Mid-sized cities make progress in revitalizing downtowns - Page 2

bolognium · #21 Posted **Dec 3, 2010, 6:32 AM**

I actually thought that River's Edge complex was a little out of place with the towers completely dominating most of the area, but maybe I'm just jealous that they were way out of my price range. The townhouses on the other hand seem like an ideal development for the neighbourhood. Also, Preston didn't really seem that far from campus. In the summer months I would bike down Fountain and cross the 401 via the new pedestrian bridge. In the winter months there was the 61 Cambridge Centre bus that would take me door-to-door (literally, bus stop was at my front stoop. Compared to my old apartment at Pioneer and Homer Watson, Preston was a God-send.

It's great to hear that Galt is doing well. I used to bike the Paris Rail Trail a few times a week and I always enjoyed the ride through downtown Galt. The ancient stone buildings in the area are truly amazing. I actually would've loved to live in Galt, but the bus service from Ainslie Terminal to Conestoga just wasn't as convenient as Preston's.

Anyway, thanks for dragging this thread off-topic, Cambridgite! Stay in your own damn local forum!

Simpseatles · #22 Posted **Dec 3, 2010, 9:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bolognium

Also, the one thing I like about the trees is that during the winter months they bring much needed colour to our downtown. However, in that sense I would enjoy giant coloured boxes just as much.

.

I also enjoy the trees downtown. They are artistic, and like you mentioned add a lot of colour. Many places have these types of public art placed downtown and they add character and individuality to the city. I mean any city can have real trees, but only London has crazy fake ones.

Yes, I know they aren't real trees, but the "forest city" nickname is a joke anyway. It was created because of the once large forest surrounding the city, not in it. I'm fine with the current ammount of real trees downtown, and I don't really understand the backlash some people have towards these things!

MolsonExport · #23 Posted **Dec 3, 2010, 10:45 PM**

London is apparently one of the least forested cities in Canada. Less than half that of Tarana, percentage wise, apparently.

haljackey · #24 Posted **Dec 4, 2010, 12:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

London is apparently one of the least forested cities in Canada. Less than half that of Tarana, percentage wise, apparently.

London has 10% tree cover while Toronto has 18%.

bolognium · #25 Posted **Dec 4, 2010, 1:47 AM**

Makes sense. The old sections of London are completely filled with trees, but those old neighbourhoods make up a very small percentage of the city. Most of London is sprawl and Smart Centres which is where trees go to die.

Simpseatles · #26 Posted **Dec 4, 2010, 2:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bolognium

Makes sense. The old sections of London are completely filled with trees, but those old neighbourhoods make up a very small percentage of the city. Most of London is sprawl and Smart Centres which is where trees go to die.

^That's not necessarily true. A large enough percentage of the city is older grid pattern neighbourhoods (which is what I consider to be older areas), and the "newer" areas built in the 60's and onward are full of trees. It's just the subdivisions from the last 10 years or so where the trees are still fairly small, and not as noticable.

As for the tree cover in London vs. Toronto, I wouldn't be surprised to learn they have more. As I mentioned, the nickname was created because when we were founded, there were thick forests around the city. Since then nearly all was cleared for agriculture, or was built up by the city. The most evidence you will find of a "forest" you can find around here now, is some areas around the Thames (Meadowilly, Komoka) and some wooded areas in between fields.

I think it's a shame there aren't many large protected wooded areas in this area left anymore, but then again the land was arable, and since there were no major obstacles in the way (hills, lakes) it was mostly cleared.

Simpseatles · #27 Posted **Dec 4, 2010, 2:38 PM**

^Oops, sorry for getting way off topic! I forgot what this thread was about.

haljackey · #28 Posted **Dec 4, 2010, 5:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simpseatles

^Oops, sorry for getting way off topic! I forgot what this thread was about.

We've been doing that a lot here lately. As long as the convo flows I think it's ok as long as we're relitively relating to the topic. I wouldn't say the convo here is way off topic.. go to London Roads for that.

Too bad the London section doesn't have an active mod to move some posts around to make the forum more organized.