HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > London > Transportation & Infrastructure

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #621  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2017, 5:08 AM
ssiguy ssiguy is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 4,951
While it is true London's transportation planning is short sighted nd the traffic horrid, I am glad London didn't follow the KW route of an inner city freeway. This is one of the primary reasons why London has a solid built urban form where you can walk from one neighbourhood to the next with few gaps. You can walk from Fanshawe Park Road to downtown to Ridout to White Oaks and never see more than one empty lot. Same goes for basically anything from Highbury to Byron. Few cities can claim such a thing and it makes the city feel whole and pedestrian friendly.

You also haave to remember that KW is not the combination of 2 cities but 5......Kitch/Wat/Preseton/Hespler/and Galt. There was a lot of open land between them and endless lots in which to build freeways and much wider roads as most connecting them were wide arterials and not urban streets like London.

Yes, London's tepid steps can be infuriating but it's hesitancy has left the city with a solid and attractive built form.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #622  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2017, 8:15 PM
haljackey's Avatar
haljackey haljackey is offline
User Registered
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 2,278
At least London has a grid pattern when it comes to it's roads.

Without freeways, Kitchener-Waterloo would be hell to navigate. Odd angle roads that just stop and start in the older areas of town. Blame the German settlers for that!

-----

With Canada's credit rating the way it is right now, I think it's a great time for the country to build some mega-projects. Best to do it when you can afford it or at least approve some as make-work projects when the next recession comes.

I know I'm beating a dead horse, but I still think London should have gone to the upper levels of government with the full LRT proposal. It would then be compromised into the hybrid or full BRT projects from there.
__________________
My Twitter

My Simcity Stuff
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #623  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2017, 10:38 PM
jammer139 jammer139 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: London
Posts: 388
Very good point.

We have the river and some tributaries creating some natural barriers. But they have been reasonably used for parks and trails.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
While it is true London's transportation planning is short sighted nd the traffic horrid, I am glad London didn't follow the KW route of an inner city freeway. This is one of the primary reasons why London has a solid built urban form where you can walk from one neighbourhood to the next with few gaps. You can walk from Fanshawe Park Road to downtown to Ridout to White Oaks and never see more than one empty lot. Same goes for basically anything from Highbury to Byron. Few cities can claim such a thing and it makes the city feel whole and pedestrian friendly.

You also haave to remember that KW is not the combination of 2 cities but 5......Kitch/Wat/Preseton/Hespler/and Galt. There was a lot of open land between them and endless lots in which to build freeways and much wider roads as most connecting them were wide arterials and not urban streets like London.

Yes, London's tepid steps can be infuriating but it's hesitancy has left the city with a solid and attractive built form.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #624  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2017, 12:42 PM
HillStreetBlues HillStreetBlues is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: KW/Hamilton, Ontario
Posts: 939
Quote:
Originally Posted by MolsonExport View Post
despite being a collection of (bickering) cities, KWC has all the goodies and London, none.
Freeways? KWC 1 London 0
LRT? KWC 1 London 0

heck the University of Waterloo is threatening Western...the former was once a satellite campus of the latter.

London aims for mediocrity, it seems.
What metrics do you consider most important for a university? UW's budget and endowment are smaller than UWO's, but the number of students is probably a tiny bit larger than at UWO. This isn't including Laurier, of course (also a former satellite of UWO's).

I think you'd have to be a real Waterloo partisan to claim that Waterloo is now a more important research school than UWO.

ssiguy, your comment about London having a "solid and attractive built form" is a head-scratcher to me. It's a relatively small area of London that is attractive and urban, and a relatively huge area that is sprawling suburbs. I guess it's true that there's relatively little undeveloped space within the city (Waterloo has at least five cores, and Cambridge is separated from the other two cities by undeveloped land of course).

You mention being able to walk from Highbury to Byron. In the case of the latter, it was until recently separated from the rest of the city by greenspace and in some cases even farmland (on Commissioners until very recently). Now, I guess it's all built-up, but I wouldn't characterize the stuff on Commissioners West between London and Byron to be "attractive" or "walkable."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #625  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2017, 3:00 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The Tropic of Sir Galahad
Posts: 28,877
As a tenured faculty member of UWO (with absolutely no connections whatsoever to the triple-headed urban area 100 kilometers to the East of us), believe me when I say that I am not a Waterloo partisan!
__________________
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere.Elie Wiesel
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #626  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2017, 10:45 AM
GreatTallNorth2 GreatTallNorth2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 975
I would have to disagree with the statement that London is better off because we don't have a freeway. I travel a lot for business and visit cities big and small and I would say 99 out of 100 cities have a full fledge freeway system in their city - most U.S. cities have freeways that run very close to their downtown. I don't see anything negative about it. The most charming cities in the U.S. like Savannah, Charleston, Portland, Maine all have freeways.

Instead in London we now have streets that will constantly have to be expanded, where drivers speed and still you can't get from A to B quickly.

London's biggest problem is that it doesn't have the will to be a better city. Everything the city does is mediocre and puts "low price" as the first priority whereas cities that are great put quality and functionality as their first priority and then seek the best price to build that quality.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #627  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2017, 1:49 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The Tropic of Sir Galahad
Posts: 28,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2 View Post
Everything the city does is mediocre
my biggest beef with London.
__________________
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere.Elie Wiesel
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #628  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2017, 11:48 PM
tyeman200's Avatar
tyeman200 tyeman200 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2 View Post
The more I travel, the more frustrated I am with London as a city. Why on earth can we not have light rail, the transit tunnel or even a freeway for that matter? Why is every decision based on what is the cheapest option? Why not for once: what is the best option? We have never and are not currently building for the future. Sorry for the rant, but if the gov't can give K/W and Hamilton money for light rail and freeways, why are we so shy to ask for the same?
It's because our council will always suck up to the residents of this city, at least I believe that's the main problem. This council was supposed to bring out some real change for this city, instead we really haven't gone nowhere. Look what happened to BRT, we had a decent plan for it and thanks to the bitchy Londoners we will now have a pretty shitty BRT system that defeats the purpose of having it. We need city staff who don't always listen to the ignorant residents we have and get shit done. It may piss off some people but who cares? That's why I wish we could get some more millennials into council, to bring out the change this city needs and fast.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > London > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:40 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.