It’s been a while

I haven’t posted much of late. I’ve had a lot on my plate. I think I’ll set a date. (sorry, got carried away with rhyming but for more you’ll have to wait.)

As many of you know, I’m trying to find work in London. I had an 11-month contract with the Employment Sector Council London Middlesex that was funded through an EI-program called the Job Creation Partnership. I’ve written before about my difficulties finding work and the possible reasons. I’m going to again say that this is a very small City where reputations can be earned and burned in a day or two with people making up their minds about how you think and who you are based on a few Tweets or Facebook Status updates.

I’ve always been a boat-rocker. I almost failed Grade 9 typing because I refused to pay a $1 fee for correcting tape way back in the dark ages when one could reasonably expect all school costs to be covered by the Public Education System. That was the 80′s. I’m pleased to say my protests and areas have risen and at a higher rate than inflation. Anyway. As they say, that was then, this is now. Perhaps my chip needs a bit shaved off.

But sometimes it’s really hard not to comment about what’s going on in London Ontario and in the world at large. But I have also grown tired of debating people. I have ideas, you have ideas. Where they don’t coincide, regardless of the heat of debate, I have long stuck to the mantra that we can agree to disagree. Some people aren’t easily swayed. I should know this well as I am one of these people.

Anyway. Lots is in the works. I’m finalizing work on drafts to produce a demo of a new Radio Show at CHRW that will largely be based on the ideas I put forward in this blog. It will look more closely at our local politics, economic development and land-use planning and examine the relationships between them. I hope to include interviews and in-depth discussions about topics that need a bit more analysis than local media gives them. It will be the antidote to the Jim Chapman anger hour (or however long his show is, I don’t listen because well, he’s small-minded, cheap and lacks any vision except that of his own greatness.)

So stay tuned friends. I will be back with more fodder soon. In a bigger format. Because if there’s one thing this world needs … it’s more of me. I’m thinking of calling the show CityThink Radio. But I may also call it 30 minutes with a Guru.

Another interview, another new opportunity

I haven’t blogged in a while. This one isn’t strictly CityThinking though it does discuss  my experience in looking for work in London Ontario.

I’m not sure what it is that has stood in my way of finding long-term employment and I suppose if I did know, I’d be a lot further along the way to addressing my inability in this area. But I can always speculate and self-deprecate. So here are my top however many reasons that I’ve not been able to find work:

 

10. My teeth. They’re horrible right now. I hate to admit it. It’s a source of embarrassment. I used to be a nice looking guy but years of smoking and laziness, combined with a lack of a good dental benefit program and my own terrible fiscal self-discipline is starting to show.

 

9. I’m arrogant. You know it. I know it. I’m also a know-it-all. I occasionally recognize that it’s a function of my insecurities, try to feel better about myself and it diminishes but it’s always a battle. I could go on but there’s no need to completely kill my job prospects.

 

8. I’m not a pick-up artist. I interview horribly which I think is akin to my courting style. Rarely in my life have I been the one to take a woman home from a bar or pick-up on Spring Break. I need time to wear down opposition to my often outwardly glib persona.

 

7. I’m less educated than other candidates. This is just a fact. I have a 3-yr BA in Social Sciences. Now, I also think I wasn’t well suited to the academic environment at the time. I kept my loans in check, took two years off mid-course, completed my degree at age 27 and went to work in Toronto largely because my ex-wife was in pursuit of her career ambitions in Marketing (and she’s done quite well to her credit.) I lucked/fought into a job with Michael Walker – who I think I served incredibly well and who rewarded me with consistent pay and title increases. I enjoyed politics but decided to ply my experiences elsewhere though I wasn’t quite sure where, I just knew that my views parted ways with most mainstream views and that politicians often have to do what’s wrong in order to do what’s right in the longer-term. Anyway. I lack big credentials and apply in fields where big credentials are desired – academic ones, not real-world, proven/applied stuff.

 

6. My resume. It has taken me a long time to realize that my resume has been a very ineffective marketing tool for me. Some of the achievements on my resume are meaningless for the work I seek. I think I’ve finally gotten over this one but it’s taken a long time and every resume requires full-time hours to research and write.

 

5. The work I seek. I jump from opportunity/posting to posting/opportunity and tailor my resume for the position. They all focus on community development work these days, be it social or economic development. I’m not an engineer (obviously) a planner or sociologist by training so these jobs perhaps are a bit out of my technical reach and given the tight labour market, the ‘employers’ labour market with an unemployment rate of 8.3 percent, the good jobs that pay for brains would represent a new area of career development for men and similar to number 7, I face a hard time getting them. I still don’t know what it is I want to do, what it is I am skilled enough to do currently and what will make me happiest. My resume looks like a job-jumpers rather than someone who has pursued the opportunities presented at different times because they were interesting but that ultimately didn’t work out for a variety of reasons. See #1 and #7 above.

 

4. My Social Media ways… Funny that I used to craft messages for a politician who enjoyed his highest-ever election returns while I was his Executive Assistant and yet today, I seem to have an unparalleled ability to offend the right people with my own memes. Whether it’s LinkedIn, where those who could probably help me see 140 character updates that contain either my critique of policy, organizations, society and/or myself, or Facebook where an ever-growing number of people see my Jerry Garcia pictures, I am sure that anyone hiring for such a position would assume I have absolutely no knowledge of the scope and impact of these new media. To the contrary, I have always been a better spokesman for others than I am for myself. To anyone with a job for me that reads this I assure you … I (Justin, me) don’t exist when I’m speaking for someone else. This is a small City and everyone knows and talks to each other.My Social Media behavior is poor in this market.

 

3. Politicians? To some degree I believe I face the same fate as do many former politicians, albeit with less notoriety and reputation as my ex-bosses. Whatever I achieved while in the position of EA to a City Councillor can be branded and will offend at least 50% of those receiving my resume or interviewing me, whether I believed in the politics of the issue/position or not. Do I believe contributions to candidates from Unions and/or Corporations should be banned? I’m not sure. There are good arguments both ways. I think they have too much influence but bans are harsh and rarely work. But money follows winners rather than creating them. It goes to recognized groups that support Status Quo or more favourable policies.  And should Union Donations be considered in the same light? This is but one example of the negatives presented by a background in politics. A general distaste for politics is quite another.

 

2. I blog and I’m opinionated. ‘Nuff said? If I haven’t offended you yet, I’m sure it’s just a matter of time. People take things personally and I know I fail to appreciate that a lot of the time. I know people do what they can with the resources they have and most people act with the best of intentions and there are realities that I’m often unaware of. I must try to relect this knowledge more clearly and be less judgmental. Again – small City, small network is bad news for my big mouth.

 

1. Bad Luck? Some of it must be chalked up to lady fortune simply not being on my side. More likely, it’s a combination of all the above. Skymeter was very close to winning RFPs in 2007 but ultimately failed and is still struggling to build its market. Recall that visa restrictions meant I had to decline an offer to make 60G US plus commissions in 2009. Recall that I almost had a job at Canadian Urban Institute but that their revenues also plunged in the summer of 2009. Then, when Glen Murray decided not to run for Toronto Mayor, I was also left without a job.  I’ve had near misses with so many jobs.  I’ve had a lot of first interviews that didn’t get to second interviews. I had a job for 11 months instead of 12, worked through the stress of my Mother’s cancer, my father’s heart problems and a fire that torched many of my favourite possessions.

If nothing else, I’ve gained greater self-awareness, a greater appreciation of the struggles of the poor, greater humility and I’ve certainly been able to narrow my group of friends to those that demonstrate their support, love and understanding through thick and thin.

Maybe it’s actually good luck? See: New Opportunity!

 

 

Time to Think Locally in London

I wrote this from a chair at the Morrissey yesterday– one of my favourite local businesses in London, Ontario. There’s a few reasons I love the Mo’. One – it’s owned and operated by my good and long-time friend Mark Serre (and perhaps some silent investors.) Two – the beer menu always features local craft beers – or at least as local as Muskoka and Barrie, though often more local than that. The food menu – The Mo’ sources as much of its food locally as possible. I therefore believe, notwithstanding that I’m taking a rare turn and drinking a Rolling Rock, that I am keeping to my values of shopping locally.

A very recent discussion, about a downtown Grocery store, and the stated need for a downtown grocery store, has inspired me to write again about London’s approach to economic development and the constant desire to find a magic pill to ease all our troubles, rather than pursue a plan of day-to-day actions taken to ensure a vibrant local economy. Many people will blame these failures on City Hall. Having worked in politics though, and knowing how much politicians do to please constituents, even in the face of wrongful assumptions about City growth and human behaviour, I can tell you the blame does not lie solely with our local government, though certainly a great deal does lie there.

Rather, there is a complex system that is at fault for the way our City has grown and multiple reasons for the way London has developed. First, we’re all guilty to some degree, through our investments in banks, RRSPs, and retirement plans, of putting money into the world of Real Estate development. Certainly we don’t have a lot of control – all of the major Banks invest in Real Estate as do most Credit Unions. Only the pursuit of the alternative of a local banking system, with input from investors, and ethical rules of investment, could begin to lay the groundwork for any kind of development that doesn’t simply pursue proven, sole-use developments. Investors traditionally have shied away from risky investments, a category which sadly includes Rental Housing. A better, (ie safer) investment is 250 units of Single-Family Housing in a Single-Family neighbourhood built in a greenfield. Redevelopment of heritage or brownfields requires much more risk and mixed-use developments create a need for complex financial arrangements that may or may not ensure a Return on Investment. But so long as these investments compete with, say, Greek short-term Bonds, it is difficult for developers to secure financing.

Much like the dilemma of Detroit Automaker, who both form and respond to consumer demand, the question is, did the market create the housing, or did the housing offered create the market. Perhaps we’ll never know the answer to this question but younger people are quickly making clear they don’t desire the same kind of lifestyle that our Post-War, Baby Boomer parents did. City of London Urban Designer Sean Galloway said to me recently that CMHC statistics showed that sales of pre-built housing was outpacing new construction. While I have some reservations about those statistics (the housing bust has led to collapse of new construction while house purchases are still a part of our economy and therefore, increased purchases of re-sold properties are a natural result – see the Tweet below ) it does suggest that more young people are looking for more traditional neighbourhoods.

@LFPress London Free Press

BREAKING: Housing starts tumble in London CMA – 145 homes in May 2011 compared to 534 in May 2010.

To get back to my original point though, we need to encourage London residents to think about the results of their everyday decisions. All Canadians should. It’s easy (and convenient) to buy the cheapest product, in the biggest Box Store but the long-term consequences of these decisions produce the result of reduced local business opportunities, reduced benefits from employment, reduced opportunities to substitute for imported goods and ultimately, in an economic health situation that is largely beyond our control. If everyone shops at The Home Depot, how long can Copps Buildall continue to operate in downtown London – which incidentally is a source of economic diversity and cross-use of districts. The pressure created by massive buildings like the Renaissance don’t help either – Mr. Copps is sitting on perhaps a $10 Million development site as a result of the heights and built-form density or FSI (amount of the area covered by building) given to the project. While stagnation is not healthy, neither are massive jolts of economic stimulus through one or two building sites or buildings that stand-alone architecturally from everything that surrounds them. The result is similar to the leap-frogging that occurred in Scarborough in the 1960’s that led to significant changes in their Official Plans due to the wasted land that was left in-between these massive ‘Garden City’ developments.

Neighbourhoods are a sum of their parts. Their strength comes from the variation in the strong buildings – not from one or two projects that act as a draw, or a major player in any neighbourhood. Projects of this nature tend to kill their surroundings, like One London Place killed commercial demand in the downtown London core, resulting in an increase in the number of surface parking lots and spaces. London’s plethora of downtown parking acts as a canary in a coalmine for economic failure. When the parking spaces outnumber the interesting places to go, to shop, to work and to live; you’ve failed.

Again, I digress.

London’s economy is a result of these decisions – our daily decisions about life and work. When an employer chooses low taxes over ease of transportation access for her workers, she creates further need for parking, for roads, for tax revenues to provide for those and by using a site by herself, reduces diversity of use and the economic efficiency that Cities are supposed to offer. The result, over the long-haul is to make her business less attractive to employees, less innovative, less supportive of a tax base that helps create the economy in which she’ll thrive – we’re paving roads instead of building Convergence Centres, Performing Arts Centres or affordable housing.

So we end-up getting only businesses that are part of a chain with proven results and a proven business concept and ultimately, through zoning, disallow all but a scarce few locally-owned businesses to pursue similar commercial opportunities. A local business is required by the City to meet the exact same zoning requirements as a non-local, chain or multi-national that can often afford to provide these as a tiny part of a larger corporate plan. Parking costs can much more easily be subsidized through the chain restaurant than by the local business person. A local business also relies on walk-up and casual customers and generally thrive in places where word-of-mouth can flourish. Old South and Old East are great examples of neighbourhoods that have these businesses. The Westmount area is a great example of a pre-planned neighbourhood that lacks all but large, generic commercial opportunities. By reducing commercial opportunities to those zones exclusively demarcated for such activity, through supply/demand, price and regulation, local opportunities are zoned out.

It’s a big circular negative feedback system. The less we shop locally, the more we increase the demand for more Box Stores. The more we drive, the more we demand roads, the more demand for parking, which favours big businesses and harms those who can’t afford cars. It’s inequitable, it’s unfair and it doesn’t do anything to advance our economic goals of lifting people from poverty to the middle class through opportunity.

So please. The next time you’re thinking about going shopping, consider what you’re purchasing and whether there is any local or small-business alternative. Not all goods can be provided as an alternative – those are the best of which to minimize our use. However, those that can be provided by local business ultimately contribute much more to our economy than the few cents we save on the price of the purchase. Local business also provides many more benefits that aren’t found in price – better customer service, recognized loyalty, connection-making and greater circulation of money in the local economy are just a few.

This is why I say, think Locally in London. We need a campaign that reminds people that every single dollar they spend goes somewhere and carries with it a signal. That signal either says, “I love homogeneous environments where little happens out of the ordinary” or it says “I prefer vibrant, walkable neighbourhoods that create multiple economic opportunities and unique places.” Then, perhaps the Methadone Clinics wouldn’t stand out like a sore thumb in a barely-filled punch-bowl.

Once we realize this, there will be little need for London Free Press articles begging the question: “Who are we?” It will be everywhere, in front of us.

LACH appointments

As a volunteer member of LACH serving in the spot designated to Emerging Leaders,(very important – I do not speak for anyone but myself) I am absolutely insulted by this abuse of process: (Gina Barber’s Blog) (great piece Ms. Barber!) At the very least, Council should have had the courtesy of referring back to LACH, it’s preferred choices, or referred the matter to a Striking Committee. As it is, I am not sure why I should continue to attend meetings of LACH if our decisions and recommendations are not treated with respect.

I can understand this though. None of the Members of Council have ever show up at LACH to understand anything about the Committee, it’s make-up, the passion with which all members debate the merits of all issues, considering multiple points of view. Wait. A few months back, Councillor Bill Armstrong came in, grabbed one of our drinks and 2 sandwiches and left. Guess he’s found the gravy train – and here I thought it was a small thank-you for my volunteerism.

The story of the Lombardo Hydroplane is so typical of London’s disregard for local heritage, culture and history. That’s why the London Free Press has to run articles asking “Who Are We?” While City Hall is not entirely at fault (I’m not naive enough for that) our disregard for local history in our schools, and the lack of a)a City Archives and b)a true City Museum (not an Art Gallery w/ some local history exhibits as good a job as ML does) add up to a lack of care for local heritage and the constant loss of our assets, degredation of environment, etc.

People don’t attend public meetings in part, because notice is very poor and City Councillors simply aren’t well enough resourced or paid to engage citizens to the degree a City requires to build a deep sense of community and a diverse economy. Londoners also aren’t tremendously well informed about development or its economic impacts and why taxes are fairly high relative to the services provided. Hence, more sprawl, more traffic, less community.

Sorry. I started on one thing but I see the Hydroplane as symbolic of a much deeper problem. It’s the same problem that allows Orser to pull such a move at Council and the others to go along with his abuse of process. But…most Councils also ring the horses when one is attacked, fairly or not, by members of what is an emerging class of journalist and citizen activists. I better watch what I say on my blog I guess. Barry Wells (aka Butch McCarthy) has watched Council and I’m sure, been disappointed with its decisions on countless occasions. London Council has made some breathtakingly bad decisions, but its also made some good ones and laws, like sausages, are always unsightly when made in public. That said, he didn’t deserve the disrespect of Council either.

As to Doug Flood, while he is obstreperous at best, and even had the temerity to ask rather pointed questions of a voluntary Citizen Advisory Committee, we’re all grown-up and know it comes as part of sitting on a public committee that advises Council. That our elected officials aren’t able to harness Mr. Flood’s passion for Lombardo, and direct it in a direction that results in a net benefit to the community is more of a comment about their shortcomings than the voracity or communications weaknesses of Mr. Flood.

I thought there should have been better and wider notice but I also realize that not many Londoners care about heritage or the Hydroplane because many of them have never had a chance to experience the benefits great heritage brings to a community. London’s story is filled with disappointment when it comes to our local heritage. The Beck House on Richmond Street. The Brunswick Tavern. The Embassy. The YMCA on Wellington Street and of course, the Talbot Block which while honorable in its effort, pales in comparison to the detail and beauty of the original, as well as being a symbol of London’s fascination with cosmetic makeovers and big projects rather than hard work and local community building.

Thankfully, the Red Antiquities Building project presents a chance to change this history of neglect, abandonment and razing. We owe it to our City to recognize and protect its heritage even, in the case of a few of our landmark structures, when they are eyesores of architectural faddism (The Court House should be a rather obvious lesson.) But who knows? The blatant disregard for LACH’s recommendation could hurt far worse than it seems. And this is innocent, relative to the blatant disregard Council, City Staff and Developers have for the Recommendations of EPAC – a body made-up of scientists in ecology and environment. Look at all the development in and around Meadowlilly Woods for instance. But ultimately, it’s citizens who get what they pay for, and sadly, what they often vote for.

Londoners consummate love affair with free parking late at night

Oh London, your love affair with free parking continues. (see Media Release) Sure, when I returned last summer, I was swept-up in the euphoria of it all, and I joined your Facebook group. And when it comes to parking, I really do prefer that it occur on the street. And I still think ticketing was just over the top and was a punative, inefficient, small-town way to deal with this parking issue. But I’ve been thinking about things and I’ve had a slight change of mind.

I don’t mind that parking occurs overnight on streets – I support it and think cars ought to be parked in London’s plentiful road allowance. Streets are wide in London and the front-setbacks of houses are too, creating all-too-vast outside rooms, that lack the intimacy, particularly in winter, of a comfortable neighbourhood street. Parked cars also do service to the task of reducing vehicle speeds on neighbourhood streets.

However, I do have a condition that comes with my support of any kind of parking activity. After considering deeply the whole concept of parking and driving, and in particular free parking, speaking as a non-motorist (and you should read this with your non-driving mind, the part that you use when you’re in a park noticing the poor upkeep, or paying for a bag of milk and thinking about rising prices,) I can’t support free overnight parking in London. There. I said it.

Here’s my reasoning and let me again say, I’m not a big fan of ticketing but I’m an even bigger non-fan of the economic inefficiencies and unfairness that the mis-use of public commons (ie, those assets provided to everyone in kind) creates. We openly subsidize public transit – it’s very clearly stated in both fares charged to riders but also in our property taxes and other, very public documents. However, we have bundled and buried the costs of providing parking into all other forms of private activity. The parking you use at the Grocery Store isn’t free – it’s part of the cost of the bag of milk. A portion of your Tim Horton’s coffee pays for the ample parking space out front and the drive thru out back. Free parking reduces the direct cost of each trip, thereby encouraging even more driving and because early development requirements for parking provision (often copied from US standards) lacked statistical accuracy or local examples, this issue quickly grew beyond control.

Today, the size of development is  limited by the amount and cost of on-site (free) parking that must be provided according to By-law. Most residents battle new development on the basis of traffic impact and parking, arguing that more parking is the answer to less traffic. Rather, the answer to less traffic, is less parking and less free parking. Unlike most goods in our society, parking has become a socialist-based activity. Rather than allowing the Market to dictate the supply and demand of parking, we have required everyone to subsidize an inefficient system of mobility. Surface parking lots in downtown cores are inevitably a sign of failure and failed economic and land development policies. Yet in many Cities, the number of surface parking lots outnumbers the number of jobs and places to visit.

For more on this topic, if you’re really interested in some of the economic impacts of what I consider to be a legal underground economic activity, you should read Donald Shoup’s “The High Cost of Free Parking.” So revolutionary and enlightening was this book that Mr. Shoup, who is a transportation economist and professor at UCLA who has spawned an entire school of theorists self-described as Shoup-istas. (see a great interview with Donald Shoup by Streetfilms here.) While working in the road pricing space, had the pleasure of sharing a meal in Greenwich Village with members of New York City’s Transportation Alternatives, the Regional Planning Association and Professor Shoup, but I digress.

By Shoup’s estimate the total value of hidden subsidy for parking in the United States is, depending on the conservativeness of the approach (he uses low and lower ranges of statistics and data than is probably the reality) between 144 Billion and 350 Billion dollars annually. (Back of envelope, if Canada’s economy is around 1/10^th the size of the US’s and generally, our development patterns and zoning requirements are the same, or population slightly more urban, then we spend between 14 Billion and 35 Billion dollars annually – or $1000.00 per every man, woman and child.) That’s a hidden $1000.00 tax for the benefit of driving and parking without anyone making it obvious – regardless of whether you own a car or not and regardless of how much you drive.

Now before you get self-righteous on me and start a MADD letter writing campaign to tell me that I support Drinking and Driving (I don’t) let me start my defense by saying that no charge for parking justifies risking any other human life. The fine for overnight parking in London was excessive but that does not morally justify or warrant further subsidization of, irresponsible personal choices.

We’ve zoned and grown our City on the basis and assumption of free parking and hence, our City essentially requires residents to own a car, if not two. Is it any wonder that our Public Transit system, the subsidy for which is openly debated in public while subsidies for private automobile use go unknown and unchecked, that our Public Transit system cannot effectively offer late-night party-goers with a reasonable alternative mode of transportation even on the two or three busiest nights of the week? Why do we even risk the drunk morning-after drive by encouraging people to leave their car downtown, if drunk driving is our chief concern?

Let’s have a responsible and open debate about this. Let’s invest in our own local study of parking subsidies so that we can perhaps start to place a value and seek an equilibrium between the value of mobility and the cost of providing the land, maintenance, the environmental impact and reduced accessibility to differing uses and the cost/benefit of improved public transit and resulting increase in property values and intensity of land-use.

There are interim steps that can be taken to reduce car ownership without making immediate a conversion to market-based and full-cost pricing of all transportation choices. These include cheaply priced Eco-Transit passes offered to new condominium buyers, commercial tenants and employees at both SME’s and larger employers. They include street-fronting developments that offer transit-oriented, mixed-use development opportunities, placing car infrastructure in the rear or underground and better pedestrian connections. The pilot for bike racks on buses was a failure because there was no built-in reliability for cyclists. By any measure such a pilot was doomed to fail. It’s time for all buses to have bike racks permanently.

As a potential way to provide service to Londoners who face 1-2 hour walks home from downtown, express bus service, late nights on weekends, to 1-2 locations en route to larger destinations, such as Westmount Mall, Whiteoaks Mall, Maisonville, etc., in the corners of the City, even at a premium price, could entice ridership and find latent demand. A cab from downtown London to Byron costs $30 to $40 dollars with tip. If the LTC offered a $5 Friday night express bus fare, at 30-minute intervals, surely people would use it. There are already taxi stands at the above locations where taxis could wait to take people to their final destination, or they riders could choose to walk the much shorter distance.

As you’ll note, I’ve not spoken directly about the Overnight Parking issue, which I think symbolizes how London is not seeing the forest for the trees when it comes to transportation or, to budgets, the cost of living and City life. Why not have a resident permit program (to subsidize street maintenance, cleaning some cars leak Oil after all, environmental impact, etc.) and perhaps an innovative downtown summer parking pass for those who find themselves constantly drunk in the core and unable to get home? If this were bundled with a transit pass, for the above-mentioned express bus service, both greater route planning and scheduling, together with environmental and economic benefits, could occur. Perhaps this pass could also give people a return ticket for the next day, to get their car home.

These are just two ideas for London, not too deeply considered and hence, should be taken with one grain of salt at least. Full costing should occur as well as a study of how effective, how well supported such programs might be. But one thing is sure, the waiving of any charge for parking on-street overnight, particularly for visitors/non-residents/bar patrons, just adds another layer of subsidy to the already overly subsidized activities of driving and parking and I already pay enough (without owning a car.)

In closing, my dear, I just hope that we can find a way to make our relationship more equal, more respectful of each other and hopefully, both of us will feel that we gain from this relationship over time, instead of me spending all my money on you and never getting much back for it. Thanks! (comments and responses always welcome.)

Too much of a good thing

There’s a plan afoot in London Ontario to renew our existing City Hall built in 1971. I am no huge fan of the current City Hall (it’s rather ugly, the square it sits on is squalid, it turns its side to Victoria Park, it’s no doubt of dubious quality from a technology-hosting perspective, and is asbestos-filled.) I’m also not a penny-pinching taxpayer who resents government – quite the opposite and I believe London needs more local government in its life, not less. I worked at Toronto City Hall after all and firmly believe in the power of a building to act through its architecture and design as the embodiment of the body politic and to send a clear message to employees, politicians and citizens, about the City’s approach to community. The ‘arms’ that extend from Toronto City Hall welcome residents and visitors alike – whether the politicians inside listen or not is a matter for another debate. Nathan Phillips Square, while in need of some TLC, also provides a marvelous civic space for all to enjoy at all times of year.

Nathan Phillips Square provides an interesting point of comparison for London’s City Hall, which while it has its own square to the north (no, not well used and quite derelict) also sits beside the historic Victoria Park, surely the emotional heart of London. While London’s birthplace is situated at the Forks of the Thames and the County Courthouse, it is London’s military history that powered its early growth and establishment as the capital of southwestern Ontario. City Hall’s location immediately east of Victoria Park is therefore ideal and we should not so quickly forget the valuable heritage buildings  that were sacrificed for its construction.

As is often the case in London Ontario, details of the plan are currently very shady. There are a number of issues of concern based on what I’ve heard to date (from someone reliable who attended the ‘Downtown Summit’ where this was the primary issue.) From the video I’ve seen of the event, London’s Mayor Joe Fontana played the role of booster and talked about the investment opportunity and the inquiries about downtown development that he’s receiving. I have no doubt this interest has been sparked, in part, by the involvement of Commercial Real Estate giant CBRE in the creation of the City’s accommodation review. While spark is not necessarily a bad thing, rampant speculation on properties in any neighbourhood is an absolute threat to economic stability, growth and success and leads to block-busting and overly quick gentrification.

CBRE is calling for open-heart surgery even though the patient has a common cold.

Their report (all I’ve actually seen is their Powerpoint) appears to present a case that because other municipalities have built great City Halls, in their ‘downtown’s’ and created Civic Pride through such exercises, so too should the City of London. Their report is a little more detailed (including land cost assessments, value of property, lease payments etc.) than I’ve just made it but there are a lot of questions left unanswered prior to making the leap to the need for a new City Hall on another site. For instance, left completely out of the study is the potential for re-use of the existing London City Hall, Reg Cooper Square and Centennial Hall and what function this neighbourhood would have after City Hall’s presumed demolition (after all, it’s filled with asbestos, can accommodate a large unknown workforce but would cost millions to renovate, etc.) While this might not be a concern for a private developer, the City is, well, the City and should have concern about the appropriate use of this prominent site.

The hole left in that part of downtown would be tremendous and have serious implications on downtown and the immediate neighbourhood. Relocating City Hall to areas that are already predominantly of a commercial use also makes little sense to me. The primary site mentioned is ‘the Fullarton Block.’ Presumably this is the block bounded by Ridout, Queens Avenue, Talbot Street and Fullarton. It’s a triangular site bordered to the south by the brutal Court House and Federal government on one-way Queens Avenue, which is a dead zone of traffic lay-bys and unusable first-floor. On the west is Ridout Street (also a one-way) with historic (like first buildings in London historic), privately owned two-storey buildings and Eldon House to the north of those. The building across from Eldon House is reasonable enough, if its tower sits too far forward on the podium and if the lack of setbacks makes Eldon House seem an insignificant relic of modest times best found in a pioneer village rather than the first stately Manor of London. One can only imagine the economic pressures that would be exerted on the remaining parts of the block to the north, bounded by Fullarton, Dufferin, Ridout and Talbot or on the aforementioned two and a half-storey heritage houses immediately west of the building site.

Over the long haul, major building projects have had a disastrous impact on London’s economy and growth after injecting the cash brought from building permits and planning permissions. The worst mistakes made are obvious but some are held up as marvels of London’s growth. The ‘Galleria’, which further drew prime retailers and shoppers off downtown streets much like Toronto’s Eaton’s Centre and created a bleak windowless highway on King Street and the ‘Mews’ (later Smuggler’s Alley) which turned its back on the entire outside world are the most obvious marvels of bad planning.

But more highly regarded by Londoners is One London Place, which I think is actually a monument to the disastrous impact the Sifton family has had on their City. This building sucked life off London’s streets and put it in a gated vertical community of elites, no longer in touch with the daily life of Dundas, Richmond or any of the other vital downtown streets. It’s taken years to recover from the vacancies created by this building though I do love the reflections it casts on a summers’ day. It stands alone and says look at me and is not a very nice neighbour (try walking past on a fall day.)

I am also not completely sold on the ‘success’ of the John Labatt Centre. While it has drawn many more people to downtown, the building dominates its block, half of which is a surface parking lot, creates little activity outside of events and even then a predominant proportion of visitors leave as quickly as they come and has as usual, created greater demand for parking and an increase in ‘cruising’ for parking before events. The building lacks at-grade retail and/or restaurant uses, save for one that never appears to be open or welcoming to anyone but event attendees. Other than week-long tournaments, events are predominantly held on weekend nights, when there are plenty of other draws to downtown London. All in all, in my estimation, it is a break-even project in terms of its impacts on the downtown and its immediate neighbourhood. To say it has done more is to view it with an uncritical lens as to what else the site could have accomplished and what its full impacts are or the people it may keep away at other times.

A New City Hall in London affords us yet another opportunity to ruin downtown with a Master Plan concept. First, the site I’ve talked about is a mere one block south of the current City Hall – hardly a massive leap ‘downtown’ from a suburban location. To say that City Hall isn’t downtown is definitely drawing lines on maps instead of walking and living in the City.

Secondly, the proposed location is already a daytime-use dead zone. 1200 apartments (very rough guess on # of new condos/large buildings) within 8 blocks do not make a mixed-use community, particularly when the daytime population is as large as it is in comparison. The evidence of this is in the continued reluctance of any major food retailer to propose a downtown grocery store (notwithstanding rumours of a mini Sobeys on the way.) Not only is there no food grocer but the nearest restaurants, variety stores and other retail is on Dundas or on Richmond Street near Talbot and Dundas. These locations already have enough day-time business but continue to suffer slow evenings, particularly in the early week. And what would be the impact of the loss of City Hall employees on the restaurants and shops near Wellington and Dundas, many of which surely opened due to the presence of daytime workers in that area of town?

London’s downtown core continues to primarily need residences and secondary uses, rather than more primary uses, particularly at its western edge. A mixed-use complex with residents, small commercial and retail space would seem to make more sense in the proposed location. Perhaps a live-work concept could be included to promote the presence of the Arts community. I see little value in drawing a line of commercial vs residential use on a buffer lot such as the Fullarton block which would allow perfectly for a transition from the stern, brutal, daytime-use Courthouse, the modernist Museum London to the historic Eldon House and its predominantly low-rise neighbours.

Simultaneously, the Mayor has introduced his own idea to commercialize London’s ‘waterfront.’ He’s brought in planning consultants to show pictures of Copenhagen, Cincinnati and other much larger, more tax-efficient Cities to suggest that the Thames River is the same as the Mississippi, Lake Ontario or Pacific Ocean. I’m not sure where any of this is headed but surely the destruction of our natural heritage is not far behind these tacky ideas. For some reason, City Hall wants to forget the new park and square that was built at the Forks and has already done a marvelous job animating this part of the City. Any lack of activity is due to the lack of nearby residents, not from lack of commercial amenities in this natural setting. One thing that could be done to make Harris Park more enjoyable is a Goose abatement program. And let’s not forget that no matter what is done in this area of the City, it will by By-law, have to cease at 11 pm so as not to disturb the neighbours.

In addition to the new basket they’d build, City Hall would further consolidate offices drawing other eggs of their operations into one location. This incremental effect, reducing trips for coffee, newspapers, lunches, etc., would have incremental impacts on the businesses close to their current locations. There is no need, other than convenience, for City Hall to consolidate operations in Ontario’s largest municipality outside Toronto (I’m speaking geographically.) City Police have consolidated operations and are already out of room and face increasing fuel costs to serve an increasingly sprawling community. Why would City Hall make the exact same mistake twice? Many Cities operate with their offices spread out.

Parts of City Hall’s function and service will also continue to be offered in outside locations. So consolidation shouldn’t necessarily drive this agenda. London is massive and unless we start to inject different economic activities and uses in different neighbourhoods we will continue to see the growth of blighted brown-belts as older suburbs age and commercial users leapfrog outwards to locations with cheaper land – at least for as long as Oil remains cheap (and parking remains “free.”)

One suggestion that I think bares closer inspection is to create a new office in Old East. Perhaps the McCormick’s site is worth a review. The City’s parking payment office is located on Dundas East and perhaps it makes sense to visit this site for some intensification of use through re-building. The City can act as a catalyst to revitalization in places where that it is not occurring by itself. One could suggest that the downtown area is at a tipping point of doing so by itself, as the recent interest shown from Sobeys indicates, the opening of the Met, the very worthwhile heritage refurbishment that now houses City Planning office and the planned Synergy Centre and Fanshawe downtown Arts Campus.

Finally, if we are to dream big then we should do so rather than attempt to build Mel Lastman Square in North York, cheaply, to the windfall profit of developers and real estate speculators, with shoddy landscaping that falls apart before its namesake does. Joe Fontana City Hall, if it is to be rebuilt, should be rebuilt exactly where it stands today, with a mix of housing and Performing Arts Centre, sensitive to the buildings around it and ideally, subtly and sensitively renewing the Housing project that sits behind City Hall. The Victoria Park location is the best in the City for such an opportunity. The City could assemble the entire block from the western boundary of Central Secondary School and together with the School Board ensure renewal of the entire block (saving and restoring to the Heritage elements) providing a healthy mix of housing opportunities and tenures, day and evening uses and at the same time, build a Performing Arts Centre that would actually create Civic Pride rather than continue to stifle the dreams and ambitions of London’s creative and artistic community. Leveraging a portion of the site to private development (live in the Lombardo Performing Arts village,) potentially as a mix with the renewed senior’s housing project creates an opportunity for revenues to offset some of the costs. One parking structure for the entire site, a City Hall that turns its face towards the park, creating a beautiful civic square and allowing for better site transportation management and more pedestrian-friendly frontages and linkages would surely be the result. Surely interim leases could be pursued that would allow the City to operate while a new building/complex is constructed on the current City Hall site.

However, as with all public processes, this should all see the light of day. Perhaps the public needs a Lobbyist Registry to understand who these mysterious unnamed ‘investors’ are and what exactly they are proposing for downtown London. Private developers have already left blight in their wake and it’s no need for secret deals to allow that to happen again. Transparency is a key part of this process if it is to be successful.

The City has pursued a fantastic strategy of attracting more residents to the core. The lack of viable businesses downtown, particularly on main streets such as Richmond Street and Dundas (yes, there are some fantastic niche and long-term businesses but there’s also a lot of head shops, turnover and vacancy) remains a concern. Incremental growth is always more desirable than Shock and Awe spending that leads to upheaval and the uprooting of communities and can be used strategically to build struggling neighbourhoods. It is a bad idea to stop with the slow and incremental approach to reviving downtown to return to a 60’s style planning mindset that says cataclysmic spending, single primary uses and more parking are good ideas.

As always, this is just my opinion based on my research, experience in Toronto municipal government, knowledge of London, my personal views about rational development and economic equity and thoughts about the future of our City. I am only one citizen. I am not an urban planner but I have been involved with 100s of planning applications and approvals. Please feel free to add your thoughts (in a calm, respectful tone as always.)

A (not totally serious) Note about Notice

There’s a Community Engagement Task Force currently underway (first meeting was last Saturday) in London. I missed the sign-up and I’m pretty sure it’s too late to join now. I blame no one but myself but I believe I have a reasonable defense (which does involve blaming someone else!)

For one, I’m not a big fan of the London Free Press. I’m sorry. I’ve tried. I grew up in London and while during my 35+ (lol) years on this planet I’ve been lucky enough to have my picture in the Freeps 3 or 4 times (once as a child drooling at the sight of a Gingerbread House and twice as a High School Basketballer at Westminster – photos and numerous mentions) I’ve also been loathe to read most of it for most of those years. It’s only gotten worse since I left and returned to London now that it’s owned by Sun Newspapers instead of the local Blackburn clan that owned it for so long. A one-paper town is not good for democracy at the best of times, let alone when that paper is owned by the Sun. Like our local Television station, I’d venture a guess that the content is 80% non-local and about places other than London, while local coverage never gets very deep (in my opinion, this is a problem with all current ‘news’ and journalism where advertising largely drives content.) I’d rather get more local news less often than get a poor copy of other newspapers. (and I’m sure some of my readers are Freepers and please don’t take offense, it’s not you individually, it’s the whole thing in sum.)

The other primary source of local information is Social Media channels like Twitter and Facebook. Unfortunately if you follow or like a lot of people/organizations, news can get lost in the feeds, particularly if you aren’t in front of your computer for a few days.

So I saw the posting for this Task Force about 4 months ago and really couldn’t commit to joining it at that time. I then went about my business and simply forgot to go back and enroll. So I do take some of the blame.

I’m also not about to suggest the problem is entirely with the media, or my dislike of it. The City of London doesn’t do much communicating. One might hope a Ward Councillor would keep interested citizens updated but that Councillor would have to engage citizens for that to happen and I know my Councillor is a busy bean counter (but I already wrote about this.) This is where City newsletters, websites (local ones) and RSS feeds, or perhaps a City e-mail distribution list would serve people well. There is nothing about the City of London that is ever-present – other than the roads. We live in a City where local homeowners are apparently responsible for their own street lights, sidewalks and sewers (http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/05/17/18156336.html) – how can City Hall be expected to provide information to citizens?

One begins to wonder what the high Property Taxes do pay for in London. I hate to be one of THOSE residents but seriously. So my suggestion for Community Engagement is to … use communications to engage citizens. And, buy some space in the Globe and Mail for ads, so that those of us who enjoy reading a decent national newspaper can be spared the cost of the Free Press. Think of the trees we’ll save too! Also, invest in technology that allows for shared files and pdfs of original City documents rather than the scanned copies of City reports that residents are currently able to download. And okay, I can do a better job of being involved earlier on though it’s always nice to be specifically invited once you’ve made it fairly clear that you’re interested. I know homeowners in Toronto (I know, there he goes again, why don’t you just go back there – because, I love the parks here too!) who are on the Planning Division’s Notice list and get regular mailings about meetings, discussions, variance applications in their neighbourhood, etc. So I’ll try to do a better job at doing my job, though I also believe I speak for many people who are unemployed, live on the outskirts or in a brown belt and find getting information/involved difficult.

Diamond Aircraft

A few thoughts on the big local news story:

So the Conservative Government released the news that many Londoners have been waiting to hear for some time. Sadly, the decision by Industry Canada to not provide Diamond Aircraft may lead to yet another significant jolt to an already struggling London economy. Aerospace and Defense seem like such great industries for London to be involved in and the City is definitely making strides in these sectors. So this decision seems to be more about short-term budgeting than long-term economic development planning.

Still, this serves as evidence to those who would lure other industries to any jurisdiction through the use of economic incentives – Diamond has already threatened to close up shop without this funding, which doesn’t say too much positively about its own prospects. To some degree, Tony Clement is correct when he says success in the marketplace should bring about financing (or words to that effect.) Private loans are available (more now than over the previous 3 years) for viable businesses. But one might also quibble that government is in a much better position to endure significant risk, particularly when it comes to strategic industries/sectors in strategic locations. One might recall Clement’s decision with respect to Saskatchewan’s Potash Corp., and be justified in wondering aloud that the Conservatives aren’t nearly as concerned about electoral health in Southern Ontario as they are in serving their western breadbasket of support.

I did enjoy Phillip McLeod’s blog and think he’s definitely provided a sound summary. See it here

On another, somewhat related note, I have to wonder why Canadians would any longer grasp so firmly to a belief in local representation at Queen’s Park or Ottawa. 3 of 4 area members of Parliament are Conservatives. This seems (as it shouldn’t) to have played no roll in the decision. I say shouldn’t because conflict of interest is a serious matter and when acting as Ministers, local reps cannot get involved with decisions affecting their constituents directly. I recall St. Paul’s residents being rather irate because then Attorney General Michael Bryant could not get involved with OMB appeals arising from development applications in his riding (and Walker’s ward.)

However this is not a party that has been scared about rewarding its own constituencies while shunning others. Sheila Fraser’s report on the G8/G20 should illuminate this better in coming months. London has been shortchanged on stimulus funding and the results are clear – a stagnant local economy that loses jobs as quickly as it adds them, and the ones that are added are generally not as good as the ones lost. So why are we beholden to local reps if they can’t or shouldn’t interfere with matters before ministries, particularly those that they happen to become involved with as Ministers? Is it not time for Proportional Representation when the collective views are neither reflected in parliament’s make-up or in the make-up of a local member’s position in parliament?  And because of Party discipline, we may never know how Ed Holder or Susan Truppe actually feel. Such is our democracy.

Lastly, when it comes to voting, it appears Londoners believe their local government is more responsible for economic development than any other government and yet, when it comes to funding Economic Development, many Londoners want to reduce funding to things like the Stiller Centre, for an Arts Campus for Fanshawe and LEDC gets or not increase funding to community service-delivery partners who were instructed to flat-line budget requests from City Hall this year. Don’t even mention a Performing Arts Centre as an Economic Development tool or you’ll be tarred as a lefty and dragged to the edge of the latest House farm. This is very sad as it simply states that Londoners are significantly misinformed about the roles governments and ultimately, that all of us play in economic development and the underlying cause and effect of our local economy and the decisions we make as we build it. We too often rely on others to solve our problems and to provide us with goods and services generally – without ever thinking about the local consequences or how we might provide these things to ourselves with a higher economic impact.

The need for a full-time City Council in London

Most of this I’ve posted as either Tweets or Facebook comments but I thought I’d take a few minutes to jot a blog on the topic of Community Engagement in London.

I’m a Londoner who lived in Toronto for 11 years. For 7 of those, I was lucky to work as political Executive Assistant for midtown Toronto City Councillor Michael Walker (now retired) and former Works Chair (while I was there) and later, David Miller’s Budget Chief, Shelley Carroll. With both Councillors I/we were out in the community holding and attending meetings an average (easily) of three nights per week in the evenings. We held meetings on any/every range of issues – from Traffic, Parking and Development to Water and Hydro issues.

When someone moves a garbage can up-wind in Toronto, you can expect a call from a Constituent who demands and gets service. When not assisting with Constituent matters (which 311 should reduce some demand,) I and the 2 other staffers (not suggesting this for London) were busy working on policy issues – Economic Development, City Planning, Transparency … distributing notices of works, zoning variances, polling constituents on parking and other issues and generally working full-time to make the City livable while making it successful. This is also a good tool for further building leadership within communities (some of my colleagues were School Board Trustees, involved with other parties and a vast majority were under 35.) We seem to expect a fulsome City w/ healthy debate without paying to make it happen. All of this would truly engage homeowners. (and if we put a price on road capacity, per KM, we’d also reduce commute times and increase public participation but that’s another essay!)

First, I’ll say that community engagement efforts face as steep an uphill a battle as it might anywhere. That’s not to say Londoners don’t care. Many do. And many are active citizens. But many care in their own way and that means, they feel they should be left alone by the City government who should simply fill potholes, provide policing and enable the private sector and do it all cheaply. And while I don’t agree with that view, it’s entirely legitimate (if totally wrong.)

Many Londoners enjoy the sleeping comforts of suburban lifestyles and simply want to be in front of their television in a City where people aren’t murdered too regularly. Their suburban neighbourhoods also contain very little real diversity (beyond the colour of people’s skin I mean) of primary or secondary economic use and are most often divided into use-based pods, with the poorer populations shoved out to a high-rise surrounded by a vacuous wasteland of mostly unusable ‘parkland’ on an Arterial road. The corner store is normally just about as far as anyone will willingly walk for anything lighter than a bag of milk and generally a larger row of larger box-type facilities (with all the familiar brand names just advertised on TV) are located with the biggest boondoggle of all – free parking. This lifestyle encourages people to not take part in any activity or social group that is not of their specific choice.

Since houses are relatively far apart, public notices of zoning variances and Official Plan / Zoning amendments get circulated to very few of those people who will generally be impacted. Lacking full-time Councillors to act as eyes and ears and communicators for all of their neighbourhoods, one of the most critical places for consultation – development issues – is left largely to usual suspects who show up at all the same City meetings. Since neighbours rarely meet unless they really wish to, word of mouth, opportunities for postering, etc., are limited – the size of population needed to sway opinion at City Hall is incredibly hard to get outside those immediately effected. Now, given our thirst for one and a half-storey buildings, you might be tempted to think that’s a good thing but consultation is often part of a longer-term project to grow a more informed citizenry. Perhaps Londoners would support higher densities on long arterial roads if they were given the opportunity more regularly to attend public meetings about development. No one can replace the local Councillor in this role.

Suburban sprawl has also led to unprecedented traffic snarl-ups that the traditional cures of road widening and building have only made worse. Congestion has been shown to reduce public participation rates. Is it any wonder so few Londoners engage in their City.

London is a highly private City – our Community Centres are primarily private, save those in the most needy communities. This is unlike many urban areas where the City offers recreation space and programming rather than a private company. Surely the City does have some of these facilities but I know they’re not located anywhere close to me to be able to get there on foot and I’m not sure how many buses I’d have to take to get there either.

These are but a few of the natural barriers to community engagement in London. I believe the biggest issue though is the lack of full-time politicians with areas small enough to truly get to work on City-building efforts which must, to be successful, occur on a micro, block-by-block basis. How does London intensify its’ building density and population density in order to relieve the costs of sprawl and the rising costs of Oil (not to mention the multitude looming resource depletion issues) or minimize our dependence on automobiles and hence, our increasing output of Greenhouse Gases?

Can local Councillors solve all these questions? Of course they can’t. But, a local Councillor is a key tool for engaging residents and businesses in their neighbourhoods about the myriad of services that Cities deliver. When residents are afforded the opportunity for true engagement – not just once-every-4-yr elections and not just Master Plan vision sessions, but as their neighbourhood and community grow lot by lot, issue by issue, and on an ongoing basis, they become more engaged as residents of the City.

Lastly, a word to those who would oppose paying politicians more than they already get or who think that people should simply do the job because they care about their community. This position is rather naïve and sadly misinformed about both economics and about labour market choices. It’s also an insult to those who might aspire to earn a higher living through hard work and community engagement. To single mothers it says, don’t give up your day job or you won’t be able to feed your children any better and will have less time to raise them. It also tells the office holder that their day job means more and is priority number one.

The quality of the candidates that run for office is also a result of the pay. Not everyone can afford to do it for altruistic reasons. One should look at salaries in competitive positions in the London marketplace. This is not manual labour. Consider what a University Prof makes, for instance? Or a good Accountant – Paul Van Meerbergen works a full-time job in addition to being a Councillor but having lived in his ward for 2 years (actually, directly around the corner) and I can honestly say I’ve never met the man. Paul Hubert runs Pathways in his spare time (I don’t think he actually has any spare time) and since it’s located downtown, Hubert is incredibly active and I think a bright light on Council. But he’s highly educated and his job pays much more than his Council position. But Paul is rather rare and I’d bet he’d devote much more of his time (beyond what I know he puts back in the income he gets from being a Councillor) if he were paid more. And I’m sure higher pay would draw many more great candidates in every ward. As it is, given the hassle that comes with the benefits, the insults that come faster than the thank-you’s, the loss of family time, etc., the pay really isn’t much at all. And while I love the notion that people ought to do this out of the goodness of their hearts, I believe in the power of economics and incentives. There’s a long-term message to kids making long-term career decisions that they should pursue other, ‘more worthwhile’ careers that pay more – public office, at least at the local level in London, is not a real career choice. Is it any wonder Councillors are held in such low esteem? Pay is a powerful signal.

Finally, while paying Councillors more is no guarantee of the City’s success in building a sustainable and resilient economy, I can guarantee that no successful City operates with Councillors who have to keep other jobs to pay their bills. By being penny-wise and pound foolish when it comes to political representation at City Hall we short-change our City, our future and ourselves.

Mistakes not made. Yet.

It’s been a while since I’ve blogged and I’m not making any more promises to blog more. Since I last wrote though, this town just keeps on piling-up issues that warrant some kind of comment or push me to pull out the soapbox at any rate. New Issues same as the old ones London is constantly leaping from big idea to big idea, rarely pausing to look down and see what’s actually happening on the ground. Cities are built on a day-to-day basis, from house-to-house, neighbourhood to neighbourhood. Cities are not the result of cataclysmic spending that uproots communities, plops down single-use facilities in a frantic grasp at economic development. Successful City building is the result of building networks, creating connections between people and by supporting success in every neighbourhood.

I recently checked out a book from the London Public Library called “Urban Renewal in London, Ontario.” I say book because it’s bound but it’s actually a City Planning document from 1960, the highpoint of slum clearance and the times that kicked off a generation of urban thinkers like Jane Jacobs. In this case, the City of London, together with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) wanted to raze the neighbourhood west of Wellington to Richmond and from Horton to the Thames to build massive social housing projects. Thankfully, the plan died somewhere along the way because it didn’t just end with the housing projects which would have been expropriated using eminent domain and most likely, flipped to builders/developers or built by government itself. Sadly, the thinking didn’t change for many of the other massive single-use housing developments in London (ie, Limberlost, Kipps Lane, Huron Street.)

One other massive mistake (actually 4 of them) that wasn’t made was the proposal in the above-noted plan to create urban expressways that would weave through the Thames Valley Corridor “bringing people to the parkland that lines the river” (not mentioning that parkland would be under an expressway of course.) Expressways were planned most audaciously, working north along the Thames from Kent/Maple Street to the University (imagine Gibbons Park with a highway through it) along Central Ave east of Adelaide (chopping neighbourhoods in four because the railway already divides it in two.) Another was planned to go from Highbury Ave, along the south fork of the Thames, to Wellington Street, where an interchange was planned that would either dump you out on Grand Ave or put you onto Wellington heading to downtown. And some form of bridge would have been built from Woodman Ave on the top of the western escarpment, over the Blackfriars neighbourhood, over the river, into downtown, dumping traffic onto Maple and Kent.

It’s important to know about such plans and I think to consider the kind of City we’d have if the plans had been successful. We can look at Cities all around North America where entire swaths of neighbourhoods were plowed over, people uprooted, communities destroyed for a ‘public good’. We can also look at those Cities to see that traffic congestion has not been solved by urban expressways, rather it’s been made much worse. We can look at our own sprawl and wonder how much worse it would be with expressways cutting through our parkland. We can look at our natural ecology, the beauty of our green space along the river corridor and thank our lucky starts that we didn’t run highways through our greatest assets.

However, we should also remember that people who opposed such plans were counted as heretics and opponents of progress. We can recall that ‘Planners’ proposed and supported these modernist Radiant City concepts that have proven to be a massive failure. Such is the science of urban planning. While urban planning has largely changed to reflect the ideas introduced by Jacobs, who’s “Death and Life of Great American Cities” was published in 1961, 50 years ago, yet still identifies concepts we’ve yet to fully introduce or embrace.

I will write more about a few ideas and projects that are bumping along in London. Our City seems to be in a phase of navel-gazing and stagnation. Lots of great ideas, exciting new businesses are popping up, a younger generation seems more interested in creating and living in diverse communities that create new economic activity, bring different people together and build a local identity. However, our City continues to sprawl at an alarming rate, daily undermining our ability to create a vibrant, economically sound and self-regenerating City. No one I know wants a house in the suburbs anymore – most have realized that suburban life was sold on a false image of safety, security, privacy and peace. Sadly, all of those are provided (to some degree though I’m not sold) at the expense of the kinds of random interactions in a City that actually create new economic activity. London is a City where people choose exactly who they are going to interact with (if not by individual, by demographic) and where they are going to interact – the majority of community facilities in London are privately owned and operated and there is a general lack of community centres in all but the most marginalized community. London is a City of ghettos and single-use pods. Sure, some of the ghettos feature mansions and Beamers in the driveways but they’re ghettos nonetheless.

As a more positive note on which to close this blog article, I was encouraged to meet London’s first Urban Designer (hired in 2007) Sean Galloway who seems to absolutely understand many of these ideas. I’ll say many because I do suspect he likes “Ebenezer Howard”-like idyllic parks that no one uses and eventually become the kinds of places no one goes. However, he’s clearly a supporter of civic beauty, of dense, compact and transit oriented development and he absolutely understands the idea that there is ‘No Free Parking.” My question (and challenge to Londoners) is how to get him more power and authority over development decisions in our City? I ask this because it’s clear from hearing his presentation and contrasting it with the kind of development that is still predominantly going forward (ie, Meadowlily Smart Centre/Wal-Mart) that are not in keeping with his views or that of a vast majority (notwithstanding their shopping habits) of citizens and urbanists.

How do we take charge of our fiscal, economic and environmental future from the makers of sprawl? I’ll attempt to provide some possible suggestions and answers in coming weeks (I hope.) OMB reform (abolition) Planning Act reform and financial reform (development requires finance, which is often based on safe/proven and single-use concepts) are just a start. (added, May 18) As you see, these are not spheres of City power. What is in the City’s power is the ability to secure payment for parking rather than allow it to be free thereby creating economic forces required for intensification of land-use. It’s also within the City’s power to create a Land Use Planning document (Official Plan) that citizens can read clearly and understand by residents of London. And the City needs to be more transparent and open about the cost. Citizens need to be shown clearly the economic and financial consequences of our decisions. Someone needs to present a view and a vision that illustrates a viable future, where import substitution and innovation (not just elite innovation but everyday innovation) occurs randomly in an organic and self-sustaining fashion.