The Cannibalism of Windsor Business
A handful of developers are threatening WIndsor that preventing them from zoning more greenfield sites to commercial is a anti-business measure simply to great to bear. They portray this being a matter of freedom of consumer choice, simply the survival of the fittest business and a tenet of capitalism.
I’m here to tell you these are lies! damn lies!
Windsor already has zoned far more commercial space than it will ever probably need in the next 50 years. These planning documents don’t go against big box, any big box can build any thing they want on existing commercial sites. Target wants to come to canada, I have a great Home depot location by the mall for them. There’s also a couple nice vacant spaces next to Toys R Us at the round house centre perfect for a restaurant and more big box.
Its very simple, not the complicated issue that the Chamber of Commerce policy director told me it is.
WIndsor has no job growth and no population growth. That means that any new commercial MUST cannibalize existing retailers
“Fine” say the developers, thats what we call consumer choice, survival of the fittest. EXCEPT ITS NOT
The current small businesses that will be displaced are on our main streets and commercial corridors. These are the sites that are integral to our tourism strategy and Windsor’s future economic development and ability to recruit the creative class.
Whither Walkerville with Willistead Manor? To hell with Sandwich with our underground railroad? Via Italia be damned? Screw the new Pillette Village Gallery District? I don’t want to forget Downtown’s Restaurant Row and 5 distinct districts, Riverside Village or Ottawa St. But it seems that these guys have no problem with that.
This isn’t about being anti Big Box. This is about being anti bad development. Gone should be the treeless, big box badlands at Walker and provincial with their parking lagoons that are so unwalkable people choose to drive between stores within the same plaza. Ever heard of a Tourist saying “Boy, your city sure does have a nice costco”. We will draw residents to our city based on the quality of our main streets, not these new developments on greenfield sites.
Next we have to debunk the lame cries of “What kind of message does this send out to business”
I’ll give you some examples of the message it sends out
- We will send a message that Windsor is serious about building up its core and countering suburban sprawl. That policies such as the residential intensification of the core are not meaningless words
- We will send a message that we’re serious about business retention and protecting the small businesses that already housed within existing commercial corridors and within our seven mainstreets or BIA’s.
- We will send a message to these developers that we will no longer pay for their big box stores with the lifeblood of our small businesses, and that Windsor taxpayers will no longer subsidize the blight that they are building within our city
- We will send a message to National and Big Box Retailers that we will no longer debase ourselves by giving up cheap land for their pittance. Do we want the National and Big Box Retailers? You betcha! We want the urban version of their stores that they build in every other city in North America. Not the blight they build in what I call the big box badlands … with their parking lagoons and unwalkable development.
Help us send a message to potential residential recruits that we are going to stop hollowing out our core …. an action that proved disastrous to Detroit, and one that would be prove us by definition INSANE should we repeat the mistake expecting different results.
Help send a message to potential investors, like Mr. Farhi, that City Center West is a good investment, and that development in that area will draw and attract customers from our BIAs and our newly protected adjacent lands.
Help us send a message to our tourism industry that we will maintain a sense of place — an essential ingredient for drawing tourists and providing them with a quality experience.
Tags: big box, main streets, sustainability, Tourism
Post Feedback
So… how do we send the message? Writing to our councillors?
Yeah… what would be the most effective way of getting this message to the right people? A petition? Whatever it is, count me in.
Tomorrow I will post a petition
right now I’m focused on changing the chamber of commerce’s stated position
go to the chambers website and look at their members. Tell them to speak out against their organizations stated policy.
I don’t think many of the members know or understand that their representatives are cutting their own throats.
Don’t pin your hopes on Farhi. I was inclined to agree with your sentiment until you raised Farhi up as an example to follow. His methods and tactics are questionable and motives don’t extend beyond his own pocket book. He’d be the first to espouse your concerns if it was to his benefit. Don’t forget the Lauzon corridor where he and his “associates” wait in ambush.
Windsor Essex Chamber of Commerce:
http://www.windsorchamber.org/
I completely agree with you Mark on this one! Windsor does not need anymore greenfield development!!! None whatsoever!!!
I was at that PAC meeting last week and witness first hand the distasteful disgusting ruse of two developers almost in a dictatorial mode, telling the PAC members to remove this and such language, “because it says Windsor isn’t open for business!”
Windsor is open to business just not for new greenfield development! I totally agree and support the two reports that PAC is receiving to give to city council.
These developers can go hell or better yet to the over retailed suburban towns and gobble up their land and eat their infrastructure resources!
We in Windsor, be it small businesses or citizens must put a stop to this with force or the whole city is going to be gutted for development that won’t be around ten years after it is built.
From the Chambers own presentation to City Council for the 2009 City of Windsor Budget Presentation, Wednesday, May 6, 2009
http://tiny.cc/RGZX5
“Going forward, the City should focus more on economic development, municipal and urban planning, continuous improvement, (including the budget process) and fiscal discipline protecting the taxpayers and the corporation from undue expenditures now and in the future.”
Well the PAC committee has focused on economic development “and” municipal and urban planning and found these developers wanting! New Greenfield development is an undue expenditure via subsidized infrastructure costs!
Obviously the Chambers stance is to protect developers first and protecting the taxpayers and the municipality a very distant second. And most importantly the Chamber is not looking at development in Windsor but the Region, where it is favouring unbridle sprawl and growth at all costs, especially to the taxpayers of a city they want to gut!
LOS, The name of the developer is irrelevent, its how we treat them. This particular Developer already holds the 1 acre linchpin of the city center west lands. Your personal opinion is irrelevent, Its like saying you refuse to negotiate with the person across from the bargaining table. Its just not done because the lives of too many peolple hang in the balance.
Imagine Ken Lewenza saying he won’t negotiate with one of the Big 3 because he doesn’t like the CEO?
Fantastic piece Mark. I wanted to attend the meeting, but I had a separate engagement that night.
Banning further greenfield development would be the greatest pro-business move this city has made in years. I can’t believe that in a city with no job grown and job losses there is even a debate. I will sign any petition to that effect and I wiould be happy to be a canvasser.
Mark, as Mark Bradley was pointing out, developers are dictating the terms. Farhi and his cronies (including his friend, the mayor) cannot be allowed free reign in this city. I never said don’t negotiate, but I do say that his best interests are not necessarily in line with the best interests of the city, are are often in opposition to those of the city. As a propentent for the downtown (as a whole) I would think you’d be better informed with regards to those you want to get into bed.
Like I said, and like all unions would sat. it’s irrelevant whose on the other side of the table as long as we bring home a good deal for our members
you think all the developers In Windsor are saints? They’re all the same, looki g after the bottom line. Tarnishing Mr Farhi sou
ds
Read Ed Arditti’s blog today: Friendship (Part I of A Five Part Series)
http://windsorcityon.blogspot.com/
And you will absolutely understand of why we need a sea change in leadership and ways of doing business in this city.
I agree with LOS, the time of the developers having an open door to their schemes, planning and business without regard or respect to the city and its citizens is over with or should be over with! And the coziness of elected officials to or with developers and “friends” should be disclosed as it should be as a corrupt way of doing business without consent of the people.
Unfortunately we have the Windsor Star, and more specifically Chris Vander Doelen writing articles in favour of the developers (in last week’s paper….I think it was last Tuesday’s). He writes about how Windsor should basically accept “what they can get” in terms of development. In this article he uses the DOOM AND GLOOM fear mongering of the current economic state to justify the demands of the developer. Then, 2 days later, he ridicules those who use fear mongering to support the need for changes to protect climate change.
Basically, everyone is using the current economic state as a “economy card” in order to justify ANY sort of development.
Its sad.
Chris Vander Doelen needs to have a rebuttal letter sent to him and have him smarten up!
Already wrote a guest column. Look for it
What I was saying earlier Before being interrupted is that it’s naive and foolish to single out mr farhi and probably has more to do with his proclaimed like of our mayor. At least he chose sites o. Lauzon and downtown in Windsor. That alone puts him leaps and bounds ahead of coco , the commercial park off central and those who built walker and provincial
This looks like a classic david and Goliath battle. It will be won if enough davids choose to speak up
I would imagine if “Davids” spoke up they’d be interupting you unless they accepted your side of things hook, line, and sinker. Development at any cost, Chamberlain? As long as it puts punters in your restaurants, eh?
No Mark. Windsor can’t afford the status quo of friends doing business with friends.
Technically LOS, we agreed fully until you faulted Farhi (n my opinion solely because the guy likes the mayor)
Then there is not that much separating us. You choose to accept Farhi and I choose not to trust him (for whatever reason). Is that gulf too wide to breach?
No, as long as you accept that as a developer Farhi’s investment in our city’s BIA’s and commercial corridors trumps our local developers abandonment of the same
Mark, Farhi is not the second coming, regardless of his homeland. Suffice to say we disagree on what is in Windsor’s best interests.
No one said he was, he’s also not the enemy. Say again? which local developers do you hold in higher esteem? afraid to answer? I Thought so
I didn’t answer because you bore the hell out of me, Mark. Please continue talking to yourself now.
Look, I’m sorry for the attack but when someone tries to single out an investor with complete lack of perspective as to the others in his field it frustrates me. Look at the crap suburban sprawl unwalkable development in our city and try to tell me that a guy who mainly buys bldgs in the core of a city is NOT what we need because he happens to like our mayor? What developer would come to a city and say they hated the mayor? Its not good business.
Great article in the Windsor Star today Mark. You make some great points. Now I hope PAC, council and the rest of the Corp. of the City of Windsor agrees. If not we will continue the death spiral that we have now.
Believe it or not, the lawyers and devlopers were actually well behaved at the special meeting called by PAC tonight!
I KNOW! I was shocked too!
So, the meeting tonight was supposed to be dedicated to making the language in the planning departments reports less negative without affecting the intent and meaning of the document, and I think we accomplished that.
Members of PAC will make the recommendation at the January 25th council meeting that council accept the revisions that were made, or council could choose to stick with the original wording as produced by administration. It’s now up to them, but regardless, I think we’re going to be pleased with the new revision of the Official Plan.
I fear developing a new commercial/residential 60 acre site on Lauzon Road will contribute significantly to hollowing out the core. Mr. Farhi on the city centre west land is pretty liimited as to what he can construct as per the CIP - it is the development on Lauzon that I worry of the impacts.
If anything, we need to ensure that any development Mr. Farhi proposes in the CCW adheres fully to the CIP. While I question the land swap; there is not much we can do about this now.
What we have power over is what he does and frankly, how. Being given prime real estate on the waterfront in addition to $4-million for 40 acres - I should think that is incentive enough. No more taxpayer funded “incentives” for this developer.
But developing additional commerical/residential units on the eastern fringes may only further hollow out existing corridors unless population growth resumes matched by job growth (and hence incomes).
As per developers I hold hold in higher esteem - I point to Rosati - who revitalized the corner of Wyandotte and Chilver turning an ugly dilapidated former bar into a high end commercial strip.
I also point to the Central Business Park.
We were talking about this yesterday Chris S. I see Lauzon as an already existing commercial corridor with residential surrounding it on all sides. You have a huge retirement complex going up in that area.
What I think is more important on Lauzon is Site plan control. Ensuring that whatever Mr. Farhi builds on that Lear site is walkable.
Mady, just build a mixed use development outside Toronto http://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/south-unionville-square-could-be-a-model-for-future-suburbs/article1395730/?service=email.
I’d like to see something like that proposed for the Lear site. Be nice to see some residential built right into whatever is proposed
In Lasalle and on Cabana, they are taking simple measures with new bldgs like the Rexall on Malden and Armando’s on Cabana. Simple fixes such as making sure the bldgs are at the sidewalk with the parking in the rear.
The Central Business Park should not be considered a success in urban land use. Creating “business parks” only moved commercial/office type activities that should have and could have stayed in the core. The majority of the business park is office related, not industrial. In addition, there is nothing in the vicinity to serve workers in that area……apart from a small Subway shop. “Business Parks” should be reserved for industrial uses. Thats the way I see it.
Yeah I didn’t get that either, taxpayers subsidizing infrastructure that saw 4 foot sewer pipes wasted by hooking them up to office bldg 4 inch drains.while emptying downtown of office and commercial space
If these business parks didn’t exist would we need to spend so much $$$ on airport lands so that we can build industrial space? How much money would that save taxpayers?
Better yet how much of that money could be spent on existing neighbourhoods or for even a tax break?
The fear I have is what is to stop other office businesses from moving into these freshly serviced areas?
I have to say our past and present council/mayor have done nothing to stop the exodus from downtown yet they tell the DWBIA how to do their business (Pelissier St).
Mark, the concern I have is that residential development on Lauzon; and residential intensification in the core seem counter productive.
Of course I’m no expert - and really who is when we’re talking about the future - but where are those these people going to come from - and more importantly why?
I’ve heard we want to transform downtown by attracting retiree’s - but continue to build such complexes in the east end.
I know you consider various commerical corridors; however, what doesn’t balance is the question of where we will find the bodies to fill these buildings.
This may fit into your queries regarding a long term housing study (or something along those lines); but frankly, we all know where the money is demographically - and the reality is; that money will be attracted to where the amnenities are - particularly if “walkable” neighbourhoods is a criteria.
There are so many variables involved; but from my perspective creating additional capacity where the goods and services are; will continue to hollow out the core and the west-end.
I would like know what long term projections are for population attraction - and equally important “rentention.”
Creating additional residential capacity - even within existing commercial corridors at least on the surface, appear to work counter against urban core intensification.
Now, please understand I’m not arguing - I’m seeking clarification and greater understanding because I seem to be missing something - or am I?
Dave - the answer is relatively simple - if it cheaper for a developer to construct new elsewhere they will.
I look at the downtown office structures; and they are old. They are dliapidated after years of vacancy.
Looking at the Salvation Army building - not entirely the same; but the only way to attract development was to sell it for $1.00 given the extensive amount of money required for renovations.
Perhaps the public sector can afford to do this; but the private sector; well, if its more afforadable to build new meeting all requirements for their purposes - they will.
Frankly, we cluck our tongues over what we deem the private sector “should” do - it is public policy that has permitted it for whatever reason - public policy being both municipal bylaws and provincial legislation.
But it comes back to offering both affordable and realistic incentives. We have them, but don’t fund them. London has been able to do many things with incentives of various structures.
We have planning documents created by knowledgeable staff which sometimes are ignored by politicans for political purposes. Then of course we have the concerns of residents in neighbourhoods; who seem to speak out against intensification creating legal hurdles (and increased costs).
This isn’t to suggest residents should not determine their neighbourhoods; but when a potential developer is faced with such obstacles to their plan - they will select the plan that meets their financial requirements.
This is more evident in larger urban centres where residents do not want intensified residential buildings in their neighbourhood because of impacts on vistas, views; traffic; or even the amount of sunlight being obstructed.
So if I were a developer I’d go where 1 - land is affordable; 2 - where construction costs are lower; and 3 where physical infrastructure works to my advantage - not necessarily where the public believes it “should” go.
If to build something downtown involves purchasing an existing structure; extensively renovating it or demolishing it and rebuilding it versus cheap land - where do you think they will go?
Whether that is right or wrong is irrelevant.
What matters is the reality and what is permissable under existing bylaws/laws.
Appreciate the tone
here’s the rub, I don’t think it’s possible to prevent already zoned land from being built upon. That’s why I spoke at council against rezoning sprucewood commercial. I told council to wait fir these two reports but they rushed it through even though they knew what they would say
that’s why I’m now on the the dc charges task force to call for outer development like Lauzon to pay full pop.
I just don’t think you can unring the bell
typing from iPhone so forgive the abbreviated answer
Developing downtown means land assembly which is one of the most contorversial issues going. In the U.S. they call it “eminent Domain” legislation and they’re backing off of it big time.
Bldg giveaways like the college are necessary but not forever. Eventually you will reach a tipping point where people will want to be by the critical mass once you created it.
Our problem is for ever person we add, we take away 2 in the adjacent areas by ghettofication. Look at Chatham and Ouellette, we intensify that part of downtown while emptying out pelissier and Ouelllette and wyandotte.
We sit on our collective a**es with glengarry marentette CIP when we should be asking casino employees, “WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO GET YOU TO LIVE THERE AND WALK TO WORK ????”
If casino employees lived there and walked to work their quality of life would greatly increase, they would become downtown ambassadors and customers. Windsor would greatly decrease Vehicle Miles Driven per resident. The benefits never end
Digression alert: Intensification of neighborhoods does not require skyscrapers.
Paris is the best example of a properly designed city, its why we call other cities in the world after it when describing the utmost compliment.
Melbourne - The Paris of the southern hemisphere
Lebanon - the Paris of the middle east
Prague - The Paris of the east
Buenos Aires - The Paris of South America
However, it still is that Farhi bought land on an existing commercial corridor with Lauzon. To take away his right to develop would basically be Windsor committing a “bait and switch” on his land.
Send signals that he can develop it and then take away that right after he buys it is wrong. We have worse problems at Twin Oaks and the New sprucewood big box center. Those two areas do not have residents surrounding them meaining they will suck the lifeblood out of Windsor far more than Lauzon ever could
There is no “existing commercial corridor” on Lauzon Road between McHugh and the railway. The Lear property is designated and zoned Industrial.
There are plenty of residents to the south and south east of the proposed Sprucewood commercial centre. It’s called LaSalle.
We sit on our collective a**es with glengarry marentette CIP when we should be asking casino employees, “WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO GET YOU TO LIVE THERE AND WALK TO WORK ????”
That is relatively easy to determine - look at where they are presently living.
A good number of casino employees I know ‘rent’. The ones who buy, purchase within their means. Further, economic realities facing the casino over the years has created uncertainty for employees.
I look at my own behaviour as a guide or indication. I avoid the glengarry marentette area simply because a lot of the homes require extensive work - and work/money I’m not willing to put into because I doubt at this point I would recover costs and see a return on my investment.
Would I rent in the area? Not likely as amenities are scarce and difficult to reach since I do not own a car.
A casino friend of mine purchased a home on Moy near Ottawa Street because of its proximity to amenities and the home - in good condition - was a steal in the modest neighbourhood in line with her income.
Others who own, are with spouse and their combined incomes allow them to upgrade their home - near schools, with yards, etc.
I moved from downtown for several reasons; and Mark, I guess I could ask, what would it take for you to move downtown? Not a personal attack; but a question for reflection.
My reasons were that I wanted a yard - even if a small one to plant a garden, be active outside etc. I wanted more space than an apartment could offer and wanted peace and quiet. Apartment living was great when I was in my 20’s; but as I got older, I wanted more - just a personal taste.
And one of the great things about Windsor is that I can still walk downtown when the weather is great or take a 15 minute bus ride. And I can bike to work in under 25 minutes.
In fact, that is typically how I choose my place to live - I draw a circle around my place of employment and live within that that circle. Yeah - kinda nerdy I guess - but it has served me well.
But getting back to Glengarry Marentette and what it would take?
Well, some property standards enforcement would be a start.
Offering those incentives. And I think it is safe to assume that you and I understand that any turn-around will take at least 20 years to fully mature.
I look at London as an example - within downtown you have a central library, a farmers’ market, an arena (on a small plot of land Mark); a convention centre, a train/bus station. And now, in the midst of a recession and capital crunch; a 22 story residential building went up (called The Renaissance between an empty parking lot and across from the arena). It is 70% occupied. I was just there on Saturday.
At the other end, you have other high rise residential anchors.
It took since the mid 1980’s to get there. And there is much more work to be done. I noticed several of Mr. Farhi’s downtown buildings are still empty.
We have a beautiful waterfront and yet the Portofino is not full which tells me the problem is much greater than simply a CIP.
It’s 2 a.m., I know I’m rambling - but this issue is greater than amenities and/or esthetics. It’s structural for lack of a better word.
However, it still is that Farhi bought land on an existing commercial corridor with Lauzon. To take away his right to develop would basically be Windsor committing a “bait and switch” on his land.
Mark - I didn’t say that. I raised the issue of the challenges this will present to core intensification. Right now, with educational facilities locating downtown, students will be attracted to downtown living - at least 20% of the student population (roughly) that will attend classes full-time downtown. With 1,000 students that means roughly 200 may seek to live in the core.
1,000 students means maybe 10-20 faculty in addition to administrative support - existing faculty who I also presume already own homes throughout the city.
That’ll help a bit with the lunch-time crowd, but do little otherwise. And its a start. Don’t get me wrong. But I am presuming the students already frequent the core and existing infrastructure (grocery; etc) will meet their needs.
But for any significant turnaround downtown I would think we need to attract at least 2,500 - 5,000 (with incomes greater than 50K) to attract the desired retail and amenities. Just a rough guess based on gut feeling and not fact, I acknowledge.
But the challenge - as we continue to approve additional residential capacities outside of the core; why travel all the way downtown, when there are many restaurants, shopping etc., available in the east-end already?