City of Windsor; Zydeco and Churches

How nice that Anne Jarvis has decided to support the residents of Riverside Drive in their quest to improve their neighbourhood. Yet her column on Windsor’s penchant for demolishing its built heritage comes a day late and a dollar short. She was only too happy to join the chorus of the erudite who are so eager to see Riverside Drive turned into an expressway to accommodate vehicles. After the loss of Glengarda, it should come as no surprise that ripping the heart out of historic Riverside Drive is just another item on Windsor’s “To Do” list.

 Sixty-two houses and other structures listed on Windsor’s heritage properties inventory are on Riverside Drive. Of course, judging by the neglect of these properties by the City of Windsor, you would never know that. Some of these homes have been designated heritage properties for years –forgotten pieces of Windsor’s history that caring folks have been preserving for apparently no reason at all.

The cost of maintaining a heritage building is borne largely by its private owners, who believe that even though their homes are not grand edifices or objects of awe, they comprise many bits and pieces of Windsor’s history. Saving buildings is about history…it is not something that is done only for the sake of preserving palaces, churches and immortalizing architects.

Windsor’s grasp of its own history is incredibly abbreviated. Did you know, for example, that many of the French settlers of our area are actually of Acadian, not Quebecois origin? Masse, Moyse, Lajeunesse, Martin, Roy, Langlois…all names indicating Acadian patrimony. The design of my little French farmhouse, typical of Southwestern Nova Scotia, is an Acadian design rather than the common Norman design found in Quebec.

To the Anne Jarvises of this world, I suppose such colourful historical details are irrelevant. Clearly, the City of Windsor is of like mind…..since they are quite prepared to ignore the recommendation from our former heritage planner that Riverside Drive be made a heritage roadway. Better, I suppose, that we pay for heritage planners and consultants that flounce around and attend meetings that propose “important” cultural objectives while Windsor’s real cultural heritage is allowed to crumble into the dirt.

When you wonder why Windsor resides at the bottom of meaningful indices that rate our quality of life, effectiveness of city government or our perceived liveability, consider our greatest shortcoming…hubris. Rather than weaving our threads of diversity into an interesting and engaging tapestry, we tear down buildings because we are so sure we can build something better in its place…something that will soothe our wounded pride when yet another study finds us uninteresting, poorly run and without redemption.

 When hubris is not at work, there is always public outrage over using scarce public funds to restore or preserve buildings that have outlived their usefulness. But that is an old argument that the heritage community has dealt with before. The thrust of modern preservation efforts focuses on re-purposing or re-using heritage structures.

The wholesale dumping of Catholic churches on unsuspecting communities has been causing a crisis in communities throughout North America. Not every church can be saved…but a surprising number are being re-purposed as seniors’ residences and apartments. For a city that seeks to attract a retirement community, preserving some of these churches would provide unique residential stock with a green label. Not only is it economically viable and environmentally beneficial to recycle buildings instead of sending them to the landfill, old churches are centrally located in neighbourhoods, where they were once the heart of the community and are convenient to amenities like stores, parks and recreational facilities.

 Windsor’s approach to heritage conservation has improved somewhat since the “bad old days”…but it is still patchy and ad hoc. It relies on a few city hall champions instead of a widely held community belief that our history is important. If we intend to market Windsor, perhaps we should be better acquainted with the product.

6 Responses

  1. Bravo! Bravo! Now if only the rest of the masses would educate themselves and realize that preservation of our history is what gives us an identity; a past to to anchor ourselves to (don’t unions use that a lot so why the silence in Windsor?) and the ability to plan for the future from that very past.

    It is so much better than the current 30 year stretch of ad hoc demolition of local building only to be replaced with plywood turds.

    Thanks Carol for bringing this up.

  2. Well, I guess there is no difference between saving a church and seeing ‘Riverside Drive turned into an expressway’; or is there?
    Newspaper articles and columns about ‘heritage’ always go to show what has not been done. How about an article that shows what has been? But of course, that’s not news, is it?

    Carol, Riverside Drive is not a heritage road; it is a way to get to one place from another, a major east-west artery for traffic in the area, and has been for years. (Maybe that makes it ‘historic’ ?)

  3. Cityajoke –

    I have edited your comment to send the thanks to the appropriate contributor.

    Carol Kowowan wrote today’s blog.

    I know the byline is small – but I can’t seem to adjust the size. :(

  4. Taxpayer999 must be a youngster…many of the homes on Riverside Drive are about 150 years old and predate the car by at least 50 years. One of those homes was used to house troops from the War of 1812…
    The comment that it has been an east-west traffic artery depends on how one defines traffic…the definition of traffic would have to include horse-drawn carriages, farm vehicles, foot traffic and believe it or not,rubber-wheeled bicycles, which also predate the car by more than 50 years.
    The “forgetting” of our historic past is a tragedy in a city that has so much of it and has gone from one colourful era to another…
    Deciding whether Riverside Drive is a heritage road is not actually up to taxpayer999 – it is up to the local heritage community and the province…and I believe the author said that the heritage planner had made that
    recommendation.

  5. As a ranting atheist I generally don’t care what happens to churches, but grand old buildings like Assumption on campus should be preserved for their beautiful architecture alone. We should also preserve the garbage dump in the center of our city so future generations can tour in amazement at what pigs we all were.
    It always amazes me that we have ‘homeless’ people living in vast cities surrounded by VACANT buildings. Fix them up for public housing. If the owners aren’t around, seize the property. No more foreign, out-of-town “investment/speculation”.
    Also some vacant buildings would make great lofts for artists, musicians, but they have to be real cheap. Forcing poor students downtown is no solution.

    jrlo
    GST, PBS, LMNOP

  6. Actually, Vinot, although I really didn’t realize it, I did not mention automobiles in my post, only ‘traffic.
    So my point that Riverside Drive is and has been a major east/west artery for the area is very true, and I thank you for agreeing with me.
    And, just for the record, I’m a very young 66, and have lived on the drive for 25 of the 34 years I have lived in Windsor.

Comments are closed.