Dundas pedestrian mall

[Simpseatles]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport;5346107You think the status quo is fine? Okay, let's keep repelling more visitors.

This is not at all attractive: [url

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&q=richmond%20and%20dundas&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1421l4078l0l19l16l0l8l8l0l203l1064l3.3.2l8&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&biw=1280&bih=853&wrapid=tlif131057344741811&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl[/url]

No, I don't think that the status quo is fine, Dundas and Richmond could definately use a little improvement. However I don't think that it is the smelly, ugly place that you seem to. I honestly enjoy Dundas and Richmond in it's current state. Of course that is very unfortunate that you have had problems taking your family to the area. But, is there anything else besides the people, that you don't like about the intersection?

I'm really just trying to understand where you are coming from!

[bolognium]

Originally Posted by van Hemessen

My prediction: Dundas between Talbot and Richmond is going to improve dramatically over the next 5-10 years. The bums and crackheads will still be there, as in pretty much every other North American city, but they'll be less noticeable.

This is basically how I feel. Downtown will always have some undesirables around and people just need to get used to that. Slowly over time the core with gentrify and the bums will either be less prominent or will move three blocks south to Horton. Regardless, I'd wager they'll always be nearby.

Rerouting LTC to King/Queens would definitely help solve the loitering problem because a fair amount of those people really are waiting for buses. Not only that, but I'd imagine the increased foot traffic would have a pretty positive impact on those streets. Either way doing something as extreme as removing all public housing within a certain radius should never be encouraged.

Also, it really sucks to hear you're uncomfortable walking Dundas with your family, Molson, but I genuinely don't think there's much to worry about. Downtown is a surprisingly friendly place and it kinda sucks that you're willing to let a single intersection stop you from enjoying it. I definitely recommend you check out one of the next car-free weekend dealies if you haven't already done so. I've seen tons of families biking down Dundas to the river, browsing around in Heroes and The Met, checking out the Museum, playing around in the spray-pad at the forks, getting food and listening to music. On top of all of that, DnR is deserted because the welfare crew can't shop at the welfare store on the weekend.

Btw for curiosity's sake, that intersection in Montreal you mentioned, how many people would you estimate live and work within a couple minutes of it (the size of London's core)? Is it even remotely comparable to Dundas and Richmond? Also, Montreal has the super-dense neighbourhoods surrounding its downtown which would surely have an impact.

[MolsonExport]

^There are incredibly seedy intersections replete with winos in Montreal. But they are not tolerated in the main touristy/business areas. I am arguing more from the perspective of what would help downtown businesses thrive. If people like myself don't feel comfortable with their families in this neighborhood (Dundas/Richmond) then ten years hence we will still see an empty bank building on one corner, hemp stores, etc. Not what I call the appropriate mixture in a core of an urban area appproaching 500K.

On my own, it bothers me very little about the grubbiness of people...I have travelled the world, lived in downtowns in Montreal and Vancouver, and I am an avid urban explorer.

[manny_santos]

I wouldn't take my family down there during the week, but I agree on the weekend it isn't bad at all. Fortunately one does not need to walk through D&R in order to get to the JLC, although I don't particularly like King Street between Richmond and Clarence at night either.

[bolognium]

Molson, I guess I've always imagined downtown gentrifying outwards from little beachheads of of success such as Richmond Row, Talbot/King area and maybe even Dundas/Wellington. With more people downtown, these successful areas will continue to thrive and expand towards each other eventually running pawnshops and Tim Best out of the core.

Fantasies can come true, right?

[MolsonExport]

^amen to that. Esp. Tim Best and his loansharking/patio/poodle-grooming business empire.

[Stevo26]

Originally Posted by van Hemessen

Yep that's the solution. Send all the poor people away.

As someone who spent 5 years of his childhood living in affordable housing in downtown London with a single mother I find this attitude truly disgusting.

The problem isn't with the poor per se, or those living in public housing complexes, it's the way some of them dress, look, and behave - i.e. grubby, smelly winos, and as one poster here put it, 'meth-mouth skanks'.

It doesn't take a lot of wealth to dress or look like you have some self respect and respect for other people. Winos aside, I personally don't care to look at single mothers pushing baby carriages and who are dressed in such a way that their tattoos and piercings take centre stage. Yuck.

The generally unpleasant look and feel of the downtown core has multifactorial origins, but let me take a stab at illustrating what I think are some of the major causes.

First, the Dundas-Richmond intersection is essentially a central terminal for city buses. Since the poor tend to be the heaviest users of public transit, the positioning of the buses causes the poor (and in turn, a lot of grubby, smelly people) to congregate in the area.

And it's all because the city is too cheap to build a proper bus terminal - or it can't seem to resist engaging in the endless and overwrought hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth that goes with the possibility that a few 'heritage' buildings might have to be torn down to make room for such a terminal.

The end result is that important decisions don't get made, and opportunities get squandered - or delayed for another 50 years, so some city councillors don't have to make the tough decisions that might cost them some votes and get negative coverage in the Freeps. Like it or not, there are a lot of so-called 'heritage' properties in London's downtown core that aren't economically viable, and cannot be restored to such a state. London has a terrible record when it comes to its city government making decisions - and it's something that goes far beyond mere 'analysis paralysis'.

Next are the numerous marginal businesses - cheap eateries, pay-day loan shops and pawn shops that are located in the downtown core, particularly at the Dundas/Richmond intersection, and thereby exacerbate the problem of undesirables pooling in this area. The presence of the local welfare office and the McDonald's restaurant at that street corner don't help matters any. Of course, the reason why these businesses even exist in this area to begin with is because of an unholy alliance of sorts - the landlords have space that no one else wants, so they rent to marginal players, and the city is desperate for tax revenue, so it looks the other way.

A third possible cause is the tendency of planners over the last forty years or so to locate public housing close to public transit routes, with the idea of making the lives of the poor a little less burdensome. As a result, London has numerous public housing properties clustered within a 2 - 3km radius of the downtown core.

In fairness, I recognize that efforts are underway to try to make the core more attractive to better-quality businesses in the hope that they will eventually crowd out the marginal ones. However, the process could be accelerated if a proper bus terminal was built, and the welfare office was relocated along with the marginal businesses. The idea behind all this, of course, is to decentralize and scatter the attractors that cause the current problem we have in the downtown core.

[new age]

Originally Posted by Stevo26

The problem isn't with the poor per se, or those living in public housing complexes, it's the way some of them dress, look, and behave - i.e. grubby, smelly winos, and as one poster here put it, 'meth-mouth skanks'.

It doesn't take a lot of wealth to dress or look like you have some self respect and respect for other people. Winos aside, I personally don't care to look at single mothers pushing baby carriages and who are dressed in such a way that their tattoos and piercings take centre stage. Yuck.

I hate to tell you this but tattoos, and piercing are very common, and in no way cheep. Tattoos are hundreds even thousands of dollars a piece. There is no city were you can go in Canada where your ultimately conservative ideals will be a reality now and days.

Originally Posted by Stevo26

First, the Dundas-Richmond intersection is essentially a central terminal for city buses. Since the poor tend to be the heaviest users of public transit, the positioning of the buses causes the poor (and in turn, a lot of grubby, smelly people) to congregate in the area.

In larger cities in the country the better transit systems attract middle class commuters with better service. In fact the only city smaller then London with higher transit rider ship is Victoria, and can clam with better service they get better commuter rider ship.

Its not that the city is two cheap to build a transit terminal. It's that transit terminals only serve a small area well. Large downtowns have two many different destinations to far apart. There are no cities with a downtown terminal with higher rider ship then London. (Hamilton? lower rider#'s? mississauga? is it really a downtown?) Cities need transit corridors and money spent on service.

Originally Posted by Stevo26

And it's all because the city is too cheap to build a proper bus terminal - or it can't seem to resist engaging in the endless and overwrought hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth that goes with the possibility that a few 'heritage' buildings might have to be torn down to make room for such a terminal.

There are empty lots every where why tear down anything? Make a p3 partnership city buys land, and waves developing fees if developer includes transit facilities, and publicly accessible parking. You keep your parking, you get your transit needs met, and encourage development.

Originally Posted by Stevo26

The end result is that important decisions don't get made, and opportunities get squandered - or delayed for another 50 years, so some city councillors don't have to make the tough decisions that might cost them some votes and get negative coverage in the Freeps. Like it or not, there are a lot of so-called 'heritage' properties in London's downtown core that aren't economically viable, and cannot be restored to such a state. London has a terrible record when it comes to its city government making decisions - and it's something that goes far beyond mere 'analysis paralysis'.

Next are the numerous marginal businesses - cheap eateries, pay-day loan shops and pawn shops that are located in the downtown core, particularly at the Dundas/Richmond intersection, and thereby exacerbate the problem of undesirables pooling in this area. The presence of the local welfare office and the McDonald's restaurant at that street corner don't help matters any. Of course, the reason why these businesses even exist in this area to begin with is because of an unholy alliance of sorts - the landlords have space that no one else wants, so they rent to marginal players, and the city is desperate for tax revenue, so it looks the other way.

I am sorry but if the city has zoning that allows a business type it can't choose witch one, so says OMB. Not that I am in favour of the OMB. The city could ban payday loans, but it likely would have to be citywide, and would face court challenges.

Originally Posted by Stevo26

A third possible cause is the tendency of planners over the last forty years or so to locate public housing close to public transit routes, with the idea of making the lives of the poor a little less burdensome. As a result, London has numerous public housing properties clustered within a 2 - 3km radius of the downtown core.

In fairness, I recognize that efforts are underway to try to make the core more attractive to better-quality businesses in the hope that they will eventually crowd out the marginal ones. However, the process could be accelerated if a proper bus terminal was built, and the welfare office was relocated along with the marginal businesses. The idea behind all this, of course, is to decentralize and scatter the attractors that cause the current problem we have in the downtown core.

Isn't it decentralization that got us in this mess? We have people weaving threw the city, from strip mall, to office park, to walled suburb all on roads packed with traffic, while the heart of the city rots. What is missing is healthy private sector centralization.

[LondONstudent]

Originally Posted by Stevo26

The problem isn't with the poor per se, or those living in public housing complexes, it's the way some of them dress, look, and behave - i.e. grubby, smelly winos, and as one poster here put it, 'meth-mouth skanks'.

It doesn't take a lot of wealth to dress or look like you have some self respect and respect for other people. Winos aside, I personally don't care to look at single mothers pushing baby carriages and who are dressed in such a way that their tattoos and piercings take centre stage. Yuck.

The generally unpleasant look and feel of the downtown core has multifactorial origins, but let me take a stab at illustrating what I think are some of the major causes.

First, the Dundas-Richmond intersection is essentially a central terminal for city buses. Since the poor tend to be the heaviest users of public transit, the positioning of the buses causes the poor (and in turn, a lot of grubby, smelly people) to congregate in the area.

And it's all because the city is too cheap to build a proper bus terminal - or it can't seem to resist engaging in the endless and overwrought hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth that goes with the possibility that a few 'heritage' buildings might have to be torn down to make room for such a terminal.

The end result is that important decisions don't get made, and opportunities get squandered - or delayed for another 50 years, so some city councillors don't have to make the tough decisions that might cost them some votes and get negative coverage in the Freeps. Like it or not, there are a lot of so-called 'heritage' properties in London's downtown core that aren't economically viable, and cannot be restored to such a state. London has a terrible record when it comes to its city government making decisions - and it's something that goes far beyond mere 'analysis paralysis'.

Next are the numerous marginal businesses - cheap eateries, pay-day loan shops and pawn shops that are located in the downtown core, particularly at the Dundas/Richmond intersection, and thereby exacerbate the problem of undesirables pooling in this area. The presence of the local welfare office and the McDonald's restaurant at that street corner don't help matters any. Of course, the reason why these businesses even exist in this area to begin with is because of an unholy alliance of sorts - the landlords have space that no one else wants, so they rent to marginal players, and the city is desperate for tax revenue, so it looks the other way.

A third possible cause is the tendency of planners over the last forty years or so to locate public housing close to public transit routes, with the idea of making the lives of the poor a little less burdensome. As a result, London has numerous public housing properties clustered within a 2 - 3km radius of the downtown core.

In fairness, I recognize that efforts are underway to try to make the core more attractive to better-quality businesses in the hope that they will eventually crowd out the marginal ones. However, the process could be accelerated if a proper bus terminal was built, and the welfare office was relocated along with the marginal businesses. The idea behind all this, of course, is to decentralize and scatter the attractors that cause the current problem we have in the downtown core.

We should displace people who don't share our ideals, our wealth or are values and judge them based upon their socio-economic status? Come on now. There are many names for that type of thinking..

The problem isn't the fact that the transit congregates there, its that London doesn't have a good enough transit system to appeal to any persons that can afford a car or doesn't live relatively close to the core of the city. There is little public space in that area so it also helps with the illusion of tons of people

The numerous money-marts and fast food I don't agree with in the slightest. Most people on welfare own their own home (was recently published in a Metro article) and don't tend to hang around, as being a recent college graduate as the economy took a massive hit, I had visited that office, and the YOU employment office in the market tower, most people are just like you or I need assistance finding employment.(For the record I never had to go on welfare but it was close.

Downtown is suffering from arrogance, conservative closed minded thinking and a lack of belief from London's residence, local investors in the core, ignorance. I'n this last year since I've been here I have seen some amazing improvements and witnessed many great events happen in the core perpendicularly on Dundas, most people just arn't aware because they are afraid to look.

[manny_santos]

Reviving an old thread...

I saw something that would shock, and frankly, horrify many Londoners on the weekend. I visited a Mexican city a little smaller than London (with a geographical footprint about the size of St. Thomas), where a number of the downtown streets are pedestrian only with a big public square. There are numerous shops and a small mall that are accessible only by foot. There are no vacant shops. The area is vibrant - it's where all the townspeople gather. Like our Springbank Park, it even has a miniature train for the kids.

It is also worth noting that the amount of vehicular traffic in this city is a fraction of London's. There is only one four-lane road, and the traffic levels are nothing like any four-lane road in London, even on a Sunday. No, instead of driving to the downtown, you walk, or you drive a very short distance. If you do drive, parking is free everywhere, even near the hospital (something that LHSC officials would find difficult to comprehend).

My point is, the only reason pedestrian-only streets don't work is if we say they won't work. They can and do work in all kinds of cities, big and small. Obviously in London's case you can't walk downtown if you live in Oakridge or Masonville, but there is no reason why the central part of the city can't be walkable. I just find it hilarious reading comments on the LFP website about how people who want on-street patios are waging war on the automobile, or making snide comments about having to walk to get to downtown destinations instead of being able to drive.

The inter-city bus terminal in this city would put any Greyhound station in North America to shame.

[K85]

London is not a leader, it is a follower. I challenge ANYONE to actually go to city hall with said ideas and present them in a reasonable manner. $1000 says it goes nowhere. This city follows what EVERY other city in Canada does. If London was to even start to change into something like that, the city would turn into a massive shit storm of negative press and people pissing and moaning. My backpacking 2 years ago in Europe led to some amazing ideas for the city. Would any of them work? Not a chance in hell. Lets elect a mayor under 40, then MAYBE we'll have a chance to change things.

[MolsonExport]

Pedestrian malls in dt london would be a bit like the chicken and egg. Hard to attract desirable tenants if a first rate conversion is not done (and maybe even if so). Hard to spend $$ on the assumption that if you build it, they will come. I've witnessed quite a few pedestrian mall disasters in Canadian cities, as well as successes.

[GreatTallNorth2]

Manny, Bath is exactly like what you are describing. There are probably more stores in Bath city centre than there is in White Oaks and Masonville combined. It is completely focused on pedestrians, not cars. The centre is almost always wall to wall people. Bristol is the same and so is every UK city.

The difference between the UK and Canada is that there has never been a push for the large suburban wastelands in the UK like there has been in Canada. It is more desirable to live close to the city centre than on the fringe of a city in the UK. Everything is in the centre - fast train service to other cities, cultural attractions, shops, everything. North American cities, like London, will have a harder time making their downtowns vibrant, when they have vibrant shopping malls and populations living in the suburbs.

UK cities are also very compact, which makes it very easy to cycle or walk anywhere. Its not even remotely reasonable to think someone from White Oaks area or Masonville will walk to downtown.

On a completely different note, Londoners keep saying they need a big grocery store downtown. Rubbish! In the UK, there are lots of grocery stores in the city centres, but they are very small stores compared to Canadian standards (Tesco Express, Sainsbury's, Iceland, etc) What's funny is that these stores pretty much carry everything everyone needs in a space the size of Blockbuster video store and they are not expensive either. London doesn't need a Loblaws superstore. It maybe needs some small shop to open up.

[BIMBAM]

Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2

Manny, Bath is exactly like what you are describing. There are probably more stores in Bath city centre than there is in White Oaks and Masonville combined. It is completely focused on pedestrians, not cars. The centre is almost always wall to wall people. Bristol is the same and so is every UK city.

The difference between the UK and Canada is that there has never been a push for the large suburban wastelands in the UK like there has been in Canada. It is more desirable to live close to the city centre than on the fringe of a city in the UK. Everything is in the centre - fast train service to other cities, cultural attractions, shops, everything. North American cities, like London, will have a harder time making their downtowns vibrant, when they have vibrant shopping malls and populations living in the suburbs.

UK cities are also very compact, which makes it very easy to cycle or walk anywhere. Its not even remotely reasonable to think someone from White Oaks area or Masonville will walk to downtown.

On a completely different note, Londoners keep saying they need a big grocery store downtown. Rubbish! In the UK, there are lots of grocery stores in the city centres, but they are very small stores compared to Canadian standards (Tesco Express, Sainsbury's, Iceland, etc) What's funny is that these stores pretty much carry everything everyone needs in a space the size of Blockbuster video store and they are not expensive either. London doesn't need a Loblaws superstore. It maybe needs some small shop to open up.

As far as little urban grocery stores: IGA has those marketed under their "IGA express" brand that does very well in Vancouver's compact neighbourhoods. It's chicken and egg again, if London had neighbourhoods that looked like Vancouver's IGA would likely open up these stores.

[Wharn]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

Reviving an old thread...

I saw something that would shock, and frankly, horrify many Londoners on the weekend. I visited a Mexican city a little smaller than London (with a geographical footprint about the size of St. Thomas), where a number of the downtown streets are pedestrian only with a big public square. There are numerous shops and a small mall that are accessible only by foot. There are no vacant shops. The area is vibrant - it's where all the townspeople gather. Like our Springbank Park, it even has a miniature train for the kids.

While it certainly seems like a good idea in theory, in practice there are a few things that need to be worked out. First of all, London already has an issue with panhandling and homelessness in the downtown core. The area may become an even more unattractive destination since people would no longer be able to at least isolate themselves from it in their cars. Call me out for being a horrible person, but at the end of the day, people don't want to go downtown to hang out with the people at the methadone clinic.

Secondly, London is cold and snowy, Mexico is not. I think one of the main reasons why pedestrian malls are so popular in southern Europe and Latin America is because the climate is agreeable and people want to be outside year-round. As Molson said, Canadian cities have had mixed results with pedestrian malls. Most of the successful ones tend to be in areas with high tourist concentrations- ie Sparks Street in Otterwa, old Montreal and La Vielle Capitale. They can be fantastically successful, but any conversions should proceed with caution.

[ssiguy]

Pedestrian malls are tricky affairs and ussually don't work especially in Canada's colder climate. Calgary's Stephen Ave mall is a rare exception and most of it's success is do to the very busy day hours with all the office workers desperate to get out of their cubicles.
Sometimes a more reasonable compromise is transit-only malls like vancouver's Granville Street mall. The transit brings in the people and cabs and delivery trucks can use the mall so it doesn't become a logistical nightmare. By getting rid of the parking it allows the city to widen the sidewalks to encourage a more outdoor shopping experience and cafes.
I always thought an excellent potential pedestrian way would be closing off the Market Lane. Close the lane except the very small section from King up 50 meters to allow for deliveries. Then the entire section from roughly the old Simpson building over to Talbot could be an outdoor, cafe esperience. They should close that stupid daycare centre in the lane between Dundas and The Market and move it so cafes could use the laneway.
On a somewhat different note, I finally saw a pic of the new Shoppers Drug on Richmond, looks like that got the design and height just right. I still have only seen one pic so if anyone has any other pics of it that would be great.
More than any recent developement in The Core, including Ren 1&2 , this is the one I have been looking forwatd to the most. I always stated that this could work miracles for The Core as is often the case it's the small developments that make the difference not the big ones. It finally gets rid of the gapping hole that separated The Core from Richmond Row. It was just a small gap but a real one and now the line is blurred and people on RR may continue further south to downtown to continue their shopping and dining. A small development that will heap huge rewards.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by BIMBAM

As far as little urban grocery stores: IGA has those marketed under their "IGA express" brand that does very well in Vancouver's compact neighbourhoods. It's chicken and egg again, if London had neighbourhoods that looked like Vancouver's IGA would likely open up these stores.

Likewise in Mexico City's central neighbourhoods, there are no large grocery stores. One I've seen is Bodega Aurrera (owned by Wal-Mart), which is barely larger than a 7-Eleven. It's definitely smaller than the Valu-Mart at Oxford and Richmond. But, they sell fresh fruits and vegetables, bakery products, and at least a minimal selection of groceries. For those who live nearby, it's sufficient.

I think this concept is all Downtown London residents want. I think they realize that if they want the same products Real Canadian Superstore sells, they either have to shop at multiple downtown stores, or they have to travel for certain products that have lower demand.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Wharn

Secondly, London is cold and snowy, Mexico is not. I think one of the main reasons why pedestrian malls are so popular in southern Europe and Latin America is because the climate is agreeable and people want to be outside year-round. As Molson said, Canadian cities have had mixed results with pedestrian malls. Most of the successful ones tend to be in areas with high tourist concentrations- ie Sparks Street in Otterwa, old Montreal and La Vielle Capitale. They can be fantastically successful, but any conversions should proceed with caution.

I would add this about the successful ones cited here:

Sparks St. in Ottawa is not really that successful. It is busy with office workers during weekday lunch hours but on evenings and weekends it is basically dead. Most storefronts are occupied but there are vacant ones here and there - not what you would expect one block from Parliament Hill in the country's capital. Revitalizing Sparks is a constant topic of discussion for Ottawa urban watchers.

Old Montreal is not a permanent pedestrian-only zone. Only certain streets at certain times of the year at certain times of the day. The most visible and frequent pedestrian zone is Place Jacques-Cartier, which is the main square of the historic district but even it is open to cars fairly regularly I think. Though not on, say, summer Sunday afternoons for example.

Same goes for La Vieille Capitale - I think you are referring to Quebec City here. There, the main street that is (occasionally) closed is Rue St-Jean, but then again, only in certain periods of the year, and at certain times.

As for cold climates, Copenhagen (though not as cold as Canadian cities - except Vancouver and Victoria) has an impressive number of pedestrian-only zones. Its main street, Stroget, is a fantastic model.