I thought that a discussion in a previous thread warranted a new post.
The DWBIA made business recruitment the #1 priority for 2008. This was after creating a plan to move forward. Previously, we all wanted this but had no plan of action. This still follows the International Downtown Association's advised plan for Windsor's downtown. Its based on a heirarchy of needs. I don't think much of the public, (or even our membership) is aware that we are following a plan laid out by recognized international experts
First Clean and Safe - accomplished with streetcleaners, gum and graffitti removal security cameras and the establishment of a Hospitality Resource Panel to work with the bar owners
Second - Infrastructure - "take 3-4 blocks of your downtown and make them the nicest in the world". Streetscape will soon be complete on Ouellette from Riverside to Park. Decoration of that streetscape includes: led "wave" lights in the streetlights, led lights on all large trees, flower planters ordered for spring, directional signage manual waiting approval at planning (held up to ensure consistency with convention center) New directional signage will eliminate sign clutter and create sense of place.
Third - Business and Residential Recruitment. - with work in progress on items that follow, resources can now be allocated to this. Districting and facade incentives were the first two items
Fourth - Marketing - branding begun on the Downtown Mosaic, most marketing efforts tied in with business recruitment efforts
Fifth - Events - decision to minimize expenses on this until further ahead on the first four. Will facilitate events by businesses through contribution to street closure.
The DWBIA has a long term plan for downtown and so far we are not being swayed off course by reactive measures.
The DWBIA did a merchandising study by one of North America's leading consultants that said Districting would be the first and best way to lure retailers. Visit the DWBIA website to learn about the districts at http://www.downtownwindsor.ca/ . I am extremely proud of the video that was produced to get our message across. click on the bottom left to view it.
Clustering like minded Retailers is what needs to be done and districting can help that. I can't help but think that American Apparal could have easily been a success had it located near similar type stores (next to capish bling bling, or on Avenue South near more younger bars)
Districting will help direct retailers to cluster in areas that are more appropriate. Galleries in the Arts or on the Avenue. retailers marketing to youth on avenue south. Residential support businesses such as food, specialty wine on the West Village or the Square
Second, and more tangeable, the DWBIA is offering $10,000 facade grants ($15,000 if you're on a corner) to fix up the outside of your bldg. That is an incentive that is not offered anywhere else in the city other than downtown. This grant can be used for business retention as well as business recruitment. Check out the fresh fronts campaign
After that it's just getting the word out
16 comments:
True stories about me, my family and downtown.
Last year my wife and I went to a Christmas party at a downtown restaurant. The dinner broke up around 8 o’clock. We got in our car, and went to Lakeshore Theatre, bought movie tickets and went to Indigo Books while we waited for the show time. Bought coffees at Starbucks and a couple of books at Indigo. Downtown we spent $2 on parking. In the ‘burbs we spent about $60. Why? Because we didn’t want to have to deal with a bunch of kids out drinking. Real or not our perception about downtown is influenced by star stories and rumours.
This past summer my wife had to work while I was on vacation. So me and my kids went downtown. We walked around, went to the Museum and the Art Gallery and then walked up Ouellette Avenue. Other than a couple of book stores there wasn’t any shopping for my kids or me. Oh yeah and it was nice to have to explain a massage parlour to my daughters.
I guess what I’m getting at is the DWBIA has a thoughtful plan but until people from outside of downtown feel safe and have a reason to come downtown you will be stuck where you are.
I really want downtown to work. That is why I am participating in this dialogue.
If I could suggest a place to start it would be the Palace. A family restaurant, not a bar that serves some food and some stores to visit while waiting for your movie to start.
James
First off, I have to go on a rant about the massage parlors. Myself and a few others have been lobbying for years about making zoning changes that would prevent massage parlors in downtown.
We have been repeatedly rebuffed for reasons such as fear of legal challenges.
I'll say it once if I've said it a thousand times. If you can zone entertainment lounges within downtown, you can zone massage parlors out. Its the exact same principal, the only difference is that they knew the bars wouldn't challenge the zoning change while they know the massage parlors will
One business owner asked me if I'd rather have an empty store front. I responded "Hell yes, because with a massage parlor you get far more empty spots on either side"
Downtowns competitors are shopping malls and power centers. We need to manage our downtown like our competitors
Its funny, when we talk about legal costs at the border, we are told that we should do the right thing at any price. But when we talk about doing whats right with Massage parlors, panhandlers, signage restrictions we are told about the fear of escalating costs
As far as the bars and safety go, you have two separate issues that everyone confused together. You have a harmless rowdiness problem before midnight. Separately you have some real concerns that need to be dealt with at specific locations at 3am in the morning.
I escorted a film writer during film fest that visited our city and he raved about how safe it was on a Saturday night. He kept talking about how there was so many people having fun but he didn't feel in danger like back in toronto
You are right about not having enough offerings at night.
I'm hoping that by steering people into districts they will know that there is potential.
Sure we have bars, we have the best, they are mainly located in the Avenue South district, If you want something for the family, try the arts district.
We shouldn't be ashamed of a successful entertainment district, we shouldn't restrict it. What we should do is manage it better. Thats what the HRP is for. Check out http://www.hospitalityweb.org/hrp-1/index.htm for more info on what we are doing to that end
"But when we talk about doing whats right with Massage parlors, panhandlers, signage restrictions we are told about the fear of escalating costs."
What would you consider to be the right thing to do with massage parlours and panhandlers?
Both are significant of a huge social problem. And let's face it; you can't build community without people no matter how hard you try.
I think that the right thing to do would be to include the masseuses and the panhandlers in this community and show them how to live interdependently. Isn't that what community is all about?
You could make that arguement for gangs, drug dealers, child molesters, toxic waste dumpers, or any other undesirable element. How far do you go to support a segment of society that leeches the vitality of a city to make a quick buck?
I'm with Mark on the rub'n'tugs. Panhandlers are another story.
Massage parlors should not be in a downtown area if you want it revitalized. A massage parlor locating in City Center west could single handedly negate any development incentives offered. I just want them zoned out of areas that we are focusing on revitalizing.
As far as panhandlers go there are two points to make
1. I don't support a total ban on panhandling, just some controls that are being instituted in other cities. Panhandlers are governed by the safe streets act which govern "How" they behave. There are no controls on "Where" and "When". If you pass by one on a street, you can politely say no and move on. If one leans over a cafe railing while you are with your kids enjoying a meal and stands there staring at you after you say no, it is intimidating and should not be allowed. Panhandling directly next to an ATM is another good example. "When" is a bit more debatable as you can argue that a panhandler can be far more intimidating to a lady walking alone at 3 am vs mid day.
2. Other Cities have published stats which show that 80% of the moneys panhandled goes to drugs alcohol and tobacco. That this money enables them to not get help with their addictions and not to have to use social services available to them.
Many progressive cities have started programs that see downtown businesses collect moneys at the cash register that goes to important programs such as the salvation army or downtown mission. That moneys would do far more to help if given to these organizations vs moneys that much of the time is used to buy crack. The panhandlers that truly need help can find it at our social services especially if they were better funded with donations
Remember my favorite slogan when approached by a Panhandler
"If you give them change, they'll stay the same."
"You could make that arguement for gangs, drug dealers, child molesters, toxic waste dumpers, or any other undesirable element. How far do you go to support a segment of society that leeches the vitality of a city to make a quick buck?"
I say, you go as far as you need to.
People become criminals and gang members out of perceived necessity because of poverty. People become child molesters because of paradoxical social messages sent out to society. On one hand, the media (in all forms) condones this through its potrayal of it. Social norms, laws and mores for many years considered children to be property of their fathers (because women were property too) and since children were property, their maltreatment was considered to be OK and expected. (I'll leave religion out of it for now :))For me, this kind of behaviour is a more natural response than thinking that an individual committing these crimes is sick. I am amazed that more people don't molest children in response to the ideas and messages they are fed everyday. Please understand I do not condone this kind of behaviour--I believe that this is a very severe social problem that has to be fixed at the core or it won't be fixed.
Toxic waste dumpers would think twice if we as a community would bring the hammer down and impose massive fines and serious hard core jail time for toxic waste dumping. With this issue, it's all about how much we think our environment and our community is worth. I think they're worth a heck of a lot.
My whole point is that sweeping the undesirables under the rug doesn't make them go away--it makes your rug lumpy. It just makes them take more desparate measures. If this is the route we take with the "undesirables", we should liken ourselves to an ostrich with its head in the sand. It can't see anything, and its ass is in the air. That's a pretty vulnerable position don't you think?
Most panhandlers are homeless and therefore do not qualify for social services like ODSP and Ontario Works. There is a serious affordable housing shortage in this community. Many have opted to stay out of organizations like the shelters because they force them to find housing and apply for social services like Ontario Works and ODSP. They don't want to access social services because of the abuse they are subjected to from Social Service Workers. It's very dehumanizing, humiliating and degrading.
No one wants to sweep undesirables under the rug, we want them to deal with their additions.
Remember this post is about business recruitment, like it or not, this is what business wants.
"Most panhandlers are homeless and therefore do not qualify for social services like ODSP and Ontario Works."
You are wrong 100%, and I would go as far as accusing you of lying.
According to people I spoke with at Unit 7 virtually all panhandlers in Windsor are not homeless. They are there there to collect moneys for goods that social services does not provide, namely drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes.
" They don't want to access social services because of the abuse they are subjected to from Social Service Workers. It's very dehumanizing, humiliating and degrading."
So is being a crack addict and or alcoholic.
You cannot substantiate any of the claims you have made. I defy you to prove me wrong as my assertions are based on investigation in our own community and statistics from other communities.
Moneys given to panhandlers would do exponentially more for homeless and the less fortunate if donated to organizations. It is absurd of anyone to think otherwise.
I can substantiate my claims. Come by for a coffee/tea/other beverage of your choice and I'll show you. Chris knows who I am.
I realize that this is about drawing business downtown, but it is also about community revitalization. When you exclude members of the community--no matter what their addictions or illnesses or income level you are not working towards building community for everyone--you are building community for the elite. Some of us poor people are sick of it.
Forgive me if I sound bitter, angry and on the attack. That is not my intention. My intention is to educate and help work towards the same goals as you. I just happen to be a little passionate about this topic area.
I have to agree with both Mark and Catherine. They both make valid points. Any reponse to panhandling must be dealth with in a dignified manner.
There is no question that a poor economy results in more panhandling. But there are solutions, as Mark points out.
I've pulled out some documents that may be of use in this discussion, posted below.
http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/fall97/belmont.html
http://ius.uwinnipeg.ca/CRC/RH-17.pdf
Existing laws within the Criminal Code are adequate to deal with aggressive, intimidating panhandling that the public should not have to endure. However, passing by-laws that criminalize
all panhandling is not necessary, nor will it effectively reduce panhandling over the long term.
This has been the case throughout history. These by-laws may reduce the frequency and shift the location of panhandling in the short term but they will not, in any way, eliminate or even reduce the problems that drive people onto the street to panhandle.
Solutions have to address the more
fundamental problems that marginalize people in society. Most researchers agree that the
enforcement of laws prohibiting or restricting panhandling does not solve the problem.
Enforcing by-laws moves the problem or reduces it in the short term but because by-laws fail to
address the underlying causes, people are soon back panhandling.
http://www.neoch.org/what_to_do_panhand.htm
Chris has pointed out something that is key to this discussion. Panhandling, and the associated social issues, are a completely separate issue from the massage parlours that pollute our downtown business pool. Panhandling can be managed through a multi-faceted approach meeting the needs of the community collectively rather than individually.
Massage parlours are a cancer in downtown. Just try and convince retailers to take up root next to one of those establishments. Good luck! Managing these 'fly-by-night' establishments has to be an integral part of a downtown revitalization plan.
Someone has already mentioned this, but council has got to get it's back up when it comes to taking on contentious issues like massage parlours, Walmart expansion, etc. They'll sink $65+ million into a new arena because that was what the "public" wanted, but won't tackle the other issues because they are afraid of the litigation costs. It's time to start dealing with the weighty issues and stop walking on egg shells in the city.
One last comment on gentrification. That process has both negative and positive connotations, depending on your perspective. Some will say that a revitalized downtown will price out current residents, forcing them to relocate or reduce their standard of living. Others will say that the overall prosperity of the city, including a robust tax base, is predicated on a successful, and lucrative, core. I take the second position, while recognizing that you cannot build over the existing communities. This is not an economic genocide we're proposing, but a process of growth that will strengthen everything from real estate prices, to social programs, tax revenues, to the amenities of a well-built community. Some will call it gentrification, but attending to the needs of the poor among us requires a prosperous society for support.
A successful downtown will see the inclusion of a diverse group of income. Thats what the entire theory of the creative class is based on. The greater the diversity the better. Diversity amongst all characteristics.
The massage parlours are a no brainer, zoning restrictions in areas targeted for revitalization are a no brainer.
Don't get me wrong on the panhandling issue. I repeat that I don't support bans or want to "sweep them under a rug". I support bylaws that control where they panhandle.
Some areas are not appropriate for panhandling. If they lean over my railings people will choose to eat at moxies or at a power center where they would be banned from private property. When was the last time you saw a panhandler at the mall?
My business is a good example.
When you are in the middle of eating a meal, and a panhandler leans over the railing, you don't
have the option of saying no thank you and walking away. You are stuck sitting there in an awkward and uncomfortable position
The post is about business recruitment, I'm a business owner and I have heard from a number of downtown businesses that this is what they want.
WEll if everyone wants the downtown to succeed they must makeit so that people who want an urban experience will move there.
How's the urban village (West Village but I will still call it West River Village) coming along? It hasn't but there is a bus station there now. Who in the hell is going to move there now?
The DWBIA has facade grants but what about facade improvements to houses? If the surroundign area were to be cleaned up it would go a long way in bringing people who want to live downtown a place to buy and live. Currently, there is very little housing stock left that most would purchase and possibly raise a family in because of the dilapidated conditions of the surrounding area. Not to mention the junkies and crime in the surrounding neighborhoods.
I am sure most of you know who I am or have heard of me discussing this before as I put my money where my mouth is and purchased a house which I am restoring. I would like to purchase a few more and do the same while trying to make a buck or two but not get rich from doing it as I want the urban experience for me and my family. But what is the point if the city tells me one thing while doing another.
I am now waiting to see what or if the city will do anything on River West Village site. As stated by members of the DEGC in Detroit who has done a magnificent job of continuing to turn downtown Detroit around. "Build in times of eceonimc distress not only provides jobs in a downturned market but when the economy turns around the city will be ready for the action."
In Windsor one only has hopes...
By the way Mark. I called the DWBIA to ask if they needed any assistance or was willing to have feedback from local inhabitants and I NEVER received a reply back. This after two calls...
Dave, I thought the very same thing about the bus station. No matter your group of income, who wants to live next to a bus station? fumes and noise 24-7. The urban village will be challenged to get over that one..
This post took an interesting turn over the weekend. I think everyone had better start thinking about social-services and social-spending in Windsor.
The social groups we identify as disenfranchised and destitute will be a growing class in this region. We are losing our biggest, best paying employers. Many of those that have lost their jobs or will lose their jobs, owe money on homes, vehicles, lines of credit and so on. When their severance money or their EI benefits run out they are screwed. They will lose their 3500 sqft homes in Lakeshore and they will have to move either away from Windsor/Essex or into the city of Windsor. (Migration into the city is likely because we tend to want to stay close to our families and friends.) These people are likely to find little work or low paying work. They will become desperate, depressed, perhaps suicidal or turn to self medicating w/ alcohol or narcotics (or piss and crap in a bottle). We had better prepare ourselves for this.
Then there are the refugees. I’m not talking about the Mexicans and Haitians. I’m speaking about the refugees from Georgia, Louisiana, the south-eastern and south-western U.S. that in the next few years (unless it starts to rain a bit more regularly) will start to migrate north toward the great-lakes region. (Read the November 15, post on Tomdispatch.com) This is the one area in North America that appears to have a stable water system. The folks that come north will not be the wealthy; the wealthy will still be able to afford to pay their water bills for a bit. It will be the less well off, the disenfranchised and destitute. The major cities like Atlanta will have to cut a lot of spending and redirect it to supplying their corporate citizens like Coca-cola with water to keep them in business. Social services are always the first victims. These people, coming north and finding no-work in the rust-belt will start to slip across the boarder into Canada. First stop, Windsor.
This city is not taking care of our poor and disenfranchised now. What will happen in two or three years? Dennis Desrosiers is saying that it is still going to get worse and I totally agree with him. The whole OEDC world is on the brink of economic collapse and the U.S., Canada and NATO are positioning themselves for even more conflict in the Mid-east.
Chris Schnurr’s post today talked about Eddie’s lack of leadership. I have to disagree. I think Eddie‘s leadership is total and unwavering. He is leading us down a road to ruin and there doesn’t seem to be anyone in his way.
Sorry to be so bleak, I’ve been reading too much lately;-)
James
Sporto, It is indicative of this city to do this such as that (bus station). Say one thing but if there is money laying around use it quick before it is gone. IF they don't do that the city just consults things to death because they are afraid to make mistakes.
YoOu are correct. The bus station is built and whatever goe sin there will have to overcome it. But it CAN be done.
As for the DWBIA. I am just shocked that they used the term West Village to describe Pelissier St. What about the urban village?! Should that have gbeen made a priority? What have they done to get it off the ground? The fact remains that the urban village is the catalyst for downtown. Without people moving in an area that isn't falling apart the downtown will never succeed regardless of the facades or the "re-branding" of it.
Mr. Boscariol has given us the rules to which a downtown succeeds. Then why is the downtown BIA doing certain steps (branding)ahead of the others?
I am shocked that the urban village isn't even on their radar.
With the DWBIA and the city as our friends who needs enemies. I guess I wasted my time and efforts to help bring change to the downtown area.
Post a Comment