Dundas by any other name would still have problems

London's main street has been Dundas for a long time. Since the beginning, in fact, when Surveyor-General Thomas Ridout instructed Mahlon Burwell to survey the town plot in 1826. 

Now, 200 years later, after a Toronto City Council vote to rename their Dundas Street, there is media speculation as to whether London will do the same. 

All of this is because Henry Dundas, most powerful politician in Scotland in the 18th century, was apparently a creep, even by the standards of his own time, which were pretty low. His contemporaries called him King Harry the Ninth, The Great Tyrant, and The Uncrowned King of Scotland. Given his efforts to delay the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade during the 1790s, it's been decided Dundas needs to be given the old heave-ho anywhere he's commemorated. 

So how do we get rid of his name? While the procedure may alter, according to this article, in London "the process to change a street's name begins with an application at city hall, including a $512 fee. After staff review the request, council can hold a public meeting prior to making a final decision. Unless council decided otherwise, the proponents of the name change would be required to cover all signage costs plus $200 in compensation paid to each property owner whose address is changing." 

New business cards, new flyers, new address labels, new signs above doors, for every business and residence from the Forks of the Thames to the eastern city limits way out at Nissouri Road. Then there's the controversy that would surround the choice of a new street name. This Prof suggests renaming the street after Tony Small, the first known black man to visit the site of London. "Small Street?" 

Once we've set a precedent by renaming one street, how many others will we have to rename? Most of our oldest streets are named after colonial officials, battlefields, generals, royalty, and Dead White Males. Then there's Plantation Road in Oakridge, which a child has convinced the grown-ups should be renamed despite its obvious reference to trees in this context. 

I'm not completely against renaming Dundas, although I think the new name would need to be something generic like "Main Street" - bland and boring but uncontroversial. Some people call it "Bum-das" but that's not official. Personally, I'd rather have a moratorium on renaming Dundas - and other streets - until we solve a few more important problems. Because we all know there are more pressing issues, right? Especially in the downtown core:

1) There's a lack of good quality businesses and attractions to lure visitors. 

2) There's free parking around the suburban shopping malls. 

3) There's a perception that downtown is full of aggressive panhandlers, drug dealers, and mental cases. 

I work at a Dundas business and I'm aware of the problems. Some of the issues are overrated and I'm not afraid to wander around. But folks elsewhere read articles like this one  and get turned off. And until we change the narrative, we're not going to attract more visitors. 

We know what we need to do. Incentivize businesses to move downtown. Provide parking deals. Build affordable housing. Care for the mentally ill. Treat addiction as a medical, not a criminal, problem. 

It won't be easy. But please, City Hall, could you try to fix the present instead of the past? 

A Dundas Renovation

Sharon Hassan, who's co-ordinating the renovation of 142 Dundas Street, has discovered heritage is pretty neat after all. According to an October 13 Ian Gillespie column, "Hassan admits she used to drive down Dundas and wonder why somebody didn't tear down some of the old, decrepit buildings dotting the street like rotten teeth."

But since her renovation began, such items as an 1884 fashion magazine and an old box of promissory notes have been found. Now, apparently, the London lawyer has decided heritage has merit. "Lives were lived here and stories were told...And you can't just tear that down."

Perhaps if we took some land developers and city councillors on a tour of our older buildings, we could make a few more converts?

Update: Sharon and Hamoody Hassan received a heritage award at the ACO-HLF 8th Annual Heritage Awards on February 19, 2015. The award recognizes their work in preserving this historic building on Dundas Street and providing an example for the future restoration of downtown London.

Good News For Dundas Streetscape?

For once downtown London has some semi-positive heritage news. Two side-by-side historic gems that came close to a date with the wrecker's ball have been returned to their former glory - sort of. At least the exteriors of the Capitol Theatre and the Bowles Building have made a comeback. And rare as it is for either a developer or City Hall to be interested in heritage preservation, the $4 million bill has actually been paid by Shmuel Farhi and the City of London. In 2010, the buildings will house London's planning department, in theory a great example of adaptive reuse that will bring white-collar workers to the heart of downtown. Well that's a good idea - city staff should be confronted with the near-emptiness of Dundas Street on a daily basis. Maybe they'll feel the urge to do something about our wasteland main street.

Unfortunately, it's not the entire Capitol Theatre that's being preserved, just its front. In 2008 an architect determined the facade was worth saving for its ornate stonework. The old theatre itself, including its mirrored lobby, had already been demolished to make way for yet another rear-of-Dundas parking lot in 2006.

So we have an example of what's been called "facadism" - demolishing a building but leaving its facade. London has jumped on the facadism bandwagon in recent years - witness the Delta London Armouries and the old Talbot streetscape clinging to the JLC. This practice may be seen as a new compromise between property developers and preservationists - but the so-called preservation is only superficial and the buildings only mock-historic. The Armouries and the Talbot bricks now have a "stuck-on" effect, since taller buildings have been constructed behind them without any setback. And the contrast between the modern and Victorian styles is so great that the effect belittles the new architecture as well as the old.

Some world cities, like Paris and Melbourne, have actively discouraged facadism. I know, this isn't Paris. But if the Capitol/Bowles preservation is the way the wagon's going, it might be better for London to jump off.

 

Update - September 2012: As it turned out, not even the original facade was preserved. What we see now is a completely new front made to look like the original. The facade was deemed to be past the point where it could be saved. 

Update - May 2016 - In London's latest example of facadism, check out what used to be Kingsmill's.