Ambassador London: Tell Us What You Love About London

I strongly agree with Amelia's argument.

The simple fact is that a substantial portion of London City Council is comprised of development puppets who have been put in place for the sole purpose of promoting rampant and environmentally destructive "growth" and, as Amelia points out, attracting 'business' to London. These Councilors and Controllers include Roger Caranci, Gord Hume, Bud Polhill, Tom Gosnell, Cheryl Miller and Bernie MacDonald, among others. That Council wants to provide funding to yet another 'promotional' body, therefore, should not surprise anyone. But it should be vigorously opposed.

Having said that, I will take the time to directly answer the original poster's question.

I like the fact that:

1) London's current Planning Committee is taking a number of steps to curtail destructive growth and promote more responsible models of development in the city. These steps include requiring developers - rather than taxpayers - to pay for infrastructure and servicing to their (usually sprawling) developments, and implementing a by-law that protects roughly 3,200 hectares of valuable woodlands from development. Gina Barber, Joni Bachelor, Nancy Branscombe and Judy Bryant are almost entirely responsible for this new approach to development on Council. However, councillors like David Winninger and Susan Eagle have also been supportive of these measures.

2) City Staff and City Council are now looking at new methods of waste reduction and diversion. These methods include (as mentioned above) curbside compost pickup, increased recycling, and fees indexed to the amount of waste a household throws out. Although these measures are only being considered, it is encouraging that both staff and Council are supportive of them. If ALL of these measures were implemented, London could begin to consider itself progressive with regard to waste reduction and diversion.

3) The Gay Pride flag will fly at City Hall; that Council responded to the concerns of Riverside residents to reject Sifton's rezoning application for a proposed development near the Thames River; that Council is currently trying to protect Sprucedale Woods from development; that Council agreed to ban cosmetic pesticide use; that protestors were successful ing getting Council to allocate $2 million to affordable housing; and that a new city planner has been hired who champions "smart growth" models of urban development.

4) London has multiple shops/businesses where consumers can make ethically, environmentally, socially and economically responsible purchases. These businesses include Field Gate Organics, Hasbeans, Sebastians, Express Organics, the Farmers' Market outside of Convent Garden, and the London Co-op Store, among a host of others. Even the arrival of corporate entities like American Apparel - which, whatever its faults may be, nonetheless provides non-sweatshop clothing - is positive.

5) London has a thriving, albeit disparate and not entirely united, protest movement that has won several victories on development, pesticide use and affordable housing. The London Free Press, even when it disagrees with protestors, usually does an adequate job of providing coverage to these protests.  

Unfortunately, though, I think London is inadequate in providing accessible, timely, and universal public transit. Transit tends to cater to - and be realistic for - those who live near the core of the city and is mostly inaccessible for those who live in the Southern or Western parts of the city. Big box development is completely unacceptable and yet it is popping up all over the city - this needs to stop. The city's current urban growth boundary needs to be rigidly encforced and intensification, brownfield and greyfield redevelopment, and compact urban form (apartments, townhouses, affordable housing and NOT suburban homes) need to be promoted. These are just a few of my concerns.