Two appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board were launched against the proposed west-end Big Box development. Lynne Meloche of LaSalle is taking on these retail giants, as well as the Town of LaSalle. Both parties object to the location of the proposed mega-discount shopping utopia at the border of their town as well as within the area of the fragile Ojibway Complex. I hope that ...Scale Down can offer both parties any help we can so they maximize their chances of success in their cases.From today's Windsor Star...
LaSalle fights big box plan
Town asks OMB to block west-end retail plaza
The Town of LaSalle and several residents hope to stop a major big box development recently approved by the city for land next to Windsor Raceway.
They're appealing the city approval to the Ontario Municipal Board.
Coco Development Group plans to create a 420,000-square-foot commercial plaza at the intersection of Sprucewood Avenue and Matchette Road, right beside the LaSalle border. It would be anchored by four unnamed major big box retail outlets.
City council gave approval to the project at the end of October despite objections from LaSalle's council, people concerned about the impact on neighbouring natural areas, and residents who live near the location.
Councillors supported the project because of the number of jobs it would create, during construction and once the stores are open.
The site hugs the city's border with LaSalle and is across the street from the provincially protected Ojibway tallgrass prairie.
In LaSalle's appeal, it suggests the big box development will have a detrimental effect on neighbouring lands and roads.
Matchette and Sprucewood are two-lane access roads -- the only connection to the site -- and cannot handle the huge volume of traffic the big box centre is expected to generate, said LaSalle town planner Larry Silani.
"We are concerned because this is not an appropriate location," he said. "The kinds of traffic volume this generates, it should be on a highway interchange or roads designed to carry large volumes of traffic.
TRAFFIC VOLUME
"Matchette and Sprucewood are not meant to carry that much traffic."
The town is also concerned its nearby town centre on Malden Road, developed over several years, will quickly be destroyed by a big box outlet just a few blocks away.
The City of Windsor's legal department has received notification of the OMB appeal, but has not had time to study the information, said Wira Vendrasco, lawyer for the city.
An OMB hearing -- should it reach that point -- is not expected to be scheduled for at least a few months.
A pre-hearing conference is the next expected step.
LaSalle has had no further discussion with the city or developer since council approved the project in the fall, Silani said.
"We are not opposed to commercial development, we just believe it's the wrong location," he said. "The Town of LaSalle is always open to dialogue, but there is a fundamental difference of opinion. It's not just fill in a ditch and everybody here will be happy.
"It's the wrong location. Hopefully OMB will listen and we'll go from there."
Whereas SD agrees with the plaintiffs that the location is a terrible one for this development, we went further in our argument to Windsor's city council that more big-box development is not only unnecessary for Windsor, but will also be detrimental to our economic health.
We asked council to defer the rezoning of the proposed development until a comprehensive Economic Impact Study could be conducted. Councillor Halberstadt asked administration for the study and acting city planner Thom Hunt told him that there was an economic study on Windsor's retail market already underway.
We are looking forward to the release of this report and hearing whether the city's own staff believe that Windsor is over-retailed.
23 comments:
Agreed. Interesting to note that the city wants this built for the jobs that they will provide both in terms of contruction and retail.
Here's an interesting idea. Quit stalling the bridge who wants to build NOW. Let the DRTP bulid their new tunnel for trains, NOW. These in themselves would give thousands of jobs to the city and surroundig community so why isn't Windsor getting this done quickly?
I would hedge a bet that someone owes poor Jenny a favour. Maybe Jenny can fix up her dilapidated building on Ouellette Ave first before she goes ahead and builds something else.
Dave -- Jenny Coco doesn't own that piece of real estate anymore... at least not the last I heard. I thought that it had been bought by a development company looking to locate (or relocate as the case may be) a bank downtown. I stand to be corrected, but I thought that was the news that broke late last year.
To JB...You are correct. The property is in the running to accept the re-location of the TD Bank from the corner of Ouellette and Wyandotte. Not sure if it has flipped yet.
Thanks for the update. I wasn't sure if it had been sold yet either. Regardless if she couldn't keep that building in reasonable shape why should we give her the keys to sprawls-ville?
As for TD. Honestly, haven't we played the "Q-bert bank" game long enough. I mean how many times can we allow a bank to move from one corner to other while tearing down everything in site only to move again in 3-5 years. Enough with the shuffling already. It sure hasn't benefited downtown at all.
Jenny still owns the bank. There is only an "option" to purchase it.
I make the claim that I hold the championship title for taking the ugliest building on Ouellette and turning into 255 Ouellette
Please I beg of you, Play the Q-Bert game on Ouellette and Chatham.
I would gladly hand that title over to the Royal Bank Property which is now the ugliest building on our main street.
That bldg also acts as a barrier between our Riverfront and downtown because its human nature to NOT want to walk by it.
Lets hope that the OMB challenge gives planning enough time to release their report.
This is an enormous item that can be requested of our Official Plan.
Call 311 and say no more crappy big box development on the edge of our community
Yep Mark wins that contest. I can attest to that. Way to go Mark!
Mark, do you have any before pictures of 255 Ouellette? It looks excellent now, but I can't remember what it looked like before Chanoso's and Flying Monkey went in there.
I have some before photos.
However to be fair, yes Mark put two run down buildings back into service, but the stucco EFIS you slapped all over them does look like ass.
Yeah, if I knew then what I knew now, it'd look a lot different.
But damn, were they ugly before.
Problem is that I located downtown on a feeling more than knowledge. I spent the last 5 years learning about design and urban planning.
I do still blame the quality of architects in Windsor for part of it. Not many architects in the city could design a decent facade in 2000. If they had given me a better option I'd have chosen it.
BTW, my claim is BS, Its just sort of my way of challenging developers to do better. My building doesn't deserve the title and I wish that 10 others would take it tomorrow.
Mark, fair enough.
:)
At least now you see the error of your ways. However, no mercy for you if you ever stucco anything again!
Is it possible to restrict stucco!? Can that be put in a design guideline somewhere and reference in an official plan? Other communities have done that I'm sure.
Ah stucco. Just the other day I recieved a brochure from a company that sells stucco exterior finish. I stood in the middle of our reference room before an audience of architecture and construction students and told them that this was the devils work. That stucco is a cheap fix and does nothing but diminish the architectural value of anything that it is applied to. As I recall one of Mark's buildings used to be a Coles bookstore and it had blue plastic or fibreglass panels all over it. Stucco is no better than that facade. I hope the DWBIA funding for facade retrofitting has language in it that limits material selection and encourages owners to refurbish or recreate the brick and/or stone facades of their respective buildings.
James, what about new construction? I always understood that our climate is not compatible with the stucco products, too much freeze/thaw, maintenance etc... Would it not be prudent to outlaw it altogether?
Before we go labelling ALL stucco as being bad, we should really qualify what it is we're talking about.
In Old Walkerville, traditional stucco (over a wood lathe base) was a reasonable and aesthetically pleasing choice of finishes.
Andrew mentioned the EFIS stucco, and I am assuming that the reason for all the vitriol isn't as much the material in-and-of itself, but the decision to put it over a historically significant facade or superior materials (like brick or stone) in lieu of more costly, artisans-required, repairwork.
I really don't see it as being a bad choice for new construction, though I would still rather see someone invest in some real materials here too, instead of making everything look like a fertiliser factory.
There needs to be some incentive to retain and restore an historical facade and restrictions as to what they can do with it.
The product information that I have in our reference library indicates that for applications in a temperate climate such as ours that an acrylic based product correctly applied will survive the minimum acceptable number of freeze-thaw cycles. The key being correctly applied.
My position (personally) is that exterior stucco is acceptable if it is relevant to the architectural style. If you are doing arts and crafts or southwestern homes that traditionally are finished in stucco then knock yourself out.
However, applying stucco over facebrick like many business/building owners are doing in this city is not consistant with the architectural style of neighbouring buildings (typically).
It's a cheap way out. Rather than finding a tradesperson skilled in building restoration (woodwork, brick cleaning and repointing etc.) we seek the cheap solution and end up with cartoon looking crap. Look at the building on Wyandotte that used to be Posteroptics. The one side is well maintained and still has the original architectural features and details. The other side looks like... Also, stucco is not as durable as the existing brick or stone. Watch these buildings and over time, especially around the doors and one foot above the sidewalk you will probably see cracks and chips from repeated impacts.
Look, I admit freely my stucco is bad but not all stucco is bad
Layering a facade is important and stucco could be a part of that layering.
DWBIA facade grant guidelines rock. They are based on the best practices of other cities. The facade committee goes over applications and actually suggests recommendations that we offer extra money if accepted.
I wish the guidelines were posted on the net. As soon as they are I will link to them to show them off as we are very proud
As soon as I get some time I might submit an application to try to undo or redo some of our facade to make it better
Mark, you sound a bit brainwashed over the stucco. Please, just say no to stucco. It's really all part of the disneyfication of the places we live in. Windsor needs to be Windsor. Not Tijuana. And not best practices from other cities. Who says they are doing better? Look at Andrews picture of Woolworths. Thats what Windsor used to be. To support the use of stucco is just placing a cheap veneer over our rich history and culture. We need to start caring about the places we live in and show it through our built environment. People won't care about something cheap. Stucco does make a good canvas for the garfiti artist, however.
Look, I get the stucco thing. All I'm saying is that when you look at the best houses for example. When they use all brick or stone it doesn't look as good as houses where they have brick, stone and even a bit of stucco as trim.
The layering of your facade is just as important as the materials you use.
Layering- is that an architectural term? To me, it means - a cheap alternative to real design and real architecture, something a local design/build outfit would say and do.
Mark, do your DWBIA guidelines restrict stucco use to - 10%, 15%...? Or is it carte blanche with a cmte input? How are you guarding against the proliferation of stucco?
Look Sporto, your just baiting me now. c'mon.
The DWBIA guidelines are great,they're more strict than the city's own design guidelines for the City Center West
You can download the manual
http://downtownwindsor.ca/freshfronts.asp
Have at 'er, pick it apart, I dare you.
I don't mean to give you a hard time, Mark, it's just a relevant issue. I looked at the guidelines.
they encourage the use of brick, stone and masonry, quality materials - of the vernacular.. (but not stucco)
The guidelines discourage false brick veneer, decorative block, vinyl and alum siding, too many different material combos, etc..(but not stucco)
Stucco seems to be omitted as good, or, bad in these guidelines.
Now, maybe its just me, but I would classify stucco as decorative veneer, not in the vernacular of Windsor, and under the 'not acceptable' column. What harm could that bring? Is it too restrictive?
Left undefined, it seems, we can look forward to many more stucco projects for the core in future.
Look, we both agree that stucco is not the way to go.
One of the facade grant applications was an office on Pelissier.
I wish I could show you the pictures. It did use stucco.
The Architect on the committee made recommendations to alter and add elements to the stucco facade (awnings for one, but other elements as well.)
When he was done, it was a pretty attractive. Even for a stucco building.
You're turning me into some sort of defender of stucco and thats not what I want to be.
All I'm asking is that you keep an open mind until a facade such as this is completed. It may suprise you.
P.S. Sir Cedric's received a city grant but was denied a DWBIA grant for their facade application. It may be wiser to focus on the city's criteria and ask some questions as to why they are so permissive
P.S. I have recommended that these design guidelines not only be used for grants, but also for downtown signage bylaws and zoning restrictions.
As bad as you think Stucco is, I abhor the use of backlit signs, neon signs and strobe lights in windows.
Lets focus on the all the issues that we both readily agree on
Wow, look at what I started. :)
REAL stucco, like you see on old houses in old Walkerville and Riverside is great. It's an awesome look and is a fantastic architectural element.
EFIS Ass Stucco is the work of Satan. Like sporto said it looks cheap, and in many cases it is used to cover over beautiful perfectly fine brickwork.
I urge you Mark to show any example of any building anywhere in the city that had been reclad in EFIS that looks good.
It is not an architectural element, it is not visually appealing or very durable. When I see it go up on a building two thoughts enter my head:
1. The person doing it is an a**hole with no sense of what looks good.
2. He's a cheap bastard who would rather slap a disneyfied shell over historic attractive, character defining architecture.
I'm just talking here about retrofitting of existing structures, not new construction or even what you did with the reconfiguring of the two buildings on Ouellette.
Look at the Park Building as a perfect example of everything that's wrong with EFIS.
Before and after: http://internationalmetropolis.com/?p=448
Whoever is responsible for that should have to go to prison or suffer a public flogging, for crimes against architecture ;)
There is in my opinion not a single worse thing going on in this city than the stuccofication of every possible brick building that can be covered over. In fact that gives me a great idea for a new photo essay for my site...
Really, if you can point me to any reclad building that looks good, please I'd love to see it.
As for Mark sounding like a EFIS apologist, all I can say is:
Mark + EFIS = T.L.A.
:) Just kidding Mark, but you were sounding a little bit like a stucco defender back there...
However if I had any say in it, I certainly wouldn't allow any grant money for any building facade that even considered using EFIS.
Post a Comment