News   Apr 26, 2024
Sustainability Month: ReHousing — A Multiplex How-To Guide Explores What’s Possible in the Yellowbelt
 856     3 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Mattamy's Soleil and Mile & Creek Condos in Milton’s Flourishing Landscape
 255     0 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Galleria on the Park Soon to Welcome First Residents of Masterplanned Community
 755     0 

London Rapid Transit (In-Design)

riverridgekw said:
I think the high speed rail from toronto to london is more important
Click to expand...

I totally understand why the average person would think that, however something that Londoners understand (I go to school there) is that London has TERRIBLE traffic. When I say terrible, it is truly awful during rush hour. Part of this is that proposed ring-road highways were never build around the city, and no substitute was planned to handle the traffic. SHIFT will address this issue that cripples the city during rush hour, and with not a massive contribution from the Feds and Province. HSR is important for connectivity and economic development, but I'd say SHIFT is the low-hanging fruit for London.
 
alexanderglista said:
I totally understand why the average person would think that, however something that Londoners understand (I go to school there) is that London has TERRIBLE traffic.
Click to expand...

While that may be true, London's long term economic health is dependent on getting HSR to Toronto. It's going to become a classic midwest declining city without it, in my opinion.
 
kEiThZ said:
While that may be true, London's long term economic health is dependent on getting HSR to Toronto. It's going to become a classic midwest declining city without it, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

You're not wrong. In my opinion, SHIFT is the easiest to start now and get up and running soon, with either HSR or VIA HFR coming within the next 10 years.
 
kEiThZ said:
While that may be true, London's long term economic health is dependent on getting HSR to Toronto. It's going to become a classic midwest declining city without it, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

London a dying city?

London is growing at a healthy 1% a year, only marginally less than KWC. The city has a very diversified economy considering it's size. It has corporate headquarters, a major governmental centre, home to 2 of the largest universities and colleges in the province, has a solid manufacturing base and an expanding food processing centre, is a regional shopping and entertainment centre, has an international airport, is at the convergence of 3 freeways, is a confluence of many freight railways, is home to a potential HSR, and is already home to VIA's forth busiest rail station. All of this backed by the fact that it is home to some of the most medical hi-tech start-ups, and is one of the premier medical research centres on the continent backed by the ONLY convention centre in NA geared and built specifically for medical conferences.

This highly diversified city for such a relatively smaller centre is why London has never undergone a boom/bust economic cycle and why the city has never suffered from a shrinking population or even a stagnating one.
 
ssiguy2 said:
London a dying city?

London is growing at a healthy 1% a year, only marginally less than KWC. The city has a very diversified economy considering it's size. It has corporate headquarters, a major governmental centre, home to 2 of the largest universities and colleges in the province, has a solid manufacturing base and an expanding food processing centre, is a regional shopping and entertainment centre, has an international airport, is at the convergence of 3 freeways, is a confluence of many freight railways, is home to a potential HSR, and is already home to VIA's forth busiest rail station. All of this backed by the fact that it is home to some of the most medical hi-tech start-ups, and is one of the premier medical research centres on the continent backed by the ONLY convention centre in NA geared and built specifically for medical conferences.

This highly diversified city for such a relatively smaller centre is why London has never undergone a boom/bust economic cycle and why the city has never suffered from a shrinking population or even a stagnating one.
Click to expand...

It really started to stagnate when London Life was purchased and then Canada Trust was taken over by TD. The head office jobs left the town and the working wealthy with it. London is fortunate that there is still old money sitting there spending.

5 years ago London was #10 in population in Canada. It went to #11. KW is now #10
Unemployment rates are still way too high in London with the manufacturing leaving (7.3%). And Ingersoll is losing some jobs at Cami soon. KW is 6.5%. Windsor is 5.7%.
Food processing? You mean 1 frozen pizza factory for growth? And then when Sysco wanted to come to London it was scared away due to city hall and decided to build in Woodstock. They also loss Kellogg's so I would say keeping the status quo.

Until London changes who the elect as mayor and start fighting for growth it's stagnating. And with KW booming it's no comparison.
 
muller877 said:
It really started to stagnate when London Life was purchased and then Canada Trust was taken over by TD. The head office jobs left the town and the working wealthy with it. London is fortunate that there is still old money sitting there spending.

5 years ago London was #10 in population in Canada. It went to #11. KW is now #10
Unemployment rates are still way too high in London with the manufacturing leaving (7.3%). And Ingersoll is losing some jobs at Cami soon. KW is 6.5%. Windsor is 5.7%.
Food processing? You mean 1 frozen pizza factory for growth? And then when Sysco wanted to come to London it was scared away due to city hall and decided to build in Woodstock. They also loss Kellogg's so I would say keeping the status quo.

Until London changes who the elect as mayor and start fighting for growth it's stagnating. And with KW booming it's no comparison.
Click to expand...

I'd say that London is just holding its own, but the surrounding region - St. Thomas, Chatham-Kent, Ingersoll, Strathroy - is doing poorly, and that affects the city as well. There are fewer industrial jobs within an hour drive, and London doesn't retain skilled talent like KW does.
 
muller877 said:
It really started to stagnate when London Life was purchased and then Canada Trust was taken over by TD. The head office jobs left the town and the working wealthy with it. London is fortunate that there is still old money sitting there spending.

5 years ago London was #10 in population in Canada. It went to #11. KW is now #10
Unemployment rates are still way too high in London with the manufacturing leaving (7.3%). And Ingersoll is losing some jobs at Cami soon. KW is 6.5%. Windsor is 5.7%.
Food processing? You mean 1 frozen pizza factory for growth? And then when Sysco wanted to come to London it was scared away due to city hall and decided to build in Woodstock. They also loss Kellogg's so I would say keeping the status quo.

Until London changes who the elect as mayor and start fighting for growth it's stagnating. And with KW booming it's no comparison.
Click to expand...

I recently went to school in London for a few weekend courses. In my time in the city, it really felt like someone pressed "pause" in around 1991 and with the exception of several SmartCentres/power centres and look-alike single detached housing, nothing substantial has happened since. All new areas of the city are developed with a dated 1980-1990's mentality I feel. To me, the impression I got is all the main arterial roads are shrouded in giant noise walls and there are 1980s style strip malls every few blocks. Compared to KW, which is a similar size, it is quite evident the difference in terms of new public and private investment between the two in the last 25 years. I say this with all due respect, and hopefully an initiative such as Shift can be a game changer.
 
I am not downplaying the strength of the KWC hi-tch sector or KWC relatively quick growth.

The issue was that London was referred to as a "classic Midwest declining city". Every Midwest city of the US would kill to enjoy a "death" like London's. Yes, London has never been a city that embraces change, a reflection of it's old wealth past. London has always been more "steady as she goes". London has however made huge gains in it's downtown which nearly died in the 1990s with the collapse of Eaton's. The downtown today is quite vibrant and seeing a fast growing population and a lot of downtown proposals.

Londoners also enjoy a very liveable, pleasant, safe, green, and socially progressive city that is always ranked as one of Canada's nicest. London, unlike KWC, has a solid built form where I can hardly even think of more than one block of unused space with 5 km of the downtown core except at the old hospital site. London never allowed an urban freeway to rip apart the urban fabric so it's beautiful old neighbourhoods are not only intact but also interconnected. You don't have the disconnection of communities that effect KWC, St,Catherines/Niagara, and to a lesser extent, Hamilton. KWC has some nice areas but the urban agglomeration is very much a series of 5 different cities the bulk of which are socially and economically connected by nothing more than a freeway.

London slow and steady growth has meant that the city has never really boomed but never really bust. That said Londoners still enjoy a high disposable income than most cities as it's wages are on the national average but it's cost of living and housing is much lower than the norm and certainly KWC. It's begrudging acknowledgement that 2st century is upon them has definitely hurt the city. It's lack of urban freeway has resulted in horrific traffic problems but left the city a beautiful and interconnected one.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top