Dennis DesRosiers' annual, though unofficial, State of the City address brought cries for a change in city management, policy and the need to "think outside the box" from members of the Greater Windsor Home Builders Association. According to a Star article on the meeting, attendees agreed with DesRosiers' blistering critique of all things Windsor, blaming the majority of the woes of the city on "divisive leadership, fear of the unknown and overly-political media." (Ed: I wonder if DesRosiers would consider a guest column for SDW?!? )While I missed the presentation last night (probably due to the fact that I can't swing a hammer to save my life), I have to say that, despite the reported fear-mongering, DesRosiers is on to something here. Dennis' love/hate relationship with Windsor is long recognized, but, as Joe Rauti stated (as quoted by the Star) "His speech was right on, but we've got to get leaders listening to him.", though I only half-agree with his statement.
For years builders have built sprawl-divisions, scraping fertile topsoil from farmers fields to plant a crop of raised ranch, back-split, two-car garages with attached 3-bedroom houses. While the economy was growing so fast it was almost tripping over itself builders couldn't churn the homes out fast enough as low interest rates enticed even moderate income earners to abandon the core of Windsor and seek refuge in suburban McMansions. Now that interest rates have climbed, sub-prime mortgages are defaulting at a record pace, and the local economy is tanking faster than the Titanic, builders are blaming council for bad policy decisions and 'not listening'.
The problem, as I see it, is that council DID listen. They listened to builders who wanted to rezone lands to build homes, wanted council to hold the line on building fees to prolong a softening construction market and support new subdivisions with sewers, roads, and emergency services. Now the homebuilders are calling on council to take on a leadership role in the hopes that Windsor will turn-around and save the industry.
There is a solution to this problem, and is has nothing to do with city council. Let the Greater Windsor Home Builders Association has to put their talent and money where their mouths are by assuming the leadership role that they are demanding of city council. Come together with urban advocates, cutting edge architects, 'green' technology professionals and other industry experts and build, within the city of Windsor, an example of Windsor's innovation in every aspect development. This can't be a cheap publicity stint, but rather an exercise in co-operation and innovation, a marquee development for a properous future. Dive into the core area (the lands to the west of the casino come to mind) and show that re-development can be just as lucrative as building new, not to mention mutually beneficial to the consumer, community and construction industry.
I extend an open invitation to any builders, or builder representatives, to contact Scale Down Windsor. We will assist you in bringing together the ideas, innovators and talent to make this project work for everyone involved. Let's show DesRosier, and ourselves, that Windsor not just a fading speed-bump on the 401, but a city of the future. This isn't about city council (trust me, they will be falling over themselves to support this one), this is about Windsor, who we are and, most importantly, who we want to be!
BTW: Here are the links to the DesRosier mp3 files that Chris Holt was promising, (Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3) along with the powerpoint presentation that accompanies the first part of DesRosier's keynote address. (Thanks to Chris Schnurr for the link to the powerpoint!)
10 comments:
"re-development can be just as lucrative as building new, not to mention mutually beneficial to the consumer, community and construction industry."
Retrofitting isn't cheap. Of course, one could argue that taxpayer-funded retrofitting subsidies are available for redevelopment projects. Also, downtown lands are already serviced. Regardless, redevelopment would require subsidies; ultimately, that's the underlying issue. The opportunity to "revitalize" the downtown core was lost when Windsor entered a recession; once again, Windsorites are left to depend on the senior levels of government. The findings in the Frontier Center report are accurate.
You say that like we don't subsidize new suburban & exurban business parks. I would go out on a limb and say that the subsidies for sprawl development would eclipse urban infill 2-1.
There are also writers who believe that the time to invest is actually during a recession.
But I agree with your assertion that "retrofitting isn't cheap", but this is when the municipality must look at the lifecycle costs/embodied energy costs/social costs of not developing infill/adapative reuse projects and instead "investing" in million $$$ infrastructure projects out to the 'burbs.
For years builders have built sprawl-divisions, scraping fertile topsoil from farmers fields to plant a crop of raised ranch, back-split, two-car garages with attached 3-bedroom houses.
Funniest thing I have read in a long while. I suppose if you say it enough times, people will believe it to be true.
If the consequence of sprawl is loss of "fertile topsoil", then why is there more food available in grocery stores today than 20 years ago?
Next, you are going to tell us that the tree cover in North America has been decreasing over the last 70 years.
Hey vincent;
www.sprawl-out.ca is twelve blogs to the right, directly across from the scrap yard.
I'm sure the rest of the chamber of commerce and home builder's association is there waiting for you.
You must have made a wrong turn somewhere.
That's nice. So Scale Down, Windsor is no different from the Mayor and Council where only one message is allowed and any deviation from that message is mocked.
I thought creative cities are ones that have open debates, that allow different opinions, that allow different suggestions, that allow people to speak freely. Apparently I was wrong about this place. What a sad little world you live in.
And you wonder why people don't want to live downtown?
Vincent, you should know better than to shoot the host for something their guest says. Come on, now.
Yes, we want to elevate the level of discource and to start stifling anyone would be counter productive. Though you and I have had our differences in the past (and probably will again in the future) your comments are as valued as mine on these pages.
People should want to live in a community that values culture, diversity, amenities and convenience (downtown or any other walkable community) whether we say so or not.
You are elevating our importance to a podium that I don't want to be on. I just want to facilitate some discussions, that's all. And you know what? It seems that's what we're doing here.
"...lifecycle costs/embodied energy costs..."?
A 60 to 80-year-old building doesn't have much of a life-cycle. I fail to see the logic in continuously providing old buildings with taxpayer-funded subsidies.
What exactly are "embodied energy costs"? Yes, "big box" stores waste a lot of electricity and land. However, in a security-conscious world, is population concentration the best paradigm to encourage? Realistically, filled buildings are less efficient than small houses. I think that many houses are utterly immoderate. However, I also think that it is incumbent upon homeowners/apartment dwellers to reduce their energy usage (especially in Canada).
Robert - retrofit or in-fill housing can be as energy efficient as new homes, if designed correctly. Conversely, they can be energy gluts if designed poorly. Deciding which development is more beneficial to a city requires an examination of development and life-cycle costs. I imagine that, if we knew full cost of developments, or if we actually bore the real costs of development (without all of the taxpayer subsidies) we would make far more sustainable development decisions.
Mark Boscariol is a huge advocate of subsidizing urban development through creative tax incentives. By holding the line on property taxes for a set time (say 10 years) and (this is my own suggestion) waiving permit and other development fees for in-fill development we would gain the benefit of revitalizing neighbourhoods that haven't see new development in years while effectively costing the city nothing. The city would be subsidizing development, that is true, but doing it with money that, if the property remained underdeveloped, we wouldn't have anway.
The more I think about this method of fiscal advocacy for infill development the more I like it. Smart use of taxpayers dollars will win anyone over, regardless of their political stripes.
Vincent -- loss of topsoil is only one of many drawbacks to sprawl development, but hashing them out in a single post would require hours of reading. We are fortunate that farming has become more efficient as we understand how to raise crops. Unforunately, that often means additional chemicals to support the process. While our grocery stores are filled with more selections than 20 years ago, take the time to check out how far your food is travelling to give you that selection. Much of our food is being grown in South America and, believe it or not, China. If you don't believe it, try and buy a weeks worth of groceries under the rules of the 100-mile diet and you'll see the impact of our choices in food, retail and housing on your dinner plate.
PS: Thanks for keeping the debate alive! As Chris said, we may not agree, but we're always happy to discuss. If we all thought and acted alike the world would be a very boring place.
The idea Mark has is not new, its tested and it works. Cities are using this new initiative to bring life into previously rundown areas. In Philadelphia, many improvements there receive tax abatements of 10 years. Essentially, if you purchase a rundown building for $80,000 and invest another $120,000 in improvements to increase the value of the building, your tax value remains at $80,000 for those 10 years. Even if you sell the building before the 10-year period ends, it is passed along to the new owner. You don’t lose or give any cash away because it would be as if the property remained as is and the same amount in tax will be given. However, revitalization of a decrepit building will usually spur further growth in the area and occupancy, along with an increase in the tax revenue following the abatement, make in a win-win situation for everyone.
There are many, many examples that can be used in the downtown core but two that quickly come to mind are the dilapidated former Royal Bank building at 156 Ouellette Ave. and the former bus depot.
Post a Comment