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.

The 'R' stands for Reliable

If you haven't checked your mailbox since Friday, make sure you do so before the weekend finishes. You will find a pamphlet outlining some open houses coming up over the next week to learn more about the options being considered for London's bus rapid transit (BRT) system.

Back of the brochure delivered to households this past Friday.

On a personal note, I had the pleasant surprise to discover comments that I had made at a public information meeting in December about the need for rapid transit appear on the back of the pamphlet! Seeing this inspired me to further explain the importance of implementing this method of mass transit, and I'll use our household as an example.

Our family has one car for two working adults, and we have a child in daycare. My wife takes London Transit to and from work most of the time and drops our daughter off in the morning, and I drive to and from work most of the time and pick our daughter up in the afternoon. While both of our workplaces are near a bus route, transfers downtown create long waits and only worsens during rush-hour traffic.  

It normally takes my wife 50 to 60 minutes to get home on a roughly 10 km journey, when it shouldn't be more than a 30-minute bus trip; however, heavier traffic and a meandering bus route through neighbourhoods double her commute home. She finishes work at five o'clock, but would have to leave work a few minutes early to catch a bus and get home by quarter to six, and typically has to wait 20 minutes after work to catch her bus to get home shortly after six. My commute of about 6.5 km would take 30 minutes by bus (it's typically 12 to 15 minutes by car), but I would either arrive at work 20 minutes early or 5 minutes late; on the way home (I finish at four o'clock), I would leave 5 minutes early or have to wait 20 minutes for a bus, getting home at about ten to five.

Map of where people reported to live, work, and go to school at the December 2017 public information centre for Shift.

We both have the goal of getting to and from work without the use of a single-occupied vehicle, and having dedicated lanes for bus rapid transit (therefore making the system "rapid") will ensure that schedules remain punctual and reliable. People who want to take public transit only really ask for comfort and reliability: the major problem that has plagued London's transit system for decades has been unreliable schedules -- a bus that arrives early and leaves early at transfer points, for example, so in essence doesn't arrive at all -- and is a deciding factor for people to drive their car instead of using public transit, myself included. Not being assured that I would be home in time to pick up our daughter from daycare is a huge reason why I still drive to and from work.

Having the backbone of the system in rapid/reliable transit will speed up commute times and increase the efficiency of the feeder routes that cover the rest of the city.  Since the rapid lines will be every 5 minutes (during peak hours) or 10 minutes and feeders being no more than double the rapid line, people will be able to get around much quicker and with minimal transfer times.

Getting home earlier from work would allow us to spend more quality time as a family, and in my wife's case would give her about three more hours at home in a normal week. A more reliable transit system will allow us to continue as a single-vehicle family; otherwise, we would have to explore adding to London's congestion with a second vehicle, while also greatly increasing our household expenditures. We are only one family: multiply our situation by thousands, and the impact of having better transit will easily help young families reduce their need for a second vehicle -- not to mention empty-nesters who want to downsize, single folks who would rather not own (or perhaps can't afford) a vehicle, and a multitude of other family situations where reducing vehicle use is beneficial for them both financially and socially.

When we consider moving forward with the BRT, we already know that it will:

• improve our local economy by getting more people to more places quicker and easier;
• be better for the environment by reducing the number of single-occupied vehicles and directing higher-density development along transit routes; and
• enhance our social lives by giving us more time with the people we love. 

It's a sustainable solution that we can't pass up.

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

A moving experience

The experience of our city is a collection of places: where we live, where we work, where we play, and where we learn. Each one demands an important part of our time. Getting between these places takes time, too, and that time can often be frustrating.

We need to increase safe and efficient options to get around our city. Making it easy for both people and goods to get where they’re going will improve quality of life for Londoners and help business and culture flourish.

To make sure our transportation network functions well, we need to consider all modes of travel and the people who use them: walking and using mobility aides; cycling and active transportation; local and regional public transit; and commercial and passenger vehicle traffic. The more single-occupancy vehicles we get off the road, the better it is for all travellers: reduced traffic congestion benefits everybody on the move, so that those who still need to drive can get around efficiently, too.

Each of these is a huge topic on its own, and the subject of all kinds of study. I’ll get to a few specifics below, but the most important thing when approaching transportation is a philosophy of giving weight to each. The London Plan does this well: pedestrians can’t be just an afterthought, and neither can cars. Each system needs to work well for the ones who use it.

Here are just a few of the ways for London to improve transportation. 

Walking and mobility devices

• Plan new neighbourhoods to be walkable. We know that walkable neighbourhoods lead to healthier and more engaged residents. The city’s planning process should favour grid patterns and mixed uses (i.e. some commercial spots in residential neighbourhoods) for new areas.
• Give people more time to cross the street. Extending signal times at busy pedestrian crossings by just a few seconds can make a big difference in how safe people feel crossing busy streets, especially elders and people with physical disabilities. It can also help people catch their bus on time. I’ve heard from Ward 6 residents time and time again about trouble crossing at Oxford St. and Cherryhill Blvd. and at Sarnia Rd. and Sleightholme Ave., and this is an unacceptable situation.
• Increase accessibility on our streets and sidewalks. Add more accessible pedestrian signals and cut curbs. This allows people to more easily cross roadways, particularly if using a stroller, a walker, or a mobility device.

Cycling and active transportation

• Increase dedicated space for cycling, to increase safety. Properly-designed cycling lanes, in a planned network, will increase safety and comfort for both cyclists and drivers. New cycling lanes can either be segregated from vehicle traffic, or along parallel routes where traffic volumes or space on the main road make that a better option.

Local and regional public transit

• Overhaul London’s bus routes. The radial pattern we have now makes it easy to get to and from downtown, but hard to get anywhere else. We need a grid system with express cross-town routes and connections that service neighbourhoods. This will make it easier to connect between routes and get to all corners of the city, including commercial and industrial areas so that workers can get to their job quickly and on time. (Don't miss out on London Transit's survey, closing October 12th:  https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/letstalktransit)
• Invest in rapid transit. Yes, this will mean a serious investment, whether it’s bus rapid transit or some other system. This is crucial if London wants to be a functional mid-size city in the 21^st century. We need to plan not only for where we are today, but where we will be in the future. The provincial government is partially funding rapid transit in Waterloo Region, Hamilton, and Ottawa. London should present a solid, comprehensive rapid transit plan as soon it is feasible to seek this kind of investment in our own community.
• Foster regional transit. Right now, all trains and busses lead to Toronto. The city should work with the province and with other municipalities to establish regional connections, making people have options to travel to nearby cities and towns. As the major city in Southwestern Ontario, London can and should play a lead role.

Vehicles

• Scrap the overnight parking ban. Londoners should be able to have family and friends visit without worrying about parking. This will require further discussion with city maintenance staff, but it’s doable. Several other communities of comparable size ban overnight parking during declared snow events only.
• Establish more carpool and park-and-ride lots near our major highways, at the edges of the city, and on the edges of the core.
• Improve road safety. Adding facilities for pedestrians and cyclist will help improve security for drivers, too. Other ways to increase safety include: restricting right turns on red lights in areas with high pedestrian and bicycle traffic; adding advanced-left signals when entering or exiting a major artery (such as needed at Wonderland  Rd. and Beaverbrook Ave.); and considering pedestrian bridges across wide, high-traffic roads.

Of course, these aren’t the only things to consider when it comes to London mobility and transportation. As I said, it’s a huge topic. Most importantly, we need to make sure people can get around using multiple modes of traffic, and that they can get to any corner of the city efficiently. As your councillor, I will make it a priority to keep London connected. 

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.