As the recent development in our fair city stands, it seems the following, among other things, will happen:
Many, many trees near Dingman Drive will fall and, after a careful count, be replaced elsewhere at a ratio of 6 to 1 (new for old).
Though other observers will point out greater issues at stake, e.g., jobs, I point out 'the removal and relocation of trees' because that particular process is symbolic. It underlines - with wasted trees and wetlands - the weaknesses and shortsightedness of much of modern development.
Based on my belief that much of London's past commercial development (say the last 20 years) has not created new customers for consumer goods as much as it has stolen them from others, we will see the following occur once Dingman Drive, south of the 401, is open for business:
The oft-repeated removal and relocation of consumers, i.e., flocks of newly excited consumers from one part of the city will simply drive to another.
Many observers of this migration will quickly be reminded of similar past events, e.g., the migration of downtown shoppers to the edges of our ever-expanding domain, resulting in the boarding up of many small businesses. And once-successful malls in other areas of the city are now not, because bigger ones were later built and stole consumers away.
Some will say, "That's life." And that is certainly true when we begin to think that new development is better than redevelopment (e.g., of the core of London), jobs must be created at any price, bigger is better, and an expanded city is better than compact.
As I write I am convinced that a business as usual philosophy produces greater losses than gains and London has once again bet on the wrong horse.
No comments:
Post a Comment