Recognizing a responsible Heritage Committee
I thought it was important to acknowledge and recognize the responsible decision by the Heritage Committee to approve demolition of the Royal Bank Bldg and House even though it was on the list.
I think that this decision demonstrates the committee does recognize development potential of a site as well as the fact that this is not some sort of extremist group of people.
I also think it shows is that when this committee does dig in its heels to recommend we preserve and save a bldg, that the public and decision makers should pay that much more attention to them as they do fully analyze the situation when they make a recommendation. I know I will
Post Feedback
The Manning House Hotel (where the Royal Bank was/is) was built by my great great grandfather Henry Walker and his son William Maltby Walker according to several articles in Evening Border Star. They were both general contractors in Windsor, when Henry and family came out from England in 1862, right to Windsor. I would love to see inside of what is remaining of that building.
They also built the new Post Office of that time right across the street on the southwest corner and the original Hotel Dieu hospital.
I think it is a reasonable decision. If you go into the alley behind what is remaining of the Manning House, water damage has loosen the brick work in the back wall to were it is almost ready to collapse.
Now if only we can find a developer to take over the rest of the block which is also past redemption.
I am somewhat at a corssroads over this decision.
I understand that nothing much has remained of the Manning House (great job Jenny!) and in fact it has never really been upkept by the present and past owners and therefore does not have much architectural elements left. So I can understand the decision made by the heritage committee.
But however, just because a building has lost architectural elements does not mean it has lost it’s heritage. If that were the case the Windsor Community Museum on Pitt St West should have ceased to exist!
All anyone who owns a heritage building has to do is strip it of it’s architecture and then they can destroy it. That is the logic that I see being played out with this development.
But again I see both the positives and negatives of this action as described above. Are we going to destroy another buliding for yet another bank building? Remember folks this isn’t luring a new bank to the downtown; this is just, once again, shuffling banks around the downtown core. How many times are we going to allow the banks to move from one building to the next destroying all of our early 20th century architecture (and what is left of it)? Each time they move they leave behind yet another empty building that most people can do little with.
But with the Manning house, it has sat empty for a very long time, after a bank left the building and destroyed the facade. Whether Jenny decided to leave them vacant (read: LAND SPECULATION) I don’t know but the fact remains that area has sat dormant for too long. So when an opportunity to bulid new comes up what is one to do?
I guess The Heritage Committee decided to pick their battles where they can be won and to that I give them applause. They can’t win every battle and their idea to reuse, if feasible, the TD Bank facade is a great as it will keep with the Government Building across the street.
ME - The problem with the Manning House was that 70% of it, in fact the 70% with ALL the architectural interest was demolished in the early 1960’s when the Royal Bank built the new bank building on the corner, which opened in 1964.
It wasn’t worth stalling a deveolpement that would remove an eyesore from a prominent location to save the ass end of out of context bit of a historic building.
There is a sold reuse plan for the site, it’s not like the Bank of Montreal where the site was planned for reuse as a parking lot.
At the Heritage Meeting, the contrator brought the renderings of the new building, and while nothing spectacular, it looked a little nicer than the Royal Bank that was built acorss the streeet.
Those who know me, know that I am one of the biggest preservationists in this city, but even I had no issues with the demolition.
In this case, it will make that corner of downtown vastly improved.
Agreed Andrew and thanks for the clarification on the portion that had most of the architectural elements lost.
that is why I was at odds with myself over the vote. But in the end I did agree with the decisions made. Hopefully the TD facade will be used but I doubt it will.
Again, not an easy decision but the best decision overall.
The story that “broke” in the Windsor Star was just irresponsible reporting. We had metionned to deveolper to ask if his clients would be interested in reusing it, but he explained it was doubtful.
The plans were/are being prepared out of Toronto and no local input is involved in the design. All we asked was that they ask their client if there was any interest. With the aggressive demolition/construction timeline, I doubt there is any time to go back to the drawing board, and incorportate and re-engineer the TD facade into the new bank. Maybe if there was more time for the project, but I doubt it would happen on this project, even if it is the ideal reuse for that facade.
Check in at International Metropolis for a tour of the building…
Sorry, I should have said, check in tomorrow for the tour.