[ericmacm]

London is always going to have a bad rep because it is a city that formed from an automobile-focused postwar boom, has minimal conventionally nice/interesting natural geography or features, visually has a lot in common with American rust belt cities, has a city council that thinks regressively, and doesn't really have a core unique identity (as of yet at least) that many of our largest cities do.

I have actually found London to be really underrated since moving here. Lots of people talk like it is a total dumpster but it really isn't. It offers a huge range of housing options and definitely offers way more variety for medium to high-density residential all across the city (even on the outer fringes) compared to other mid-sized cities in Canada. Along most major road corridors, there is generally a solid amount of diversity of land use with commercial, high density residential, and low-density residential all kind of mixed in together so you don't have to travel long distances all the time to get necessities. The urban form often leaves a lot to be desired, but at the end of the day, it is really functional for what it is and that's what matters in daily life.

I honestly think once London finally pulls its head out of the sand and builds a proper rapid transit network to deal with the traffic problem (traffic is easily one of the worst things about living here), it will be seen as one of the best cities in Canada to live in.