Water tower edging toward end

(56) Comments | Print | Report a typo | Contact the Editor
Despite attempts to turn the de-commissioned water tower into a restaurant or living area, Westar Investments has not found any investors for the project. They have applied to the city to demolish the tower. File photo.

Despite attempts to turn the de-commissioned water tower into a restaurant or living area, Westar Investments has not found any investors for the project. They have applied to the city to demolish the tower. File photo.

Nov 25, 2009- 9:31 AM

By: Ed Veilleux - Sudbury Northern Life Staff

Unless the Pearl Street water tower, which has overlooked Greater Sudbury's downtown core for 53 years, is declared a heritage site, it could face demolition as early as spring 2010.

The tower, built in 1956 and decommissioned in 1998 after 42 years of service, has been rusting away for 11 years.

Westar Investments bought the tower from the city in 2007, after chasing the sale for roughly four years.

Cory Prause, of Westar Investments, stated in a release that the company “has pursued various avenues with investors to get the project into construction. To date, no investors have been secured although there was significant interest.”

Prause met with the Heritage Building Committee on Nov. 19 to inform them that Westar was submitting a request to demolish the tower to the city on Nov. 23.

In a release, Westar will “demolish the tower no sooner than spring of 2010 to allow time for the City to fully assess the cultural value of the tower, if any (exist).”

Westar has offered to sell the tower to back to the city if they believe it is a Heritage Building, and has suggested ways for the city to turn it into a look out tower for public use.

Prause estimated that hiring a professional painting company to paint the tower would cost at least $1 million.

Read More: Home > Sudbury News
(56) Comments | Print | Report a typo | Contact the Editor

Reader's Feedback

Editor’s Note:

NorthernLife.ca may contain content submitted by readers, usually in the form of article comments. All reader comments and any opinions, advice, statements or other information contained in any messages posted or transmitted by any third party are the responsibility of the author of that message and not of NorthernLife.ca. The fact that a particular message is posted on or transmitted using this web site does not mean that NorthernLife.ca has endorsed that message in any way or verified the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message. We encourage visitors to NorthernLife.ca to report any objectionable content by using the "report abuse" link found in the comments section of this web site.

56 Comments

  • Phillip Morris 12/2/2009 2:55:48 PM - Report Abuse

    Oh no Mr.Informed. Not every government deal is shady.
    It's just our local city counsel has a long track record of doing business "in camera".
    There are plenty of back scratching deals where permits, re-zoning, and purchases are made and the public is kept in the dark.
    If you think our city isn't operated with small town politics and friendly deals, you're sadly mistaken.

  • Informed 12/2/2009 11:02:56 AM - Report Abuse

    Why does everything to do with governments have to have 'shady deals' or 'shenanigans'??? I'm not naive to the fact that there are 'back door deals' and that money is the all powerful decision maker...but seriously...I can't believe that EVERY deal that is made has 'strings attached'.
    From what I know, the water tower was purchased over two years of negotiations. I'm sure that who was the highest bidder was not the only criteria that had to be met...(as in what are the plans for the water tower after purchase???). Westar Investments offer was accepted in Feb. 2006. The Negotiations after that were for things like re-zoning, discussions and approvals from the planning committee with regards to the proposed renovations. The re-zoning had been approved. There were no issues with the renovations. The only issue was with investors. Everyone liked the idea, but no one wanted to be a part of it!!!

  • Phillip Morris 12/2/2009 8:03:32 AM - Report Abuse

    The sale was through a public tender process. However, the article linked to by another poster, doesn't clarify if the highest bidder was awarded the site.
    Mr.drifer is correct, there were strings attached to the sale.
    Notice the line that states:
    "Negotiated Final Sale Conditions 07-02-2006"
    Just what shenianigans went on there?

    And again, like Northern Breweries, our city is left looking like a bunch of hicks.

  • The Joker 12/2/2009 6:25:36 AM - Report Abuse

    Can you imagine the value of the property around the Tower once it does come down? cha ching!

  • drifter 12/1/2009 8:57:49 PM - Report Abuse

    Who is "curran" and on what do you base your opinion that the Ozzie didn't ask to be allowed to sell the outside of the tower for billboard advertising while he finalized details?

    Perhaps it involved re zoning but there was an issue raised

  • curran 12/1/2009 8:28:53 PM - Report Abuse

    drifter: You do not recall correctly and you loose your bet also. Sometimes is best to stay quiet.

  • drifter 12/1/2009 7:51:10 PM - Report Abuse

    PM
    If I recall correctly, the Ozzie wanted an interim agreement which would allow him to sell advert. on the outside walls of the tank BEFORE he gave the city any $$$$$$$. (Thats a lot of billboard space!!!!!!!!)
    Wouldn't that have been a sweet deal? I'm betting his dream was to sell enough advert. to pay for the tower and everything inside would be free.
    The NDP Busdriver was either too slow to agree to the plan or had some advisors @ City Hall who hadn't been greased.

  • curran 12/1/2009 3:49:59 PM - Report Abuse

    You are informed, informed. Too bad others aren't.

  • Informed 12/1/2009 3:41:33 PM - Report Abuse

    PM...there was no closed door deal. Check out this site and you'll see for yourself

    http://www.sudburywatertower.com/

    The reason that the Westar redevelopment project went under was due simply to lack of investors in the project.

  • Phillip Morris 12/1/2009 3:09:46 PM - Report Abuse

    Westar Investments bought the tower from the city in 2007 in it's current shape. They played a game that they were gonna make it a restaurant and a landmark.
    Now, less than 2 years later, they've changed their minds and want to demolish it?
    Something smells here folks.
    They even made the absurd gesture to sell it back to the city. One deal that only a fool would take. Tack on the price of a MILLION bucks just to paint it?
    Weststar is pulling a fast one on our hillbilly thinking officials. Wait and see.
    They have had alternative plans for this space for years. Why would they spend the coin to tear down the structure? Surely the scrap isn't worth what they paid. (Assuming the city got a high price?) - Another closed door deal friends?
    Surely it would be cheaper just to let the stable structure sit there. Why else would a company spend so much to do us all a favour?
    In the end, we'll see exactly what they wanted this spot for. (High rise building? Broadcasting tower?.....any ideas)

  • Outskirts Oscar 12/1/2009 1:32:10 PM - Report Abuse

    I always liked that water tower. It was built by Steel Horton of somewhere down south in Ontario. I think it was purchased as a used water tower, if I read the story right... Or if it was the other one in the West End.

    If it was up to my buddy, Muzzamil, he would have turned that water tower to a Big Turban with a minaret on top.

    If it was up to me, I would turn the Flour Mill silos into big beer cans or garbage can as an ode to me : Outskirts Oscar The Grouch of Worthington Ontario!

  • curran 12/1/2009 9:08:41 AM - Report Abuse

    Bill --- Mary, as usual is dead WRONG. But then anyone with half a brain would have realized that. $1000. lol think about. Why do some comment when they know NOTHING about a subject? Oh I know ---

  • Informed 12/1/2009 9:08:26 AM - Report Abuse

    Sustainable Earth, the current owners of the water tower wanted to change it into a restaurant. That was one of the reasons they had bought it, because they had done that in other places and had a good response to it...check it out... http://www.northernlife.ca/News/LocalNews/2008/08-08-08-Tower.aspx

    However, the reno's were not approved and the project could not move forward. So, now the company wants to get rid of it.

    I think it would have been great to have the water tower changed the way that Westar had intended...but now that things won't happen that way, I say get rid of it.

  • Bill_1 12/1/2009 8:56:06 AM - Report Abuse

    Mary said they paid $1000. and they want $150,000. Not sure if she works for Westar or city,?? So they only want a profit of 15,000%.Sure glad they don't hold the mortgage on my home when it's renewal time.

  • MAXIMVS-corruptioncentral 11/30/2009 9:18:02 PM - Report Abuse

    I wonder what Westar paid the city for the tower...and at what price it will sell it back.... should it be declared a heritage site.

  • The Joker 11/29/2009 5:45:34 PM - Report Abuse

    It says in the article above that it is Westar's intention to submit a request to demolish the Tower, so I'm sure it is at their cost, not the taxpayers. And I don't work fot Westar.

  • MAXIMVS-corruptioncentral 11/29/2009 2:26:32 PM - Report Abuse

    Joker...providing the tower does come down...is this your companies offer..."to dismantle the water tower at no cost"...in exchange... your company can bolt its own Westar logo in the corner the proposed SUDBURY sign that you suggested be cut out and bolted rock.

  • The Joker 11/29/2009 1:12:13 PM - Report Abuse

    It is clear to me from the postings below that there really are only two main points of view. One - the majority suggest that the rusty, old, redundant water tower be taken down and the land be put to good use like affordable housing. Two - the balance want to preserve the “landmark” because it’s like a “welcome home” sign as one returns back to Sudbury. Let’s make one thing perfectly clear - Sudbury has one official landmark, it’s the Big Nickel. The Pearl Street Water Tower is not. All one has to do is visit sudburytourism.ca or mysudury.ca and view the 48-page 2009 Official Visitor’s Guide to see this. That’s why the water tower photo does not appear in the guide, nor does it make even make the list of 37 attractions and points of interest.

    I suggest a “win-win” solution. Allow Westar to demolish the water tower in a manner that preserves the “SUDBURY” name. Individually cut-out the steel letters and bolt them prominently to rock somewhere. Perhaps high up on a rock cliff when entering Sudbury from the south on Highway 69. A sign similar to “H O L L Y W O O D”...only ours would proudly say “S U D B U R Y”. They are huge letters and would need to be high up.

  • MAXIMVS-corruptioncentral 11/27/2009 10:58:12 PM - Report Abuse

    Put it on E-Bay...can it be sold? donated? Hold an auction...dismantled for free? Im sure council could use the money...I liked the muriel idea though.

  • drifter 11/27/2009 8:47:21 PM - Report Abuse

    Lets look forward folks.

    In 2 or 3 years the city can negotiate with Vale Inco to leave Frood Mine Headframe up to add to the Sudbury Skyline comprised of the Big Nickel and the Super Stack

    Tear down that chunk of rust..If it's not stainless or built of bricks it doesn't represent our heritage

  • oxmusic 11/27/2009 11:20:44 AM - Report Abuse

    it is a landmark and part of the city skyline. many cities around the world have the same and have been preserved. its only rusty and ugly because our city council hasnt maintained it! i say tear down ONE of them and the other should be maintained with a lookout platform on top.

  • beefy 11/26/2009 7:02:16 PM - Report Abuse

    I like it too, feel just like you sustainable. Coming home from a trip out of town, it's a good sight to see. It's like a big welcome home sign.

  • 2010 11/26/2009 6:51:45 PM - Report Abuse

    You know what, after looking at the picture I agree, it is unique and worth keeping.

  • Sustainable Earth 11/26/2009 2:43:48 PM - Report Abuse

    I love the sight of the water tower! Every time I come back to Sudbury after a trip, I see it and know that I'm home. It's unique and beautiful and it would be soooo cool to put something like a restaurant inside. I think it's worth saving and if we lose it we will miss it. This is a youth opinion.

  • Bill_1 11/26/2009 12:39:33 PM - Report Abuse

    Do you mean I could have outbid this Aussie for $1001.00 ? I would have cut it in half,inverted it,filled it with water and sold it to the city as a splash park or put it beside the silos as a birdbath for the pigeons.

  • The Real Mucker 11/26/2009 11:49:00 AM - Report Abuse

    Blow it up REAL GOOD..........

  • mary_1 11/26/2009 10:55:03 AM - Report Abuse

    The Pearl St. watertower is a landmark...the other one on Ash is as well, although the city let it become an eyesore.
    If Sudbury continues to tear down everything, it will have nothing left but big box stores. Sure the watertowers may not be heritage in the true sense of the word, but they add interest to our skyline...The city has appointed an heritage committee..,so why dont they listen to the informed people on the committee instead of the folks who hang out across the street at the LC/Tim's.
    My Sudbury is the Pearl St. Watertower!!!!! and imagine it was sold for $1,000 now the owner wants $150,000. If the Aussie who bought it tears it down, he gets a nice piece of real estate to sell before heading back down under. Sometime I am ashamed of my city and the folks that make the decisions.

  • 2010 11/26/2009 10:02:16 AM - Report Abuse

    Get that ugly old thing out

  • Grouchy 11/26/2009 9:49:41 AM - Report Abuse

    WOW Max "call it Rods Round Table or Paint a muriel of city council...over looking Sudbury's downtown financial district and justice/entertaiment district."
    What a great idea ! It could even be turned into office space for our prehistoric mayor and council.

  • cazziemanu_1 11/26/2009 9:06:03 AM - Report Abuse

    Get rid of the rust buckets!! They make the place an eyesore! While you are taking the towers down, get rid of that monstrosity in the Flour Mill! Those silo's do nothing but attract pigeons and they look terrible!
    Who on earth had the bright idea of preserving those things.
    They serve no purpose whatsoever.

  • Hector_2 11/26/2009 6:30:45 AM - Report Abuse

    Bring it down!! And get rid of the other one that looks like a rust bucket.

  • Share the Wealth_1 11/26/2009 5:31:55 AM - Report Abuse

    It is a humungus eyesore as well as the other water tower on Pearl St. and the Silo's, these are junk ....get rid of them and use the land they are on to build affordable housing.

  • MAXIMVS-corruptioncentral 11/26/2009 12:46:02 AM - Report Abuse

    2nd acc....Seriously? Well...one does come to mind...but it seems to elude some people...so do we call these people mindless?

  • second_account 11/26/2009 12:31:04 AM - Report Abuse

    Tear it down, sell the scrap metal and carry on.
    53 years is hardly long enough to be considered a heritage site/building considering how long Sudbury has been around.
    If this does pass the requirements for heritage status, we're in deeper trouble than we ever could have dreamed of with this council.
    Seriously though, isn't there anything else going around here that could have displaced this article from the headline?

  • drifter 11/25/2009 11:35:01 PM - Report Abuse

    c'mon mikey 27.......we "saved" the flour silos as a heritage/historic site. We can't keep saving everything that sticks up as a heritage site.
    Instead the city should create a savings fund for establishing the "super stack" and, say, South Mine headframe as tourist attractions or heritage sites like Peggys Cove Lighthouse........free rides to the top of the Super Stack......etc etc.....the local 6500 guys on the picket line could sell tee shirts and learn to sing like Men of the Deep......go for it Local 6500

  • MAXIMVS-corruptioncentral 11/25/2009 11:02:45 PM - Report Abuse

    We as tax payers can create a monument or legacy for our politicians...call it Rods Round Table or Paint a muriel of city council...over looking Sudbury's downtown financial district and justice/entertaiment district.

  • mikey27_1 11/25/2009 10:36:16 PM - Report Abuse

    bottom line here is "do something" ! If declared a heritage site, then do what is nesessary to restore it; if not tear it down. Personally , I'd like to see it restored but who will pay?

  • Pork&Beans 11/25/2009 9:43:36 PM - Report Abuse

    "Timber!"

  • drifter 11/25/2009 9:31:12 PM - Report Abuse

    Its an eyesore. Now that the Ozzie can't get his free money for this office and restaurant development and the city won't let him hang billboards on it, its worth nothing to nobody.

    demolition is the answer at the Ozzies expense.......g'dye myte.

  • Tonysky 11/25/2009 7:08:56 PM - Report Abuse

    Ahh scrap the thing, it's a rusty eye sore, I would love to this thing removed. I am still not sure why it stayed here for that long to begin with, something of no use at this capacity should have been deemed garbage and plans for removal right away.

  • MAXIMVS-corruptioncentral 11/25/2009 5:31:26 PM - Report Abuse

    Did you know the city pays rent to certain selected individuals...ie for the provincila offenses office located on elm st., for the foodbank, etc etc...the rent the city pays is waaaay above market value. For years this has been going. It amounts to nothing more than political kick backs..at our cost! Who orchastratyes this abuse...a vew select lawyers for the city. remember this city is run by lawyers...not politicians. I agree there is «NOTHING worth saving! We need new politicians, no policy and a new future Sudbury.

  • Maggie_1 11/25/2009 5:09:37 PM - Report Abuse

    After they tore down the "old postoffice" downtown I find that there is nothing in Sudbury worth saving. It all disappeared when they demolished the old post office and also the building at the railroad station. There is nothing that I consider worth keeping.

  • sandman 11/25/2009 4:04:34 PM - Report Abuse

    well said... Character!
    lol.. sudbury's motto, "it ain't pretty, but it's home"

    You want change then move to the back of the line, if you want even more change, then shuffle yourself from the back of said line to the middle. but make no mistake, this is the only change you will see, your position in line that is it!
    Sad thing is that these stupid puns are more true than false...What are you going to do?!

  • curran 11/25/2009 3:50:39 PM - Report Abuse

    I agree with you on one point Bill, the arena is used everyday and it is also seen and used by many out-of-towners. Now THAT eyesore is something that I'm not proud of. Perhaps the CITY thinks it's a "Heritage Building" also. (Although they didn't sell it when someone wanted to purchase IT).

    As for the tower --- the city shouldn't have any say in it whatsoever they SOLD it. (I would like it to remain as I think it adds character to the city, and lord knows it needs character.)

  • sandman 11/25/2009 3:22:51 PM - Report Abuse

    agreed Bill & Skndstry...on all points, just figured hey it's in the eye of the beholder. but it's a stretch for sure. Heritage site?
    it is an old water tower!!!
    there are still 2 more aren't there? falconbridge rd and pine st?
    money better spent on tear down, have the owners of that site either tear it down a rebuild on the property, issue solved.

  • Bill_1 11/25/2009 3:13:18 PM - Report Abuse

    If the water tower and the silos aren't junk what are they? I sure wouldn't be taking friends,relatives there during my tour of Sudbury. If anyone wants a view of the city rather than investing millions just go up to Sunridge estates.You basically get a view of most of Sudbury. Maybe Westar should demolish it and put a highrise rather than looking at the taxpayers to fill their pockets.

  • resident 11/25/2009 2:45:18 PM - Report Abuse

    Curran there is no comparison. First of all the arena is being used on a regular basis and the city owns it. The water tower, however, is not being used and the city sold it. So buy back a useless tower and maintain it for no good reason, really?

  • curran 11/25/2009 2:33:27 PM - Report Abuse

    The tower may not be a "heritage" site but I wouldn't call it junk. And to compare it to Parliment Hill (thank goodness that's not in Sudbury, imagine --- it's had it's day too expensive to maintain ---), is just silly. But keep the old arena and maintain IT, that's ok. Really.

  • Bill_1 11/25/2009 1:47:20 PM - Report Abuse

    The same for the silos on Notre Dame. Cost a fortune to restore. Some fool thought of converting them into apartments years ago. (Think they were just out of the mental hospital.)Sell the silos to Molsons and they can paint them with their logos and advertise them as a six pack. Heritage be damned. The Bell museum at Bell park.Thats a different story.

  • skndstry 11/25/2009 1:34:32 PM - Report Abuse

    There is a big difference between an antique, and old junk.

    Part of it is in the eye of the beholder, true, but part of it is simply pragmatic.

    The water tower is not a "heritage" site - it's a rusty old water tower. Get a grip. We aren't talking about Parliament Hill or some beautifully constructed old church here.

  • Bill_1 11/25/2009 1:26:12 PM - Report Abuse

    Sandman. My wife has a relative in the area of the water tower with a house which is twice the age of the water tower. Maybe it should be a heritage building also and the city could buy it also and maintain it along with the taxes. As far as a tourist attraction. I'd like to know which Sudburians would want to sink anything into this venture. Most people I know are wishing they could get out of this town where taxes and water rates are affordable. Why do we pay 60% more for water than N.Bay or 48% more than the provincial average???
    Who on council knows someone working for Westar??????

  • sandman 11/25/2009 12:19:34 PM - Report Abuse

    Bill....As much as possible!
    we do live in the same city right?
    this is par for the course for Sudbury Council.
    it can stay or go as long as it doesn't cost me a dime!

    If the City has to buy it back then it never should have been sold in the first place = bad descision directly from council!

    IF this is still property of the City of Sudbury then paying to keep up the maitainance isn't so bad.

    But to buy it back is a waste of ALL our money!
    If the City wants to waste money like this then why not throw what they were going to buy it for into the pothole patrol!
    The roads in this city cost all drivers much more than should be required to maintain a vehicle, that is criminal!

  • resident 11/25/2009 12:12:18 PM - Report Abuse

    It is an eyesore, get rid of it. Now the Big Nickel that is something to keep, water towers are not. It was used to store water, not entertain the city, its useless not and needs to go.

  • Pork&Beans 11/25/2009 12:07:16 PM - Report Abuse

    Scrap it.Westar can keep it.No way that the city should buy it back.

  • Bill_1 11/25/2009 11:48:36 AM - Report Abuse

    I never realized it had been sold. So now that they own it and if the city wants to consider it a heritage building they'll gladly sell it back.(I also assume at the same price they boought it as they have not spent anything on it.)Why would the city sell it in the first place if they were considering it a heritage building in the first place. So what will this fiasco cost taxpayers?????

  • curran 11/25/2009 10:28:21 AM - Report Abuse

    I know that Sudbury has people that could invest in this water tower and keep it a part of Our Sudbury. It's been there for as long as most of us can remember. It's sad how a lot of citizens don't want to move forward in this city, but when it comes to preserving a part of its history, they want nothing to do with it. Sad. I hope Cory, that you hear some good news before the spring. If only I ------
FacebookTwitterRSSVideophotoNewsletterMobile