ReThink London
 

I've been away from London for almost a year now but try to keep up to date as much as possible through this forum, some Londoners blogs and yes the LFPress.. Recently I've been following the Planning Departments "Rethink London" (The official Plan review)I found it to seem very interesting from what I read as well as what is up on the website .

I was wondering if anyone on here was one of the 1300 people there? any thoughts on how it went, what you think the next year will bring? I was actually pretty surprised to see that no one on the SSP was commenting on this event happening.. or anything about.

Below is one of the many articles, I believe this one summed it all up the best:
They’re ready to ReTHINK the city. Are you?

By IAN GILLESPIE, THE LONDON FREE PRESS


Maybe we need an inspiring pep talk, like the "fight for every inch" speech delivered by actor Al Pacino in the football film Any Given Sunday.

Maybe, as authors James Collins and Jerry Porras described in their book Built To Last, we need a "big hairy audacious goal" - an objective that's questionable, but not impossible.

Maybe we need a big tasty carrot, or a scary-looking stick.

But Londoners, I think, desperately need something to shake us out of the municipal malaise that's covering this city like a wet wool blanket.

And maybe we'll get that with ReThink London.

The year-long conversation with residents, launched Thursday at the London Convention Centre, is designed to set the goals and targets for a new city master plan.

Although it's essentially a land-use planning exercise, the brains behind ReThink London are clearly aiming at something bigger, as evidenced by the program's five themes: How we live, how we green, how we grow, how we move and how we prosper.

Of course, those themes will likely generate some familiar topics of discussion.

Among them: the plight of downtown, the role of heritage, the future of transit and transportation (particularly bicycling), the city's relationship with Fanshawe College and Western University, the limits (or not) of suburban growth and the contribution of arts and culture (including the perennial question of a performing arts centre).

But will those subjects and suggestions - most of which have been examined by The Free Press in our What's London series exploring the city's identity - be enough?

For the past 25 years, London has settled comfortably into a vision of itself as somewhere safe, comfortable and convenient, a nice place to live, but someplace you wouldn't need to visit.

Battered by job losses (particularly the galling situation at Electro-Motive Diesel), embarrassed by scandals (like the banana-throwing incident at the John Labatt Centre), disgusted by social unrest (the drunken debacle on Fleming Dr.) and emotionally pummelled by testimony at the Tori Stafford trial, Londoners have no dearth of recent reasons for being down in the dumps.

For many observers, there's been no sparkling sense of civic purpose since the lead-up to the 2001 Canada Summer Games, when thousands of flag-waving Londoners braved rain and cold to show their support.

For all too many, the Forest City has become a sort of velvet coffin, a second-rate city ruled by consistency and complacency. But if it works, maybe ReThink London can prod more Londoners to replace "settle" with "superlative."

There is, however, a danger.

As former city councillor Sandy Levin recalls, we went through a similar exercise 16 years ago with Vision 96.

"In 1997, I got elected with a bunch of other first-time city councillors, many of whom had no connection to the Vision 96 process," says Levin. "So it went out the window."

If that happens again, says Levin, this city could alienate a whole new group of emerging activists.

"If current council doesn't get behind this and if they just pay lip service to the ideas, then the process is going to be a waste," says Levin. "If you really want to turn people off, don't implement anything they want."

So, the challenge is twofold: Deliver some sparkling ideas, then commit to following them up.

Only then can we shake the moniker of mediocrity that still hangs above our door.

methinks rethink is just an empty slogan, similar to that wretched London jingle/song "London is the city of opportunity!"

Imagine a city where a river runs through it! (big whoop; don't most cities not by the ocean/large lake have a river that runs through it?).

I loathe empty slogans and meaningless jargon. Like the way that MBA students run around saying "synergy" and "mission-critical" and "actionable" and "disintermediate" and "incentivize" all day. Sloganeering and bullshit have a correlation coefficient very close to +1.

Corporate bullshit generator: http://bullshitgenerator.blogspot.ca/2010/01/mba-jargon-exhaustive-list.html

I think municipal planning sloganeering is far more dangerous than Corporate MBA bullshit. People throw around feel-good sunshine terms and yap about the "diversity and walkability of intricately linked communities" without looking at the economic consequences of creating little communistical urban fiefdoms. The destructive forces have the potential to wreck an entire city, not just one company held by apathetic investors.

London is the poster child of the unplanned community and according to your logic should be economically thriving. Yet, it finds itself economically depressed and sinking further. You would probably see cities with strong neighbourhoods and great transit as communist, yet the cities that invest in transit and neighbourhoods thrive. The thought that if a city has good planning, the development community loses is utterly wrong. Developers adapt to whatever makes them money.

Clearly you've never been to Quebec. Literally every single city extends outwards in a mess of haphazard sprawl that makes London look downright organized.

London's economic problems can be almost completely attributed to uncompetitive manufacturing and poor transportation planning, which indirectly leads to sprawl. Overall you seem to have misunderstood my statement, because I have no problem with good urban planning and I never have. I take issue with populist planners who use buzz words like "interconnected" and "vibrant" to make bad plans sound more appealing... like the Sheppard LRT. It's far more prevalent in the Imperial Capital than it is in London, but we get that sometimes as well. Remember the bullshit tornado from our MPPs over the Wonderland-401 Interchange? Good little project. Not a bad idea in this case, but holy hell, the way they were playing it up made it sound like we were digging the Panama Canal.

Well, I've always subscribed to the idea that 'money talks, and bullshit walks'. And I tend to think the sloganeering you describe happens because it's easier to trot out important-sounding (but ultimately empty) slogans than have to put real money on the table.

Rethink London seems to be more like Rebrand London.

UWO-->"Western U" :yuck:
JLC-->"Budweiser gardens" :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck:
Galleria-->Citiplaza :yuck:
London-->Farhitown

Same can, different (and much worse) label.

To be fair to Western University, they did look at their history when re-branding. They were originally called "The Western University of London Ontario." "The University of Western Ontario" was a re-brand itself. "Western University" is the third name of the facility.

How is this fair to faculty, alumni, and the city? You can white wash it anyway you like to, but the fact is that the change was rammed down our throats without due process. I suspect (I heard this from several people in the know) that Chakma did not like our brand and wanted to put his own stamp on things (gotta justify that hefty salary). change for the sake of change, not for the sake of good. Any Marketing 101 text will tell you that most rebranding efforts fail miserably. Of coruse there are some notable exceptions. Budweiser gardens most certainly will not rank amongst them.

what was that horrid London song?
"Imagine an arena named after american horsepiss! Imagine a city without any sense of history! London is the city of flop-ertunity!"

Now that they've renamed UWO as 'Western University', the new name is really going to confuse the hell out of people who have always known UWO as UWO or 'Western', or, more properly as The University of Western Ontario.

To my eyes, 'Western University' seems horribly generic, the kind of name that would fit a lower-tier college in an underpopulated state in the US.

But then again, when I look at the ugly American-style sign Brescia put at its front gates, I can see that 'going American' seems to be the way to go. I hate that sign - it looks like something that belongs outside of a high school, or a private business college like Westervelt, not an institution of higher learning.

Governments are famous for inducing change for the sake of change and confusing everyone in the process. Now the private sector and the educational sector seem to have become infected by the same change-it-itis.

Finally, does anyone at the top still understand the value and virtues of 'dignitas, gravitas et decorum' (dignity, gravitas and decorum) anymore? Is there anything wrong with maintaining useful traditions that have withstood the test of time?

The UWO debacle deserves at least 4 more "yuck" faces. To me, that was a far greater travesty than this arena rebranding.

I like that - 'city of flopertunity'. It has a nice ring to it and fits London perfectly, because it's the city that aspires to be a first-tier city but can't ever get past the third tier.

One thing is for sure. I get to retire in 10 years, and I don't think I'll be retiring here. Simply because 10 years from now, we'll still be waiting for the things that the city promised us five years ago. If recent history is anything to go by.

http://www.lfpress.com/2012/09/14/free-p...o-the-heart-of-how-to-make-london-better

An excellent article about the City I still love, appreciate, and will always call home. Would love an opportunity in the future to move back there and set my roots down in London, Ontario.

Simply put its all about roads and transit, by far the most important one! If London has the proper infrastructure, to move people and good, in, out and through London efficiently, business, investment and importantly jobs will follow. The the rest of that can be accomplished, higher density with higher population, river revitalization etc.

Right now London failing miserably n that respect and isn't that attractive to new business & investment.

I thought I had it bad in London with public transit; I now live in Kingston and it's even worse there. I don't think there's a single route with service more than once every half hour, and weekend and evening service is almost non-existent. However I also am finding it to be a much more pedestrian-friendly community, with a pretty good downtown - complete with a grocery store. So it's not so bad for me, especially as I live in the older part of town.

The biggest thing London needs is a huge beefing up of public transit. Controlling urban sprawl and ensuring pedestrian-friendly neighbourhoods is a close second.

You know I was going to respond to the ignorance of this post with a technical response, but on second thought I just don't care. Most posts here are without merit, because those posting have little or none municipal experience.

As someone with some municipal experience. His post definitely has certain merits. Transit..er rapid transit is something that helps change a community from a rinky-dinky town stuck in the 1980s and 1990s to a modern day community.

How is Kitchener, a city very comparable in size of London, PLUS it has a freeway running through it, is still pursuing LRT through the City and Region?

London seems happy if it gets a limited bus stop route cross town running in mixed traffic by 2031. How is that successful?

London should be pursuing rapid transit in so many ways right now. London traffic is horrible, and the City is built in a way to support a 100,000 population city, not one almost 4X that amount. With rapid transit comes density, with rapid transit comes modal shift, all things that London could work with.

The fact the Mayor and Council seem perfectly fine with working within the inefficiencies of London Transit (all local service bus routes) for the time being shows that London isn't being as innovative as it should be. Planning for either BRT or LRT by ensuring dedication along major corridors should be essential for any future development.

So please, as someone who's worked within the civil service, how is his post without merit? Secondly, the vote for transit or transportation in the London Free Press poll is #1 right now. Not obviously running away with it, but 66 out of over 225 voted for that. That's not insignificant is it?

Transit is one component of the make-up a larger city, not the magic bullet you claim it to be.

How does a community of several hundred thousand without a transit system that meets your seal of approval rate as "rinky-dinky", and then once that same community of several hundred thousand gets a shiny new transit system it suddenly is "modern"?

Oh and BTW, I lived through the 80's and 90's as an adult. They weren't the dreadful prehistoric times that you imply.

Kitchener is not comparable in size to London in either physical size or population.

Kitchener does not have a freeway, the Province of Ontario has a freeway - some of which is in Kitchener. The province built it 50 years ago outside of the existing city because it could not widen the existing roads in the city that made up the provincial route up to that time. Is this freeway a benefit to that city now? Absolutely it is and a godsend to that city because the remainder of its road network is a geometric mess, but don't hail it as a example of some brilliant modern-day forward thinking. It was done out of necessity as much as anything.

As for the LRT project in that area, Kitchener is not perusing that project. The Region of Waterloo is. Before you respond that it's the "same difference", it isn't. The fact that you don't know or understand the difference illustrates that your understanding of municipal affairs is limited.

As well, there is not unanimous support for the LRT project in K-W area, at either a public or political level. Far from it. The Regional government there is pressing ahead with the project, and it certainly does have its supporters, but to imply that "Kitchener" is packed with progressive thinkers and London packed with Luddites is absolutely incorrect and superficial.

If whatever solution that is implemented to a perceived problem works and is cost effective, then it is successful.

That's your opinion and of course you are entitled to it, however if you ask all of the taxpayers of the city if they would like their taxes and utility rates to go up to pay for a billion dollar LRT system, you might not like their collective opinion.

Winnipeg has a population of over 600,000 and is only now beginning to pursue BRT.
Quebec City has a population of over 500,000 and has 4 BRT runs.
I'm not aware of any stand-alone municipality with a population under 500,000 in Canada that has an LRT. It generally isn't seen as fiscally sustainable for a municipality under this population.

Even if wildly successful, an LRT system might increase the rider share from perhaps 5%-8% being public transit to at best 15% - 20%. The car is and will remain king in this part of the world. The modal shift would not be that revolutionary.

You see "innovation", the mayor and council see "cost", because in the end, money is the fuel that makes everything go forward. Capital costs aside, the "Kitchener" LRT that you refer to will have a projected operating defect once up and running of $20M a year. An awful lot of people find that unacceptable for a city of London's/Waterloo Region's size. The one argument being made is that a modern LRT system is the remedy to draw new employment to a city. Others would argue however that is low taxes. One is not likely to get the first and second solutions at the same time in a municipality the size of London, so it's one or the other and low taxes is the far dominant preferred solution right now.

Any major new transit system in any town that is of a scope that requires dedicated land is almost entirely going to operate in existing right-of-ways. There will be no dedication to be had, only expensive and time-consuming expropriation.

The post is without merit because there isn't an understanding the complexities of the issue. It is one thing to state that one support's enhanced public transit, quite another to imply that any municipality that does not share one's particular vision is run by fools. Those fools have a much greater understanding of all of these issues, and the responsibility that comes with it. It isn't as simple as deciding that more public transit (or any other expensive initiative) is good, so let's just do it. When you start taking professional responsibility for 10's or 100's of millions of taxpayer dollars, perhaps you will understand. It's a lot more complicated than Sim City.

66 votes out of how many total votes (whether that be 66 or 6666) in total on a web poll indicates that this isn't an issue for the vast majority of people. If you were to do a proper poll and have a plebiscite during a municipal election and ask the voting public if they would support the implementation of a new transit system that would cost a billion dollars or so to construct, $10 - $20 million a year to subsidize it's operations, and the benefit would be to raise the transit share of total daily ridership from a current 5% to say 15% or 20%, that would be a more germane result.

The harsh new reality that ivory tower politicians in London do not want to deal with is that London's woefully inadequate transit system is the single biggest thing driving young people away from London. I have talked to endless Western grads who told me that the poor public transit system in London was the primary reason they didn't consider staying in London after graduation. (My main reason was a lack of employment opportunity, but public transit ranks as a close second for me. Unlike many of my colleagues at Western, I actually looked for work in London.)

Like it or not City Hall, today's young people value public transit in a way that earlier generations cannot comprehend. Public transit is a big deciding factor for young people when deciding on a city to live in. Places like Waterloo Region, Toronto, and Ottawa that embrace public transit are the places that young people want to move to. Places like London that treat public transit like a service for the poor and handicapped don't cut it anymore. Maybe this strategy worked in 1995, but it doesn't in 2012.

London is just going to keep bleeding talent until it does something to make the city attractive to young people. With talent will come the jobs. And today, an effective, modern public transit system is a huge factor. I can't speak as a politician, but I can speak as a young person who spent five years being surrounded by people complaining about London Transit and talking about moving to a city with a good public transit system after graduation.

London could do wonders if it went out and asked current Western and Fanshawe students about their attitudes about this city. A bunch of "emerging leaders" is far from representative of the younger demographics of the city. They could even take it a step further and survey Western and Fanshawe grads who no longer live in London, and find out why they moved. Both surveys would yield results that I don't think the City of London is ready to hear.

^ What he said.

There's another trend emerging that leaders of municipal governments everywhere would do well to pay heed to, and that is the fact that many young people now are doing without a car.

The reason why is that many young people have little interest in cars. Plus, they don't want the hassle or the expense of owning a car, and considering that so many young people are unemployed, or underemployed despite having a good education, they can't really afford one, either.

Right now, the auto industry is quietly having a conniption because the most crucial segment of their target market - the 18 to 34 age group - can't afford to buy a car, and if they have one already, they're hanging on to it until it drops. Or they're doing without.

And when young people find they do need a car, they're renting one - it's one reason why car-sharing services like Zipcar are making such inroads in heavily congested, very populous centres like Toronto and in many US cities.

Added to this development the fact that all of the baby boomers now retiring will, in about 10 to 15 years from now, be too old or sick to continue driving.

The confluence of these demographic trends means that much better public transit is going to be needed sooner rather than later. Any municipal politician who ignores that fact does so at his or her own peril.

Bingo, and that really drills down to part of the root cause of why young people are increasingly valuing public transit as a means of getting around. The other reason is environmental consciousness. I know myself that I have never earned enough money to be able to afford even a used car; the job I have recently started does pay enough to afford a used Honda Civic. And I'm 26 years old.

For what it's worth, the city I'm now in (Kingston) has a transit system far worse than London's. As a result Queens and St. Lawrence students barely venture away from campus, and I'm forced to live within walking distance of where I work until such time I can afford a car, which will probably be three months from now. At least I live in a good area.

As a side note, affordability of a car and house increases tremendously if you can find a significant other and/or get married. And perhaps that is part of the problem facing young people today; they are satisfied staying single for a long time and don't want commitment. Personally I'd like to find a significant other and get married, but it seems as though very few others are looking for that today, and those that are, are already engaged or married. It's tough being a 26-year-old single in Canada today; you can't afford the lifestyle your parents had at your age, and the other singles are career-focused and want to stay single.

Well, if it's any comfort, things weren't any easier for me when I was 26, and that was 24 years ago. When I left university, I had to go to Toronto to find work, because nothing was available in London. While I wasn't exactly starving, I couldn't afford to live well, and a car was more or less out of the question until my father helped me find an older Pontiac Acadian that I could use to get to and from work in Markham.

Once I was on my feet, I traded up to a used '84 Olds Omega. But I ended up leaving Toronto because of the high living costs. So when I got back to London, the job I had didn't last long and so I had to sell the car just to stay afloat for a while.

I once visited Kingston briefly many years ago and was surprised to see how spread out it is compared to other cities with a similar population. No wonder why public transit sucks there.

Agreed. When I got married for the first time at age 42, I discovered how much more affordable a nice house and a new car were with two salaries going into the bank account. But the marriage didn't last, alas.

I don't blame people not wanting to commit anymore, because when divorce happens, it's usually a messy, expensive and painful process that only enriches lawyers. Plus, too many men now are finding that women try to use divorce as a tool to cash in.

I was lucky. When my ex-wife and I broke up, we split the equity in the house 50/50, divvied up the other assets fairly and moved on. No kids were involved, so there was no chance of me having to make support payments.
I filed the divorce papers myself, and because ex-wifey didn't contest anything, it took less than six months for the whole thing to be finalized. Best $500.00 I ever spent!

The older part of the city is fairly compact. I'm fortunate that I live in an area where most of what I need is within walking distance: I live within walking distance of a Loblaws and a Metro, a Canadian Tire, Pharma Plus and Shoppers Drug Mart, an LCBO and Beer Store, downtown, and the office I work in. A lot of Queens graduate students live in the area, and Queens is within walking distance as well. Fortunately, I do not have a big need for public transit right now, although once winter comes I might be singing a different tune. Still better than London; where I lived, the only thing within walking distance was a Mac's Milk.

That said, I don't think there's a single place in London that has all of those amenities within walking distance of each other. So Kingston's lack of an effective transit system is not so bad if you live in the older part of the city, but if you live in the suburbs, you almost have to have a car. Most areas of London require some sort of transportation option to get around, mainly because of the lack of grocery stores in the older part of the city.

I'm sure the employment situation was a big factor in their moving away too though. In London, public transit is seen as something for poor people (it's the same mentality in Windsor). There seems to be more of an American or midwestern view toward transit in these cities.

What angers me most about London is that it takes 40 bloody minutes to drive across the city at rush hour. I don't think improving the transit system will help improve commutes because there are lots of people that won't use it regardless due to the apparent stigma.

Oh yes, absolutely. It's the main reason I am no longer in London. And I know a lot of former Londoners who no longer live there because of a lack of work there. Those who come to London from other cities to study, from what I gathered, shared a very low opinion of the city: the most frequent complaint was London Transit, with other complaints being the lack of anything to do off campus other than drinking, the problems with hate and hate crimes, and the fact we're not Toronto. Of course, there's nothing we can do about the last one, but the other three things are things we can control. I'm sure that if we could retain enough of the talent that comes out of Western, we'd have new business ventures in the city that could hire qualified people. But it's not happening. Our graduates are bypassing London and are going to Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Western Canada, Europe, and in one case I'm aware of, even Windsor.

The stigma can be changed, albeit gradually. It's all in the marketing.

This is why not transit alone will fix London both roads and transit in tandem are necessary. It's not even grand schemes like LRT/BRT routes, although would be great, which would seriously help. More bus bays, express routes, centre left turn lanes, channelization at intersections would be good improvements.

Main obstacles with London are widening arterials that are way overcapacity like Commissioners, Southdale, Western-Wharncliffe, Oxford; Natural obstacles like rivers, tributaries and ponds that cut off roads, Gainsborough-Windemere-Kilally, Sarnia-Huron, Riverside to King St, Adelaide, Colboune st. missing link; Man-made obstacles, CN & CP rail lines, lack of grade separation, no crosstown expressway and political indifference.

Ultimately why would any company want to invest/set up shop with this lack of transportation infrastructure? Young talented people don't want to stay in London, good aren't moved efficiently. IMO major improvements would lead to both economic investment, having people stay in London and make the London a more vibrant place.

If I was elected as mayor, I'd raise your taxes and make this entire city a constant construction zone.

It would be 4 years of hell, but a modern, efficient city would emerge from the dust.

Would you vote for me? :P

Raise by how much...

Realistically I would have no problem paying extra taxes for a specific plan that everyone is contributing to and work is being done.

I may be in the minority but it would help everyone in the long run

It might be better to issue municipal bonds. The City of London has a better credit rating than the Gubmnt o'Murrhica, so interest rates would not be too bad. The whole thing would work without a massive increase in taxes, provided that you carefully budget the infrastructure projects and also ensure that you can cover regular principal and interest payments.

I'd still vote for you, chances are you'd be better than any mayor this city has had for the past 40 years. The real issue is getting council on your side, as Mr. Ford has recently proven in Toronto.

http://www.lfpress.com/2012/10/12/take-meto-the-river-core-and-more

Interesting read with lots of interesting comments, including from former councilor Sandy Levin. I used to disagree with his views but I'm starting to understand his philosophy.

I met Sandy Levin earlier this year on several occasions about a redevelopment project.

He added a lot of input to the questions I asked him and gave me a lot to think about as well. Seeing that I am young and he is old, the two of us got along quite well despite that age barrier being in the way.

I've always been a supporter of smart growth and I believe London is capable of it and doing it right. Canada's growing both economically and demographically so any failure on London's part to cash in on this is not acceptable, but it has to be done within certain circumstances.

Anybody go to hear him?

I would have liked to. The man had some excellent suggestions and ideas. Couldn't agree more that we deserve much better than what we have been getting in London! Local politicians really need to stop with the excuses.

^I would have liked to have heard the talk, but I agree with the main points printed in the LFP.

ReThink London is wrapping up now. Yesterday was the unveiling of a draft version of the cities' new Official Plan at City Hall, which is supposed to be the culmination of their efforts. I was lucky enough to be there (in an overflow room because it was so busy!), and here are some of the noteworthy points that I can remember:

-2 designated rapid transit corridors (one from Masonville to White Oaks, another from Oxford/Highbury to Oxford/Wonderland via Dundas)
-"Transit villages" at the termination points of these corridors
-No more references to arterial, secondary, local roads (A new road hierarchy with names that place less emphasis on car traffic volumes has been derived)
-Less strict zoning regulations (don't remember all of the details on this one, but the goal is to allow more mixing of uses. It'll no doubt be controversial!)
-A system for determining the proportion of a road ROW that should be for sidewalks, bike lanes, and vehicular traffic lanes
-New industrial lands designated for the area around Wilton Grove Road, the 401, and the VMP extension (nothing around the Wonderland/401 area)
-A secondary Plan for the LPH grounds was also included, along with a general goal of becoming one of Canada's greenest cities

That's all I can think of for now.

Oh, and if anyone's interested I was interviewed by the Free Press after yesterday's meeting and was featured in this article! :)

http://www.lfpress.com/2014/05/22/public-showed-up-leaders-didnt

What about downtown transit and the idea of turning a section of Dundas into pedestrian only?

I think that turning Dundas into a pedestrian only street was briefly mentioned. In terms of downtown transit, the rapid transit corridors that run through downtown were on York, Richmond, and Queens I believe.

Rethink the mayor's office. Get rid of shoeless Joe Fraudtana. Two horrible mayors in a row maketh for a bad city vision.

In most cases in NA, pedestrian only streets don't work unless they are very short. I don't think it would work well in downtown London {except maybe Market Lane} but Vancouver has done well with it's Granville Street bus-only {and taxis} 4 block section.

It works well for the buses, has allowed much wider sidewalks with the cafes and bistro patios and yet maintains heavy pedestrian traffic due to all the transit users that got off on the stretch.

I was reading Phil McLeod's blog and he talked about how after a council debate and appeals to the OMB, the province would approve of the plan by late 2015 or early 2016. As someone who wasn't alive when the last plan was approved, what kinds of things do you think will be modified/removed en route to the plan's approval?

I hope that Gary Smith can somehow psychically feel my distaste for him:

'As president of the Friends of Meadowlily Woods Community Association, he described the area as a “non-conforming neighbourhood” that’s “overwhelmingly” covered with green space. Things that are typical in other areas, he says, aren’t welcome: “We’re hoping you’ll keep your sidewalks in the other parts of the city and leave us natural.”'

Nothing more natural and environmentally-friendly than neighbourhoods so car-dependent that you don’t even pretend anyone would walk in them, right?

Been caught up in that shitstorm too many times in the past. I'm quite familiar with the code words and phrases:

1) Non-conforming neighbourhood. Interpretation: My neighbourhood is special as are the people who live here. We get to set our own rules, including what happens to our streets. That thing about our streets being a public thoroughfare is just a formality.

2) Green space. Interpretation: I value the old establishment interpretation of prosperity and respectability being a large front lawn. The larger the better. My front lawn has always gone all the way to the curb and I will not loose some of my lawn to a public sidewalk, a sidewalk I'll never use. The City may think they own that land, but in reality I'm special and I get to control it.

3) Keep your sidewalks in the other parts of the city. Interpretation: I don't subscribe to your new ways of thinking. Sidewalks are for the poor who can't afford a car. Those people are losers. We don't want losers, or for that matter any other riff-raff prowling our exclusive neighbourhood on these sidewalks. Keep the riff-raff and the sidewalks they prowl on in the remainder of the city that isn't here.

4) natural. Interpretation: Sidewalk construction requires heavy equipment that is bad for the environment. Taking away grass is also bad for the environment. Therefore sidewalks are bad for the environment. (in reality I know it's a lame excuse and in reality I'm not going to change one iota of my rightful lifestyle - although "others" really should)

To be fair to this guy - assuming he is just talking about Meadowlily Road - there is barely any houses on it and most of it is woods. That said it does connect to the Thames Valley Parkway and has a pedestrian only bridge on the road so having some sort of sidewalk or at least safe walking area would make sense.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@42.968021,-8...DBfOMc2uoh0NpFshlsacg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

What happened to: Rethink London? It went silent....

In May 2014, Rethink London was "folded" into The London Plan, our city's draft/new official plan. It was adopted by council, and approved by the province. Now, the plan faces multiple appeals at the Ontario Municipal Board. After that, the plan goes into effect.