More than bricks and mortar

Earlier this month, my two-year term as president of the London Region branch of Architectural Conservancy Ontario (or ACO London for short) came to an end, and I felt it would be worthwhile to reflect on that time.  ACO is a non-for-profit organization with 25 branches across the province with a mission to "preserve Ontario's architectural and environmental heritage by helping communities and owners preserve buildings and structures of architectural merit, and places of natural beauty or interest".

During my tenure as president of ACO London, I learned a lot about our city beyond just architecture:  history; land-use planning; culture; urban revitalization. Buildings (old and new) are more than just bricks and mortar—they are a major thread in our cultural fabric.  The growth of our city tells the story of its people, and if we choose to thoughtlessly bulldoze "old buildings" for the sake of "progress" to build new structures in their place, then we will become disconnected from our past and permanently lose that part of our culture.  There are also the environmental and economic impacts of simply tearing down a building - the greenest brick is the one already in the wall!

London is rich with built heritage, and in general most people have an affinity for buildings with unique or interesting architecture.  Those who become members of ACO are typically those with a particular interest in heritage conservation, and end up speaking on behalf of buildings that can't fight for themselves.

One of the biggest losses during the past two years was that of Camden Terrace. A true architectural gem, and a rare example of Victorian row-houses, this complex on Talbot Street was left for years to rot: it's called "demolition by neglect" and unfortunately it tends to be effective in persuading cities to allow a building to be torn down instead of being restored. Cities such as London need to take a hard look at by-laws pertaining to vacant properties, but that's for another blog.

Camden Terrace in 1987.  (Photo courtesy of the City of London planning department.)

The loss of this building—the property is currently an empty lot full of broken iconic London yellow brick—really stung.  What's worse is that the promise to build 30+ storeys on the land right away was not kept, and the viability of the project is still in question.  Camden Terrace will serve for a long time as an example of urban planning gone wrong.

Camden Terrace on April 22, 2018.

Buildings of all ages give that tangible connection to distinguishable periods in our history, and by no means are meant to be placed under glass to never change for the rest of time.  Heritage conservation is about maintaining streetscapes while allowing for additions and new construction.  Doing the latter in conjunction with an old building is the most sustainable method of introducing a new building: reducing waste going to the landfill; retaining important cultural inventory; and better payback on the final building by way of more demand for units (even if it costs a little more up front).

One highlight of recent note is the acceptance to incorporate two historical barns into a new subdivision on the city's northern border.  After advocacy from ACO London and others, the developer worked the clay-tile barns into the plans for the new subdivision.  They will be re-purposed likely for commercial use and will give a unique flavour to a new neighbourhood.

One of the barns at 660 Sunningdale Road East. (Photo from The London Free Press.)

Of course, there was much to celebrate during my two years as president.  2016 was the 50th anniversary year for the London Region branch, founded in July 1966 by four dedicated Londoners who wanted to see the Ridout Street complex saved from demolition.  50 years later, those buildings still stand and are in full use, currently as a private school.  It was an enormous honour to have served during this important milestone in our branch's history.

Receiving a certificate of congratulations on the branch's 50th anniversary from the office of London North Centre's Member of Parliament.

2017 was the sesquicentennial of Canada's confederation, a year filled with reflection on our nation's past.  Our branch was very active in promoting the history of our city that one experiences through its buildings, and as a society we must continue to value those connections as London continues to grow.

I look forward to serving another two years with ACO London as past-president.  The work is never done when you're an advocate for something as vital as the shared cultural resource we call built heritage.

It's not how dense you make it...

All right, everyone, now say it with me!  "It's not how dense you make it; it's how you make it dense."

Good.  Now with that out of the way, let's explore how we can have exciting new buildings in our city that have a positive effect on existing architecture, and more specifically heritage buildings.

By integrating heritage buildings into the design of new builds from the get-go as a foundation for the new construction, a city keeps its character while allowing for higher density.  Responsible and forward-thinking land owners will maintain the buildings on their properties right up until the time of construction, and throughout, in order to preserve the integrity of the existing structures.

Camden Terrace in 1988.  Photo courtesy of the estate of Lois Marshall. 

Lately in London, we have had quite the opposite, from the demolition of 505/507/511 Talbot Street to make way for another uninspired concrete monolith (think of the hideous Renaissance towers on Ridout Street North between King Street and York Street) to the pending destruction of 175/179/181 King Street (although thankfully 183 King Street will remain) for another 30-storey tower.

Now don't get me wrong: we need a proper mix of high-rises, mid-rises, and low-rises in the downtown.  New buildings are always going to be required to regenerate and grow a city.  Making them the right density in the right locations builds a city inwards and upwards, which is what is needed instead of outwards and sprawling.  Urban infill is a good thing and a necessity; however, it has to be done with consideration for the existing built environment and adaptive reuse in the forefront, not as an afterthought.

Camden Terrace (479 to 489 Talbot Street) is under threat of complete demolition.
These row houses have a significant and rare form and style, designed by the renowned London architect Samuel Peters (click for short video on Peters and Camden Terrace).  This brilliant gem in our downtown core tells the story of how our city grew and evolved, and warrants a respectful integration with this infill development.  Instead, the developer prefers to tear the building down to make way for a 9-storey mixed commercial/residential building as the first phase, with plans for two towers (also mixed use) on the north (29 storeys) and south (38 storeys) as the second phase.  Plans also show a three-storey parking garage in the back.

I am a fan of the mixed use: it is ideal for a city where we want people to work and play all within walking distance of their home, which has huge benefits economically, socially, and environmentally.  The design of the nine-storey first phase can easily integrate the entirety of the original row houses, with appropriate modifications to permit the desired entranceway as proposed in the designs.

Camden Terrace in 1987.  Photo courtesy the City of London planning department.

The London Plan aspires for no more aboveground parking, and rightly so:  parking in the inner core start to disappear with driverless cars and rapid transit, and therefore the people who are living and working downtown are less likely to own a vehicle.  The proposal has four levels of underground parking and three levels of aboveground.  In reality, the aboveground parking will become obsolete in the very near future and would be better use of space to expand the nine-storey construction: this keeps the nine-storey portion virtually unchanged (or potentially larger) and allows room for Camden Terrace to remain. Talk about win-win! The investment for the developer and the city will be huge if all phases are built: don't we want this done right for ourselves and for future generations?

Adaptive reuse has become prominent recently with the Cornerstone Building, the London Roundhouse, The Cube, and many more.  Not only does it maintain a city's character, it is also easier on the environment by not sending tonnes upon tonnes of building materials into an already-strained landfill site.  

Camden Terrace must be given designation and maintained in situ, as any needed changes to the buildings can be considered through a heritage alteration permit.  In fact, the London Roundhouse remains in place and will have a tower built behind it: why can't we do the same here?

Heritage needs to have a voice at the table, and be included from the beginning of projects impacting our shared historical buildings.  A mature city values its heritage.  Other mid-sized cities in Ontario have been willing and able to push the creative inclusion of heritage buildings into new developments of various size:  isn't London good enough to have the same?  Shouldn't we demand better for ourselves?

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

Council haste makes heritage waste

"The wrecking ball cometh."

These words (apparently) bring music to the ears of eight members of London's council, given that they voted against designation of 759 Elizabeth Street (AKA the "Carling Cottage") as a heritage property at the November 10th council meeting, the winning decision in an surprisingly-close 8-7 vote.  A week before at the Planning and Environment Committee meeting on November 2nd, the committee voted 3-2 against designation, with those voting against using flawed logic to guide their decision, including red herrings like the condition of the roof and the outdated furnace as reasons to allow demolition.  The two voting for designation made great arguments for not demolishing the cottage, specifically the historical context of the building and the fact that its orientation predates the surrounding road network.  Not only that, but heritage designation does not preclude applying for a demolition permit.

505 Talbot Street, at left, undergoes deconstruction after the demolition of 507 and 511. (Nov. 11, 2015)

This scenario has played out all too commonly with the current council:  we recently also lost three heritage buildings at 505, 507, and 511 Talbot Street (the building at 511 formerly home to The Shire pub) to be replaced with a very uninspiring skyscraper.  While I fully support intensification when it comes to new developments, councillors would do well to remember the following adage: "It's not how dense you make it, but how you make it dense."  Developing bland concrete blocks at the expense of cherished heritage buildings is reckless and irresponsible.  Unfortunately, only one councillor – Bill Armstrong – voted against the demolition.

To justify the demolition of heritage buildings and endure the resulting loss of history and culture, the structures replacing the existing must provide a positive net benefit to the community.  Unless plans for the new highrise include some beautiful architecture and mixed use, a net benefit will not be in the cards for the Talbot properties. It is certainly not the case at 759 Elizabeth where the developers are proposing to build a duplex in place of the cottage.

The Carling Cottage, as seen in the London Free Press on Nov. 2, 2015.

Now, the Carling Cottage may not be a grand mansion or the home of anybody famous, but it provides an impeccable example of vernacular architecture.  The cottage was built in the "Regency" style, as outlined in this description of the property from the 2010 MLS listing (462279):

A unique Ontario cottage purchased by the owners great grandfather from Sir John Carling at the time of the Wolsey Barracks purchase in about 1878. “Carling Cottage” as it is known, is one of the first brick homes in the district built in 1827. Initially it faced Adelaide St which was the concession rd at the time and the carriage house was located on Oxford St, now demolished. It has been maintained in the style period having original pumpkin pine flrs, fireplace, large 6x6 Georgian windows, many original glass, however the whole house has been refurbished, which inc. the fireplace, wiring, new plumbing, shingles(07) new sub-floors (kit, bthrm and mudrm) and the large covered front porch (30.8ft x 6.2ft) to its original design where you can sit in one of 4 black rockers. If you appreciate a perfect peaceful piece of London history this is the cottage for you. Large 8 x 12 storage cottage also located on 78 x 150 ft lot(exclude chandelier in DR)

This property is steeped in history, originally belonging in London Township.  Charles Henry and his family lived there, on lands owned by Sir John Carling of brewery fame, to work the farm. The house's front orients toward the forks of the Thames, which would have provided a wonderful view over the farm fields leading into the town of London. Years passed and the city grew up around this place as it endured for over 150 years. 

Preserving vernacular buildings is just as important as keeping Eldon House and other large, elaborate homes: we don't save nearly enough buildings that represent the working-class person of the day.  A good example of this is the number of plantation houses saved and restored as compared to the slave quarters, even though the humble slave quarters were lived in and represent the lives of many more people.  We should pay special attention to and cherish those rare small buildings from the past that provide insight into the lives of everyday folks.

I applaud the seven councillors who voted to save the Carling Cottage, and thank them for their serious consideration of this important home.  The members of the community who supported keeping the house intact also require recognition for trying to conserve an important property. 

Everyone needs to know that the greenest building is the one already built. Unfortunately, the demolition equipment has arrived and deconstruction is expected to begin tomorrow (December 3), so we must bid farewell to the Carling Cottage.  Maybe you can pick up a piece of history from the rubble and pay tribute to the past inhabitants.

Common courtesy for your neighbours

I have heard many ideas and concerns from Ward 6 residents over the last eight months of my campaign. There’s one issue though that has come up at every single debate, and more frequently than others at the door. That issue is student housing.

Londoners are proud of our college and our university. We know how many people they teach and employ; however, they can sometimes be a source of neighbourhood conflict for those living nearby. Ward 6 residents have reported untidy lots, buildings with heritage value left in disrepair, and safety concerns with large numbers of people sharing a single-family home.

How do we find a balance between making sure there is affordable housing for students and young people, while maintaining the character of our neighbourhoods? There are a number of things to consider.

First, there is legal precedent that more than three unrelated people sharing single home makes it a lodging house. Lodging houses are not allowed in R1 residential zones, where only single detached homes are allowed. Some neighbourhood groups would like to see this implemented in London, and in general, I support the idea. Not everywhere is an R1 zone, so lodging houses would still be allowed in higher density residential areas – places that are more likely to have the services, like transit, to support the extra people.

Fixing transit in London will also help our neighbourhoods over time. If students can get quickly and efficiently across town by bus or bike, more will be willing to live farther away from campus. That means they will get to know the city beyond the campus bubble better, and hopefully start to think of London as home. It also means that housing all of the city’s students won’t fall to just a few neighbourhoods in the same way it does now.

In many cases though, students or tenants aren’t the problem at all. Some landlords neglect their properties, putting in the minimum amount of time and money it takes to find renters. This is where we see uncut lawns, buildings in disrepair, and where we start to worry about the safety of some of our student neighbours.

I hope there aren't any properties as bad as this in your neighbourhood!

Some of these landlords aren’t concerned at all about how their properties are reflecting on the community because it isn’t their community. Many live in Toronto or even further away, and own property in London either because their children were once students here, or merely see it as a good investment. We need to make sure these property owners do their part, even if they aren’t around to live with the results.

Most of the things neighbours complain about are covered under existing by-laws, whether it’s maintaining the yard, disposing of waste, or making sure that fire safety regulations are observed. The trouble is that most of these by-laws are only enforced when a complaint gets filed.  

London can do better at holding absentee landlords accountable, for the sake of both long-term residents and renters. We can increase inspections under the Residential Rental Licensing program, and also step up by-law enforcement in targeted areas near campus.

All of these measures will help maintain the character of our neighbourhoods, while keeping all residents safe and allowing them to enjoy their community.

My platform for a better London

The ideas a potential councillor proposes and the values he or she represents will be the most important information for citizens as they cast their ballots this Fall. To make sure my ideas and values are clear, I posted my platform at Bloxam.ca/platform.

Since the Spring, I have been visiting Ward 6 residents at their homes to introduce myself. I've also been listening to them about what is important to them in their neighbourhoods and for the city of London as a whole. I’ve also attended community meetings and events, and met with many of the decision makers in the area. All of this has helped me to refine and focus the priorities I already had when I entered the race to be the next councillor for Ward 6.

I chose to organize my platform based on three key themes that I believe Londoners are looking for from their next council – Integrity, Prosperity, and Sustainability. Of course, there’s a lot more to the platform than just a few key words. I’ll expand on some of the individual ideas here on this blog over the next few weeks. For now, let me tell you a bit about what I mean by each of these words. 

Integrity 

If there's one thing I've heard above all else when speaking with Londoners, it's that the citizens of our city have lost faith in their elected officials.  I promise to be open, accountable, and accessible to my constituents.  I will work with my council colleagues to come to a consensus when making decisions, instead of continuing the "us vs. them" mentality of the past.

Prosperity

Our city has had a tough time during the recent economic downturn.  We need to get more folks into fulfilling careers and encourage business growth in London.  There is no easy answer and there are many pieces to the puzzle, but working together we can achieve our goals to make London a place to live, work, play, and stay.

Sustainability 

Sustainability means ensuring that decisions take into account economy, community, and environment without placing higher priority for one over the others. It also means ensuring that the prosperity we build together lasts over the long term. In my business career and volunteer commitments, I have always striven to make sustainable decisions. This is a practice that I will continue as your councillor.


I hope you’ll take some time to read through the platform on my Web site, and to get in touch with any questions and comments, good or bad. One of the things integrity means is that I keep listening, even if I think I have the answer.

Please also continue to visit the blog as I expand on some of these points and talk about what the next council’s job will be when it comes to making them a reality.

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!

Movers and shakers

What a week Londoners have experienced in the realm of historic businesses.  The Great West Steak House location receives a new lease on life and the Children's Museum searches for a new home, while the Idlewyld Inn closes its doors suddenly and Kingsmills goes up for sale.

The movers

Moving into an historic building:

Local marketing companies rtraction and Atmos Marketing have claimed the former Great West Steak House their new home.  While I had held out hope that a steak house would return some day (oh, the buffet!), having these firms take over this beautiful historic building will breath new life into the SoHo (South of Horton) neighbourhood - even if the building is technically north of Horton (NoHo?).  Great news for the community as the area continues its revitalization.

This grand old building was built in the 1880s by the Great Western Railway as a roundhouse, and the renovations will have as little impact as possible on the historic features of the structure.  Glad to see that they are banning any use of drywall, too.

Read the full story from Metro News.

Moving out of an historic building:

The announcement from the London Children's Museum caused some surprise this week, after inhabiting the former Riverview Public School for over 30 years.  While the search for a new building and the move will likely take two to four years, the building went up for sale on Wednesday.  For a museum that takes in over 80 000 visitors per year, the building has held up well as one of the oldest schools built in London; however, the museum requires more space for visiting exhibits and they have concerns about ongoing maintenance.  Best of luck to them in the search for a new home (McCormick factory, perhaps?).

Here's hoping a new owner keeps the heritage aspects alive and celebrated.  As an aside, two of my aunts attended the school back in the '40s and remember the separate entrances for boys and girls.  They also recall one day when they arrived late and the principal threatened them with the strap.  How times have changed.

Read the full story from Metro News.

The shakers

Dilemma: put up (the "for sale" sign) or shut up (the doors)?

Shock hit the Old South neighbourhood and the city when the Idlewyld Inn announced the closing of its doors on Monday.  Operating as a boutique hotel since 1986, the mansion was originally built in 1878 as a private home for a prominent Londoner, Charles Smith Hyman (businessman, mayor of London, federal cabinet minister, and decorated player of cricket and tennis).  It became an apartment building in the '30s and then a nursing home in the '60s.

A beautiful building with many architecturally significant features, it certainly faces no danger of dereliction or demolition.  A new owner will likely take over the existing business and carry on with the inn - hopefully before any further weddings or other celebrations require relocation.

Read the full story from CTV News.

Downtown jewel up for grabs

Shock of another kind came from downtown, with the announcement that the iconic Kingsmills department store looks for a new owner.  The store opened in 1865, predating the confederation of the Dominion of Canada, and has remained a staple of Dundas Street for generations.  In fact, the store has been owned and operated by five generations of the Kingsmill family throughout its history.

Truly an anomaly in today's globalized economy, many Londoners hope that a beneficial purchaser can take the reigns and continue on with business as usual. Losing this gem would strike at the heart of ongoing downtown revitalization.

Read the full story from Metro News.


Never a dull moment, eh?

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.