed against the other and not in a vacuum
How does this canal fit into the bigger picture years from now? here’s a few ways to start
1. Creates a new pedestrian or bike connection between adjacent neighborhood of downtown Detroit and Downtown Wndsor by way of ferry.
2. Builds on the asset of our riverfront. I’ve shown with my quotes from PPS, why our riverfront is deficient, this plan goes towards correcting those deficiencies. No other alternative other than more beacons have been offered to make the riverfront more active rather than pasive.
3. Builds on a retirement community strategy , not just for outsiders but our own aging population of retiree’s by giving them an walkable urban lifestyle with a healthy alternative
I will continue posting more reasons at a later date.
You say that we should do it without a canal first. The canal is an incentive to do the first one. What incentive would you offer without a canal that would interest the private sector as much as this announcement has with endorsements from WFCU, Farhi and Mady Corp, Casino executives,
Remember by offering the marina/canal, you can label it a tourist attraction which allows the province the ability to fund. By allowing a marina with ferry you can involve the port authority and the federal gov’t.
I don’t believe any other incentive could draw the potential investment from other levels of gov’t as well as this one. It is also the incentive that the private sector is endorsing
because I have to talk to Eddy first.
Can we piss off about the damned tourists now? For once just once can this city invest in it’s RESIDENTS FIRST?
After we have served our residents we can look at catering to tourists. Until that time we have no business pretending tourists are going to flock here because of a canal (personally like the marina part though) that is built for all of 4 blocks.
Well if it involves the demolition of Historic Buildings, I’m sure the Mady corp will be all over it.
Don’t forget Mady held a demolition permit in his hand for the Capitol before it was saved at the 11th hour. He also wanted to demolish the convent at Riverside & George. Only saved by a forced designation. He also ripped down the designated Glengarda Building for his condo towers.
Nobody has still addressed who exacly is going to live there.
Don’t wory though, like almost everything that comes out of Eddie’s mouth, it’s all talk. Remember his promise to work on getting Zalvev’s scrapyard out of the middle of the city? He ran on that for his first term… 5 years later I’m still waiting for him to bring it up again…
No we can’t “piss off” about the damned tourists if thats the terminology that the province requires before investing.
Nothing wrong with tourist attractions as long as they appeal to Windsorites as well. Thats the point, tourist attractions in the past have always focused on things that residents would visit once and never again.
The fact that our city has elevated the discussion to the realization that attractions must appeal to Windsorites is actually quite an accomplishment
Again, no issue with with tourists and attracting them but NOT AT THE DETRIMENT OF THE RESIDENTS ANYWHERE! Can you not concede this fact or are you only looking our for YOUR best interest IE: Your businesses?
Remember you clean up your own backyard first before you start to try and fix your neighbours house.
I will give you that this might creat an attraction for Windsorites but for how long? They srue as shit aren’t going downtown now because of the kiddie bars and no retail. Why can’t those issues be tackled as well before the city plunks down a chunk of change for increasing the footprint of the current downtown?
Andrew, don’t forget that Eddie also ran on open and tranparency in our local gov’t but he has had more in-camera meetings and secrecy than Hurst ever did and Hurst was mayor for 12 years! He also ran on fiscal responsibility and then spends over $75 million (when the road to nowhere gets built) for a privately owned corporation’s new home IE: The Arena.
The reason this has riled up so many people is simple. Once again in an area that has survived City Hall’s attempt to destroy it rehab has to be put on hold to see where the city is going with this. why again didn’t they ask the residents before touting this out? They asked Dave Cooke, they asked Shmuel Farhi but they don’t ask REAL TAXPAYERS (Mr. Farhi hasn’t paid anything in taxes yet on his lands)! Go figure on the secrecy and shenanigans of our City Hall.
Remember Mark, I think your businesses should be plowed under for a water park and then you MUST relocate to an area like Drouillard to set up shop once again. How woud you like that? I also think Tecumseh should be a beautiful forest like the Tiergarten so again you must vacate your property. No fun when the rabbit’s got the gun is it?