I've been reading the rhetoric that the proposed, and now likely defunct, University of Windsor School of EngineeringDowntown Campus has been generating both online and tranditional media outlets. The blogging community has come alive withall sorts of opinions and gyrations on both sides of the issue. Reading Gord Henderson's column from November 8th made me green with envy, and then it made me mad.
What really turns me up about this whole process is the very name of the new engineering school -- Centre for Engineering Innovation. In fact, to be completely honest, I am extremely disappointed in the sheer number of engineering students and faculty who have come out in opposition to moving downtown. Forgive me for stating the obvious, but aren't they supposed to be engineers? Aren't they going to spend the rest of their careers coming up with innovate and new solutions to meet, and exceed, business objectives? It seems to me that, when trying to build an engineering school downtown, that the very best ideas, the most brilliant solutions, should be springing from the collective intelligence of the resident faculty and their students. Instead, what we are getting is a glimpse into the product that the engineering school at the University of Windsor will be delivering over the coming decades -- a giant helping of the same old thing.
Innovate or die, that oft repeated, though completely accurate, mantra of the business world, should be the new slogan for Windsor. We've tried 50 years of doing things, or more accurately, undoing things, without so much as a hint of success in staunching the flow of jobs, money and people out Windsor. Clayton M. Christensen, a professor at the Harvard Business School, established the critical need for businesses to innovate or risk losing both customers and profit to the competition. In fact, Christensen, in his 2003 book The Innovator's Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth, found that the odds of creating successful growth, albeit in a business environment, jumped from 6% to 37% when a distruptive strategy is implemented versus the tread-worn path of incremental growth.
Mayor Francis, to his credit, is finally running the city like a family-business -- sort of. He abhors debt and is working to set the city, at least on paper, on firm financial footing. To Mayor Francis I say, "If you want to run Windsor like a business, you need to do what good businesses do!". We have to pull out all of the stops to find new and innovative ways to engage the citizenry, whether residents or businesses, in building a more diverse and sustainable Windsor. We are building the image of Windsor, much like Chrysler builds minivans, and trying to sell our product to the highest, and hopefully most sustainable, bidder. It is time to stop hashing out the same old plans, in the same old ways, just with different councilors at the table. It is time to take up the position being suggested by Larry Horowitz of the DWBIA, Gord Henderson of the Windsor Star and, of course, the editors of Scale Down Windsor and transform Windsor into a land of milk and honey. I think that if we look deep enough we'll discover that we have the talent, the desire and, if we look in the right places, the money to make the changes that need to be made. Just don't look to the University of Windsor School of Engineering -- apparently the talent and desire to innovate are in short supply in Essex Hall.
27 comments:
You just told us what you are made out of. By saying that engineering students are status quo and unintelligent you just polarized half of your readership against you. And because you're so obviously up the rumps of Mayor Francis and Gord Henderson you've taken care o the remaining 50%.
In order for a family business to survive all expenses and revenue streams have to be kept in check. Francis is taking us down the toilet with his vision of tunnel ownership, "greenlink", arena etc., etc. He obviously doesn't have spending under control and by putting that burden on your shoulders he thinks he has revenue under control. Take a hint from the blog posted before yours about Hazel McCallion; Hamilton's octagenarion Mayor who residents have respected since the beginning of time. She has successfully managed that city for years, keeping it debt free and quite palitable for Hamiltonians. The proof of that is in her longevity as Mayor. She is practical, saavy and without grand illusion. We would be so lucky to have her here.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to wipe the brown fur off of my monitor.
SOE - the irony is that you and I both believe that my post, Innovate or Die!, shows what I am made of. I'm actually quite proud of myself -- calling out the failures of entire academic school is not a very popular position, but someone had to do it. With all those engineers you think they'd figure out how to engineer a solution for this problem that faces Windsor.
As for Mayor Francis and I, we don't see eye to eye on very much (the west end CocoBox development comes to mind), and the arena is definitely a position in which we are looking in opposite directions. A disparity on positions does not mean that he is always wrong, or that I am always right. That is the beauty of not being a politician -- I don't have to try to pretend that I am always right.
As for Hazel, I am sure that she would tell Ross Paul and the rest of board of Governors to quit their squabbling and figure out how, not IF, they are going to put a University campus downtown.
Unforunately SOE, you missed the point of my post. It was not meant to align myself with any side (their really aren't any "sides" in this effort) but rather to point out our inability to get past our past. Albert Einstein said "The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them." I think that applies to Windsor as well.
So, the other day I came across this blog and I got very interested. Downtown has a lot of memories for me growing up. One of my favorite books in my house is Reflections of Windsor. I have spent many hours pouring over the pictures and reading the stories about Windsor's past.
Now, I have spent some time thinking about downtown Windsor. I am a big fan of James Howard Kunstler and I know he hasn't said nice things about our city but the things he does say and his observations of other cities may be relavent to any discussion of ressurecting downtown Windsor.
I submitted a long but thoughtful comment on the previous blog. However all the discussion seemed to center on some childish argument between other readers. So I have cut and pasted it here so that perhaps someone will try to help me "ommunitcate the hell out of this idea".
Once upon a time my family owned and operated a business in downtown Windsor. My grandfather opened a general store on Pitt Street in the 1920’s. That business evolved into a camera and stereo shop on Oullette near Wyandotte. That business was lost to the bank in the early 1980’s. I spent a lot of time downtown as a kid. Wandering around at the Kresgees, the Woolworths. Christmas shopping at Birks. Back-to-school shopping at Agnew shoes, Union Men and Boys. Picking up groceries at the Dominion store going to movies at the Capitol, Vanity and the Palace. Downtown was a fantastic place. There were always so many people. On Saturdays the sidewalks were packed, Friday Midnight Madness sales people all over. Now it’s all gone. Why? Because we spread the city too thin. Somebody allowed that to happen, the same people made it happen because at the time it was the thing to do.
Please, can everyone stop for a moment, and really think about this whole U of W Engineering Campus in downtown Windsor. I don’t want to be all negative. I don’t want to be accused of not having any vision. I want everyone to really think this through. Remember all the positive energy a riverfront marina was going to create. It was going to allow all the transient boaters to stop off in Windsor and this would be a big boost to downtown foot traffic. How about the big aquarium? We’d have all kinds of tourists and a family “destination”. How great has it been to have a casino downtown? That has done so much for downtown hasn’t it? Weren’t we supposed to build an arena to do all these things? How about a major department store? Stienberg’s was a real city builder wasn’t it?
All these projects were going to benefit downtown. Some never got built for whatever reason and the one’s that have been built have not done what all their boosters said they would to improve downtown. So now we have one more scheme. The Windsor Star is being very mean spirited in their attitude towards the University in the editorial columns and Henderson columns and I think this must stop. There has to be a reasonable, sensible discussion about downtown and why and how it is in the state it’s in today.
Downtown Windsor is in its current state because over time social, economic and political forces have caused its importance to the average citizen to diminish. To really bring downtown Windsor back someone needs to spend some time and examine the history of Windsor. Why did downtown develop where it did? How did the type of businesses located in the core area evolve? What social/historical factors existed as the downtown started to destabilize? Ultimately I think that what we will find is that as the automobile became more common and the city started to spread out we began to lose our downtown. Finally at some point the city had spread itself out so evenly that downtown became just another business zone. It wasn’t a complete community anymore.
In my opinion we can jump on the bandwagon every time a developer comes to town with a miracle cure and it won’t change anything. Until such a time as there is a major social shift, an historic event that will compel us to reinvent our city, downtown will continue to languish. For downtown to thrive it needs to be a complete community where people of all social groups can live and work and shop.
So, Cambridge was a success. I want everyone to understand the differences between the University of Waterloo’s Architecture School in Cambridge and the U of W’s Engineering School in Windsor. First Cambridge is far enough from the main campus that students need to find housing in Cambridge, and the Architecture school is self contained it does not need to rely on the main campus in Waterloo. Second, the Waterloo School of Architecture is exclusive. They receive more than 2000 applications for 72 first year openings. These students come from all over and need to find housing, and shopping and entertainment near their school. Where do the majority of U of W Engineering students come from? Windsor and Essex County? Will they stop shopping at Devonshire Mall, or move to downtown Windsor from mom and dad’s in Forest Glade? Next, and I know a number of Engineers and when I mentioned this point they grudgingly agreed. Engineering students study. They go to class and they do homework. They do not go out to coffee bars and hangout and act bohemian. (This may not be true of all engineer’s but…) Engineering students also don’t really need to leave a classroom for inspiration. English students, arts students, humanities students in general and architecture students for sure need to be out in the living, human world. 2000 Engineering students at the Engineering School in downtown Windsor will be 2000 students mostly in the school. Not providing more customers to downtown businesses.
Before we all get mad at the U of W for not supporting Windsor businesses lets look at the story the Star published today. Mr. Giglio makes a point. There are 17, 000 students at the U of W and where are all the trendy shops and commercial development all around that area? You see, a large mass of students does not create a thriving business zone.
My point in all this is not to repeat the past, but instead to study it. To resurrect downtown Windsor we should understand how and why it worked in its heydays. We should also recognize what happened to cause it to fall apart. I am willing to discuss these things and I hope this is the forum for it.
James
To the comment above
Great Job James! That comment was very well thought out and a great read...I loved your comment. Please start a blog because the editor of this blog has been spewing a bunch of partisian trash, and Im glad I saw your post, not sure I'll be visitng this blog again, but I hope to see a blog started by you james on windsoressexspeak
Putting down Engineering students because they dont want to move downtown as being unintelligent and dumb in my opinion shows sheer ignorance and stupidity.
you the editor of scaledown are a fool!
Jason
I appreciate your response. I am new to this blog but I have noticed in this short time that the comments are very negative. If you don't feel the editors of this blog are not correct, or misinformed, or misleading the reader then call them on it. Remember the reason a person or group starts a blog is to express their ideas or opinions. They are looking for a reaction and they should be able to accept critism and be willing to respect their readers.
At the same time the readers need to respect the editors and other readers comments. Let's make our comments and critisims positive and support our arguments and ideas with facts.
The purpose of this blog according to the home page is to "communicate the hell out of this idea". I want to stick with this blog for a while and see what the editors and readers are really all about.
James
Jason... you showed great maturity and intelligence in your response comments.
"you the editor of scaledown are a fool!"
Maybe its best if you don't read this blog again.
P.S. I'm not the editor or a contributor. Just someone who THINKS that the people that run this blog are trying to do something positive for a change.
And NO I don't agree with everything they post but I have the ability to debate and not name call.
Engineering students should have listened to Professor Haldenby's points.
One point is that after the school of architecture located downtown, the amount of graduates that took international positions increased substantially.
The higher profile for the school due to a downtown campus made this possible.
Also the Students had input as to what they would require to locate downtown. Those conditions were made and became part of the costs to the city and donors.
And lastly, where I would question the students intelligence is that for some reason engineering students seem to think the choice
is between downtown or on campus. It definitely isn't, Its between downtown and some site in the boonies on industrial land.
I appreciate all the folks who understand exactly what it is we're trying to do here at SDW. Communications ARE our weak link and that is what we are try to propagate here - a discussion. I am happy with the fact that we are engaging a highly sophisticated audience and readership who honestly care about the state of our built environment and the ramifications of such.
I hold no ill thoughts towards negative commentors. In fact, they are essential in furthering the debate.
Plus, we've got pretty think skin. Decades of involvment in the political arena will do that to a person. Thanks to everyone.
To James...
Your position is very sound in any book. A lot of us remember downtown and even other areas like Ottawa and Wyandotte streets as very bustling commercial and retail destinations. We all witnessed them fall into decay as well. Probably in large part, as you have pointed out, because of the onslaught of the automobile age. Such a private transportation option has been quite the enabler for us.
Truthfully, at this point, we can all re-hash what made the downtown work in the first place and that may be a good place to start but it will not end the age of the iron horse or the reasons why every family has 2.5 of them parked in the neat suburban hideaways. Most of us lived in the burbs back then anyway; the only difference being that we regularly took public transit to get there.
But the appeal of that heated mall! And the inability of governments and downtown merchants to cover that competion! The downtown core has to re-invent itself and it's purpose. And that invention will probably be about a very ad hoc collective of very unique and trendy operations of all kinds with the help of some properly managed retail anchors. You cited some of those yourself (Kresges, Smiths, Adelmans, Woolworths, Bartletts, Birk's, Canada Salvage etc.) The little guys being operations like Biff's, Union Mens Wear, Dacks, Mcpherson's and so on) And none of those will exist without the support of downtown commercial like banks, insurance companies, legal offices, doctors, developers, and yes...even automotive companies. Remember too that we lost a lot of office space when our leaders decided to raise the Norton Palmer and the King Edward among others. We actually used to have a skyline and we also gave up all of our heritage buildings so that option for appeal is gone too.
As things stand we are lopsided with kiddie bars, massage parlours, head shops, tattoo parlours and strip clubs. Not to say that they shouldn't be there but the ratio is all out of wack.
Big Boxes and suburban malls are not going to go away either. And we are all still looking to live on the outmost fringes of the latest burbs because we know that once we are there the new commercial strips will follow to serve us. Thats the beauty of it all. All of those neat and convenient new places becoming accessible to us and making our lives that much better.
Give us some good reasons to meander downtown and we will. Until then we'll sit this one out.
To What if said...
Chris Schnurr mentioned it in his blog and you've said it in your comments. What we lack is a real plan for downtown. We get excited everytime someone proposes a major project for downtown and then we are disappointed when it falls apart.
What if we got some urban planners, and architects and civil/traffic engineers and regular people together for a day or two and hashed out a real plan. A design charette for downtown. It would allow everyone to express their ideas and at the end we would have a document to take to the city and tell them what it is we want. We don't want a consultants vision of Windsor we want a Windsor of our own.
We can't "just sit it out" if this is something we care about then we should work for it.
James
Omigosh! You mean a real plan for the people, by the people! City hall ain't gonna like this! Count me in!
James that is a great idea. I would also include in that group a demographer (sp?) and economist.
I say this because an aging population will require either major investments in transit, or the cheaper alternative, creating liveable spaces close to a retail core.
What services will be required, what are the buying trends of seniors, etc.
An intensive survey should also be conducted - to answer this basic question - why or why not do you come downtown? What would attract you? What doesn't?
We can presume to know.
I would be on board if that is a serious suggestion.
Leave this with me for a couple of days and maybe we can make a serious go of it. I know some people to ask and I am pretty confidant that I can get space.
James
count me in too! i would love to help out any way i could.
I don't think I need to tell you that ideas like this are EXACTLY what we need to do right now.
I've participated in design charettes in the past, and they are tremendous fun. When you get together with like-minded people who share a common goal, the energy is electric.
I think the direction we would need to take would be to hire a professional facilitator to guide the charette (nobody actually "runs" a charette, the participants guide the process along) from an organization such as the National Main Street Association. Include progressive architects (Joe Passa?) as well as New Urbanist-minded planners, and I would be very surprised if we didn't come up with a successful plan. There are plenty of venues we have avaliable to us, depending on the number of participants.
I like Chris Schnurr's additions to the participant list. Economists and demographers are not traditionally involved in this level of community design, but as Chris points out, they have a lot of information that would keep any rejuvenated downtown relevant for a longer time.
Perhaps the DWBIA would be interested in partnering with SDW to host the charette. It couldn't hurt to ask, and seeing the progressive leadership it is providing the community these days, I can see them jumping in with both feet.
Oh yeah - for the record, I'm in too.
Keep your calendars open early in the new year. I have made some phone calls and the people I have spoken to about a charette are very excited.
I going to shoot for a date in February, maybe the "new Family Day" long weekend. It depends on venue availability.
James
I would like to comment on the issue of the 17,000 students in the west end and where are the trendy shops, etc.
Part of the problem with the current location of the University is the entire area is not very conducive to these types of developments.
With the bridge located next to/ overhead of the University the main streets heading in that direction are virtually highways full of trucks and very heavy traffic all times of day and night. Is that the type of environment we expect to become walkable/livable? I don't think that is very likely, walking around this area is like walking through a war zone with diesel fuel full of particulate matter spewing into the air causing smog, loud engines and constant jakebraking. It's not even uncommon for trucks to be blocking the intersections so if driving you can't even get through Wyandotte, would anyone reading this blog open a new business along this corridor?
Another issue is that the core of the city is already zoned mixed use and I don't believe that much of the area surrounding the current location is. The core of the city is already a much more walkable community compared to the University area. Many people seem to be commenting without fully listening to or investigating the positives of the new location and seem to speaking more emotionally than logically. I also know a few engineers and they are quite happy to go to coffee bars, pubs and bookstores and act bohemian.
The University of Waterloo did not always have 2000 applicants for so few positions, that happened organically over the last few years as it's reputation grew both as a facility and an excellent place to live while attending school. If our university were to build a first class establishment in the core it too would also attract a greater range of applicants from all over the country. More of the student population would not be from our local area and would require places close to the school to live rather than the current situation of many of our students coming from outlying areas requiring to drive in and have a place to park. If I remember correctly, professor Haldenby stated that a full 98% of the architecture students do not have vehicles and they are located 30 miles from the main campus!
One more thing mayor Hazel McCallion is the mayor of Mississauga, not Hamilton and she has stated in the past that she thinks for some time she took the city in the wrong direction with the way she and her council allowed it to sprawl uncontrollably, I'm quite certain she would approve of this type of development downtown.
Wow -- that irony of the Hazel comments is that they just announced a 7% tax increase in Mississauga and a 5% levy for infrastructure support. I guess Hazel doesn't have it right after all! Thanks for the comment Boomer!
my personal opinion:
you want the University area to thrive? redo the entire area. Shut down most of Sunset to vehicular traffic, repave the sections left open to reach the parking lots, new and modern (and fashionable) lighting fixtures. Similar things happening in the downtown core at this very moment. The roads around the University are terrible. If the city would only help spruce up that area...
I have to disagree with people who say there are absolutely no trendy businesses in the area. I suggest you head down there and taken in a dinner at Naysa Korean BBQ or Sam's Pizzeria & Cantina to name a couple establishments. There are a few more which I cannot recall the names of. Could there be more and could it be better? Of course! However, to say there are absolutely none leads to the same misconceptions people start believing in that have plagued the downtown core. I believe all the area needs is the city to "caress" it for it to thrive. Just some love and care.
People question why the university would thrive downtown when it doesn't thrive in the west end?
Thats easy to answer. Because in the West end the University is an island unto itself, no mixed use.
A properly planned downtown campus would be a mixed use development that would include residents across from a flooded cut living above retail and cafe space.
This mixed use university campus would be one element contributing to a cluster of downtown assets that would include a Chrysler Theater, St Clair Campus, proposed manufacturing museum, proposed science center, Palace cinema's, world class waterfront park, Hotels, Convention center, 5000 seat entertainment arena, library, entertainment district etc. etc.. etc...
Secondly, the university students would be come a recruiting grounds for permanent downtown residents after they graduate. If we get an additional 1000 students one year that means that each year we could recruit approximately 10% of those graduates to remain downtown residents.
Thats the main difference between a downtown campus vs. a west end campus. The university would become part of the ultimate mixed use cluster of downtown attractions. Each year the university campus would add hundreds of graduates to Downtown Windsor's inventory of creative class citizens.
To all...
You are all assuming and selling that the university campus does not work. Who ever said that? Where do you get your facts? What doesn't work is the downtown core and that is what everyone here is tripping over. Everyone is reaching desperately at straws trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The fact is that the downtown, realistically, needs some medium to large retail anchors (preferably on Ouellette). This is what will bring day visitors in. Market factors will always determine when and where they locate which is a good thing. This is partially the function of the Economic Commission. Once the fabric of downtown is repaired, that is, populated with a diverse and adhoc collection of stores and shops it will become successful. No one person or family will be interested in the downtown if they are relegted to being marshalled into one district over another. Downtown Windsor sits on too small of a footprint for that anyway. It's time to face some hard facts and get down to the real business of selling the economic viability of the downtown to the interests that count.
FACT - Downtown rejuvenation is a pipe dream without a healthy, sustainable residential component.
Just ask Jane Jacobs, who wrote about that fact over 60 years ago, and it still rings true today.
No one is reaching desperately at straws or trying to make silk purses here. We are listening the the facts that Rick Haldenby has brought forth. Namely that the most successful cities in North America have a post secondary campus within them.
Rick Haldenby has done the research
Funny thing about business and retail is they seem to go where the people are. IT is a cart before the horse issue, if you get the people there, businesses are smart enough to follow. Businesses will not locate to an area in the hopes that the customers will follow, the customer base must exist with a tangeable plan for it to grow
No ones marshalling anyone into anywhere.
Kalamazoo Michigan is an excellent example of a downtown which created 6 distinct districts in their downtown (A city with the population of only 80,000)
Again to everyone, the university campus would be the primary recruitment grounds for permanent downtown residents. It would be extremely realistic to have a goal of recruiting up to 10% of graduates to permanently reside in the downtown.
Research in other cities has shown that you will not get any significant numbers of those who have already moved out to the suburbs moving back to the core.
At the International downtown Association seminars we were told that downtown residents are recruited mainly from new adults entering the city, whether from new graduates or those moving into your city, up to 10% will choose a downtown location if you have a product to sell them.
Currently you can criticise downtown how much you want, but no other area in WIndsor offers a fraction of the amenities downtown has to offer. Especially living adjacent to a world class riverfront park.
THat is why the post secondary campus is vital, in the long term it will bring the residents downtown needs.
I think that people don't want to accept this simply because it is a longer process and we in windsor want quick fixes.
A university is not a short term quick fix, it is a long term solution to our downtown
Amen, Brother!
Businesses seem to go where the people are? Then why do we all shop at the mall and all of the other big boxes no matter where they are? Why was the downtown so vibrant up until the seventies? What has changed?
Re: Residents moving into the downtown core. What is the product which you have to sell? Bubble gum encrusted streets, bar brawls, puke, people pissing off of the parking garages? The current university campus already has a wonderful riverfront park. There's no selling feature there.
Think back to what did work. Large department stores, specialty stores, trendy stores.
There are more people living downtown now than there was in the sixties. That is obviously not the solution especially when those people have a great need to hit the malls whenever they truly need something that a head shop cannot provide. Like it or not, the downtown will never work until you make it an attractive day/nighttime destination. Even the kiddies will grow out of it as it is now.
I was reading this morning and found this fantastic quote that really summarizes that is wrong with the U of W stance on their campus creation project and, more importantly, what can be done to change it.
Successful campuses create an inherent sense of community by offering many ways for people to interact with each other in the spaces between buildings. The idea of a self-contained community for learning, with places to exchange ideas in a tailor-made setting, was one of the great inventions of a young American republic. To create this interaction, campuses need a large variety of activities that are not specifically academic. It is not enough to build a university around the specialized needs of its academic programs; it also needs a collection of distinct gathering places that catalyze interaction. However, most universities spend their money on academic facilities that never consider how to relate to or animate the spaces around them.
A downtown campus would have many of the socially interactive elements already available to students, without having to develop them from the ground up. Building new is not always the solution, rebuilding and restoring will often produce a much more palatable product.
The students already come downtown to party at night. What do you want now; their lunch money?
Post a Comment