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? 

Don't change the Ontario flag

According to a London Free Press article, Western University employee Mano Majumdar doesn't like Ontario's flag. He finds it "surreal" and "bizarre" and says “This flag does not represent the distinctiveness of Ontario or Canada. I think we need to have a conversation about decolonization."

For those of you who haven't looked at the provincial flag lately, I've pasted a reminder above.  You'll note the Union Jack along with the shield of the Ontario coat of arms. It was adopted by Ontario's legislature on April 14, 1965, probably to appease Ontarians of British origin after Canada's new Maple Leaf flag replaced the Red Ensign. 

What Mr. Majumdar dislikes, of course, is the presence of the Union Jack, and perhaps the English flag over the three maple leaves. As the article states, "Majumdar sees the flag as a symbol of Ontario and Canada as a colony." 

Gee, living in a city called London with a Thames River must really bother this guy. I feel for him, having to put up with street names like Piccadilly and Pall Mall. Perhaps we should completely "decolonize" and change all our names to ones with more "distinctiveness?" 

But the Ontario flag doesn't mean we're a colony. It's simply a tribute to Ontario's origins. The province was settled by United Empire Loyalists, followed by waves of immigrants from the British Isles. The  Union Jack on the Ontario flag recognizes this simple historical fact. 

Does this flag mean much to newcomers? Probably not. Is that a reason to change it? I don't think so. Would I immigrate to another country and campaign for a change of flag there? Of course not. I wouldn't expect my country of adoption to change its flag to suit newcomers, even if I did find it "surreal." 

I'm well aware that there's hostility to Britain. For some, the word "Britain" seems to by synonymous with "oppression." In fact, I suspect that some people don't want diversity or inclusion so much as they want to tear down what remains of our British connection because they're personally offended by it. Perhaps Mr. Majumdar dislikes the Ontario flag because of its resemblance to the Civil Ensign of British India?

Apparently Mr. Majumdar is now facing a "racist backlash" to his comments. He's "surprised so many people are passionate about this flag." Go figure. Criticize a flag and raise people's passions. Who would've imagined that? Apparently not Mr. M.

Look, I'm not in favour of racism (although many who read this will probably accuse me of it) and Mr. Majumdar has the right to his opinions. But the truth is we can't make our colonial past disappear, and there's no real reason to try. We should commemorate it. And occasionally celebrate it. And preserve it on our provincial flag. 

If you can't tolerate it, I'll help you pack.

 

On the Renaming of Ryerson Public School

 

Photo taken June 6, 2021

The Thames Valley District School Board intends to rename Ryerson Public School on Waterloo Street. Then they’re going to review all school and facility names to determine if any others should be renamed. We can expect the next will be Sir John A. Macdonald Public School near Highbury and Cheapside.  

This, of course, follows the discovery of the remains of 215 Indigenous children buried on the grounds of a former residential school in Kamloops, BC. Today we’re being told there may be three times as many burials at Marieval School in Saskatchewan. The deaths were apparently undocumented by the school administration, their families never told the children died. 

Egerton Ryerson argued way back in 1847 that Indigenous children should be educated in boarding schools and his ideas were later applied to the residential school system. In 1883, when Macdonald was Prime Minister, Canada’s Parliament approved the funding for the first three residential schools. Ryerson died in 1882, Macdonald in 1891.

Here’s what else they did:

Egerton Ryerson

•         A founder of Victoria College, its first principal, and benefactor.
•          An advocate for secularization, to keep power and influence away from any particular church.
•          Chief Superintendent of Education for Upper Canada after 1844. His major innovations included school libraries, professional development conventions for teachers, and a central textbook press using Canadian authors.
•          Lobbyist for free universal education to provide schooling for those less privileged.
•          Creator of a system of school inspection to ensure provincial polices were enforced.
•          A founder of the Toronto Normal School in 1847. Canada’s first publicly funded museum was established in this building in 1857, using a collection based largely on artwork and scientific apparatus Ryerson himself acquired in Europe.

Sir John A. Macdonald

•          A leading figure in the discussions and conferences which resulted in the BNA Act of 1867 and the birth of Canada as a nation.
•          As Prime Minister, the builder of a successful national government for the new country.
•          The builder of a railway across the continent, a project many believed to be impossible. It was the largest engineering project of its kind in the world.
•          Creator of the NWMP in 1873 to patrol the North-West Territories.
•          Creator of Canada’s first national park, Banff Hot Springs Reserve, in 1885.
•          Proponent of Indigenous people gaining the franchise without losing any of their rights under either the Indian Act or any of their treaties. (They did not gain the vote until 1960 under Diefenbaker.)
•          Proponent of votes for women in 1885, the first world leader to do so.

While Macdonald and Ryerson were involved in the creation of the residential school system and no doubt intended Indigenous children to be culturally assimilated, it is doubtful whether either man intended the children to be abused or neglected. Their goals were likely to ensure the children graduated as English-speaking Christians who could farm or practice a trade, a not unreasonable goal given the time period. While the system appears outrageous to modern sensibilities, the instances of abuse and neglect at the schools were the responsibility of individual teachers, principals, and workers, not Ryerson and Macdonald, who were already dead. 

What names will go next?

There are other “problematic” school names in London. No doubt many of these will have to go too: 

Emily Carr: Her depictions of coastal Indigenous culture have been called cultural appropriation. One writer has called her a “narcissistic white colonizer.”

F. D. Roosevelt: He sanctioned the imprisonment of Japanese Americans during WWII.

Lord Elgin: During the Second Opium War in China, he ordered the destruction of the Old Summer Palace in Beijing, along with its collections of artworks and antiques, inflicting invaluable loss of cultural heritage.

Lord Nelson: Some aspects of his life and career are controversial, including his affair with Emma Hamilton. He may have opposed William Wilberforce’s campaign to abolish the slave trade.

Prince Charles/Princess Anne/Princess Elizabeth/Victoria: Clearly these names are offensive to anyone wishing to sever Canada’s connection with Britain and be a republic instead of a "colonial settler state."

Sir Arthur Currie: He embezzled ten thousand dollars meant for regimental uniforms into his personal accounts to pay off debts. Arguably, he wasted the lives of the soldiers under his command by taking Mons, Belgium on the final day of WWI.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier: He raised the Chinese head tax to $100 in 1900. In 1903 he raised it to $500. And in 1898, he removed the right to vote from the few Indigenous men given the franchise under Macdonald’s 1885 reform bill.

Sir Frederick Banting: It’s said he had a prickly personality and was subject to fits of rage. He even punched one of his colleagues in his laboratory. Some think he took much of the credit for the discovery of insulin, without giving much to fellow researchers Best, Collip and Macleod.

Now, how shall we rename the schools? Number them like in New York City? Bland. Rename them after the streets they’re on? That won’t do. Our street names aren’t woke enough either, often being named after colonial officials, streets in the other London, or battles the British won. Rename them after the heroes of today? Now there's a thought. How about Justin Bieber Public School? 

Questions:

Does renaming schools further Truth and Reconciliation? 

Does removing Ryerson’s name from a London school improve conditions on the reservations? 

Most people before the 1960s were racist, sexist or otherwise bigoted by today’s standards. The concept of empathy for others is quite modern. Abuse and neglect were rampant everywhere before our own enlightened age, and not just at residential schools. Should we simply remove all personal names? What will replace them? 

Senator Mary Jane McCallum has referred to the residential school system as the “genocide of children.” But consider the term genocide. Traditionally, genocide is the intentional murder of a group of people. It’s been practiced worldwide in such hideous examples as the Nazi Holocaust, Bosnia, and Rwanda. The term "cultural genocide," however, is new, an example of “concept creep” in which a term broadens to take on meanings outside its original context. So while forced assimilation may be a disgrace, doesn't calling it genocide trivialize this worst of crimes?

Is it not a tragedy the way extremists damage their cause by alienating those of us who might sympathize but don’t like their words or actions? I can’t support those tell me my country committed genocide or those who rename schools to signal their virtue. 

If we don’t have more respect for our past, what will become of our future?

Update February 2022: The school has been renamed Old North Public School. Completely generic and totally inoffensive. And boring. 

London Buildings: Double Houses

Midway between terrace housing and the detached home is the double house - that is, a house divided vertically by a common wall, designed for two families living side by side, each with their own entry. The double house was usually two storeys, the two sides usually, but not always, symmetrical if built at the same time. Seldom associated with a particular social class or architectural style, they were often built as rental units by landlords who lived elsewhere. The form probably stemmed from a desire for economy, since the shared wall meant a structure less expensive to build than two separate dwellings. 

A fine example is this Italianate double house located at 526-528 Waterloo Street. Built in 1874, it has the typical symmetry associated with double houses and fits in well with the surrounding mansions. 

Another attractive example is 80-82 Stanley Street, a colourful Victorian built ca. 1887.  At least one part is now an attractive apartment with nice hardwood floors and exposed brick walls. 

466-468 Queens Avenue is an example of a double house in which the two sides were built at different times. 468 (right portion) is the earlier part, its construction date unknown, while 466 was built about 1878. The doorways are original but that beautiful rounded stained glass window is an early replacement.

Not all double houses look as stylish as the above. Note this primitive structure on Ann Street:

Then there's 93-95 Dufferin, a double house in use as a commercial space since the 1980s. 93, the portion on the right, was built in about 1868 by Samuel Peters, Jr. (architect of Grosvenor Lodge) while 95 was added in the 1890s. The centre portion, associated with the original structure, was built in the 1880s. 93 shows Georgian influence, while 95 is more Italianate.    

It was Rygar Properties that first planned a mixed-use development for this site. Their plan was controversial since it involved the demolition of Camden Terrace on Talbot Street. The city allowed Rygar to demolish Camden provided they build a commemorative replica and incorporate 93-95 Dufferin into the new development.

Then Rygar sold to Old Oak Properties in 2019 and Old Oak applied to demolish the double house in early 2021. Heritage activists argued that the original agreement with Rygar should apply to the new landowner as well. City Council agreed and turned down the demolition request. Old Oak has now agreed to incorporate these buildings into their highrise development. 

So in May 2021 we have this going on:

It will be interesting to see how Old Oak incorporates the above double house into a development that includes a 40-storey skyscraper. 

A late 20th century double house in south London. Same idea ... but without charm.

No Skyscrapers at the Forks of the Thames

ACO London  was founded in July 1966, largely because of the threat to demolish these early commercial buildings on the west side of Ridout Street south of Eldon House. Nicknamed Bankers' Row, the streetscape is an excellent example of the architecture built in pre-Confederation era towns. Fortunately, John Labatt Ltd. paid to restore the buildings in the late '60s - early '70s and the Ridout Restoration has formed an integral part of London's historic heart ever since. Architectural enthusiasts considered these buildings safe, their future not in doubt. 

But then came Farhi Holdings Corp. with a plan to build a 40-storey "flagship and legacy" residential/commercial tower behind this row, incorporating the old buildings into the design. If you can't picture that, take a look here. 

So what's the problem? Heritage harpies should be happy, right? Isn't this a great compromise? The old buildings will be preserved and London will get more of the residential and commercial space city  planners deem necessary to revive our downtown core. 

Here are some concerns:

• This proposed tower and the one suggested by York Developments at 50 King Street may be a “slippery slope,” setting precedents for more towers to be built along the Thames, a Canadian Heritage River. When highrises crowd the waterfront, they detract from the ambiance of the river forks, Harris Park, walking path, and river view.
• Besides the Ridout Restoration, this part of Ridout Street contains:  Eldon House, London’s oldest house; Museum London, the city’s best-known gallery; the Old Courthouse, the city’s oldest building. Together, this streetscape constitutes the heart of London, an area we should be promoting to tourists. How could a modern highrise contribute to the ambiance?
• The proposed building and its podium are not in keeping with the style of the existing buildings, which constitute one of London's four National Historic Sites (the others are Banting House, the Old Courthouse and Wolseley Barracks). How can we preserve a capsule view of 19^th century Ontario with an unsympathetic contemporary development perched behind? 
• Before rezoning, the height of new construction here was limited to the height of the existing structures – three storeys. Should zoning changes or “bonusing” really allow buildings nearly ten times taller than what’s already there?
• The nearby park is a floodplain. The overflowing Thames has been known to cover Harris Park and its adjacent parking lot. How will the water impact a building on the park’s edge? According to this article, the Upper Thames Valley Conservation Authority has OK'd the development. But so many of us are used to seeing this.
• Will Bankers’ Row be able to withstand construction disturbances, including excavations and vibrations? We don't want this to happen. 
• Farhi's track record on preserving such buildings as the old Central Library and Wright Lithographing suggests his company may not be the best caregiver for the Ridout complex. There's already been a fire at number 435 and the building has not been fully restored. 
• Why build on this site at all? Surely there must be some other space Farhi can use for development. How about the the old Free Press building? Or the parking lot across the street?

     The issue goes before London's Planning & Environment Committee on May 31 and a great many Londoners, myself included, have written to PEC and the city, requesting them to turn down the rezoning application.

      Update: PEC has passed the motion for rezoning. Now it goes to full Council on June 15.                      

      Update: Council voted 12-2 in favour of rezoning. Most councilors believe this is a "win-win" situation, saving heritage yet promoting development. My prediction? Nothing will be built here and Bankers' Row will be gradually demolished by neglect. Of course, I hope I'm wrong.

      

100 Stanley Street: Make an offer to the City of London, Ontario. Fast.

Here it is. 100 Stanley Street at the corner of Wharncliffe Road South. A white brick Queen Anne house built about 1896, with a keyhole window on the main level and a rectangular oriel window on the second floor. The oriel has a small bracket detail above and rests on a decorated wooden sill. There's coloured glass in the windows. And there's lovely interior woodwork, such as a newel post shaped like a King chess piece.

Yes, it's a bit difficult to see, the garden having become a jungle. Some would even say the foliage obstructs views at the intersection.

Nancy Finlayson lived here for decades, about thirty years in total. Her home was designated by the city in 2010. It stands on Stanley Street, at one time the main road out of the city to Port Stanley. 

But in 2017 the public learned that the city was considering demolishing her home, expropriating the land to widen Wharncliffe Road and repair the nearby railroad overpass. The road widening was necessary, the city argued, to remove the traffic bottleneck, prevent congestion and collisions. 

But Feisty Nan fought The Plan. And she wasn't the only one. Others in the city raised petitions on her behalf and staged demonstrations on the corner. The city was starting to look bad. Who tosses an old lady out of her home just to widen a road?

In 2018 the City of London indicated it was not without sympathy (or realized it looked nasty) and stated they were willing to spend an extra half million dollars to move 100 Stanley to a lot on a nearby street,  admittedly an accommodation most cities wouldn't bother with. Relocating her home was a way to save it from the wrecking ball and keep it within its own historic neighbourhood. And it would only cost $500,000 to cover the bill to move the house about 100 metres. 

Yet when the city offered to move her lovely home to the corner of Wharncliffe and Evergreen, Nan argued it would take the house out of its context onto a bare, treeless lot. She insisted she wouldn't move.

In January 2020 London City Council voted to expropriate her land. As recently as June 2020, Nan said she wouldn't leave. Unfortunately, she was told she needed to get out by October 1. In September, the city reached a settlement with her, offering $500,000 for her home and land. Perhaps she realized she couldn't "beat City Hall." She has moved to a home in Blackfriars. 

Yet despite the sale of the land and house, the city continued to consider moving the home, probably due to pressure from conservation groups such as ACO London. But in early 2021, city engineers suddenly estimated the relocation cost at $900,000 - $1,100,000 and, at this point, some on City Council decided the cost was too much.

On March 23, City Council narrowly voted to demolish the building. (I haven't heard how much that will cost.) The road widening is expected to begin either later in 2021 or 2022. Total cost: $39 million. Of which the cost of moving 100 Stanley was merely a proverbial drop in the bucket. 

One could argue that the city put poor Nan through a nightmare. A lady in her late seventies, kicked out of the home she loved. Anyone with an ounce of sympathy would be on her side. And her house had numerous interesting features, being particularly well preserved. I was "House Captain" in 2009 when her home was included on ACO London's 36th Annual Geranium Heritage House Tour. I remember Nan saying of her home "I love you." If it was my place, I'd love it too. It was particularly well preserved. And now, what she'll remember for the rest of her life was her desperate fight to save it.

But if I'd been her, I'd have let the city move the house. Just think of the advantages: a safer, less busy location; a new basement; new landscaping; the lovely home itself saved for future generations. Londoners in the 2090s might have been able to see a well-preserved home from 200 years earlier. 

I know what some will say. She impeded progress. She's only an attention seeker. She got a great price for her home so why complain. There's lots of old houses so why care about this one. The intersection is a bottleneck and needs to be widened.  Certainly the comments about the former owner posted online have been cruel indeed. Apparently there are some very nasty people out there, posting anonymously at the end of internet news stories. 

But let's for a minute pretend we live in an Ideal Heritage World. In that world an infrastructure change wouldn't adversely affect cultural heritage resources. Our cultural heritage would  be preserved in situ, there would be no expropriation, no demolition of municipally designated properties. We wouldn't be widening roads to make room for more cars. We'd be trying to find ways to get  people out of their cars, via car pooling, public transportation, bicycles, walkways, better planned neighbourhoods, etc. 

We don't live in that world yet. So here's my suggestion. The City of London should sell 100 Stanley for $1 to anyone who can move it. And forget about that high price tag for moving. ACO London has received two estimates suggesting it wouldn't cost more than $500,000 to move the house. Seriously. And surely selling the home would cost the city less than demolition. 

Just contact the city fast. Before 100 Stanley becomes another victim of Progress. 

Move "People and the City"

 

It was meant as a tribute to the people of London, Ontario, from the original First Nations to the community leaders of later times. Created by artists Stuart Reid and Doreen Balabanoff, it was installed downtown on August 5, 1991. 

And the people of London have been deriding their "tribute" ever since.

Not that the monument itself isn't terrific. Each section features a different group of people eg. Early Settlement; Politics; Sports & Entertainment, etc. Individuals pictured inside those panels include Amelia Harris, John P. Robarts, and George "Mooney" Gibson, among others. 

The problem is where it was placed. How are people supposed to study the pictures without taking their lives in their hands, standing in the middle of Wellington Street? Was a monument with such detail really meant to be placed on a traffic median? Of course not. The artists intended viewers to be able to walk around it and look closely at the figures. The explanatory plaque is across the street on the sidewalk but no one standing before the plaque can properly see what it's describing. 

It also obstructs visibility at the intersection. When I'm facing north, waiting to make a left turn on to Queens Avenue, I always wonder if a southbound car is just behind the monument where I can't see it. If so, will the driver be able to stop in time or slam into me? How much easier it would be if this piece of public art was somewhere else.

And now the base is crumbling because the salt spread on the city streets in winter is destroying the limestone. But what they should really be doing is moving the monument to a new location. How about next to City Hall somewhere? Or even better, in Victoria Park or Harris Park, where visitors could walk around it? After all, if the "people" have their monument, they should at least be able to see it. 

Well, at least the city is repairing the base, June 2022.