In defence of Suburbia (well, kind of...)

                                                                               

Introducing > The Suburb of Ancaster

When we think of the phrases "walkable neighbourhood" or "active transportation" what often comes to mind is the revitalization of urban streets as opposed to suburban streets.  In Hamilton, like in many North American cities, walkable neighbourhoods are an urban issue - concerning the city core.  In our attempts to advocate for walkable neighbourhoods and active transportation we often exclude suburban neighbourhoods from the discussion. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I'm sure this is an issue in many larger North American cities: As living downtown becomes less of a pubic safety issue and more of a trendy convenience, it is suburbia that has to deal with the imbalance (i.e.: aging/inefficient/oppressive infrastructure).

I'm seeing this trend already in Hamilton.  Ancaster's situation relative to downtown Hamilton is a perfect fit for this scenario.  To most Hamiltonians, Ancaster is where the rich live.  They live in a sea of large stucco houses on either side of the 403.  They commute to work.  They live up on the Mountain, looking down on the rest of the city, a couple hundred feet below.  They are also probably arrogant, stuck-up, is what the going stereotype would suggest.

This passed Winter at the Hamilton Transportation Summit I met someone who works with the  Ancaster BIA and a newly formed group called Preserve Ancaster Village.  She told me all about the City's plans to widen one of the main roads which runs through Ancaster.  The City, she told me, plans to widen Wilson St. from 2 lanes to 4 lanes, cut down a bunch of trees which line the sidewalk, get rid of the grass barrier between the sidewalk and the road, and add roundabouts making pedestrian crossings almost impossible while making it easier for cars to speed through the suburb.

Knowing the amount of attention the once-neglected inner-city neighbourhoods of Hamilton have been getting in the past couple of years I assumed that not many Hamiltonian's were too concerned about suburban road-widening projects.

I was right - my new friend from Ancaster assured me that not many people were in opposition to the City's plan, nor did many people know of it.  Not only are suburban neighbourhoods not a fad (unlike rough inner-city neighbourhoods), but community engagement in suburbs is weak.

In the last couple of months I've been working with Preserve Ancaster Village.  Their current agendas include forming a group of citizens in Ancaster who will represent the City's opposition in the Wilson Street road-widening issue.  My involvement with Preserve Ancaster Village has been to help them efficiently organize and affectively communicate the groups' agendas.  This information will strengthen their argument when approaching City Hall. 

It's been pretty cool working with them, though the one thing that I have learned is this:

As North American's increasingly become city dwellers - moving from sparse suburbia into dense urbanicity - I feel as though suburban social issues will become neglected and overseen; just as issues in our inner-cities once did.

Whether a road is widened in a run-down neighbourhood in the inner-city or in an exploding suburb on the fringe makes some but little difference - it is a struggle either way, one where pedestrians and cyclists will have to deal with the consequences of being structurally oppressed.

So the question I am left with after all this is: do we punish suburbia or do we defend suburbia?

Waterfront Development, West Harbour and Rheem

Proposed developments just left of the rail yard

The Stadium debate of last Summer and Autumn left waterfront development plans stagnant and many buildings purchased by the city vacant.

 

Though many suggest it's situation relative to the Harbour is ideal for recreational use, the nieghbourhood surrounding the old Rheem factory is left not knowing what the future holds for it.

__________________________________________________

The West Harbour has been on the radar of the City for many years.  As time has gone on (and as all the industry in the North End has closed down) the waterfront is beginning to seem much more appealing than it once did.

In the last decade the City and the Waterfront Trust have been investing in a handful of waterfront development projects - the most recent (and popular) being the developments at Pier 8 including the Williams Coffee Pub and the newly acquired Discovery Centre.

The City has purchased a number of houses and warehouses around the West Harbour, further west of Pier 8.

With the stadium not being built here it leaves this area without a plan.  My guess is that the buildings which the City had anticipated demolishing will sit for a few more years until the City opts for demolition, leaving the lots vacant for another decade or so before they decide to turn much of this area into parkland - extending the recreational use of the West Harbour further west.

For now, rows of houses are boarded up and warehouses empty until a decision is made.

Biking downtown in timelapse!!

Today I rode my bike down to the property management office.  This is what the bike ride looked like.

Listor Block Progress...

Almost done.  Last week they brought down the building to the left of Listor, 2 weeks ago traffic calming devices went in.

Glad that the City decided to go ahead and restore this giant building.  It was one of downtown's largest vacant buildings until not too long ago.  A little historical fact - this building was the first indoor mall in North America!

Before - February 2007

After - August 2011

On Leadership & Silliness: Derek Sivers @ Ted Talks 2010

Had to post this... found it on a friends blog.  Valuable lessons!

As a side note, this video has been edited since I uploaded it to the blog.  Today's date is Dec 11, 2011 and I am now, for the first time, seeing the advertisement in the last 2 minutes of this video.

                  "we have to move toward more sustainable fuels in the future.  It takes time. 

                  And in the meantime, we need to find the oil that we can to supply the earths 

                  needs."

This is greenwashing at its finest.  Whoever made the decision to attach this advertisement to the end of this Ted Talk is completely undermining the value of the videos' purpose.  Is this the kind of leadership - as Sivers would suggest - we should be validating?  I'll choose to follow a nut who has innovative ideas, rather than one who speaks about energy demands while obviously not understanding them.

Thanks for the lesson, Derek Sivers.

Beasley Neighbourhood Association creates "Neighbourhood Charter"

In the spheres of urban planning and social welfare, how much weight is given to documents which are not supported by municipal policy?  Can community organizations and neighbourhood associations create affective change even though their agendas are not officially supported by City Hall?  Moreover, where is municipal policy necessary and when should it be used to support community initiatives?

_______________________________________________________

I attended the Annual Beasley Neighbourhood BBQ a few weeks ago.  Although across the road from where I live is considered a different neighbourhood (according to lines drawn on a map perhaps 5 decades ago or more) the apartments on the east side of James St. North are considered to be part of Beasley.

The neighbourhood has a long history of neglect.  Since the 1980s, Beasley has been considered the poorest neighbourhood in the city of Hamilton.  There are many reasons for this which I may write about later.  Regardless, many attribute Beasley's present amount of community engagement to its history of neglect.  The fact that the new "Neighbourhood Charter" was introduced at the neighbourhood BBQ a few weeks ago shows me - even more - just how engaged and passionate a lot of community members are about where they live. 

Being perhaps the first neighbourhood in Canada to establish a Neighbourhood Charter, the purpose of the document is to redefine what Beasley is to its residents, and to determine what Beasley should look like in the wake of downtown redevelopment projects and gentrification; both which are currently encroaching on the neighbourhood.

Through working with City Hall, numerous organizations relevant to the area and countless individuals, the Neighbourhood Charter is said to define what the neighbourhood believes to be the best way to develop the neighbourhood in the future.

Although The Charter is generally thought of as a positive thing by City Hall and received ample support at the BBQ, I question how much institutional integrity The Charter actually has.  One reason why I question this is because of the newly proposed development at Cannon and Mary Streets.

A development of this scale seems too large for community groups to not put up a big fuss, especially considering the sites location across from the Good Sheppard Centre and Beasley Park.

Far more than its institutional integrity (or lack-there-of), the purpose of the Neighbourhood Charter, I am sure, is to deepen the organizational relationships which community groups and allied City Departments share.

This seems to be how community groups will be able to strengthen and legitimize their agendas - which over time may lead to policy.  As for now, one step at a time for Beasley.

Moving Beyond the Automobile: The rationale behind lane reductions

Lane reductions on busy streets can be a contentious issue.  While the average pedestrian on a busy street wants safety, the average person driving their car down the same street wants efficiency.  

These two opposing points summarize many discussions I've had lately with friends and family regarding the status of streets and how to build them correctly.  Ultimately, I've found, the contentious issue surrounding lane reductions come down to two fundamental differences in mentality: Those who live in walkable areas, use transit and are concerned with safety above anything else, and those who live in the suburbs, drive through the city on their way to work and want efficiency.

While the conclusion I draw from these discussions is simple ("move downtown" ...) it seems as though experts draw similar conclusions though have a different method of reaching the same, simple point.

This video outlines really well why experts and advocates involved in active transportation planning want to decrease the amount of lanes on our roads.  Thoroughfare or side street, they argue, lane reductions make streets more safe and efficient - whether your driving, cycling or walking.