Can you go home again?

[north 42]

Originally Posted by middeljohn

Here's a thought: has anyone noticed that St Thomas feels a LOT like Pontiac?

Eww, really? I've never been to St. Thomas, I've just always assumed it was similar to Chatham for some reason. Pontiac is pretty rough!

[middeljohn]

Originally Posted by north 42

Eww, really? I've never been to St. Thomas, I've just always assumed it was similar to Chatham for some reason. Pontiac is pretty rough!

Pontiac also has a nice part. The neighbourhood around where that Tim Hortons is is what I have in mind. Small town close to a larger core city. Lots of American cars, lots of churches. Wooded, hilly, narrow roads. Just reminded me of that region of metro Detroit. Of course St Thomas also has some rougher parts (supposedly).

MAJOR EDIT: I meant PLYMOUTH, not Pontiac. This place..

[north 42]

^
Ahh, big difference between Plymouth and Pontiac. Plymouth is pretty nice with a nice DT, Pontiac is like a little Detroit!

[ssiguy]

Chatham and St.Thomas are VERY different.

St.Thomas never really developed a unique identity due to it's close proximity to London. Chatham on the other hand is very much a regional city for the smaller towns. It also has a community college.

St.Thomas has the most bizzare downtown I have ever seen. It is basically just one very long strip of store fronts {half of which are vacant} with almost no major intersection in the entire downtown area. St.Thomas' downtown has very little to offer while Chatham has a VERY nice and vibrant downtown core with nice little shops, interesting architecture, pleasant streetscapes, and a lovely riverfront area and park. Considering it's rather depressed economy, it's actually quite active and busy with a decent amount of foot traffic.

Their size is somewhat comparable but the similarities end there. If I had to compare St.Thomas with another nearby city then Woodstock would be a more comparable place.

[north 42]

^
I like Chatham too, nice little city. I didn't realize that St. Thomas was so bad though, and I have never been to Woodstock, so I'm a bit surprised that it is also not so nice. I really need to explore Southwestern ontario more obviously, lol.

[HillStreetBlues]

Woodstock is a fairly nice little city, in my opinion. Quite a bit nicer than St. Thomas, I would say, and growing like gangbusters the last few years (relative to its historic pace of growth, and definitely relative to St. Thomas’ stagnation). Most of the recent growth is not very appealing, but it could be worse.

I agree about St. Thomas’ downtown, but Woodstock’s, although small, continues to hold on. Very nice stretch along Dundas, with a few things worth mentioning like the art gallery. If you ever get a chance to walk down Dundas and then up Van Ave, you’ll be impressed.

St. Thomas has the Dumbo statue (because he got killed him there?); Woodstock has the Snow Countess.

[Stevo26]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Chatham and St.Thomas are VERY different.

St.Thomas never really developed a unique identity due to it's close proximity to London. Chatham on the other hand is very much a regional city for the smaller towns. It also has a community college.

St.Thomas has the most bizzare downtown I have ever seen. It is basically just one very long strip of store fronts {half of which are vacant} with almost no major intersection in the entire downtown area. St.Thomas' downtown has very little to offer while Chatham has a VERY nice and vibrant downtown core with nice little shops, interesting architecture, pleasant streetscapes, and a lovely riverfront area and park. Considering it's rather depressed economy, it's actually quite active and busy with a decent amount of foot traffic.

Their size is somewhat comparable but the similarities end there. If I had to compare St.Thomas with another nearby city then Woodstock would be a more comparable place.

The parallels between Woodstock and St. Thomas have always been obvious to me. Both towns are laid out in a very similar fashion: lots of side streets
surrounding a long main drag with lots of storefronts. Woodstock's residential areas are quite a bit prettier than what you find in St. Thomas.
On the other hand, St. Thomas has a much more 'historic' feel to its architecture.

[MolsonExport]

I think the St. Thomas of 1970 would look better than the Woodstock of 2010. But St. Thomas has since declined, and very badly so in the centre core, whereas Woodstock is expanding industry and having an influx of middle-class folk.

[FrankieFlowerpot]

Some interesting reading here. I'm contemplating moving to London from Toronto next year.

Been living in Toronto for the past 12 years (moved to Canada from Ireland) and I'm getting married this summer and my fiancee is from the city.

[MolsonExport]

Good stuff. I am a Montreal transplant nine years (since 2005) in the Forest city. Great place to start a family and buy a house. We did both in our first year here. Now on our second house, with two kids.

[Wharn]

Originally Posted by Snark

The truth is that very very few people require a duelie truck with a 5.7 L Hemi making 400 HP and providing a 5000lb hauling capacity. I still see a lot of them on the road though - without a scratch on them and hauling nothing. What I do see a lot of those pristine vehicles doing though is being driven at 130 kph. Yes, a lot of guys are out there driving a 7000lb brick as if it were a Ferrari. That defies understanding for me: it's about as graceful as trying to put a container ship into orbit.

A Hemi in a Dually is going to be very, very weak and very, very slow. Those things have the big Cummins diesels. Practically transport trucks.

Either way, I'm sure contractors are very appreciative of the people who finance and lease these massive work vehicles and take care of the 4 years' worth of depreciation.

Originally Posted by middeljohn

I'm 6'6, so I have a problem fitting into the Fits, Fiestas and M2s of the world. But I comfortably fit into my Malibu which is great on gas. I don't need a giant truck just so my legs have room.

How much leg room is left in the back seats? I'm also fairly tall and drive an Epsilon-based vehicle, but when the driver's seat is adjusted to my height, there is close to nothing left in the back.

Originally Posted by Stevo26

The parallels between Woodstock and St. Thomas have always been obvious to me. Both towns are laid out in a very similar fashion: lots of side streets surrounding a long main drag with lots of storefronts. Woodstock's residential areas are quite a bit prettier than what you find in St. Thomas. On the other hand, St. Thomas has a much more 'historic' feel to its architecture.

And both Woodstock and St. Thomas are East-heavy, where most of the development is concentrated in the East end of town. Both have a river running along the West side that causes this lopsided development (although it is much more pronounced in Woodstock's case; London actually used to be the oriented the same way). As far as I'm concerned though, the similarities end there. Woodstock seems to be the kind of place that always had a lot of diverse, light manufacturing, whereas St. Thomas was always heavily dependent on few heavier outfits. You can see that most of Woodstock's growth has taken place since the 1960s while St. Thomas was beginning to slow down shortly thereafter.

I don't really find the main drag of either town particularly attractive.

[middeljohn]

^^

Not quite as much as in the Honda Accord, but still quite a bit. My cousin is 6'3 and has sat behind me without a complaint, and I have the seat all the way back when I drive.

Speaking of pickup trucks, holy moly, Edmonton has a lot!

[haljackey]

I am still a little confused why so many people have not only pickups, but SUVs and crossovers.

I'd expect very few of them are actually used for offroading and whatnot. A friend of mine bought a pickup truck simply because she wanted to be higher up. Another two are considering getting a Equinox and Grand Cherokee for that same reason...

Why can't we just stick to the good old-fashioned sedan? The more higher-up vehicles sold, the less cars are sold because more and more people have trouble seeing.

I took a look at the best selling vehicles in Canada for the month of January. The top 3 were Ford F150, RAM 1500 and Chevrolet Silverado. Bah humbug!

Maybe with fuel prices climbing to record highs, it will convince people to return to buying cars instead of these gas-guzzlers.

[K85]

I don't know if you are all daft or just don't read. It's not the vehicle, it's the engine. As I said, I have a TRUCK engine in my SEDAN. It's a 5.7 litre Hemi. I drink trees as I accelerate. If you're gonna bash people, bash em' right. I'll happily guzzle mah' gas.

[GreatTallNorth2]

Originally Posted by K85

I don't know if you are all daft or just don't read. It's not the vehicle, it's the engine. As I said, I have a TRUCK engine in my SEDAN. It's a 5.7 litre Hemi. I drink trees as I accelerate. If you're gonna bash people, bash em' right. I'll happily guzzle mah' gas.

Is this an episode of Duck Dynasty?

[ssiguy]

All of SW Ontario has been a relatively slow growth area for several decades.

I don't think there has been one city in the SW that has grown by over 1% a year in the last 20 years with the very noticeable exception of Strathroy. This slow growth is not unique to the SW as Northern Ontario is shrinking and Eastern is completely stagnant except Ottawa.

I think that one of the big draws that the SW could offer is to boomers and retirees. The SW, especially Chatham, has the mildest winters east of BC with very little snow and what it gets usually doesn't stick around very long. It's housing is beyond cheap, and yet it is within easy access of London or Toronto.

The SW has these advantages that no where east of BC does without the outrageous BC housing costs and huge distances away from family and friends. I don't think the SW has done a very good job at marketing itself as a retirement destination. The Okanagan has and hence it's growth {although that growth has come to a screeching halt with many areas experiencing population decline} but Kelowna's winters are the same temp as Chatham's as is the snowfall yet housing is 3 times the price and Kelowna, unlike Chatham, is not in the middle of no where.

[north 42]

Windsor - Essex has been marketing the region as a retirement option for the last 5 or so years, and it's been very successful. The best location in the southwest, a growing wine region, very affordable housing, 100 miles of coastline and great shopping and sporting events in the greater Detroit area.

http://www.retirehere.ca

[K85]

Yes

Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2

Is this an episode of Duck Dynasty?

[ssiguy]

Detroit does have a lot of entertainment options but Windsor, not to be insulting, doesn't have the best reputation in large part due to it's proximity to Detroit.

Also Windsor in a major city and retirees are probably wanting to move from the cities to get away from the traffic, crime, and busy lifestyle they associate with cities and hence Chatham-Kent could promote itself that way. Sarnia doesn't have the option as sarnia has a reputation of an unattractive Chemical Valley city...........not something boomers are looking for.

The Okanagan did a good job of promoting itself as a retiree mecca which drastically helped it's economy as Kelowna is one of the poorest cities in the country. Chatham gets less snow than anywhere east of BC the housing is dirt cheap but it doesn't seem to have been able to capitalize on these obvious advantages and drawn in the retirees.

[north 42]

Windsor and Essex county are working together to promote the region, and both are drawing lots of retires already. This isn't about wondering if the region can attract retirees, its already proven that it can, as the 100 Mile Peninsula has been very successful and continues to attract more and more newcomers. Most retires are very surprised as to what the region offers once they get here, as outdated stereotypes about the area do not hold up to reality. Crime is very low and traffic is not a problem, and the city is not having any problems keeping reirees once they move here. There are so many stories of new retirees friends and family also choosing to move to windsor-Essex once they visit and realize what the area really offers.

As for Chatham- Kent, I highly doubt that it would be a more attractive area than Windsor -Essex for most retirees. Housing is a bit cheaper in CK, but there isn't really much to the town to draw newcomers. Temperatures and snow cover are pretty much the same for both areas, but Amherstburg is actually the mildest place in Ontario, warmer than Chatham. Essex County also has a large and growing wind region with close to 20 wineries, with more set to open in the next couple years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amherstburg