Tearing Down Heritage Buildings

The Bridge Co. has been vilified for the mere thought of tearing down homes in the West End for its enhancement project.

Clearly, the Bridge Co. is being painted as a terrible citizen when it comes to this kind of activity. Mind you, I am not aware that any of the homes in question have any historical value. They are owned by the Company after a willing vendor sold the home and the vendors have been allowed to live in the homes for up to two years, rent free as was said at Council. How awful!

Things must be really bad with this Company, one of Windsor's top taxpayer. After all, it has spent $500M so far on its project and wants to spend another $500M. We are so successful economically here that we do not need this kind of investment it seems.

It must be so bad that the City by a stealth attack had to pass an Interim Control By-law and Demolition By-law to try stop them. (Oh yes, I know the excuse given by the Mayor to justify it) I know that they promised at Council not to tear buildings down during a 2-6 week period while their lawyer was away on his honeymoon so they could study the matter but that did not count. Not even the one week period that Councillor Marra asked for either.

I wanted to see how other developers dealt with their cities about demolition and especially demolition of heritage buildings. I happened to find one article on the website of Farhi Holdings which I thought you might find interesting. I wonder how our Council would react here.

Perhaps the Bridge Co. should learn a lesson or two from Farhi!

• Farhi's role in heritage should not be scarred
  Herman Goodden, London Free Press, October 31, 2006
  
  One of my favourite National Lampoon covers featured a worried looking terrier, of the mongrel persuasion, with a pistl muzzle pressed against its sloping temple. The cutline next to this heart-rending photo reads:"If you don't buy this magazine, we'll shoot this dog."
  
  I couldn't help remembering that infamous cover when reading accounts of downtown developer and property owner Shmuel Farhi's meeting last week with city politicians and administrative officers regarding what Farhi considers a dearth of downtown parking sites.
  
  As the owner of more than 70 downtown building (many of them lovingly preserved and adapted heritage properties of real architectural distinction), Farhi weilds a hefty stick in determining the well-being of London's historic core.
  
  Farhi says he now wants to tear down the former Capitol Theatre on Dundas Street and a smaller adjoining property to free up 20 additional parking spaces for his tenants in other properties. If the city won't help him with the parking crisis, Farhi says he's prepared to go to another city where his entrepreneurial spirit will be appreciated.
  
  Incredibly, this man who has invested millions into lavishly restoring some of our finest examples of 19th-century commercial architecture says that unless he gets his way by the end of this year, he's prepared to let his entire inventory of heritage buildings rot and eventually be razed.
  
  "Legally, if I want to tear down 25 buildings downtown, there's nothing you can do about it, "he said to intimidated city offcials, who may have thought that clicking sound they heard were muzzles being pressed against their furry temples.
  
  It's hard to believe Farhi, who has been so sensitive to what makes our downtown special, who has played such a supportive role as an engine of core revitalization, should now be promoting an act of demolition that works against all that.
  
  Granted, as currently constituted, the notice-plastered facade and lobby of the Capitol(the old auditorium was demolished earlier this year) is no treasure. It sat vacant for half a dozen years with the lie. "REOPENING SOON," emblazoned in plastic letters on its marquee, only to be replaced this year by "RIP." Time and the elements didn't do the structure any favours over that period and I can well believe Farhi's lament that without some long-term tenant contracted to move into the space, it is hardly feasible to invest the $500,000 required for renovations and redesign.
  
  But it's the principle of the thing that sticks in one craw. Ripping a fresh new hole in the central block of downtown's main street for another surface parking lot seems a backward way to assist the cause of downtown revitalization.
  
  It may indeed be the case that more parking is required downtown. At the meeting with Farhi, Controller Gord Hume estimated that there are 14,500 parking spaces available in the core. How many more do we really need? And what proportion of those spaces we already have are in space-wasting, community-destroying surface lots?
  
  If the need for more parking spaces during business hours is real (and I can't believe a man of Farhi's experience would invent such a need), the best solution would be to build an underground or multi-storey complex that does not waste space. There are plenty of empty sites in the core that could be developed this way without tearing down more building.
  
  If you stand just outside the train station on York Street and look north you can already see across surface-level parking lots for two blocks-all the way to Dundas Street. Take out the Capitol Theatre and tilt your head just right and that arid vista in our historic business section will be extended for a third block- to Queens Avenue.
  
  Farhi has been a bleesing to life in London. It is imperative that the city help him come up with a solution that doesn't go against all the good he has done."