Above: how a downtown windsor arena would have likely looked with 3 blank walls on neighborhood streets and absolutely no interactivity with pedestrians and the area. Rated 3rd worst venue in the nation
Just wanted to put this to bed for 2009 as it still seems to come up
A couple of things to preface. Nothing below means that I didn’t myself want an arena downtown. I wanted one as much as the next guy, but not the way that we would have gotten it.
Only that I accepted the reality of the situation. It amazes me how many people simply won’t face the facts or get angry with you when you confront them with those facts. My desire for a downtown Arena is sort of like a desire to win the 6/49 but refusing to buy tickets. Not owning a ticket shouldn’t stand in the way, should it?
Some imply that I accepting reality was giving up. Better to continue to fight even to this day, staring a WFCU centre but holding on to the dream.
So as we wind down the year, I thought I’d post this blog for a future link to anyone who brings up this issue again
Top 10 reasons the downtown arena debaters should give it up
1. Parking - We see the problems that exist now for the East end arena. Where would we have gotten the 6,000 parking spaces required for an arena. Had we built yet another Parking Garage, it would have been a financial disaster of epic proportions, with the Spitfires playing only 45 days per year and events covering maybe another 2 dozen, we would have had a parking garage empty over 250 days per year. Surface parking would have been a neighborhood killer and as some studies show, contributed to higher crime.
2. Convention center would have been smaller. It could have been reduced to 25,000 square feet. Although we’re not hearing much publicly, there are some large conventions that have been here and are coming. Look at the Enviro convention april 15 with Bill Clinton as one example.
3. Colliseum would have been 1,500 seats instead of 5,000. I like the colliseum, on event nights I see more business as well as all of my restaurant colleagues. The size has allowed for some amazing talent in Windsor
4. Beztak proposal was for a feasibility study only, drawings showed surface parking. Even though this was denied, I saw the wording in the letter personally and I saw the proposed site plan which showed surface parking.
5. Jebb Proposal - I think the people who worked on Jebb were fine Windsor Citizens but their proposal was never scrutinized. Jebb proposal offer contained not a dollar up front. $2 million dollar contribution was from future potential construction management of building it. Wayne Gretzsky was not an investor, only was willing to have restaurant with his name involved, wasn’t even planning to own the restaurant. I’m not saying they would have failed, I’m just saying that had a friend of Mayor Francis came up with this very same proposal the rest of the bloggers would have eaten them for breakfast.
6. Residents in City center west area didn’t want the arena. No one wants to live next to a behemouth of a structure with blank walls. With no street interactivity or main floor connection to the street, the building would have been a neighborhood killer. Think how ugly Joe Louis looks at street level from the waterfront or from the streets around it on the sides of it. What say do the neighbors get in this situation. One website described “
Joe Louis Arena has all the ambience of an unfinished basement.”
7. Not enough space - why did anyone believe that 5-10 acres would be enough. Isn’t the current arena on 25 acres and receiving complaints that not enough parking exists?
8. Single Pads don’t make money. There wan’t enough space for more than one pad and parking downtown. That means there was not economic efficiencies to be achieved and there would have been a significant operating deficit.
9. The WFCU replaced Riverside arena, had we built it downtown, the city would still have had a need for an east end arena site costing taxpayers an additional 10-15 million and as another single pad venue, probably lost money
10. Arena’s don’t necessarily save downtowns. (should this be #1 reason) Detroits arena’s have been successful but that is only because they’ve tied it in with commercial incentives to locate around them and a residential push. When I asked the president of the International Downtown Association what he thought about Windsor’s arena downtown location, he replied (to the best of my recollection) Arena’s only help their downtown in half of the cases that have been tried, they only help if they’re done right. Judging by Windsor’s history and their track record on these types of projets, A downtown Arena probably wouldn’t have helped and with Windsor’s ugly design standards, would have hurt. (Sure the detroit baseball and football stadiums are great, but Windsor would have likely got a Joe Louis/Cobo that created a wasteland around it)
Share and Enjoy:
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Post Feedback
1: Why would we need 6,000 parking spaces for an arena with a capacity of 7000 people? Hockey capacity is 6,500 people. There are over 6,000 publicly accessible parking spaces in the downtown. Throw in the casino and there over 10,000 parking spaces downtown.
Parking has never ever been an issue in downtown. I don’t recall any problems with parking for Windsor Arena. If it was an issue, you wouldn’t have two parking garage go into receivership. Besides, if the arena was built on the Western Super Anchor lands, it would have been across from the transit centre. I would imagine that more people would use transit to see a game. I thought we wanted to encourage alternative transportation?
2 and 3: The facilities at Caesar’s have always been independent of other entertainment/convention facilities. Do you honestly believe that Caesar’s would have reduced their facilities to avoid competing with a downtown arena?
4 and 5: Proposals are just that. They are a negotiating starting point.
6. Blank walls? Who said they had to be blank walls? Come on Mark, you know there are plenty of examples of arenas, even stadiums, that fit in with the surrounding area - you even state that in point 10, which kind of negates this point). Joe Louis is an example of what not to do. How come you aren’t using the more recent examples such as Comerica Park, Ford Field or the John Labatt Centre? Instead you use an example from 1979.
As to the residents, well, they have never been too happy about anything downtown. Correction. They are happy about the market. But that’s only because it has limited operating hours.
7. The “current arena” includes a community centre, a seniors centre, three community rinks and a ton of surface parking - a wee bit more than a traditional “arena”. The block bounded by Pitt, Church, University and Bruce is similar in area to the block used for the JLC in London. Next.
8. How did the arena become a ‘pad’ in the first place? It was never going to be used for anything other than Windsor Spitfire games during the hockey season. Maybe an international junior hockey tournament or concert every now and then, but the ice wasn’t going to be available to the public or amatuer hockey leagues.
9. No, the three community rinks replaces Riverside and Adstoll arenas. The main bowl replaced the Windsor Arena. What surprises me is that we went from a downtown replacement of Windsor Arena to a recreational complex on the east-side and there was hardly a peep from anybody. A community centre shouldn’t be located hundreds of metres from the street. You shouldn’t have to cross a sea of parking to access a community centre.
Most community rinks lose money, regardless of their location. Do you think all those hockey leagues renting the rinks are paying the full cost? Think again.
Further, when the Spitfires play at WFCU, the remainder of the facility is useless. Yes, there is parking set aside for the community centre, but it is located some distance from the community rinks (wouldn’t want to be a goalie lugging my equipment after a game).
10. I would never argue that anything will save the downtown (I’ll leave the discussion about “saving” being pointless in the first place to another day).
Vincent Clement on Monday, December 21, 2009 at 9:53 pm Reply
1: Maybe I got the number wrong, but whatever that number would be, it simply wasn’t accounted for downtown. If parking was never an issue, why is it now. Lauzon has public transit available?
The parking garages you mention might be in receivership but their packed on Saturday night, time that with a spits game and you have pandemoneum
2 and 3:” The facilities at Caesar’s have always been independent of other entertainment/convention facilities. ”
Says who? There were clear indications that there was a debate to their size and the location of the WFCU center affected that decision.
4 and 5: Proposals are just that. They are a negotiating starting point.
There was no downtown arena proposal to fight for.
6. Blank walls? Who said they had to be blank walls?
Because thats how we do things in Windsor. See art gallery, Police station, 400 building. We have a proven track record of bad design. Good design costs more and we had no funds to design it right. See WFCU Center, how would that have gone over in a neighborhood?
7. JLC has a parking garage, JLC didn’t have a colliseum to compete with, it served both purposes. Very different scenario
8. Don’t understand your point
9. …. community centre shouldn’t be located hundreds of metres from the street. You shouldn’t have to cross a sea of parking to access a community centre.
Agreed, it does a terrible the community a terrible service, but they wanted it
“Most community rinks lose money, regardless of their location. Do you think all those hockey leagues renting the rinks are paying the full cost? Think again.”
Its relative, how much money would be lost downtown vs Lauzon is significant
10. Not an incorrect statement but YOu didn’t refute my point.
1. Are you really comparing transit on Lauzon with transit downtown? Who says there would be pandemoneum Saturday nights? Besides, the in-receivership parking garages I mentioned are not the only downtown parking facilities.
2 and 3. Says me. Who provided the “clear indications” you speak of? I still don’t see how the location of the WFCU would affect what the Casino was planning. They are still competitors.
4 and 5. I guess you and I have a different definition of what constitutes a proposal.
6. Yet, you support the downtown canal (or at least I think you do. Hard to tell when your position is a moving target). Wouldn’t it be subject to the bad design?
7. And I said that both blocks are comparable in size. Not sure what having to not compete with the Colliseum has to do with parking, since the casino has plenty of it’s own parking.
10. So I’m not allowed to agree with you? I’ll never ever understand you.
Vince, I’m trying to answer while doing other things, I don’t mean to offend you but I also don’t accept some of your arguments. Your one of the few people I actually have learned from.
Vincent Clement on Monday, December 21, 2009 at 10:32 pm Reply
1. Are you really comparing transit on Lauzon with transit downtown? Who says there would be pandemoneum Saturday nights? Besides, the in-receivership parking garages I mentioned are not the only downtown parking facilities.
Again, I don’t get your point here,
2 and 3. Says me. Who provided the “clear indications” you speak of? I still don’t see how the location of the WFCU would affect what the Casino was planning. They are still competitors.
Says you, how about the province actually stating that their decision on size was affected by our arena decision. I don’t have the references but it was stated plainly and clearly in the paper. I also heard it right from the Casino representatives mouth. (since the casino is a WIFF sponsor, I feel pressured not to name names, but I reall am not lying.)
ON what basis would you think that it wouldn’t be a factor? Look at niagara falls convention center and arena. Who do you have to hear it from before you believe it. Dwight?
4 and 5. I guess you and I have a different definition of what constitutes a proposal.
Yeah, my definition includes an actual amount of money committed.
6. Yet, you support the downtown canal (or at least I think you do. Hard to tell when your position is a moving target). Wouldn’t it be subject to the bad design?
Fair statement, I originally supported the Canal hook line and sinker. After educating my self more I fullly support the feasibility study which I believe puts the Canal into context of an overarching downtown plan
The canal is an architectural feature, one feature in a plan that has a whole lot of features I like.
1.A Marina
2.a Ferry Dock to match the Downtown Detroit 7 million dollar cruise ship dock (that isn’t proposed, but I’m assuming it would be a no brainer)
3. A plan for residential
4. a market demand housing study
There’s more.
My issue is if I like those parts and don’t care whether the architectural feature is a canal, a fountain a statue. Whats the difference?
If the market demand housing study says the canal is what would draw people then I love it, If the study says its a fountain than I love that. If the study says its an aquarium then great.
The actual feature that residents want to make them want to live there is meaningless to me, it should be decided solely by those who would want to buy houses. NOT YOU, NOT ME
7. And I said that both blocks are comparable in size. Not sure what having to not compete with the Colliseum has to do with parking, since the casino has plenty of it’s own parking.
10. So I’m not allowed to agree with you? I’ll never ever understand you.
Mark, I think what Vincent was trying to get at in regards to transit is that there are many routes, from all over the city that travel to downtown. I think he has a valid point. How many routes travel to the WFCU? Are more people likely to travel to a central location via transit, rather than having to travel all the way to the east end (I have a lot more to say about transit in Windsor, but that can wait for another day). If people were given free transit travel with the purchase of an event/game ticket, I think a decent number of people would take transit (to downtown).
Arenas typically will be blank walls (and I actually like the look for the art gallery), but IF it contained other elements such as a community centre that could help with design.
The John Labatts Centre in London has only 60 parking spaces, as their mayor stated; “We want people walk through our downtown and used the restaurants and such.”
The Save-on-Foods Memorial Arena in Victoria has about 250 parking spaces - the rest is handled by parking that is already in the city. In fact, surrounding an arena with parking has been found to cause the arena to have a negligible impact on economic activity in surrounding area, as patrons are less likely to stay in the area. If they have to walk through downtown to get to their parking however, they are more likely to stay/spend downtown.
As I read all the comments posted above I believe there’s one angle that is being overlooked in all this discussion. I originally wanted the arena downtown but in retrospect I like the decision to have it on the east side. I believe an arena is a community driven resource not necessarily a tourist attraction. the community can support the arena anywhere and in fact what it does is share the wealth with many of the restaurants etc on the east side. many of the businesses got a huge lift in business when the arena opened. what then happens is development of the western super anchor can have a direct impact with tourists, residential etc. in the downtown core. we now get an arena that services the needs of the community and also a community center as well as something big (whatever that is remains to be seen) downtown that is more geared towards tourism and residential pull. could an aquarium survive anywhere but downtown? of course not but an arena can and will and will thrive. windsorites would have been cold to the idea of no onsite parking and would not have supported the downtown businesses in the process. they would have flocked to the gretzky restaurant and waited in line while great restaurants in the core sat empty. whatever fills that land will be the true test if a good decision was made. did we get 2 great things instead of one? we’ll see i guess but it sure can be that way.
Rino and Mark you make very valid points.
What would be a bigger boost to downtown? An arena or a different attraction that also brings residents with it?
Also if arena’s and/or venues such as that are so great for an area then why didn’t Windsor arena improve the area around it? No stores, restaurants sprouted up around it. In fact there were still vacancies even in the plaza that abutted it.
If downtown is to succeed it must have a residential input of monetary value. Without it no downtown can survive unless there is mass tourism. Let’s face it, Windsor will never have mass tourism.
All this talk about parking is good for those cities but in Windsor perception is king. Windsorites will not go anywhere where there is a perception of lack of parking unless forced to. The brouhaha for the WFUC U arena’s parking already illustrates this.
as a business owner downtown i would much rather see a unique development that ties in a residential development as well as a tourist attraction. arenas etc that go downtown are much better draws in large urban areas such as detroit or other major markets that pull people in from the huge population of the suburbs and have tons of land to commit to such projects. with limited land i believe a residential/tourist attraction will benefit windsor much more especially in the long term.
“…but in Windsor perception is king.” Dave, coffee almost came out my nose. There be truth in them words.
Vince, I think you need to write a full piece for us, e-mail me.
Mark, are you sure you don’t intend to run next year? Because you’ve been stirring the pot a lot lately and I know from past experiences that you do that when you’re trying to hone your arguments;-)
Ahh yes, the arena. Me, I’ve grown to like it. Once they finished the bridge traffic flow smoothed out. The new lights at Darefield mean that I won’t have to risk my life walking to the arena on game nights.
I didn’t want to like it really, I loved the barn.
Restaurants here in the east end have definitely benefited - game night specials, shuttle vans. I’ve seen visiting team buses at the East Side Mario’s and filling up at the gas stations. All the ice pads are available for the public to rent. St. Clair Architecture Alumni had a student/teacher/alumni game in the main bowl just a week ago.
What makes the facility work is that it combines so many venues in one location. It serves a large segment of the population despite its perceived isolation. Mark’s not wrong a downtown arena would not have helped now. It might have made a difference ages ago when the city first expropriated the land and a Windsor that had been booming may have made it work - we’ll never know. For now, and the foreseeable future the areas of the city away from downtown are where the action is and the area where the arena was built has some potential to become something interesting.
The arena?
All I can point to is the John Labatt Centre seated on about 6 acres with residential highrises being built across the street from it and no parking “lagoons.”
The arena could have worked; but it wasn’t built and as a result, 4 years later we’re talking about additional tens of millions of tax dollars for the area.
And Mark really sums up the overall attitude - build whatever, as long as it attracts residents.
No offence Mark, but it is that lack of a stand taken that has help to culminate the issue known as the CCW.
My only beef - the developer can pay for it. Property taxpayers certainly will residing in the area. The developer can pay the capital costs from which they will benefit significantly if all goes according to the “business case.”
I’ll add - to compare arena aesthetics to a design-build purchased from a project in Port Huron is a little off the mark. Our downtown BIA and residents could have demanded a design appropriate for the area.
Heck - the land has sat vacant for 3 years since the October 4, 2006 decision. And all I asked of council on that date was for 90 days to properly evaluate said decision.
An arena rfp could have been issued - just as with the rfp’s for an urban village along with the design standards setforth in the City Centre West lands.
The decision to move the arena from downtown is long over - but it was a costly decision based more upon political expediency than anything else.
But that all is moot now. It’s over and done. And we continue to pay.
No offence taken, Not fighting for an arena does not equate to a lack of a stand. Just a lack of a stand for that one specific thing.
How do you take a stand for “THE THING” that will draw residents when no one will do a market demand housing study to see what “THE THING” is?
but an arena devoid of integration with the surrounding area would have been a mistake. I believe thats what we would have gotten. In fact thats what we did get on the east end. An arena designed and built in Windsor will never contribute to a neighborhood, urban village or any desirable mixed use development
Thats why the Canal plan frustrates me. Everyone pronounces what will and will not draw residents when as far as I’m concerned everyone is talking out their collective A**es. Until a proper study is done, everyone is basing their opinion on anecdotal evidence. Maybe its a canal, maybe its an aquarium. Personally I think its a fully programmed and developed Riverfront Park that is far more useable.
I once heard someone describe their religion as a “Fanatical Agnostic”. The difference between a normal Agnostic and a Fanatical Agnostic was that in addition to fanatical agnostic not knowing what the answers were, they were Damn Sure no one else did either
And no I’m not running, just stressed out from work and stirring the pot. Besides, this issue seems to go on forever. I still think that Vince’s arguments are outrageous. From trying to argue that proposals being a starting point (0 money down is always a great starting point) to the Convention centre and colliseum decisions being made in a vacuum, I hope that people see this for what it is.
Its like the seen from Logan’s Run “THERE IS NO SANCTUARY, THERE IS NO SANCTUARY” Now substitute downtown arena panacea for sanctuary
BTW, not running, Chris S would probably replace the kid gloves he’s tapping me with ones made from real Kids (joke, ha ha)
Mark,
The inherent problem with the canal is that it will take many years and additional millions to get the area to attract tourists.
Something as simple as a scenic tram would have made more sense. At least it would generate cash right away rather than having to spend more in the “hopes” of attracting people.
A good business plan has a break even point and a profit point.
Does the canal show this as a good business case?
Don’t think so.
That’s the funny thing about arenas, even an iconic building, like Maple Leaf Gardens, has a lot of blank walls. It is not impossible to design an arena that was tucked in behind some retail and office space but any design beyond a big blank box would see its costs rise, and in business if the costs outweigh the projected revenues well, it won’t get built.
The best thing I’ve read on here is that you see the need to make our river front park land, better. That is something that should really be done. The new stage is a project that can be a real catalyst for cultural activities and growing an appreciation of the arts in this town.
As Chris S stated, the arena debate is done as it’s gone to the east side. James says that the arena has been good for that area so why wouldn’t have done the same for the downtown?
Chris S also made a point that may have been lost in this discussion. The downtown property “chunks” are too small. The blocks need to be bigger so that the private sector can build multiple large structures which, together, can bring people to the downtown.
Which leads to my last point. There can never be “The Thing”. As Mark defines it, Windsor never will pay to design something properly to “The Thing” will never be more that “Something” and that’s not good enough to be “The Thing”. There needs to be multiple initiatives that together attract people to the downtown.
Chris S. You are correct teh developers will pay for it. In fact it is exactly what city council and the mahyor expect. However enticements and improvements are needed to attract those developers.
Just by putting out feelers to local, out-of-town and international developers the responding answer by all of them was “what is going to attract residents and why would they live downtown now.”
No one bats an eye (for the most part) when we widen roads, build new roads and receive an investment from private developers afterward so why now?
No one can tell me here that sewers are the only priority because that is already being focused on via our water rate structure. In fact the city can handle only what they are about to do in 2010 when it comes to watermains and sewers. It can’t all be rebuilt in 1 year because they don’t have the man power or time. The city can’t shut off half of the water to the residents so it must be done at varoius times.
I digress. Large structures (vertically speaking) are not the answer to the CCW lands and the city thankfully recognizes this.
I don’t believe there is one thing either but add all of the variables that are being done downtown and it starts to come together.
LOS, the reason is that downtown is in need of residents with money. Sure there is an impact on the east side but there isn’t enough impact for downtown to make the necessary changes to be a vibrant downtown both in the day and evenings.
A residential component (as Chris S has stated with incentives, neighbourhood guidelines etc) is needed and there is no where else this cvan be acheived at such a large scale in conjunction with whatever else goes there.
Personally I think Ouellette ave should now be the entertainment district and the CCW lands becomes the retail/residential district it should be. Now how do we leverage those lands to bring developers, retail and residents?
Sorry to add yet agian. But for once and for all with regards to the canal. The city is only wants to build the infrastructure ie canal only! The developers will build the buildings. Hopefully people now understand and quit stating that the city is building the entire area. They don’t want to do it.
If the architectural water feature is such a home run idea - why do tax dollars have to build it?
Just asking.
Why don’t we be clear about the reason a canal is being touted
Contrary to Reason, our populace believes our riverfront is untouchable leaving it a passive park which Project for Public spaces would consider it a failure as a public space. (with the exception of poorly designed “beacons”)
In order to counteract the damage being done to our city by the unhealthy belief that our riverfront is untouchable. (With the exception of poorly designed “Beacons”). The Mayor and others believe we should create a new riverfront inland that can be developed and programmed. This inland active public space and waterfront would somehow connect our population to our passive and unprogrammed Riverfront park.
Many might say that we should simply change the public’s opinion on developing the waterfront but that is simply unrealistic.
Mark, why doesn’t a simple transient marina get more play? I would think that if a beacon is what they want, a transient marina at the river’s edge is the ticket..
I love the tone of this conversation, and I hope that in the New Year we can start working together more and looking forward instead of backwards as well.
In that spirit and to change the conversation, I love the new riverfront stage concept. It does a great job at addressing many problems in that area. And the integration with the surrounding area is really well done. Any thoughts on this concept?
I think the new riverfront stage is a great idea. The old one LOOKED temporary (ie, didn’t look good), but was there for longer than it should have been. The only concern I have is in regards to the location of the stage being moved to address noise concerns. The bass notes are often what travel most, and can be heard furthest from the venue. These sub-sonic frequencies are omnidirectional, and therefore moving the stage, or changing the direction of the speakers will have no benefit.
Hopefully Windsor will embrace the riverfront stage and use it frequently.
I like the concept.. reminds me a little of the bandshell in grant park-chicago, not the design but the idea. Although I wish there could be a little more greespace incorporated rather than the solid surfacing. Somebody at the city must really be a fan of concrete.
The paved surface is far more serviceable than an open grass field. Imagine folding chairs set-up for a show on wet grass, or what that grass field would look like after all the carnival equipment and vendors packed up each year when the Summer Festival wrapped up.
The pavement also serves as a cap over the former rail lands, to seal in all that “goodness”.
Sporto, I like the idea of incorporating more greenspace. Using “green driveway” plates could resolve some of the serviceability and inconvenience issues. In addition, it could be an opportunity to help local machining and engineering companies to enter into a new rapidly growing niche market.
Work together, look forward and turn problems into opportunities … that is my New Year’s resolution.
I can see the argument for servicable, but if its not user friendly have they they really acheived a ‘people space’ … all i know is that if Grant Park can do it with grass and a few bike paths why cant windsor..? on a hot summer day the last place i wanna be is on a tarmac on a folding chair.. but, i guess if main goal is to be serviceable rather than pedestrian/user-friendly..well then.. bring on the blacktop!
I agree edwin, there should be a compromise…
Sorry for all the typos in my previous comment. I was in a hurry.
Edwin, I’m with you. I do wish that we coould come together and present a cohesive, viable concensus for the downtown. Unfortunately, thiis thread alone shows the disparity of each group and their vision for CCW. Besides how many other plans for the downtown have been put forward and see nothing but the top of a shelf somewhere?
Until the differing groups unite on a single, workable concept the current mayor, council, and administration will continue to use the cleavages against doing anything until it is too late for us to enter the fray. Much like the arena deal.
The pavement also serves as a cap over the former rail lands, to seal in all that “goodness”.
There is a very good reason the old rail yard is paved over, you’ll notice as you move east from the plaza the old rail yard has been capped with top-soil and the grade has been raised. If you don’t want a paved plaza then you have two choices - remove the contaminated soil or bring in truckloads of clean fill and raise the grade.
Tax dollars for infrsatructure is neede because costs for developers will be too high to recoup. Plus they would have to purchase all roadways as some may clear. Besides, this is what our tax dollars should do at times (no not all of the time but with potential impacts such as this; change animage of an area, a city and those of the people would do wonders for the grumpies of this city).
As I stated, no one complained about widening Walker Rd or Lauzon rd or the amount of money spent on Huron Church rd upgrades every 3 years (and no we don’t see any impact other than cost from international trucks using that roadway).
I think as a group we need to have diverse ideas in order for good one’s to come to fruition. If we all agree on everything we will be missingother viewpoints. The difference beign that we must still come together so that we all get what we are seeking. So much in-fighting will get us no where and those opposed to us are glad when we do fight.
But as I stated with 10 wards the differences and the ability to get things doen is goingt o be that much harder as everyone fights for their little kingdom. Instead of 1 king and all of the jesters we will have 10 mini-kings. But that is for another day.
Someone above asked about the transient marina. It is a part of the canal study it is to be just east of the Caron Ave pumping station. Because their needs to be shoreline upgrades anyway (to the tune of approx. $8-10 million) the city realizes that for a bit more they can have this marina as well. Putting it intothe canal study is a good idea because it will again attract those boaters here. Other than that why would they come if there is little shopping downtown and only bars?
Dave, the 200+ slip Marina/CIP i was referring to is between Glengary and Marentette - its part of the whole plan of that neighbourhood ‘the waterfront village’( http://www.citywindsor.ca/001985.asp ). Is it correct to think that it is still on the books for follow through?
Are you suggesting another Marina is also planned for Caron? how many transient slips there? Boaters are not in need of too much to attract them… a simple slip in walking distance to dinner and a drink is all thats needed to start…
The Glengarry/Marentette marina is dead. Federal requirements made the project financially unfeasible.
Sporto, from what I recall the Glengarry/Marentette marina has been shelved indefinitely.
Sorry I don’t remember how many slips there will be. I do know that you still need to attract boaters to come to Windsor itself. What I meant above is what would bring boaters here? There still must be something downtown to attract them.
One of the main reasons the city wants to move the marina to the old Holiday Inn area is because it brings them closer to downtown and possibly the new canal district. With the Glengarry area it is too far removed from downtown and the boaters would have little impact. Much like the onion area in front of the casino now.
The other reason is cost which I posted above. Ie. sea wall needs replacing anyway so why not do it then.
I don’t think you need a lot of slips.
However the future lies in creating connections to downtown Detroit.
Think about it, why can’t the vast majority of Windsorites name 5 people they know or consider even as friends in downtown detroit?
Thats another blog. A marina with a ferry dock and even 10-20 transient slips for americans would help foster those connections
NYC High Line Designers Turn Their Eyes to Downtown Cleveland
BY CLIFF KUANGTue Dec 22, 2009 at 9:28 AM
How do you revitalize a downtown area that’s become a ghost town? With a stunning new park
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/gw
f you’ve ever been to Cleveland, you know the downtown area is a forbidding, pedestrian desert. The main public space, Public Square, is no better–it’s a wind-scarred, 10-acre expanse flanked by skyscrapers. But that could all change, thanks to a series of brilliant redesigns proposed by James Corner Field Operations, the firm best known as the landscape designers who did much of the heavy lifting for New York’s superb High Line Park. FO has sent Fast Company a look at the specific proposals (more on that below).
The economic rationale is that big, splashy public amenities are actually huge drivers of long-term real-estate values, attracting surrounding investment (just look at Central Park in New York, or, more recently, Millennium Park in Chicago). Though the plan has yet to secure any funding, the idea is that investing up front in the design might spark public interest and widespread support. (Compare that approach to the horrible job Calgary did marketing a new bridge by Santiago Calatrava.)
Created at the request of two Cleveland non-profits, Parkworks and the Downtown Cleveland Alliance, Field Operations’ schemes are all about joining together a patchwork of paved islands, and turning them into a cohesive park, amenable to walking and relaxing. And that’s a challenge: How do you draw a hodgepodge of spaces together? FO hit on three basic strategies:
The defining moment for me on the canal happened when Councillor Gignac asked the consultants how many business owners they had talked to about whether having a canal would encourage them to move or open businesses downtown. They said “none” because it “wasn’t in the feasibility study mandate”. So we know precisely nothing about whether a canal will attract anyone downtown. All we have is hype by Dave Cooke and wild speculation by people desperate for some kind of solution.
I’m not opposed to public dollars being invested in a solution and I’m not opposed to doing something outside the box, but we have to have some basis in reality for believing it will work and we don’t have that about the canal.
Also, don’t forget it will only be 18 inches deep.