Chris Schnurr
Carol Kosowan LL.B., B.A. (Law), B.A. (Policy)
One could argue that Mayor Francis has provided some compelling arguments regarding Greenlink. However, any credibility he may have had on the issue, is going up in smoke by continually calling the Eglington Light Rail project in Toronto a “massive tunnelling project.” Now it has become funnelling money from Windsor to build it.
The Mayor’s campaign of misleading information was extended to Leamington today on Mix 96.7.
Windsor Mayor Eddie Francis is livid!
He says a letter from the DRIC team confirms his worst fears about the province, that it’s not concerned about the health and well being of Windsor residents.
The letter says… the 144-million dollar difference between Green Link and the Windsor Essex Parkway could be used elsewhere, like a massive tunnel project in Toronto.
Francis says, he’ll be sure to complain to the Ministry of the Environment, which is currently evaluating the Parkway’s environmental assessment.
Just as he did at city council on Monday, the Mayor is continuing to intentionally mislead residents as this transcript indicates:
Reporter: Windsor Mayor Eddie Francis is ticked. He says a letter from the DRIC team confirms his worst fears about the province, that it’s not concerned about the health and well-being of Windsor residents.
The letter says the $144 million difference between GreenLink and the Windsor Essex Parkway could be used elsewhere, like a massive tunnel project in Toronto.
Mayor: Toronto gets 13 kilometres of covered space and by virtue of doing the math per kilometre that is now the most expensive road construction project in the history of the province. Yet they seem to have an appetite to do these type of projects to protect residents elsewhere, but they continue to avoid doing the right thing here, and I just point that out.
Reporter: Francis says he’ll be sure to complain to the Ministry of the Environment which is currently evaluating the Parkway’s environmental assessment.
Note how the light rail project has now turned into the “most expensive road construction” project in Ontario’s history. And the covered space is a road not 300 acres of naturalized brush as proposed in Greenlink.
Cost estimates done by their consultants conclude the modified GreenLink proposal would cost $144 million more than the Windsor-Essex Parkway. They claim that this is within the margin of error; however, that is an inappropriate application of the differences in costs. The costs must be considered as comparisons between two concepts, and as such, one concept, the modified GreenLink proposal, is more expensive than the Windsor-Essex Parkway. This makes sense, as the GreenLink proposal has 1km more of tunneled section; this has a cost.
Based on discussions with City representatives in the summer of 2008, the DRIC study team believes the actual cost differential would be more than $144 million as reported by the City.
As a point of reference, the additional expenditure of $144 million reported by the City could be used to construct almost half of the 6-lane freeway between Windsor and Tilbury. It could, of course, be used for other programs as well.
In any event, it is misleading for the City to assert in bold letters in the summary part of its submission that “The City then responded to those DRIC comments by developing a “Modified concept, which also provides substantial tunneled sections in order to protect GreenLink” residential communities, which meets all of the W-E Parkway technical specifications, and was.” demonstrated to cost no more than the Parkway.”
Frankly, I’m growing sick and tired of these games played by Mayor Francis.
The Province is pointing out, that despite the Mayor’s attempt to minimize the added costs of Greenlink, these same added costs are the equivalent of a 35 KM section of highway – which is nothing to sneeze at.
He is the first to accuse voters, taxpayers and residents in this city of spreading misinformation – but feels it is just a.o.k. to do this himself – more of the “my way or the highway” attitude that has served him so well.
Enough is enough.
Residents can be forgiven if their statements are not entirely accurate – particularly with an uber-secretive Mayor leading our fair city.
But there is no excuse for Mayor Francis – or any other elected representative – to intentionally spread misinformation.
In doing so, he has become everything he accuses the DRIC team of being.
However, having said that comrades, we must press forward because “in Eddie we trust.”
Because I am confident in the Mayor’s ability to secure a fully tunnelled 6-lane subway – er, highway.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Hey – when Eddie extrapolates the use of $144 million for tunneling projects in Toronto, we all know he’s right! So what if the MTO didn’t say that specifically, and tried to throw us off the scent by pointing out the highway to Tilbury … who the f**k needs to go to Tilbury anyway?
But what Eddie’s doing is just saying what we all know to be true – the province only spends money on Toronto, because that’s where the votes are, and Ontario stops at London! We always get the short end of the stick down here! Just look at the laundry list of issues nobody wants to help us with – GreenLink! Canal! $100 Development fund! Tunnel purchase! Bailout of the Big Three! and on and on. We might as well seperate from Ontario seeing as how we are sending all that tax money to Toronto and Ottawa, and getting nothing back in return.
In Eddie we trust.
Build a tunnel but not the road to get to it.
wow.
Another dissatisfied customer.
I’m sure when they raise taxes to pay for these dreams, there won’t be so many on the bandwagon singing.
Okay, I’ll jump in. Please go easy on me ;)
What do we do to fix the economy? Where is the economic driver? If we pave the roads and build the dric highway we only make the uhaul ride out of town a little smoother. Remember 12+% unemployment and rising.
All the citizens of Windsor ask for is the truth. Bafalgarb isn’t cutting it in these hard times.
I will surely be dead before there’s a canal downtown.
As for the other projects on the table, let’s get on with’em.
Time stands still for no one.
I think, CCW is our battle of the Marne.
I would argue, that the area offers the virtuous trinity: the university, transportation, and community & downtown.
It is where we must come together, make a stand, and launch the counter-offensive against an economic enemy that looks to swiftly erase Windsor from the map.
From:
Battles: The First Battle of the Marne, 1914
http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/marne1.htm
The First Battle of the Marne was conducted between 6-12 September 1914, with the outcome bringing to an end the war of movement that had dominated the First World War since the beginning of August. Instead, with the German advance brought to a halt, stalemate and trench warfare ensued.
Having invaded Belgium and north-eastern France, the German army had reached within 30 miles of Paris. Their progress had been rapid, having successfully beaten back Belgian, French and British forces in advancing deep into north-eastern France. Their advance was in pursuance of the aims of the Schlieffen Plan, whose primary focus was the swift defeat of France in the west before turning attention the Russian forces in the east.
As the German armies neared Paris, the French capital prepared itself for a siege. The defending French forces (Fifth and Sixth Armies) – and the British – were at the point of exhaustion, having retreated continuously for 10-12 days under repeated German attack until, directed by Joseph Joffre, the French Commander-in-Chief, they reached the south of the River Marne.
With victory seemingly near, Alexander von Kluck’s German First Army was instructed to encircle Paris from the east. The French government, similarly expecting the fall of the capital, left Paris for Bordeaux.
Joseph Joffre, imperturbable in the face of crisis, resolved on 4 September to launch a counter-offensive strike, under the recommendation of the military governor of Paris, Gallieni, and aided by the British under Sir John French (the latter only after prompting by the British war minister, Lord Kitchener).
Joffre authorised General Maunoury’s Sixth Army – comprising 150,000 men – to attack the right flank of the German First Army in an action beginning on the morning of 6 September. In turning to meet the French attack a 30 mile wide gap appeared in the German lines between the First and Second Army, the latter commanded by the cautious General Karl von Bulow.
The Allies were prompt in exploiting the break in the German lines, despatching troops from the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) to join the French Fifth Army in pouring through the gap between the two German armies, the right wing of Fifth Army simultaneously attacking the German Second Army.
Nevertheless, the German forces were close to achieving a breakthrough against Maunoury’s beleaguered forces between 6-8 September, and were only saved on 7 September by the aid of 6,000 French reserve infantry troops ferried from Paris in streams of taxi cabs, 600 in all.
The following night, on 8 September, the aggressive French commander General Franchet d’Esperey’s Fifth Army launched a surprise attack against the German Second Army, serving to further widen the gap between the German First and Second Armies. D’Espery was a recent appointment, Joffre having given him command of Fifth Army in place of the dismissed General Lanrezac, who was deemed too cautious and wanting in ‘offensive spirit’.
On 9 September the German armies began a retreat ordered by the German Chief of Staff Helmuth von Moltke. Moltke feared an Allied breakthrough, plagued by poor communication from his lines at the Marne.
The retreating armies were pursued by the French and British, although the pace of the Allied advance was slow – a mere 12 miles in one day. The German armies ceased their withdrawal after 40 miles at a point north of the River Aisne, where the First and Second Armies dug in, preparing trenches that were to last for several years.
In a strategic triumph at the First Battle of the Marne, which ended on 10 September, the French forces – assisted by the British – had succeeded in throwing back the German offensive, recapturing lost ground in the process. More importantly, the battle ended any hopes the Germans had of effectively bringing the war on the Western Front to an early close.
Oops previous comments meant for – Is canal project in jeopardy?
Fixing the economy – yes requires much more than an access road. However, the solutions to “fixing it” are not something that will occur overnight.
Based upon what I’ve read thus far, the province is on the right path insofaras retooling our manufacturing sector to meet the global needs that green technologies usher in.
To do so requires significant co-operation between all levels of government – and frankly, I do not care if Liberals, Conservatives or NDP present something realistic and feasible.
The access road has never been touted as “the” saviour – only a stop-gap in our transition.
From a provincial level we need to desperately overhaul our post-secondary education system. We also need to develop a plan to address a growing segment of the population who have been displaced from traditional modes of manufacturing.
Federally, significant investments into R&D are required.
Municipally, focus upon what municipalities are charged with. Maintaining the physical infrastructure its citizens depend upon and ensuring we have serviced land to meet future needs.
This “transition” will not be easy, not at all. It will take time.
But sitting here biting the hand that feeds us will accomplish nothing.
I agree Chris, on everything you say above. But I will add, we can’t reject something simply because it helps the mayor. The canal plans, when they are released, must be given a fair evaluation based on merit not on the fact it comes from or may help the mayor.
Municipally, we should also focus upon the pattern of development. Not just maintaining but planning the physical infrastructure to meet future needs.
Continuing the status quo, will lead to Detroit type fragmentation. Vast wastelands of abadended but fully serviced homes. Our tax dollars buried for 50 years in rakoon habitat.
I’d rather my tax dollars be put in an area that will survive. Closer to the surface where I can enjoy it too.
Not to mention its an economic driver.
And helps to reverse the failed pattern of development.
And helps to attract new residents and businesses to the area to replace the ones leaving.
And helps attract and retain university and colloge students to and in the area.
And offers great opportunities to leverage our wonderful untapped transportation assets.
“But I will add, we can’t reject something simply because it helps the mayor. The canal plans, when they are released, must be given a fair evaluation based on merit not on the fact it comes from or may help the mayor.”
The “mayor” is the last thing on my mind when it comes to the “canal.”
Merit? Sure if the private sector funds it 95% then I’m on board.
Fact: We have a $700-million infrastructure deficit.
Fact: We have near nil serviced lands
Fact: We have waterfront condominiums that are not being sold
Fact: We have an urban village plan for which an RFP has never been issued.
Fact: We can offer development incentives which have not been offered.
Fact: We have a 12.6 % unemployment rate.
Fact: Take a look at the budget documents and have a look at the Parks and Recreation recommendations – we can’t even maintain what we have.
I thoroughly disagree with infrastructure funds being utilitized to add to our infrastructure costs.
As in other cities, if a developer wants a “canal” to make their project feasible – then make the developer pay for it.
What happened? Afer the land was transferred to a certain downtown developer, he claimed he could fill it in a year – for a waterfront piece of property.
The only “pattern” of develpment is the inability or refusal of our municipal government to readily use the tools already available to them to encourage development.
I can see how much easier it is to funnel desperately needed infrastructure dollars creating a self-contained 20 foot deep wading pool.
As well, a 300 meter long self-contained pool of water will not attract nor retain university students. Programs, levels of service and cost of living are drivers in decision making of university students.
I’m curious – where is the study or studies that support your hypothesis:
* And helps to attract new residents and businesses to the area to replace the ones leaving.
* And offers great opportunities to leverage our wonderful untapped transportation assets.
We have beautiful condominiums on the riverfront next to a private park that remain unfilled. Where are all these “new” residents?
I have to disagree – without stable employment with relatively modest pay; residents will not flock to live next to a wading pool.
The canal is another Greenlink in my opinion – a wonderful concept that is being used as a political tool – at taxpayer expense.
Fact: Red bull added 40 million in spin-off revenues to the region
Fact: NCAA added a similar amount.
Fact: The canal would mean a bigger piece of this tourism pie. It would also mean we could build on the current successes and grow the pie.
Fact: We have too much serviceable land – not nil. CCW is an example. Across my house are two more examples – empty lots I must look at everyday.
Fact: urban intensification reduces per capita infrastructure costs not increases them. Low-density sprawl, like you want, increases them. If we continue the status quo, and we get the 50,000 people increase in population over the next 25 years as suggested that would translate into an $1,800 dollar per household infrastructure tax increase (wow, talk about unsustainable infrastructure deficits).
The college and university are key parts of the CCW area. Don’t tell me that a more desirable area that is better connected to the community and downtown, more desirable and with more services won’t help them attract more students. Don’t tell me that a more desirable community and downtown won’t help retain them in the area after school. Don’t tell me that more outsiders and businesses won’t be attracted to such an area. Don’t tell me you want to waste taxpayer’s money on a study to tell us the obvious.
The transit station, future via station, the bridge, the tunnel, and the Detroit airport – all these wonderful transportation assets are as close to this location as anywhere else in the city. Urban intensification around key transportation infrastructure is the first rule in city building. The canal project could be the catalyst to start this process to rebuild Windsor around this key area.
Thanks – you’ve unknowingly demonstrated my point exactly.
Please advise, very simply then, what we need to do to restore the CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE for which we are in a deficit of $700-million?
I guess the EDC has been incorrect all these years with their repeated statement that we have no serviced lands for employment. I best write to the 2 past ones I’ve conversed with and tell them they are wrong.
Actually, don’t tell me they’re wrong – I’ll send you their phone numbers if you’d like so you can tell them yourself. And call the Mayor’s office too – he’s said the same thing.
And I beg you, please pinpoint where exactly I’ve supported urban sprawl – quickly, because I have about a 1/2 dozen articles I’ve written expressing the exact opposite.
That’s all.
From a reader:
This is exactly the same rationale that gave us the Canderel building and the new Gallery building…those investments were supposed to be the tourist attractions, premier business addresses, focal points etc. that would revitalize our downtown. Only PEOPLE will revitalize our downtown, and given the expense and scope of a proposed canal, that would mean a lot of the people who belong to the “local wine and cheese party set… that have run Windsor into the ground over the past thirty years”… would have to buy in to those units…It is hard to imagine, considering the remarks people make about them, why they would feel they owe this city anything at all. More to the point, what would induce them to leave their homes in South Windsor, Walkerville or St. Clair Beach to move to a mosquito infested swamp downtown?
How many rich retirees from Toronto are we expecting?
And how well is unsustainable sprawl working? Unsustainable sprawl development is a key part of the world financial collapse. Sure, let’s ignore the evidence and follow Stockton California. Let’s keep servicing more land.
Like you said above the fix is not easy or quick. This empty land at CCW should not have been expropriated and leveled. The Grace hospital should not have closed. The sprawl development of the past should not have occurred. But that is the past and irrelevant now. The best solution now is what matters.
Let’s take a walk around Windsor. Let’s get the EDC and the mayor to come along. Let’s look around. Look at all the for lease signs. Look at the for rent signs. Look at the for sale signs. Tell me then that we need to service more greenfield land.
Serviceable land != “rah-rah urban sprawl”
Serviceable land?!? phhht. We got plenty. If a business like Toyota or whomever wants to come into town, how about areas like the one bordered by Sandwich/Chippiwa/Mill/Bloomfield? Ready to just come in and knock down a few derelict houses and va-voom! Urban redevelopment come to your doorstep.
Or if that area doesn’t work for you, how about Remington Park, or something off of the north end of Drouillard? Lots of areas in Windsor are going to rot, but have services and any business could come in, knock a few blocks down and put up whatever they want.
Eddie’s urban intensification plan is working brilliantly. Just look at the new arena out on the east end, at the nexus of a myriad of transit routes, no parking thus discouraging motorists, and with umpteen developments slated to pop up around. A little downtown about to form amidst a suburban wasteland.
In Eddie we trust.
You know what blackhelicopters – you’re right!
We can level all the for rent/sale single family homes and move Zalevs there. Better yet, we could locate one of those biofuel plants that is looking at opening at the Grace Hospital site – OR – even at the CCW.
Cargo hub and logistics centre? Put it downtown next to the Walkerville Brewery all the way down Drouillard and turn Walker Road into the connection to the 401 to make it happen.
All the displaced residents or those who don’t want to live next to a biofuel plant, can move into the $200,000 plus condo’s in front of the glorious canal.
Who needs serviced employment lands anyway? Put all future factories/manufacturing/high tech firms – and all the shipping they require – right in vacant lots within residential areas.
Then again, who needs serviced employment lands? London is doing just fine. People can commute back and forth to London, Ontario or to Sarnia for work. The joint high-tech park between Sarnia and London can employ Windsorites.
We’ll just open up more call centres and provide affordable housing for all.
How short sighted of me.
Thank you for getting me back on track.
In Eddie we trust.
Pfft – forget the Official Plan too. Who needs it?
The level of employment which is expected to locate on business park/industrial employment lands in Windsor is around 9,445, which is roughly 45% of the new employment projected for Windsor between 2007 and 2026. It is estimated that roughly between 400 to 500 net hectares of employment lands are needed to support the projected employment on such lands within the planning period in Windsor. The total gross land area needed is estimated at roughly 500 to 625 hectares.
Taking into account the supply of vacant employment lands in Windsor,
including the new supply of business parks and future employment lands in the Sandwich South Area of Windsor designated in OPA No. 60, it is concluded that a more than adequate supply of employment lands is available to accommodate projected employment growth for the 20 year planning period.
The economic restructuring in Windsor will bring about a change in the type of employment lands needed, with less land needed for heavy manufacturing uses than estimated in past studies and more mixed use business parks and employment lands for light industrial uses, offices, business services, logistics facilities, institutional uses such as technical schools, and ancillary uses.
Found an apt article to for this discussion:
Protecting employment lands
Most cities with thriving economies and growing populations struggle to balance land use requirements. Cities need land for parks and public spaces, territory for housing, space for retail use, real estate for office buildings, and vast tracts for manufacturing and warehousing. Urban areas also need to set aside land for infrastructure — everything from roads to rapid transit to schools and airports.
In a thriving city, proponents of any of these uses typically lobby for more real estate.
Preserving employment lands has become a critical issue for many cities, especially those with finite land options. Core cities within a larger sprawling area — such as Toronto — can face similar problems to larger metro areas with geographic constraints such as Vancouver or San Diego.
The Toronto Star today ran a good editorial on the subject of threatened employment lands. Back-to-downtown strategies have succeeded, creating a growing market for residential condominums. Suddenly downtown and inner city industrial and commercial land becomes more valuable for condominium redevelopment.
This has already happened in Vancouver resulting in a city-council moratorium on residential development in the downtown area until a full land use plan can be re-drawn.
Another threat not mentioned in the Toronto Star article is that residents of cities and neighbourhoods are now often joining together to fight some of these necessary urban uses — to fight employment use of lands.
For example, in the Vancouver suburb of Delta, which has one of the larger container ports on the West Coast, many residents are fighting anciliary uses like warehouse-distribution and transloading containers (unloading and repacking shipping containers).
Elsewhere residents moving into a busy restaurant and pub district have been known to ask for restrictions on restaurant hours to limit noise (such that the city now has a zoning designation called “residential in a noisy area” that requires buyers of new homes to acknowledge this fact).
Successful cities in the 21st century will need every type of land use — and city planners, politicians and residents will need to find balance and compromise. Because people vote and shipping containers, warehouse space, and office towers do not, politicians often listen to the short-sighted concerns of residents over the economic needs of a city.
The cities to watch in the 21st century will be those with educated electorates and skilled planners and politicans who can successfully find ways to balance the needs of residents to great public amenities and neighbourhoods, while preserving employment lands. It won’t be easy.
Thanks for the info Chris.
I agree that planning for mixed-use employment lands is critically important. But suggesting that a lack of serviceable employment land is a pressing problem today in Windsor is not an honest argument. Sure let’s plan for it. But I don’t see Toyota or any one else for that matter knocking at our door.
And yes we have plenty of brownfield and empty industrial land that can be re-used. Look at what Michigan is doing with Motown Motion Picture Studios at an old GM truck plant in Pontiac.
Windsor is not Toronto. Toronto has a dense core, where every foot of land is used-up. We do not.
http://www.realtor.ca/propertyDetails.aspx?propertyId=8150319
We must first stand before we run. We need to intensify the core. Reclaim brownfield and old industrial sites before servicing new sites.
Economics is balancing unlimited human wants against a limited amount of resources. Simply stated, economics is using the limited resources you have at their best. Servicing new sites while your city core is riddled with vacant or underused sites is assured economic ruin – plain and simple. It might take decades to fail but will eventually fail.
Chris, I know reforming the inappropriate policies is the long-term solution. And it is coming. But now is not the time for this heavy stick (and oh my! what a whack it will be). Politicians all around the world have decided that, at this time, it is political suicide. Now is the time for temporary carrots to accomplish the needed shift.
Edwin –
When a developer looks to invest in an area they first need to know how much land is available now. London has been attracting new industry because – and I do hate this expression – in part they have shovel ready lands.
The brownfields you speak of – where are they? Close to residential areas – appropriate some time ago – but not now. Further, these brownfields require clean up.
So if London, for example has shovel ready, and Windsor does not – where is this industry going to go?
I agree completely, intensification of residential areas is not only ideal, but necessary.
However, think for a moment where new residential areas are being planned.
East Pelton (around new jail site) and 60 acres of the Lear site.
Communities across Ontario are intensifying their cores – without canals. Sarnia, for example has seen new highrise apartments being built in their core facing the waterfront on Front Street, with more planned.
London is successfully intensifying their core (without waterfront).
Blackie is right though (unfortunately) why invest in watermains, sewers and road rehabilitation; or reinvest in community services; after school programming etc. A canal will get politicians re-elected.
I point to a condominium development near the Chelsea Hotel in downtown Toronto – the developer paid for the pond and fountain on the condominium grounds – the same can happen here.
$50-million (plus) is a foolish unnecessary expenditure to accomplish the goal of urban intensification when there are so many other pressing needs in Windsor.
Deal with the issues that drove people out of the core to begin with. If the city wants to waive development charges or offer other incentives (such as the 29 some odd for the CCW lands) I’m for that completely.
But to call a “canal” a vital piece of “infrastructure” is downright dishonest and a complete waste of money following in line with the other silver bullets touted in the past towards downtown revitalization.
We have one of the best waterfronts in Ontario and yet new condominium projects sit unfilled.
Has anyone bothered to honestly ask “why” residents are leaving the core? Honestly, how successful have the “silver bullets” undertaken to date been? Do we have a measure of success?
Unfortunately we do – less 10,000 people since the last census.
Why? What changed? The southward and eastward march of the city is partially to blame. What else?
Perceptions of an unsafe core. Noisy nightlife. And, I hate to say it, the condition of many of the older homes – a hefty investment for any property owner.
And finally – jobs.
And let’s play this out. IF the intent of the “canal” is to attract seniors to live in the core – what will they be faced with?
Noisy bars; a perception of a lack of safety and nestled between hotels and a bus terminal. The bus terminal could be a bonus for seniors obviously.
I can think of dozens of alternative uses for this $50-million – if it materializes – transit, fast-tracking streetscaping, improving residential streets, lowering residential property taxes, investing in the community centres, replacing dead trees, to name but a few.
I’m not convinced a canal is the proper use of funds to accomplish the desired goal when an improved economy and restricting residential development to infill would probably accomplish the same goal.
Fact the Red Bull Races did not bring in $40 million into the economy, it was a number that Eddie spun out there then later retracted.
Disuse atrophy of muscles and bones, with loss of mass and strength, can occur after prolonged immobility, such as extended bedrest, or having a body part in a cast. This type of atrophy can usually be reversed with exercise unless severe.
I think, the biggest threat Windsor faces is death from severe atrophy of its core. It is my opinion that servicing more land, unless absolutely necessary and pressing, is the root cause of this atrophy. And it is certainly not the answer now. We need to face the pain and rehabilitate our atrophic city.
I’m not at all suggesting that the canal plan is the answer (I haven’t seen the report yet). Simply, that this site is where we must start to reverse the atrophy. That we must engage in the process. That we must stop taking the easy way out.
The 50 million dollar is the cost for years of disuse atrophy (our much hated but needed rehabilitation program). If we don’t act now the cost will only grow or worst the atrophy could become severe and irreversible. This is why in cities like London it costs nothing or very little – they don’t have the same level of atrophy we do.
Amen – issue the RFP for the urban village; offer the incentives the city is permitted to and use the funds to address the obstacles to residential intensification in the core.
Not only residential intensification but mixed-use intensification. We need to keep an open mind and evaluate things on what is most appropriate now and going forward. Let’s hope city hall will do the same.
In city hall we must hope, for now.
Happy Easter, Chris.
Ah, welcome to the Magical Kingdom.
A trauma center might be a good addition to the downtown atmosphere.
A friend of mine had an apartment with a balcony that overlooked downtown Ouellette. He used to set his alarm clock for 2:30 am on Friday and Sat nights in case he fell asleep, so as not to miss the weekly drunken bumfights when the bars let out. We already have a police station downtown, I don’t know what more the cops can do aside from diving in between the brawls like a UFC ref.
So I say a trauma center and maybe a fracture clinic.
Sure is a big mystery why no adults want to go downtown, eh? The Sherlocks on city council will never puzzle this one out.
Alas, if only we had a moat to throw the bodies in….?
Engaged! That’s what I’m talking about, sarcasm and all.
Is police really the problem? I see plenty of police in the area most nights.
Jrlo, I think, the disuse of the core allows the worst of these teen nightclubs, massage parlors, and strip clubs to thrive.
At the same time, forcing them out now will only create a bigger hole and attract even worst.
The answer is to build on the good, to fill-in the holes, to slowly shift the type of tourism and entertainment we offer.
This is what Ottawa has done successfully with its Byward market area.
Born on beer, growing up on champagne
http://www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen/features/bywardmarket/story.html?id=77034722-87f5-4332-88a3-67bbac37a5ce
Having lived in Ottawa from 1992 until 1998 I can tell you, the success of the market stems from 1. Merchants who give a damn about the area; 2. Realistic solutions for the core area and 3. It is a city of nearly 1,000,000 with a built in “tourist” attraction – the Capital of Canada.
Located all within 15 minutes walking distance is Parliament Hill, National Art Gallery of Canada, National Arts Centre, Le Centre Rideau, buses from the burbs every 5 minutes, museums, the US Embassy, as well as high end Hotels AND the market.
For those enjoying in the not so legal extra curricular activities – those can be found both on Sussex Drive as well as on Dalbousie.
Also located in the Market are government agencies and offices – including Enquiries Canada.
The “success” of the market has been building upon the inherent benefit of being the nation’s capital – along with a stable and good paying public service of literally in the thousands who live in the Glebe, Rockcliffe Park as well as Lowertown.
I should also add, as I understand, Ottawa’s boundaries, for lack of a better word, are restricted to within the Greenbelt zone. I’m not sure if this was provincially mandated or not or what the policies are as they relate to that.
The bigger issue facing efforts to intensify is the real competition the outlying areas of the region present.
If it far easier (and more affordable) for a developer to locate to Tecumseh, Lakeshore or Lasalle – they will.
The core of Windsor and Detroit is a city of more than 1,000,000 too. With the tunnel bus, the people mover, and a bridge and tunnel connecting the two.
In our location and the Detroit airport we have the greatest economic and tourism driver in Canada. Our potential as the continental gateway is simply untapped.
With plans for high-speed rail to Quebec City, Chicago and the Ohio loop this regions importance as the continental gateway will only grow. Conventions and other events will continue to grow.
Mixed-use intensification around our core is critical. Smart growth policy reform is necessary. And hopefully Tecumseh, Lakeshore and LaSalle realize that it is in their long-term best interest to become part of the solution.