Disastrous dyke design

Last Monday, June 13, a public information centre took place regarding the plans for the West London Dyke Replacement – Phase 3.  (Disappointingly, the files for the latest information centre are not available on the City's Web site.) The display boards showed plans for a replacement of the existing dyke between Rogers Avenue to Carrothers Avenue, an uninspired design that would extend the current sheer cliff constructed in 2007 from the forks of the Thames to Rogers Avenue.

The area of the dyke to be replaced, running from Rogers Avenue north to Carrothers Avenue. (April 2014 aerial photo from City of London)

While many (yours truly included) enjoy the pathway portion of the 2007 reconstruction as a means of recreation and transportation, there is a significant lack of shade (i.e. no trees) and no means of interacting with the river, something that Londoners over and over again have said is a top priority for rejuvenating Askunesippi (AKA "the Thames").  It very much conveys an oudated mindset of constructing the built environment as a "concrete jungle" by dividing humans from the natural environment.  Even the guardrail – aside from being ugly as sin – with its prison-like bars evokes the sensation of separation, as if the river was an exhibit at the zoo.

A view of the West London dyke, with the 2007 replacement visible in upper-right. (February 9, 2013)

As seen in the photo above from 2013, the sloped dyke almost has an amphitheatre vibe to it.  Instead of replacing this slope with a vertical wall, we need an imaginative concept that would allow for citizens to transcend the dyke, perhaps with a stepped design to allow people to walk and sit along the river in a safe and enjoyable manner.  What would it be like to have a concert or play happening on the banks of the river in Harris Park, with the audience taking it in while seated in a stadium-like setting across the water? Sounds like an ideal setting to me!  Isn't that what the "Back to the River" project is supposed to be all about?

Don't get me wrong: the design isn't a complete failure.  I do like the aspects of having a sitting area at the top of the dyke situated at the end of each of the beautiful dead-end streets in Blackfriars akin to the one at the terminus of Rogers Avenue.  The displays also included a variety of options for guardrail that don't include prison bars.

A view of the West London dyke, with the 2007 replacement visible in upper-right and existing guardrail along the right of the photo. (July 8, 2012)

In addition to the shortcomings of the dyke design, current plans include taking down at large number of trees, including some majestic cottonwoods that primarily thrive along rivers and other damp areas.  Removing this canopy coverage is hugely detrimental to the pathway along the river.  While one can understand having to remove the myraid of trees that have grown in the dyke (although it could be argued that trees will hold up a slope better than any man-made construct), removing any along the path will take decades to replace.  Trees do not grow overnight, and need to have their value fully considered and not simply viewed as an obstacle to construction.

Finally, the existing guardrail allows folks to view the river with ease, and also to get up and down the dyke without hiking for kilometres to the nearest access point.  I fully encourage reusing the current style of guardrail, and even better would be to use the current materials: they have a charm unlike any other spot along the pathway and mesh wonderfully with the culturally significant Blackfriars Bridge.

Comments are being accepted until Wednesday, June 22nd, 2016.  This construction project won't only affect the denizens of the Blackfriars neighbourhood, but the population at large: we have a chance to make something beautiful out of something so mundane. Be sure to get comments in by sending to:

Cameron Gorrie, P.Eng, Stantec Consulting Ltd.

600-171 Queens Avenue, London, N6A 5J7

cameron.gorrie@stantec.com

London's next heritage district - TONIGHT

Tonight at City Hall, staff will present a draft report on the Blackfriars/Petersville Heritage Conservation District Study to the Planning & Environment Committee.  The public participation meeting will commence no sooner than 5:15 PM (17h15), so if you have any interest in this study, make sure you get there in time.  The report holds much fascinating information, but I'll boil things down here.

Below shows the original study area undertaken by the consultants:

and this map shows the area proposed for heritage designation (in pink):

Basically, this adds heritage designation for the former villages of Petersville and Kensington (once amalgamated as London West before joining London).  The consultants decided that this area meets the criteria required for designation, while the other areas in yellow and blue remain strong contenders for future study.  Staff will request London Council to endorse this tentative boundary and to give authorization to prepare conservation guidelines for the proposed area, while asking that the other areas remain in consideration for study.

Should this pass, the study would recommend heritage status under the Ontario Heritage Act, and would make the Blackfriars/Petersville district the sixth such in the city.  This important move protects the architectural, cultural, and environmental features of the neighbourhood.

If you have any comments and can't make tonight's meeting, do send me a line as I am one of the community members acting as a resource to the consulting team, which includes getting feedback from residents to pass along for consideration.

For more information, check out the City of London's Web page for the study at:

http://www.london.ca/business/Planning-Development/land-use-applications/Pages/blackfriars-petersville-study.aspx

Hope to see a good crowd in the gallery tonight!

Campus cacaphony

This 'blog has been rather quiet of late, but the meeting at City Hall last week was anything but.

Last Wednesday, the Town and Gown Committee held a public participation meeting in the Council Chambers at City Hall.  Slated for three hours, the meeting bled over another 30 minutes past ten o'clock, with the public gallery dangerously close to capacity.

The crowd consisted of a roughly equal mix of residents living near the campusses of Western University and Fanshawe College, and students attending these two post-secondary institutions.  Conversations between these two groups took place as seven o'clock neared: an exchange of ideas that seemed cordial.

Before the public participation section of the night, Orest Katolyk (formerly called the manager of by-law enforcement, but now with the new title that committee chair and Ward 7 Councillor Matt Brown succeeded in remembering) gave an overview of how Project LEARN came about.  The Great Near-Campus Neighbourhood Strategy of 2008 identified three "customers" for the by-law enforcers: complainants (want immediate action); alleged violators (don't want to be bothered); and the general public ("silent majority").  2009 introduced a new noise by-law and a limit of five bedrooms in a unit.  Good baseline information on near-campus housing.

Police Chief Brad Duncan presented next, saying that "we are back at the same point as in 2005" when Project Speakeasy (predecessor to LEARN) came into effect to combat the increase in noise complaints with a balance of enforcement and education.  2009 introduced more strict enforcement after violence on Thurman Circle; then we have 2012 and the famous St. Patrick's Day riot on Fleming Drive, which gave way to a zero-tolerance policy.  Police felt that after six years, the message that students need to consider their neighbours and the community at large was not being received, acknowledged, or respected.  He admitted this short-term solution can not solve the issue.

For 2013, Chief Duncan noted that police issued warnings at Hallowe'en and this was successful; however, the Broughdale area continues to pose the largest problem, highlighted by a spontaneous party during Western's homecoming celebrations.

I counted 31 speakers in total, with 13 being students of either Western of Fanshawe.  Below lists some of the highlights noted by these people - the entire record should become available from the Town and Gown committee on their next agenda.

• Garbage, vandalism, urination on homes, "student Hell" from September to May
• Police use negative reinforcement and unjustly charge for noise complaints
• "95%" improvement since zero-tolerance implemented; used to the peace and quiet
• Students make up "10% of the population" and "need a place to release the pressure of growing up": special zone for parties? These students are "under the most pressure in history"
• It takes a village to raise a child; respect begets respect
• Collection of personal information was a bad move, but police had "honourable intentions"; 2% are trouble-makers, 8% watch (and join if no authority corrects them), and 90% are behaving
• Forget about the riot: "get over it"; police intimidate with "harassment" and go "fishing" for students, who are just like other residents (pay taxes, shop, etc.) and are Canadian citizens
• Can the students' councils and administrations help students fit into neighbourhoods?
• Noise issues disrupt sleep and cause health issues and shouldn't be disrupted living in own home; need "neighbourhood captains" to act as student leaders
• Likes the energy brought by students, but the riot was just a matter of time
• Students feel the "rules don't apply" and want "special treatment": if they acted as adults, there would be no problems with police
• Students hosting a charity party fined for noise as a "nuisance party" at discretion of officer; zero tolerance doesn't work
• Negative reinforcement not a good way to learn; only one out of five neighbours complained about a party
• Concerned for safety when walking at night downtown
• Make more neighbourhoods in the city more accessible to students; reduce pressure on near-campus areas
• "Reluctant and somewhat fearful" to give his opinion (retaliation by police)
• LEARN is working; "two groups missing" from conversation are landlords (to communicate information to students) and real-estate agents (need to stop pricing houses in near-campus areas as businesses, and need to give maintenance and by-law information to would-be landlords)
• "What's wrong with having a couch on your front lawn?"
• Police asked to smell the contents of a water bottle, and when accidentally dropped was issued a littering ticket
• Students contribute to the economy; zero tolerance is "too strict"
• Considers himself a London resident, but LEARN makes him feel like a "second-class citizen" and not like "an individual": this does not encourage interaction
• LEARN creates divide between students, citizens, and police
• Police can now use stung guns: are there "de-escalation routines"?
• Students have "a right" to live in neighbourhoods; need "environment of respect" since zero tolerance fosters hostility
• At the "tipping point" of too much student housing; feels "invaded" by realtors "speculating": need pre-emptive law enforcement and more transparent information on who owns a property
• Support for LEARN and residential homeowners
• Students asking police not to enforce law; "vast amount" of housing is illegal
• Need "community of caring, not blame"; tell students how to party "safely"
• LEARN "failed because we failed as a community"
• Lives in "ghetto" and has dealt with student issues for 30 years; at least 70% student concentration
• "No political cache" with students, so supporting LEARN is "politically expedient"

Living in Blackfriars, which is considered a "near-campus neighbourhood", we actually enjoy a good balance of students, long-term residents, and new families.  It's a balance that should perhaps prevail across the board.

In closing the public participation portion of the meeting, committee members had their chance to speak.  Another meeting, with public input hopefully on the table, should occur in the next couple of months.  Let's hope the points gathered will give both sides something to think about, and the "chasm" (as Mayor Joe Fontana put it) can be bridged happily.

London's bridge shall not fall down

Good afternoon, Londoners!  Tonight and tomorrow hold great importance for the Blackfriars neighbourhood, where I have the honour and privilege of living.  Firstly, a meeting of the Blackfriars-Petersveille Conservation District Study takes place starting at 19:00 (7:00 PM) tonight, at St. George's Anglican Church (227 Wharncliffe Road North).  If you live in the area or simply have an interest in the heritage study, please make time to come out to this meeting.

Secondly, the future of Blackfriars Bridge will hit the council floor tomorrow.  In an elaboration of my letter to the London Free Press (Keep bridge for walkers), I sent the following letter to all 15 members of the City of London council earlier this afternoon:

Dear Mayor and Councillors,

     I would like to start out by thanking the City of London for investigating Blackfriars Bridge.  This heritage structure, in the core of our city and a focal point for the Blackfriars neighbourhood, acts as our unofficial "mascot", while serving as a vital link to provide pedestrians and cyclists access to the downtown core.

     The importance of Blackfriars Bridge can not be understated.  Whether citizens in our neighbourhood head downtown for work or leisure, easy access facilitates that movement.  Right now, journeying to bridges at Oxford or Queens/Dundas (all very busy arteries) doubles travel time using active transportation and poses a greater threat of incidents with motor vehicles.

     The increase in time forces people to consider not going downtown, as walking takes too long or could be dangerous; or, if they choose to drive, they will select to go elsewhere in town  (where parking poses no limitations, such as malls).  Beyond adding traffic congestion and polluting the air, these extra drivers will travel away from downtown, taking money out of the core  and decreasing the social and cultural contribution to a downtown that we want to keep vibrant.

     I was at the Civic Works Committee meeting on September 9th and saw some support for the initiative to enact temporary measures to allow pedestrian/cycling traffic on the bridge for two to three years while we undertake the environmental assessment.  The estimated $260 000 to have the bridge operational in 12 weeks does not compare to the social and economic impacts on the neighbourhood and downtown itself of a closed bridge for up to three years.  Concerns about increased crime on both sides of the closed bridge means more police spending in an area currently relatively safe.

     When this item becomes open for discussion at Council tomorrow, I encourage you to think of the economical, environmental, and social impacts of this decision.  We should not step over a dollar to pick up a dime.  An open Blackfriars Bridge equates to that dollar.

     Thank you for your kind consideration in this matter.

Sincerely,

... Mike Bloxam.

Let's hope our elected representatives will follow the wishes of the community and get foot and bike traffic restored so that we can continue enjoying the downtown life unabated.

Cheers,

... Mike.