You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'City Issues' category.
Last night, Council voted to eliminate the cosmetic use of pesticides within the City of Guelph. There are exceptions (read the by-law), but for the most part, the days of indiscriminate spraying of pesticides on lawns in Guelph is over. Exceptions for insect infestation (grubs and chinch bugs) will end January 1, 2009.
The new pesticide-free Guelph will require a cultural and behavioural shift. I think this community is up for it - we’re a resourceful and responsible group! So I will be joining the healthy lawn revolution too….
Although I would much rather tear up my lawn and create a lush Ontario native shade garden, the reality is that I still need a stretch of lawn. You see, I have three boys (and a daughter) and therefore, backyard soccer, badminton, volleyball and other lawn activities are still very much a part of our foreseeable future.
I’ve never sprayed pesticides on my lawn. But then again, I’ve never aspired to have the perfect lawn either. I’m okay with dandelions - they make great salad greens BTW - and the birds love the grubs.
This year, I have decided to try some of the techniques suggested by the City of Guelph “healthy lawn” education program to see if they make a difference. I completed the first step last week - dethatching and new “Eco-Lawn” seed with homemade compost. Thankfully, the rain soaked everything yesterday. So far so good….
LP
A posting at the 59 Carden blog accused City Council of being morally righteous in trying to establish a by-law to regulate body rub parlours.
Running a “common bawdy house” is illegal. Enforcing the law is not a morally righteous act. The problem with the law as it currently is enforced has been problematic for police forces in Ontario. They have not been able to convict the owners — who are the ones who should take responsibility — because the owners are not there and turn around and say they didn’t know that the “sale of sexual services” was going on. Yeah right….
A business licencing by-law however, can be used to shut down establishments that do not follow a set of regulations. The regulations are pretty simple - like wearing clothes and having a sink to wash hands. That shouldn’t be a problem for legitimate health care service providers.
It hasn’t been an easy road to come up with the perfect solution. Trained professional holistic health care service providers feel they are being lumped in with the sleazy businesses. A consultative working group is going to meet to get more input from this valuable stakeholder group before coming back with the proposed by-law.
Leanne
Increased public transit or residential sidewalk clearing? More frequent yard waste pick up or sidewalk ploughs? These are some of the trade-offs being examined by Council in the upcoming budget.
Guelph is one of the last communities in the province to clear residential sidewalks. Is it an effective use of tax dollars? I have heard a range of comments this winter:
- the ploughs destroy my lawn and garden
- the sidewalks are left with compacted snow and are more slippery than shoveled walks
- it’s a waste of money for residential streets, but we still need the ploughs for arterial roads and bus stop clearing
- we have to shovel our driveways anyway, the sidewalk isn’t a whole lot more
- motorized ploughs are bad for the environment
Most of the comments seem to indicate that the money spent on residential sidewalk clearing could be better allocated elsewhere. There is an argument to be made that it is a service valued by our seniors. Perhaps we can try an approach that is working in Hamilton -
see http://www.volunteerhamilton.on.ca/svc_snowangels.php.
In addition, many seniors have neighbours or hired help to assist with grass cutting and winter driveway clearing already in place.
It’s timely to ask the question - should City Hall eliminate residential street sidewalk clearing?
Preamble: Infill and intensification are widely-used buzz words these days. Places to Grow and the Greater Golden Horseshoe Growth Plan (GGHGP) will put pressure on municipalities like Guelph to grow smarter. Terms like “mixed-use” and “walkable communities” are being used by planners and the development industry to describe desirable forms of growth. But it remains unclear — in Guelph at least — what that means on the ground. What does it look like and what impact will it have in established neighbourhoods? Like everything in life, there is good and bad in everything. There is good development and bad development. Such is the case with infill and intensification projects.
In the case of the proposed development of 108 Forest (former site of St. Pauls School), it is really important that we get this right. It is one of the first infill development proposals to come to Council since the GGHGP came to light.
The site developers (Dr. Doug Friars and Thomasfield Homes) have come forward with a plan that includes six medical offices, nine loft apartments and 12 stacked townhouses on a 1 hectare site.
On the surface, it sounds great. It has the “mixed use” component, and provides a medium-density form of housing that adds diverse housing forms to the neighbourhood and helps to achieve intensification goals. What’s so wrong with that? Nothing really. Guelph needs more office space for medical doctors and more housing within walking distance to shopping, schools and ammenities.
So what’s the problem?
Each site is unique, and this proposal is specific to the 108 Forest property. So the question is whether or not this specific proposal fits on this specific property?
Good Points
To be honest, the proposal has some good points.
1. Both developers are local reputable chaps. Dr. Friars has been involved in developing medical offices in the past (Dawson Road). Thomasfield Homes (Tom Kriszan) is a quality builder with an excellent reputation.
2. They’ve assembled a good team - architect Lloyd Grinham, planning consultant Nancy Shoemaker and engineer Chris Sims are all tops in their field and have done many quality infill projects in Guelph in the past.
3. The site has two mature elms that have been spared in the plan.
4. Medium density housing adds a new mix to the neighbourhood - which is mostly single family detached and large apartment building complexes.
So What’s the Bad News?
1. The school additions are overdone - a parking garage and two floors on top. Technically, the top level is one-and-a-half story lofts, but the visual effect will be three stories from ground level. The apartment entrances and another second parking garage will be on the eastern property line where the neighbouring home owner will be negatively impacted. The windows of the proposed apartments will look into the backyard, which contains a pool.
2. The term “medium density” does not equal affordable housing. Each unit will be more than 2000 sq ft with a projected selling price in the $450K range. This is not the type of infill and intensification that the GGHGP encourages. Granted, there is a market for retirement housing within the community as the population ages and that’s fine - but let’s just not pretend this proposal contains affordable housing for seniors.
3. Second and third floor balconies on the townhouse units will overlook existing private backyards.
4. The site needs severe grading. Retaining walls will not be small landscape features - there will be extreme grade changes and 8 ft high walls in some places.
5. Office uses within a residential street is precedent setting. The city’s official plan prescribes mixed-use commercial and office uses on arterial and collector roads. Forest Street is neither. The fact that it’s only five houses away from an arterial road is not a valid argument. There is a complete mixed-use node less than a block away that is ripe for intensification. The Edinburgh-Municipal node should be intensified in order to accommodate additional needed office space.
6. The neighbourhood is already mixed-use. Within a 5-10 minute walk: beer store, convenience store, hair salon, gas station, vet clinic, doctors office, optometrists, restaurants, fitness centre, and much more.
7. Streetscape. There is none. The view from the street is a parking garage. The development turns its back on the community and does not integrate with existing streetscape or complement the park across the street. This is an urban design issue.
Is there a solution?
I think so. Let’s avoid going to the OMB. In my opinion, we can do better with some compromise from both sides….
* How about 21-24 smaller medium density units?
* How about the one-story school building retrofitted as apartments, with medium density townhouses all around?
* How about live-work studios or loft apartments in the school building?
* How about senior’s flats in the school building and smaller retirement townhouse blocks?
* How about removing the parking garage from the front of the building and making a streetscape entrance?
* Other ideas?
As with all issues, I am interested in hearing what others are thinking? Can we do better on this site? Share you ideas…
Leanne
The Mayor’s State of the City address, delivered last week to the Chamber of Commerce, contains lots of interesting statistics of Guelph’s position compared to similar sized municipalities in Ontario, as well as a picture of where we are heading in the future.
To view the Powerpoint presentation, with audio commentary, go to:
http://guelph.ca/cityhall.cfm?subCatID=1835&smocid=2411
Leanne
City hall junkies can now read what Mercury reporters are really thinking after sitting through Council and committee meetings!
Mercury “city beat” reporters Magda Konieczna and Laura Thompson share their thoughts at:
http://guelphmercury.blogs.com/59_carden_st/
From Guelph Mercury - September 15, 2007
The city’s logo is too important not to be great
TONY LEIGHTON
The path to mediocrity is paved with good intentions. I have no doubt that our city government intends to provide Guelph with a world-class logo. But between intention and delivery something has gone wrong.
The two logos — rightly called “wordmarks” — being presented by the city as our final choice, give us no choice at all. At best, we must choose between not very good and worse. And there’s precious little time left to hem and haw and hope not to hurt feelings. This has to be asked now: can we, please, go back to the drawing board?
The most unfortunate of the two contenders is dominated by a whimsically swooping thick purple ‘G’ that ends in a big arrowhead. The rest of the word — ‘uelph’ — emits from the ‘G’ in a thin handwriting-style script of pale green that is visually swallowed by the mighty arrowhead. It might work for a small florist shop or a menu, but for a city, it’s far too frivolous and undignified.
The other design is better but boring. Again, the ‘G’ is offset in another typeface (which will compromise readability), this time in pale green, and the ‘uelph’ is pale blue with a garnish of little leaves at the top of the ‘h.’ The florist shop would love it. I suppose if you changed the ‘G’ to the same typeface as the ‘uelph,’ it might be passable.
But is passable all we want? No. We want greatness.
Why? Because this will be the symbol of our home for years to come.
We want a logo that stands with the best city logos in the world and betters our city’s brand significantly. We want it to represent our attributes and aspirations, our sense of who we are and where we are going.
We want a logo that feels graphically substantial, so that if you wore it on your shirt others would admire it. We want a logo that is strong, clear, classic, durable, evocative, distinguishing, friendly yet dignified, flavourful, and absolutely memorable. It should be simple because the more unusual a name — ‘Guelph,’ for example — the simpler the graphics can be. It should also be highly legible — which neither of the choices are — because outside of Guelph most people have trouble understanding our city’s name.
The two contenders do none of this. Zero.
The process may be the reason. It doesn’t appear there was a competition or review of top designers, nor an attempt to tie the new logo to the city’s new strategic plan. It is also clear that design experts — professionals working every day in this field — were not consulted in choosing the finalists. There was no peer review.
In the world of graphic design, which includes logos and wordmarks, the best logos almost always come from firms that specialize in graphic identities. It’s like any other field — if you want greatness, you enlist specialists in the top tier of talent.
In Guelph, we too often aim low. Mediocrity of civic symbols is a recurrent problem.
Consider the first version of the new city hall. Until there was a public outcry, the former city council proposed that a gigantic City of Guelph crest would stare down onto Carden Street from a blank cement wall. It was Soviet-like. That same council was one vote away from approving an ugly slab-cement parking garage on Baker Street that would have cast us as design morons.
The vital question regarding wordmarks is, “What does a mark tell us consciously and subconsciously?” Like words, logos are communications tools. The best ones say a lot with a little. The two contenders communicate almost nothing, except maybe “small.”
We can do better. Greatness can be achieved. But only if we have the courage to revisit the process.
Here’s how it could work. Create a written design brief that explains clearly what Guelph wants in its wordmark. Base it on the city’s strategy and vision, and require that our logo exemplify the qualities of the world’s greatest logos: depth, resonance, voice. Hire a highly capable firm that specializes in graphic identities to provide up to a dozen options. Then ask a small group of qualified local experts with much experience in esthetics, visual communication, and brand identity, to recommend the winning mark.
And do not settle for anything less than remarkable.
Symbols are important. They can say so much about us. May ours be powerfully eloquent. Please.
Tony Leighton was the founding editor of Applied Arts, Canada’s magazine of graphic design. As a professional copywriter, he works with designers daily.
Dear Mayor Farbridge and City Council Members,
We are aware that a road has been proposed to be cut through the small park between Essex Street and Waterloo at the corner of Gordon Street in order to accommodate a large truck that occasionally uses the street. Apparently two large trees have already been removed to create a turnaround where Essex dead-ends at Gordon.
Guelph Urban Forest Friends is very concerned about the additional loss of trees that will occur as a result of this road. Park land and trees are precious resources that belong to all citizens of the city. We ask that a public consultation be held with respect to the proposed road and that well prior to commencement of work on the project, the alignment of the road be clearly delineated with signs and that all trees slated for removal be clearly marked with signs so that the people who use and value this park are aware of the proposal.
Thank you for your consideration.
Tara Treanor, Norah Chaloner & Judy Martin
on behalf of GUFF
On occasion, I get calls or emails from constituents reminding me that they are taxpayers and have certain expectations about the services they receive for their tax dollar. Many residents are worried about facing significant tax increases over the next few years.
As a taxpayer, I share these concerns. My teenage children are eating me out of house and home, not to mention rising fuel costs, and looming post-secondary education bills. I have a modest income and live a simple life (one bathroom - family of six!)
I don’t relish the idea of significant tax increases anymore than my neighbours and constituents. I want value for money just like everyone else. But what is value for money? What services and ammenities do progressive communities invest in? What services contribute to quality of life?
My Guelph is more than just garbage pick-up, sewage, roads and police. My Guelph includes greenspace, clean water and air, healthy active citizens, affordable housing, arts, culture, music and heritage. My Guelph takes care of its most vulnerable citizens. My Guelph invests in high quality community and urban design. My Guelph invests in economic and labour force development.
Municipal politics is about making investments that yield the best return for the community good. Please share your thoughts - what are your priorities?
Leanne
A recent commentary in the Mercury is critical of the concept of putting a civic museum in a building the city does not own. The writer compares it to building a swimming pool in your neighbours backyard. Personally, that sounds like a great deal.
The business case for adaptive re-use of the convent for a museum is quite brilliant. To use the swimming pool analogy: if I was planning to build a pool anyway, and my neighbour was not using his backyard, and he offered me full and exclusive use of his yard for three generations of my family, at a token $1 year cost, I would take up the offer in a millisecond. I would keep my own yard open for a garden and greenspace, and in effect, double my useable yard space with my neighbours blessing and support.
The convent is an empty building. The financial and environmental cost to demolish is significant (up to 1/3 of Ontario landfills contain demolition waste). The Diocese has no future planned use for the site and has offered it to the City for use as a civic museum for a nominal cost. They were not strong-armed - they fully understand the beneficial synergies that would come from this partnership. The current museum is bursting at the seams and will be moving forward to secure a new site at some point within the next five years. To buy or lease a new building at market value would be costly. A long-term lease with the Diocese (ie.50-100) years removes this expense.
If Council failed to act to secure the Convent site, the cost to relocate the museum will not disappear, it would just be deferred into the future. Past councils have done this with a number of capital projects which had led to a huge backlog of community needs - main branch library, south end firehall, civic administration centre, etc.
Losing the Convent would mean the City would have to relocate the museum by purchasing or leasing another building at market value. In order to meet the museums future needs, they will need a building twice the size of the current facility, at an estimated cost of $1,000,000. Leasing the convent for an estimated $2 per year means that million dollars can be spent on other things or invested.
I share the concerns expressed about the number of capital projects on the horizon. Guelph cannot lose its AA financial rating. But we cannot continue to defer capital projects in perpetuity. Our city as a whole suffers when we fail to act on identified needs. We must prioritize our projects carefully in order to finance them effectively - and we will do this.
If you haven’t been to visit our Civic Museum lately, I encourage you to drop by the facility on the corner of Dublin and Waterloo and experience this community gem.
Please add your comments.
Sorry - I accidentally deleted a post re: John McCrae School so I am creating a new thread so that the discussion can continue.
I’ve reposted it below:
Comment from Gord Sloan:
Thanks Leanne
Could I suggest that a more appropriate site for a “core area” school would be College Ave School. JMS site is not appropriate when it can only be sustained by the use of buses for getting a majority of students to that site.
Gord
Posted by Gord Sloan
Does anyone else have concerns about the plans to build a new school? I certainly do. Such as:
The new school will be at least twice the size/capacity of the current building-so a much larger building.
This is no longer a neigbourhood school. The majority of those attending have to be bused in. There is a minimum of 10 school buses servicing the school currently. Another large percentage arrive by family car. Not a walkable site for majority of students.
The students who attend this school live between the Speed River and the 401!! Obviously the school is geographically poorly located to serve the area in question.
Water St has been experiencing traffic pressures for sometime, which in turn has had a negative affect on the quality of life for residents of Water St. Expanding the school and the traffic that is generated by the school will make the living environment even less appealing for residents.
Residents have not been consulted about the plans for the John McCrae site, by the school board.
Who is looking out for the interests of the residents that are going to be most directly affected by this project? I have had no communication from the school board trustees for Ward 5, either to keep us informed or to ask for any input.
Gord Sloan
The former Ontario Reformatory Lands represent the most significant piece of undeveloped land in the city. The outcome of the York District Land Use study will impact the city’s economic development potential for years to come. Let’s do it right. Have your say. Share your ideas.
The Province of Ontario and the City of Guelph are working together to build a plan for the area that will enhance the employment base of the city and protect the cultural heritage and natural amenities of the site.
The Province is undertaking a study to identify opportunities for quality investments that also address the priorities of Guelph’s Official Plan and the Ontario Places to Grow strategy.
Now, you and your neighbours are invited to offer your suggestions at a community town hall meeting.
Date: Monday, June 18, 2007
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Location: Main Floor Conference Room
1 Stone Road West
(Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Building)
Should the City honour the memory of fallen police officers and firefighters who gave their lives in performance of their duties? Absolutely.
But what is the most appropriate way? Earlier this year, I moved a motion for staff to bring forward a new-and-improved process for naming public spaces. Public spaces are for gathering, celebrating and inspiring our citizens. The naming of public spaces requires a policy and process that is fair, equitable and respectful. The motion passed - and our Community Design and Environmental Services department is working on it. There will be public consultation as well as input from various advisory groups such as Heritage Guelph.
Right now, we have a policy for street naming that mandates the commemoration of our WWI and WWII veterans. This is a wonderful way to honour those who fought for our freedom. City of Guelph Parks have a policy that parks will be named for those who have made contributions to recreation, sports and/or community service (or the subdivision or street name). This too is a wonderful way to honour those individuals who have contributed in a meaningful way to our community. Last year, the Edward Johnson Music Foundation asked that the public square in front of City Hall be named after Edward Johnson. Last month, three new parks were named after individuals who were on a list of nominees. All three were in new development areas.
We need a comprehensive policy for all public spaces - parks, trails, streets, squares, downtown greenspaces, buildings, and public areas within buildings.
Today’s Mercury brings up some interesting challenges. The daughter of a fallen officer is pushing to have a central downtown greenspace named to commemorate Officers Macauley and Holloway, both police officers killed in the line of duty. But this park already has a historic name, Lornewood, (and the IODE Fountain), and the site location is not directly connected with either officer.
It’s a good catalyst for the city to get an improved process in place. There are others in our city’s history who should also be commemorated appropriately - two fallen firefighters, pioneers, city leaders, historical figures, etc. - who do not have public monuments, streets or parks named in their honour. One case in point is Dr. William (Tiger) Dunlop - right hand man to John Galt - who many believe had more to do with Guelph’s early development than Galt himself. Goderich has a the Tiger Dunlop Trail, a civic square and a plaque to honour his role in the Canada Company.
In summary, a truly progressive city - one that respects its founders, leaders and fallen heroes - will rise to the challenge of developing a comprehensive and inclusive policy and process for naming its public spaces.
Tell me your thoughts - add a comment.
Leanne
The Ministry of Transportation is planning some major changes to the movement of vehicles along the Hanlon - interchanges and flyovers (overpasses) at every intersection to provide an unimpeded route. Much of the northern portion (Speedvale, Willow, Paisley, Westwood) was approved back in 1995. The southern intersections (College, Stone, Kortright, Laird) are all being examined now with environmental assessments underway.
Public feedback is very, very much needed. The flyovers and interchanges will change the way some neighbourhoods function at crossing points.
Stantec Consulting is the lead for the project - see their site at http://hanlonimprovements.ca.
Are there alternatives? Yes - one alternatives is roundabouts. Roundabouts are quite successful in Europe with large volumes of traffic. For more information and discussion on roundabouts, see Councillor Findlay’s Ward 2 blog for information and links.
And then provide feedback to the consultants about your ideas and thoughts on the proposed changes.
The Draft By-Law to restrict the use of cosmetic pesticides has passed the committee stage and will come back to full Council at its May 23rd regular meeting. Still lots of time for citizen input or to sign up as delegation if you feel strongly one way or the other.
I get the feeling not a lot of people have read the draft by-law. The media keep calling it a ban. This is creating a lot of fear in the community that the whole city is going to turn into a sea of brown, dead lawns infested with grubs and weeds. This is just not the case. Property owners facing a loss or partial loss of their lawn will have the freedom to take action. But there is no doubt in my mind that vast numbers of homeowners are spraying for no reason. The by-law is designed to offer alternatives.
Read the draft by-law and then add your thoughts here.
