[Snark]

Here it is. Hold on to your socks!

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/09/27/18747321.html#/news/london/2011/09/28/pf-18751161.html

All I can say is WOW.

[MolsonExport]

Pretty neat. I love having a skyscraper in place of the parking lot of the JLC.


Artificial beach at the forks?!?!?!?


where is Tim Best's drive-thru liquor emporium?

[MrSlippery519]

Wow is right...lets see it happen

I like the idea of UWO taking over the old city hall and making it an education center it's a great area for something like that. Also that means a new City Hall would be built and they can stop leasing 20 different buildings downtown which does not make sense in the long run financially. It's okay if they are going to lease space outside the core in sections of the city, the downtown City hall should be able to accommodate everything that is needed in that building.

[north 42]

Wow, that would be pretty amazing if London could pull all that off. What is the time frame for this to happen?

[MrSlippery519]

Wow, that would be pretty amazing if London could pull all that off. What is the time frame for this to happen?

It would likely be sometime before things started to happen and truthfully some of the ideas will likely never happen....

However that said it seems like UWO wants the old city hall sooner than later so that part of the plan could realistically start to take place pretty soon. I feel that is the first logical step for any of this "vision"

[Honest Scientist]

Interesting proposals - wonder which one would be the new City Hall.

I am very much a GO BIG person and strongly feel that the area around the JLC should have taller buildings than this proposes....


The JLC parking lot one seems like a really 'outside the box' thinking one - but I would say that should be a 38 floor mixed use Hotel/Residential


The lot where the Heath Unit is should be THE prime downtown site - I would hope a 42 - 48 floor NICE glass residential (easily tall enough to be bigger than the 417 ft/43 floor Landmark in Hamilton, giving London the tallest between Mississauga and Winnipeg).


The Peter McGreggor should come down with a different 35 -40 floor NICE glass residential.


The land N of the Courthouse could go mixed use but should have a 35-40 floor residential along with a 30 floor companion (London has too many same-height 'Twins', need some staggered height projects).


Maybe another residential 30 - 35 on either the SW or SE corner of King and Talbot.


The above would make the west end of downtown AMAZING and it would feel world-class with the JLC surrounded by those towers, and that would be enough population for a full size Grocery STore and a bunch of new restaurants.


Maybe the new City Hall should go tall too 25-30 floors would give them the space they need and go nicely with what I suggested for N of the Courthouse or across from the Convention Centre, or maybe behind Moxy's Griis on the S side of Queens.


Performing Arts center could also go N of the Courthouse.


Could the Civic Square Apts come down and have a 25 - 30 floor UWO residence.


This would give the downtown multiple nodes and would be a really great skyline and overall would be similar to the transformation in Austin TX - a young hip city we should be using as a role model! Build all that and you'll not only get people staying after University/College, other will move here!

[haljackey]

Why a link to the free press? Here's the actual PDF: http://www.london.ca/Planning_and_Development/PDFs/City_of_Opportunity_A_Vision_For_Downtown_London_Sept_28_2011.pdf

Nothing here is mentioned about a new City Hall or UWO taking up the current location. I'd love to see a new city hall though.

Big questions on this vision. Where is the bus terminal? With Dundas becoming a pedestrian mall and the loss of connections on Ridout and King, where will all the buses go?

Not sure I like that beach/pool thing, but freeing up the land where the health unit is a fantastic idea.

[Simpseatles]

:banana:Amazing! My First impression and I am blown away! Sure, there are a few issues, mainly the pond/beach thing, and the designs of some of the buildings, but to know that the people that run your city are thinking like this is a great start! I really like the idea of a tower at the JLC, one north of the courthouse, and the two on the west side of Victoria Park. And Fontana is so serious, he is aiming for a 5 year completion scheduele! The optimist in me can't control my excitement about these downtown plans!:D

[ForestryW]

Yea the pond/beach thing is a bit extreme...I mean what would we do with it in the winter? Skating I suppose.

[Snark]

A few things to mention:

- All of the renderings in the presentation are nothing more than ideas. It is likely that none of the new buildings as rendered will actually be constructed as they appear in the renderings (if they get built at all).

- The new city hall is the green glass building at the forks.

- Most of the sites shown are currently underutilized public lands. There are other privately owned sites downtown that could develop at any time independent of this plan.

- Most of what is shown is private residential developments on public lands. The two exceptions are Farhi-held lands, which is of interest. There is half a billion dollars worth of private residential/retail development shown. Will the investors and developers come and build on these sites? A big question.

- Don't get too hung up on the beach. It's just a bold and intentionally unorthodox concept designed to show that the planning team wants to do something big on the waterfront and that's the key message. The final waterfront feature will likely end up being something very different.

- Because these are mostly just ideas presented, not all things shown will likely come to pass (such as the bridges over the river at Queen, and Wellington, being replaced with cable-stayed structures). The best bet for short-term action is Western getting the current city hall/Cooper square/Centennial Hall site and the City building a new city hall at the forks along with the waterfront feature. Even this is not a slam-dunk though and there will be a battle to get this passed. IMO, if that alone happened it would be huge enough.

-The important take-away from this presentation is the signalling of a paradigm shift. Basically, the "progressives" led by the mayor are saying that the City needs to "go big or go home" in all sorts of new and exciting ways. If they manage to win the day, things could get very exciting very fast.

- The burning question in my mind however is if the Dundas Steak House will be any good?

[haljackey]

- Because these are mostly just ideas presented, not all things shown will likely come to pass (such as the bridges over the river at Queen, and Wellington, being replaced with cable-stayed structures). The best bet for short-term action is Western getting the current city hall/Cooper square/Centennial Hall site and the City building a new city hall at the forks along with the waterfront feature. Even this is not a slam-dunk though and there will be a battle to get this passed. IMO, if that alone happened it would be huge enough.


Yup. If someone buys city hall that pretty much forces the construction of a new one. I like that.

Overall I like the vision. Joe wants to get a lot of this done in 5 years. He's got stones, I'll give him that.

If you've ever talked with the mayor, he has a very 'can do' attitude. What he wants done he wants done now, and the majority of it is good for the city, at least in my opinion.

...Now to await the nay-sayer's from this project in the Free Press and elsewhere. :P

[Symz]

Yup. If someone buys city hall that pretty much forces the construction of a new one. I like that.

Overall I like the vision. Joe wants to get a lot of this done in 5 years. He's got stones, I'll give him that.

If you've ever talked with the mayor, he has a very 'can do' attitude. What he wants done he wants done now, and the majority of it is good for the city, at least in my opinion.

...Now to await the nay-sayer's from this project in the Free Press and elsewhere. :P

Windsor has a can-do positive attitude mayor and wants to get things moving, but if you read the comments at the Windsor Star they're full of naysayers and hostility. They are negative about everything and anything, it's disgusting. I feel a bit relieved actually to hear its not just a Windsor thing.

[ssiguy]

Looks like it would be a great series of developments and hopefully London will not only get a new City Hall but a real performing arts centre.
Couple of things.............were do they propose to put the buses and what exactly are they going to do with Dundas?
Finally they should have high archetectural standing and forbid any more concrete monsters which looks like they have but I won't believe it until I see it writing.

[ldoto]

GO JOE!!!!!!!!!!!:tup::tup::tup::tup::tup::tup::tup:

[Pimpmasterdac]

I hate to be a naysayer but it's all hypothetical "what if's" and "would've, could've, should've's" as far as the city is concerned.

The only one that is realistic idea is the revitalization of South Street hospital into some residential high-rise and that is only feasible if the provinces kicks in the money to tear down the old structure and a developer begins construction ASAP which quickest would be 2015.

New city hall!? I don't think that's needed, there's plenty of surplus office space in downtown London, which could either be rent, bought (i.e. expropriated from slumlord Farhi). The land south of London hydro HQ has yet to face an environmental assessment, which I'm sure would dredge up some nice violations/penalties courtesy of Labatt's. As well who wants to live within smelling distance of fermenting beer and electrical conversion!?

The area at Dundas & South of the forks is all a fantasy. Who is going to build a 40+ condo high-rise next to JLC?! What is the city going to do about west-bound traffic from riverside!? (no apparent connection to King street and Dundas is apparently a pedestrian). As well Dundas is going to be pedestrianized on w whim. And an artificial "beach" despite the fact there are 2 great lakes within 40-60 minutes of London.

I think the idea has good intentions, I'd like to see downtown revitalized as well. However like many of London's previous grand ideas just has the lack of money, government/public support and most importantly private financiers.

Wishful thinking, but not realistic!

[MrSlippery519]

- Because these are mostly just ideas presented, not all things shown will likely come to pass (such as the bridges over the river at Queen, and Wellington, being replaced with cable-stayed structures). The best bet for short-term action is Western getting the current city hall/Cooper square/Centennial Hall site and the City building a new city hall at the forks along with the waterfront feature. Even this is not a slam-dunk though and there will be a battle to get this passed. IMO, if that alone happened it would be huge enough.


I agree and this is the key, if UWO buys the old City Hall it forces the city's hand and that is a good thing. From what UWO president Amit Chakma says it certainly sounds like this is something that is going to happen.

[north 42]

As great of a plan it is for your downtown, I really doubt that all or much of it would be able to get built in only 5 years. It's a great blueprint to have though to steer developement in the coming years. I can't wait to drive up and see some of it being implemented, very exciting.

[Stevo26]

When I saw the LFP spread on the proposed reworking of the downtown core, I was gobsmacked with how ambitious the entire project is. Well, Joe Fontana did warn everyone that the plan to be presented would be astounding and I guess I wasn't prepared because I was expecting it to be the usual hyped-up ho-hum incrementalism.

If Mayor Fontana could push this proposal through and actually get it built, it could be the crowning achievement for his political career, and could even propel him into a second term, if he's wants one.

The project could also make downtown revitalization no longer just a dream, but reality. It could also turn London's fortunes around for the better, help pull it out of its hidebound, backwater, backwards-looking past, and plunk it down firmly into the 21st century. In other words, it could really and truly put London on the map. I can see it all now... tourist brochures and ads saying, "Come see what the other London has to offer!" The urban mini-lake and beach is really unique - I don't know of any other municipalities that have anything comparable.

However, the cynic in me is all too aware of how many times we've seen these kinds of proposals before, only to see them go nowhere, held up by 50 years of dithering, or be endlessly blocked by people and factions with an axe to grind.

London definitely needs a new city hall. A new building wouldn't cost substantially more than renovating the old one. Leasing a bunch of disparate buildings is not the answer - while it might save some money, it's a stop-gap
measure intended to deal with the problem of insufficient space. Sure, some governmental functions can be decentralized, but only where it makes sense to do so.

I'm just hoping that my initial amazement doesn't turn to disappointment later.

[haljackey]

As long as transport is improved, this plan will succeed.

Let's get a bus terminal in the downtown and a a freeway which will provide quick, efficent access from the 400-series to central London.

It 'can' be done. We have the technology.

[manny_santos]

As long as transport is improved, this plan will succeed.

Let's get a bus terminal in the downtown and a a freeway which will provide quick, efficent access from the 400-series to central London.

It 'can' be done. We have the technology.

There will never be a freeway from the 401 to Central London. The closest we will ever get is converting an existing arterial road to an expressway. The issue would be finding a corridor that has capacity for 6-8 lanes plus medians. Aside from maybe Oxford Street between Richmond and Adelaide, most existing corridors connecting the central city with the suburbs would require demolitions. That won't fly.

[Pimpmasterdac]

Only 3 Corridors that would be feasible for a freeway to downtown London.

One would be the Thames Valley Corridor, having Highbury swing west at the Thames and follow the river to downtown as per London's oringinal freeway plans. Impossible now, considering all the environmental assessments reuqired and the popularity of paving the Thames.

Second would be using exisiting rail corridors. Either expropriating the CP rail line and running an expressway alow the ROW or some type of an elevated freeway over the CP rail line. Either option would cost a lot and would need to get rail companies onside.

Third would be converting Wellington to a grand boulevard that would be similar to a freeway. Back in the mid-1980's London had a plan to make Wellington a 6 lane road with median & turn lanes from the 401 to Horton. The median part was completed north of the Thames to Horton. Between Baseline & south of the Thames is the issue since it would require major expropriation and piss off people.

I'd be fine with any options but doubt the city will do SFA about it.

[MolsonExport]

I'd much rather see light rail than a freeway downtown. North america's experience with urban freeways over the past 50 years has been nothing short of disastrous.

[Wharn]

I'm a little concerned about the impact of flooding on some of this proposed development. The beach, urban lake and all of the new buildings are very close to the water. Given how high the Thames rises during the spring thaw, I could easily see the beach being swept away, and the buildings could possibly incur some flood damage. Those aspects will need closer scrutiny. But otherwise, fantastic.

There will never be a freeway from the 401 to Central London. The closest we will ever get is converting an existing arterial road to an expressway. The issue would be finding a corridor that has capacity for 6-8 lanes plus medians. Aside from maybe Oxford Street between Richmond and Adelaide, most existing corridors connecting the central city with the suburbs would require demolitions. That won't fly.

You'd need some demolition along that stretch of Oxford, guaranteed. Not a chance in hell that could be turned into an at-grade expressway. This city had its chance to build useful freeways and it blew it; last resort is the elusive ring road.


Third would be converting Wellington to a grand boulevard that would be similar to a freeway. Back in the mid-1980's London had a plan to make Wellington a 6 lane road with median & turn lanes from the 401 to Horton. The median part was completed north of the Thames to Horton. Between Baseline & south of the Thames is the issue since it would require major expropriation and piss off people.


I like the Grand Boulevard idea. It would be expensive to implement but since Wellington Road already looks sprawly and shitty, we really have nothing to lose from a little expropriation and expansion. Something is needed to improve traffic movement into and out of the core, for both motorists and transit users (Ever tried riding the 13 Wellington from Masonville to White Oaks? It sucks. I can get across the same distance in Toronto on the 25 Don Mills in about 20% less time).

[Snark]

I'm a little concerned about the impact of flooding on some of this proposed development. The beach, urban lake and all of the new buildings are very close to the water. Given how high the Thames rises during the spring thaw, I could easily see the beach being swept away, and the buildings could possibly incur some flood damage. Those aspects will need closer scrutiny. But otherwise, fantastic.

The buildings are shown above the floodplain - they are fine. The remainder however is in the high, 100 year floodplain and the illustration shows extensive filling of that. The renderings really don't illustrate the grade changes between Ridout Street and the river, which is a good 15-25 metres. So, in reality, more fill would be needed than even shown.

In either case, the L/UTVCA isn't likley going to allow it

[haljackey]

Making Wellington a 6-lane road from the 401 to the core is a good comprimise. A lot of the work has already been done (can easily be 6-laned from 401 to Baseline and Thames River to Horton).
-In addition, the bridge over the Thames River is approaching the end of it's design life, or at least to my knowledge. Building a new, wider bridge like the Render shows can be done.

Just two major issues. The route between Baseline and the river is narrow and has two sharpish curves. Additional right of way would need to be purchased and those curves straightened out. The CN underpass is tight as well and only has 4 lanes. If Wellington is to continue 6-laned past Horton this needs to be expanded/rebuilt and it will be expensive.

Having an attractive downtown gateway is a must for residents, businesses and tourists.

[ssiguy]

There are some things that London could do right away that would make the downtown more inviting and lively.
The one that sticks out is to improve and widen the sidewalks. Go t Talbot/King area where there are a lot of good restaurants but no outdoor cafes because the sidewalks are far to thin and in poor repair. They should take a lane out of King from the Thames to Clarence so restaurants and outdoor cafes and shopping can thrive.
Also London could do another thing to help get these developments off the ground which only requires a signature from the mayor................put a moratorium on any residential buildings over 3 stories that are not north of Horton, South of Oxford, west of Old East area and east of the fork.
London has, for it's size, an amasing number of highrise apt/condos and yet are huge number are not downtown. Imagine what London's downtown would be like if even half of all the apt highrises in Westown/Cherryhill areas were in the inner city. A simple change in zoning and some form of architectural standing {ie no concrete commie blocks} and London's downtown would flourish.
The first example would take very little extra money if it is done in conjuction with ongoing road/street repair and the second doesn't require a nickel.

[Snark]

Also London could do another thing to help get these developments off the ground which only requires a signature from the mayor................put a moratorium on any residential buildings over 3 stories that are not north of Horton, South of Oxford, west of Old East area and east of the fork.

Uh, no. It requires a lot more than that.

Your idea is laudable, but implementing would be difficult and complex - if possible at all.

[Pimpmasterdac]

I like the Grand Boulevard idea. It would be expensive to implement but since Wellington Road already looks sprawly and shitty, we really have nothing to lose from a little expropriation and expansion. Something is needed to improve traffic movement into and out of the core, for both motorists and transit users (Ever tried riding the 13 Wellington from Masonville to White Oaks? It sucks. I can get across the same distance in Toronto on the 25 Don Mills in about 20% less time).

The slow buses could be solved tomorrow for Wellington. Have express routes that stop only at major intersections/places of interest. White Oaks, Vic Hospital, Horton, Queen & Richmond, Oxford, UWO, Maisonville. Rinse and Repeat of other routes. Why the LTC sits with its thump up its ass, and talks of adding milk bus runs to Lambeth, yet neglecting over capacity routes that could have express buses is idiotic. As bad a Via Fail!

I'm around Vic hospital luckily my whole time at UWO I only had to take the 13 Wellington to UWO once. But holy hell 45+ minutes to get to a place that I can drive to in 15?! Doesn't help around UWO and downtown the streets are less had 100 metres away with students getting on.off every stop, Express route cuts that out and gets people around London quickly

Making Wellington a 6-lane road from the 401 to the core is a good comprimise. A lot of the work has already been done (can easily be 6-laned from 401 to Baseline and Thames River to Horton).
-In addition, the bridge over the Thames River is approaching the end of it's design life, or at least to my knowledge. Building a new, wider bridge like the Render shows can be done.

Just two major issues. The route between Baseline and the river is narrow and has two sharpish curves. Additional right of way would need to be purchased and those curves straightened out. The CN underpass is tight as well and only has 4 lanes. If Wellington is to continue 6-laned past Horton this needs to be expanded/rebuilt and it will be expensive.

The most frustrating thing is that converting Wellington to 6 -lane grand boulevard isn't some abstract idea, that's a what if. It's something the city actually had design plans for that took into account ROW requirements and expropriation needs. This was in the late 1980's too soo its not some ancient plan. I didn't know about it myself until I saw the plans at UWO library, that give a layout from Horton to Baseline.

The widening was apart of a grand plan to widen Wellington, extend Colbourne across the Thames and meet Wellington at the sharp curve. Colbourne would be built to hand traffic while Wellington Thames bridge was re-built.

Ultimately the city has these grand visions of how London should/ought to be, yet doesn't have the balls to implement them if any special interest or anyone complains. Hopefully it does something useful for a change!

[Symz]

I'm not from London, I've only visited a few times and I really liked the city alot. It's bigger and to me feels more metropolitan than Windsor.

It's interesting though because the few people I know who have lived in London they always say the same thing, that driving around in London sucks. I didn't feel that it was that bad when I visited a few times, but then again that's over the course of the odd weekend going there and not during the mid week work traffic.

It's really that bad?

As for redevelopment that's exciting. I think you guys have a good thing going there so far with the JLC and the market, you have a downtown train station not too far away, Victoria Park, the Thames and you're seeing new residential develpment. This new plan is ambitious.

[MolsonExport]

^driving around London consists of three options:
1) diverting way to the North and going cross-town, then down again (e.g., Medway/Sunningdale)
2) diverting way to the South, and going cross-town, then up again (e.g., 401)
3) an endless series of traffic lights and extremely dreary suburban landscape (e.g., Wharncliffe, Oxfart, Wonderbread, unWellington), usually can't be avoided also for parts of options 1 and 2.

Minimum half an hour (often, much more), to get across a medium-sized urban area.

[FazDeH]

I REALLY Liked a lot of what I saw in these "visions" for downtown. granted I'm glad that they're just an archetype for potential future development, because lets face it, some of the rendered buildings were hideous. ie the JLC parking lot building, or IMO the green blob that would be the new city hall.
I WAS glad to see the pedestrian mall idea for Dundas, the idea of larger apartment buildings on Richmond near Kent(I thought they looked amazing and would love to see there) as well as the idea of significantly increasing the density near the fork of the Thames?
I think Joe is on the right track. Lets not forget the future development in the LPH area east of Highbury either! With all of that as well? We could FINALLY see a push for infill and more inner city development rather than the suburban norm that has strangled London since the 80s.
Also, if the green beast at the fork is to be the new city hall, what was the brown brick and glass beauty at the corner of queens and ridout? Looks like a civic building to me...

[Wharn]

Minimum half an hour (often, much more), to get across a medium-sized urban area.

Given the attitude towards road development on council, it won't get better anytime soon. There was a huge production over cutting down a few trees at the end of Windermere Road to make way for a pedestrian link to Gainsborough. If you brought in a proposal for a roadway some people may have had a heart attack. (For the record, as an ex-Torontonian, I don't see anything particularly special about that forest anyways)

[Stevo26]

Given the attitude towards road development on council, it won't get better anytime soon. There was a huge production over cutting down a few trees at the end of Windermere Road to make way for a pedestrian link to Gainsborough. If you brought in a proposal for a roadway some people may have had a heart attack. (For the record, as an ex-Torontonian, I don't see anything particularly special about that forest anyways)

What I don't get is, why the fuss over a few trees? The 'Forest City' moniker London has is really somewhat of a misnomer, and very misleading, since the city really doesn't have that much forest cover anymore except in a few small areas.

The way I see it, the big problem with a lot of special interest groups (and the people in them) is that they don't think clearly about the premises they espouse, or the logic of same. Much of what they clamour for is based on knee-jerk reactions or pure emotion. For such people, the loss of a few trees might as well be the end of the world.

[manny_santos]

What I don't get is, why the fuss over a few trees? The 'Forest City' moniker London has is really somewhat of a misnomer, and very misleading, since the city really doesn't have that much forest cover anymore except in a few small areas.

The way I see it, the big problem with a lot of special interest groups (and the people in them) is that they don't think clearly about the premises they espouse, or the logic of same. Much of what they clamour for is based on knee-jerk reactions or pure emotion. For such people, the loss of a few trees might as well be the end of the world.

It's also the culture of self-entitlement that we have to the exclusion of the needs of the many. As far as I'm concerned, the environmental benefits of lowering traffic congestion on various east-west roads by diverting traffic outweigh the environmental benefits of a few trees. Of course, more trees can be planted elsewhere.

I also think a Gainsborough-Winderemere link is much more feasible than a Sarnia-Huron link.

[ssiguy]

I don't see a rezoning of allowed higt restriction would be neither expensive nor difficult?

[Symz]

So I read today you guys will soon be taxed for this plan.

[bolognium]

I really fucking hate reading the LFP comments section. You'd think the only people that live in London are 60 year-olds that are certain downtown's glory days are behind us and never coming back. Yeah, the Simpson's display window is gone and we have some panhandlers, get over it you damn wet blankets. Have some vision for Christ's sake. Is $2.50 a month really that steep of a price for downtown revitalization and new development?

I really hope city council sticks to their guns and doesn't get too discouraged by this onslaught of negative opinions.

[Symz]

I really fucking hate reading the LFP comments section. You'd think the only people that live in London are 60 year-olds that are certain downtown's glory days are behind us and never coming back. Yeah, the Simpson's display window is gone and we have some panhandlers, get over it you damn wet blankets. Have some vision for Christ's sake. Is $2.50 a month really that steep of a price for downtown revitalization and new development?

I really hope city council sticks to their guns and doesn't get too discouraged by this onslaught of negative opinions.

It's the same in Windsor. Projects for the most part never come to fruition and are mostly pipe dreams. For the longest time it felt the city was stuck in time, stuck in one mode until our current mayor came along. Here's the catch, the mayor that seems to have gotten the ball rolling is also the most controversial mayor in recent time, people either love him or hate him. I personally look forward to vision and future developments and hope you guys in London have some success in seeing this grand plan put through.

[bolognium]

I just find it really frustrating that the people who complain about our downtown being an unwelcoming dump are the same people that immediately shoot down any plans for revitalization.

While the current proposal may be a little over-the-top it certainly has many appealing aspects:

- Better connections between the South of Horton neighbourhood and downtown by relinking closed streets

- Large scale development along the Thames (especially Old Vic and Hydro Lands)

- Plugging surface lots with buildings to create streetwalls on currently pedestrian-unfriendly streets

- Stronger institutional presence downtown

So yeah, more projects that focus on increasing downtown's population. The JLC and Market have been decent successes, but the main reason downtown still isn't flourishing is the lack of a large core population. I'm confident that most of these new projects will have a more positive impact than the Market ever did. Although, I do always sleep easy knowing that should I ever need scented candles at 4pm the market is only a 2 minute walk away.

We'll be that much closer to this "critical mass" I've heard so much about. Maybe I'll actually see a grocery store down here within my lifetime.

[MolsonExport]

I really fucking hate reading the LFP comments section. You'd think the only people that live in London are 60 year-olds that are certain downtown's glory days are behind us and never coming back.


who do you think reads the LFP? 60 year-olds that are certain downtown's glory days are behind us and never coming back.

[Snark]

I just find it really frustrating that the people who complain about our downtown being an unwelcoming dump are the same people that immediately shoot down any plans for revitalization.

I deal with such people on a regular basis. They have some fairly common traits:

- Gross ignorance of how things actually work. The level of ignorance can be stupefying. (the Mayor is personally responsible for the day-to-day running of the City)

- An inability to comprehend the complexity and operating difficulty of large systems and organisations. (Put me in charge for a year and I'll fix that place good. How hard can it be?)

- A baseline assumption that everyone "in charge" is at best incompetent and at worst corrupt. (They're all a bunch of lazy, lying, crooks out to screw us)

- Not concerned for the larger good or long-term strategic thinking (I don't care, I'll be dead by then)

- Not concerned for/will not support anything that they do not perceive will bring them direct benefit (I won't use that, why should I be forced to pay for it?)

- Generally, are underachievers - and they blame "the system" for causing it (I could be better off if just those dammed politicians were all rounded up and thrown in jail where they belong!)

- A nostalgic pining for the past - when things "were good" (you know: when people were decent and things were run properly)

This has been labeled "Tim Horten's conservatism", as the caricature of such types is a bunch of recently retired blue collar fellows sitting around at the coffee shop and bitching how everything is terrible, the world is screwing them over, and if only things went back to the happy days of the '70's things would fix themselves. The general cause of their problems are the lax justice system, outlawing corporal punishment on kids, feminists, politicians, and liberals/commies.

A laughable example was a comment in the Freep from some outraged nutcase that described the Ontario Hydro debt retirement charge as a "McGuinty tax grab". In truth, the charge was not initiated by the current Liberal government, does not go to the provincial government's revenue, and lastly, must be paid - as people and organisations actually hold that debt are obliged to be paid back. But, hey, why let reality get in the way of a good finger-pointing rant by a "victim" towards their oppressor.

This is ironic that this error-riddled rant is coming from someone who likely for years past benefited from paying artificially low electric costs.

[MolsonExport]

^good post.

[Chadillaccc]

Would be awesome to see London get rid of all that surface parking and get some density finally! :D

[MolsonExport]

I can't stand "Tim Hortons Conservativism". Old codgers and misinformed workies bitchin about the system and the lazy good for nothin young folk that never knew a hard day's work.

[Snark]

....and the lazy good for nothin young folk that never knew a hard day's work.

And that's EXACTLY why we need larger prisons and chain gangs! :koko:

[haljackey]

who do you think reads the LFP? 60 year-olds that are certain downtown's glory days are behind us and never coming back.

Not to mention the LFP is owned by SUN Media.. the newscaster that decided not to endorse anyone for the provincial election because none were 'right' enough.

The quality and spin of the LFP articles (and comments) are getting worse and worse. I'm reading the thing less and less.

----

To relate to the topic, some people are outraged that Joe may do a tax increase to fund this vision. I just hate how people jump to conclusions so quickly... it's an option, but probably won't be considered due to Joe's freeze.

[Wharn]

The quality and spin of the LFP articles (and comments) are getting worse and worse. I'm reading the thing less and less.


If you want something that will expand your knowledge, read The Economist. If you want something that was written for a bunch of seventh graders with brain damage, pick up a copy of anything published by SUN Media or Torstar. This is the way it's been for a while.

I can't stand "Tim Hortons Conservativism". Old codgers and misinformed workies bitchin about the system and the lazy good for nothin young folk that never knew a hard day's work.

I can't say I'm a fan of "Tim Hortons Conservatism", but the whole "lazy young folk" thing they're bitching about is very real and manifests itself in "Starbucks Liberalism". This is where a bunch of students sit around on their Macbooks, sipping Fair Trade coffee and whining about how the government doesn't grow huge and move to subsidize and regulate absolutely everything. They'll bitch about our current system and how "unfair" it is that philosophy majors aren't rewarded with the same salaries as dentists, and pine for the good ol' days of 1970s Trudeau deficits. Really, despite the fact that the two stereotypical groups hate each other, they have much in common :D

[Stevo26]

I really fucking hate reading the LFP comments section. You'd think the only people that live in London are 60 year-olds that are certain downtown's glory days are behind us and never coming back. Yeah, the Simpson's display window is gone and we have some panhandlers, get over it you damn wet blankets. Have some vision for Christ's sake. Is $2.50 a month really that steep of a price for downtown revitalization and new development?

I really hope city council sticks to their guns and doesn't get too discouraged by this onslaught of negative opinions.

I for one, do not object to being asked to pay an additional $30 annually on my taxes to see the downtown upgrade plan getting off the ground. $30.00 isn't much, and as you point out, it works out to about $2.50 per month - which is less than a one-way LTC fare is, for crying out loud. The benefits from revamping the downtown

For a while, I was against some elements of downtown revitalization, thinking that it was, in essence, just a cheap attempt to shore up the crumbling tax base in the downtown area. That is, I've tended to see the downtown core as somewhat of a lost cause, because, with the exception of a few buildings, it's a bit of a scruffy-looking area.

I'll admit that part of my attitude about downtown revitalization has a lot to do with the way the city handled the John Labatt Centre - essentially building a facility at taxpayer expense so that a private company could move into it and make a profit. Not that I'm against profit. I just have the feeling that taxpayers won't see much out of the JLC deal until the lease is almost at an end - in about 40 years from now. And at the end of it all, the city has to bear the costs of refurbishing the facility or demolishing.

Now that I've seen what City Hall really wants to do with respect to the core, I'm starting to reexamine my assumptions.

While the proposed levy is for all practical intents and purposes a tax hike, it might generate big dividends later in terms of economic activity, and provide a badly needed boost in civic pride. It will also help the city realize its dream of revitalizing the downtown core.

[Stevo26]

I really fucking hate reading the LFP comments section. You'd think the only people that live in London are 60 year-olds that are certain downtown's glory days are behind us and never coming back. Yeah, the Simpson's display window is gone and we have some panhandlers, get over it you damn wet blankets. Have some vision for Christ's sake. Is $2.50 a month really that steep of a price for downtown revitalization and new development?

I really hope city council sticks to their guns and doesn't get too discouraged by this onslaught of negative opinions.

I for one, do not object to being asked to pay an additional $30 annually on my taxes to see the downtown upgrade plan getting off the ground. $30.00 isn't much, and as you point out, it works out to about $2.50 per month - which is less than a one-way LTC fare is, for crying out loud. The benefits from revamping the downtown

For a while, I was against some elements of downtown revitalization, thinking that it was, in essence, just a cheap attempt to shore up the crumbling tax base in the downtown area because City Hall basically dropped the ball on preventing that erosion from taking place in the first place. That is, I've tended to see the downtown core as somewhat of a lost cause, because, with the exception of a few buildings, it's a bit of a scruffy-looking area.

I'll admit that part of my attitude about downtown revitalization has a lot to do with the way the city handled the John Labatt Centre - essentially building a facility at taxpayer expense so that a private company could move into it and make a profit. Not that I'm against profit. I just have the feeling that taxpayers won't see much out of the JLC deal until the lease is almost at an end - in about 40 years from now. And at the end of it all, the city has to bear the costs of refurbishing the facility or demolishing it.

Now that I've seen what City Hall really wants to do with respect to the core, I'm starting to reexamine my assumptions.

While the proposed levy is for all practical intents and purposes a tax hike, it might generate big dividends later in terms of economic activity, and provide a badly needed boost in civic pride. It will also help the city realize its dream of revitalizing the downtown core.

[MolsonExport]

If you want something that will expand your knowledge, read The Economist. If you want something that was written for a bunch of seventh graders with brain damage, pick up a copy of anything published by SUN Media or Torstar. This is the way it's been for a while.



I can't say I'm a fan of "Tim Hortons Conservatism", but the whole "lazy young folk" thing they're bitching about is very real and manifests itself in "Starbucks Liberalism". This is where a bunch of students sit around on their Macbooks, sipping Fair Trade coffee and whining about how the government doesn't grow huge and move to subsidize and regulate absolutely everything. They'll bitch about our current system and how "unfair" it is that philosophy majors aren't rewarded with the same salaries as dentists, and pine for the good ol' days of 1970s Trudeau deficits. Really, despite the fact that the two stereotypical groups hate each other, they have much in common :D


Except for the MacBooks, Fourbucks, and Fair Trade, you could be describing the youth of my days (80s/90s), and probably, most other ages of recent history. Classic generation gap.

15 year subscriber of the Economist here.

[haljackey]

As long as they don't spend the money on those stupid metal trees I'm for it. London's pretty much got 1 chance left to redeem itself, better make it count.

[S-Man]

I can't say I'm a fan of "Tim Hortons Conservatism", but the whole "lazy young folk" thing they're bitching about is very real and manifests itself in "Starbucks Liberalism". This is where a bunch of students sit around on their Macbooks, sipping Fair Trade coffee and whining about how the government doesn't grow huge and move to subsidize and regulate absolutely everything. They'll bitch about our current system and how "unfair" it is that philosophy majors aren't rewarded with the same salaries as dentists, and pine for the good ol' days of 1970s Trudeau deficits. Really, despite the fact that the two stereotypical groups hate each other, they have much in common

Here in Ottawa - or anywhere else there are very loud, mostly retired public servants - the people making the NIMBY comments and throwing wrenches into every plan and project (because they don't support it/will never use it/want peace and quiet and low taxes) are somewhere in between. The well-off, Boomer pensioners/close to retirement people who feels their glory days (and the rest of the world's) was in the Trudeau-era '70's are the ones doing the delaying.
It's terrible here for that - a clash of the Tim Hortons Tories who write to the SUN but never form a protest groups and the ex-hippie Trudeauites who feel their special interest group speaks for everyone and takes the city to court over every little thing, like if a building is one storey too tall for the neighbourhood.
With a growing population approaching 1.3 million we're reducing bus service and raising fares (25% in five years) because the people who like to sit in their rapidly-appreciating homes and drive everywhere don't want THEIR tax dollars spent on a "useless" light rail system. or have density downtown or anywhere near it (because it will mean traffic on their urban street). Or have entertainment venues or sporting arenas, etc, etc, etc...

Good (but saddened) to see it's the same everywhere.

[Stevo26]

Here in Ottawa - or anywhere else there are very loud, mostly retired public servants - the people making the NIMBY comments and throwing wrenches into every plan and project (because they don't support it/will never use it/want peace and quiet and low taxes) are somewhere in between. The well-off, Boomer pensioners/close to retirement people who feels their glory days (and the rest of the world's) was in the Trudeau-era '70's are the ones doing the delaying.
It's terrible here for that - a clash of the Tim Hortons Tories who write to the SUN but never form a protest groups and the ex-hippie Trudeauites who feel their special interest group speaks for everyone and takes the city to court over every little thing, like if a building is one storey too tall for the neighbourhood.
With a growing population approaching 1.3 million we're reducing bus service and raising fares (25% in five years) because the people who like to sit in their rapidly-appreciating homes and drive everywhere don't want THEIR tax dollars spent on a "useless" light rail system. or have density downtown or anywhere near it (because it will mean traffic on their urban street). Or have entertainment venues or sporting arenas, etc, etc, etc...

Good (but saddened) to see it's the same everywhere.

Well, if it's any comfort, it seems to me that old men (and I'm not generalizing here) are a grumpy lot who like to bitch about everything. I sense that their grumpiness and oppositional behaviour has a lot to do with the fact that they have nothing really meaningful to do with their time.

I have an uncle in his mid-sixties who, despite the fact that he's still working full-time, fits the 'grumpy old man' mould well. He's very opinionated and will oppose anything you say because (a) he has to be right every time, and (b) just for the hell of it!

[Wharn]

Except for the MacBooks, Fourbucks, and Fair Trade, you could be describing the youth of my days (80s/90s), and probably, most other ages of recent history. Classic generation gap.


Do people maybe just become more conservative as the grow older? You say youth in "your day" behaved much the same way, but I don't see too many self-entitled washouts in their 30s. Logic dictates that some of them would still be around.


Good (but saddened) to see it's the same everywhere.

I wouln't say it's the same here, we just have a similar set of problems. Feel free to comment or revise, but I believe this sums up London's issues: we have a completely apathetic productive class (includes white-collar and blue-collar people who actually do something valuable for a living) and then a relatively small but extremely vocal and counter-productive lower class, whose biggest concern is that a $45 property tax hike will compromise their ability to get a couple of 2-4's on Canada Day. They do all the bitching and whining. Since the productive class just wants their schools and roads at a reasonable price, they could care less and city council ends up scuttling a lot of worthwhile proposals.

[ForestryW]

...a relatively small but extremely vocal and counter-productive lower class, whose biggest concern is that a $45 property tax hike will compromise their ability to get a couple of 2-4's on Canada Day.

As someone who grew up in a lower class family in downtown London I can confirm that this is, indeed, our biggest concern. :rolleyes:

They do all the bitching and whining.

No worse than the white-Cadillac Escalade-driving self-entitled upper-middle class a**holes who oppose any tax hike as an invasion of individual rights.

People everywhere and of all income levels oppose tax increases for whatever reason. It's nothing new and definitely not restricted to London.

[Wharn]

No worse than the white-Cadillac Escalade-driving self-entitled upper-middle class a**holes who oppose any tax hike as an invasion of individual rights.


I agree, people who drive Escalades have awful taste in cars. If you're going to spend that kind of money, at least get a proper 4x4, like a Range Rover or a Toyota Land Cruiser. Not that American bling-bling rubbish.

[Highinthesky]

Hey Steveo

I think your feelings about the JLC are misinformed or misguided as the whole point of the JLC project was to spur revitalization of a part of DT that only 7 or 8 short years ago was a place you didn't want to walk at night. It has been a huge success.

Building the JLC wasn't about building a cash cow for the city in the form of the JLC. It was about turning a part of the core into a cash cow in terms of assessment base. If at the end of the lifespan of the JLC the city takes a small loss or breaks even it will still be miles ahead in terms of the millions in new property tax revenues from the massive increases in assessment base in that area. The latest report on the DT core from city planners says that the assessment base in the core has increased 15% since 2006, you will find much of that came from the JLC area.

More city driven initiatives like the JLC should be encouraged DT.

[Wharn]

Ran across this in Western's Gazette earlier on today. Normally the paper doesn't have anything terribly interesting or relevant to this forum, but this article makes some interesting points: http://www.westerngazette.ca/2011/10/19/downtown-investments-starting-to-pay-off/

London's downtown was really in a downward spiral during the mid 1990s, but ever since revitalization efforts started in 2002 (which included the construction of the JLC), we've seen population and property values increase dramatically. The JLC seems to have also produced some positive externalities by enticing more desirable businesses to open up downtown. Now, as you can imagine, not everything is rainbows and cookies... everyone admits that Dundas Street is still a problem. In typical Gazette fashion, though, they don't seem to mention what the problem specifically is, they just seem to broadly state "yeah Dundas is shit, we know" without pointing fingers. What are your thoughts?

[MolsonExport]

Indeed. King street around the JLC has become the replacement for Dundas street, which once was the showcase shopping avenue. Some good bones, but some real sores as well.

[bolognium]

I don't really see King as a replacement for Dundas. Right now King's mostly fancy restaurants and massive parking lots. Dundas has three times as many storefronts leaving a lot more room for vacancies and payday-blight. If anything I'd say Richmond has become the new "shopping avenue." However, I definitely agree that King Street is becoming a new destination in itself.

I've lived downtown for almost 6 months and I haven't spent much time visiting stores on King. With the exception of getting a burger from The Works and visiting the Market twice I wouldn't notice if King Street ceased to exist.

[Highinthesky]

I agree with bolognium that as far as a retail destination Richmond Row is the place in DT London and will likely continue to be that way for years to come due to factors like its already established as the spot and amenities like Victoria Park.

However where I think King and Talbot have taken over is in the non-university/college night scene. When I was going to school Richmond Row was the place to be and for current students it still very much is. Now that I'm in my late 20's I feel kind of out of place cruising Richmond Row bars. However heading down to King and Talbot I find a lot of place to go with people more in my demographic.

Much nicer than the old Ridout Tavern haha

[manny_santos]

I agree with bolognium that as far as a retail destination Richmond Row is the place in DT London and will likely continue to be that way for years to come due to factors like its already established as the spot and amenities like Victoria Park.

However where I think King and Talbot have taken over is in the non-university/college night scene. When I was going to school Richmond Row was the place to be and for current students it still very much is. Now that I'm in my late 20's I feel kind of out of place cruising Richmond Row bars. However heading down to King and Talbot I find a lot of place to go with people more in my demographic.

Much nicer than the old Ridout Tavern haha

You mean places like 29 Park?

No thank you...I'd rather get drunk by myself in my basement watching the Leafs lose than go to a pretentious bar like that.

[DB_in_Cbus]

Those are just some amazing photos. London has made some progress downtown, even during the years I lived there (2004-2008), but those pictures rock.

Another idea might be to bury the rail lines, at least from Colborne to Ridout, to create a more connected feel between downtown and the "other side of the tracks." That way, the city could encourage high density development right up to the Thames, sort of what they've doing with "SoHo." You need will to do that from CN though - perhaps if the city foots the cost?

Re Expanding Wellington - would be really tough past Baseline towards downtown. You'd have to buy up quite a bit of property there, and the benefits might not be worth it. London really needs to introduce express buses, and limit/ban road parking on the major arteries. There should be NO road parking on Oxford, Dundas and Richmond, for starters. That would do a lot (especially on Richmond and Oxford) to alleviate traffic problems.

[haljackey]

New ideas have emerged to aid in London's downtown vision. They include an expanded Grand Theatre and a expanded Museum London.

The Grand Theatre may be able to integrate the proposed performing arts centre into it, and Museum London could absorb other facilities like the Children's museum and bring it downtown.

Gallery here: http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2012/06/07/19849136.html

Cost: about $200 million, bringing the grand total for the vision to about $700 million in 2012 dollars.

[Symz]

Cost: about $200 million, bringing the grand total for the vision to about $700 million in 2012 dollars.

:omg: That's a big chunk of change! What's the expected timeline for this $700 million budget plan?