http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/article/785470–town-hall-revamp-reinvents-past-for-milton-s-future

He ends by saying (emphasis mine): “The town hall is an important reminder that the future of Ontario’s small towns does not require the destruction of the past. Indeed, history gives so many of these communities their appeal as well as their identity. When everything looks and feels the same, it makes no difference where you are. But as Milton reminds us, not all towns are born equal. And not all die equal”.

And that is the reason why I’ve been a broken record on the need of have stricter urban design requirements and site controls. 

The Council meeting last night had an issue with stop signs.  Some residents on an intersection wanted a stop-sign there. The staff did a study and realized that the traffic volume did not warrant a stop sign (a confusion around stop sign is that stop signs are used to determine ‘right-of-way’. They cannot be used to control speed. In fact, studies show that poorly placed stop signs actually cause people to drive faster between them to make up for lost time).

The council sided with traffic engineers and voted against putting stop signs.  This brings up an interesting dilemma.  Some people felt it was wrong and undemocratic for the council to go against residents’ wishes who wanted stop signs. 

I actually agree with what the council did.  Residents raised an issue (“we want a stop sign here”).  Staff researched it and made a recommendation (“this street is not suitable for a stop sign”).  Council debated it for at least half an hour. They voted in a public and recorded vote.  That’s democracy. 

Imagine if Apple just let smart and capable developers write different parts of iPhone independently. It’d have a horrible collection of well designed software applications.  iPhone is popular because it’s good. It’s good because Apple controlled the experience (and still does). 

Old Quebec is one of my favourite places to visit in Canada.  It’s nearly perfect.  It was also no fluke. At the end of the 19th century people wanted to demolish the fortifications.  Governor Dufferin, showing foresight, successfully managed to preserve the character of the walled city.  He actually went further and made sure that expansions enhanced Quebec City’s charm.  I’ve written about it before. 

Leavenworth, Washington nearly died out until the 1960s when they decided to convert themselves into a (mock) Bavarian village.  I’ve visited it a number of times and you really do feel like you’ve entered a historic Bavarian village even though buildings merely have facades on them.  Solvang, California turned itself into a traditional Danish town and Winthrop, Washington (impressed with Leavenworth) adopted the American Old West theme. 

18th century development in Europe was specifically designed to appear attractive with aesthetics in mind. Just look at Beth, England.

Each of these stories has a theme.  In each case it was planners who started with a vision of what they wanted to see in their product or town. I’ve given my uncensored random thoughts on Milton’s urban planning.

What’s Milton’s vision? Where is Milton headed?  What would you like to see Milton transform into?  Milton only has two options: accept that its residents will enjoy a lower property value than people in Mississauga and Oakville; or give itself a unique character. 

Should Milton leave it to chance? 

I am afraid Milton is slowly turning into a carbon copy of the sprawl to our East.  Is that what we want?

In order for Milton to be unique, we really need to come up with a vision and then implement it. Councillor Mowbray keeps bringing it up, calling it “urban design regulations”. 

Call it what you like, but a collection of perfectly laid out subdivisions can still turn into an ugly sprawl.  I would like to see Milton turn itself into a sought-after community people pay a premium to move to.  That requires planning. 

Tough decisions are hard to make and even harder to explain.  The tendency is to just leave it, especially in politics. 

Alan Webber in his blog quoted a NYT reporter: “…a closer look at the school board’s history reveals a chaotic, almost non-functioning body that put off making tough choices and even routine improvements for generations. Experts said that in the board’s years of inaction is a cautionary tale for school districts everywhere."

I agree with Webber, the lesson isn’t limited to school districts.  GM got into the mess by putting off decisions until it was too late.  I am proud of Canada for tackling its budget deficits in the 90’s, even as our southern neighbour pretended theirs did not exist. 

This goes for municipalities too, especially fast growing ones.  Are new developments sustainable?  Do they enhance the desirability of the town or are they contributing to a sprawl-related grid-lock?  Is your municipality looking through each year in the context of the larger 20-year plan to make sure all pieces fit? 

Though status-quo is always easy to maintain in the short-run, it isn’t always the best option in the long run.

In Milton the Town Council delegates site plan approvals to the chief planner.  In Oakville large developments adjacent to residential communities are automatically reviewed by a site plan committee that meets publically.

Milton Council last summer voted against forming such a committee. Should Milton rethink that approach and open site plan applications to a public review like Oakville?

Click here to expand the rest of this article

People speed on Scott and Savoline, that’s no news to residents living on these streets. What we, residents, cannot figure out is why traffic calming devices were not built on these roads.  Afterall, if you design a wide road like Scott (or Savoline) then (some) people will drive on them like they’re on Autobahn. 

These ideas are strictly for residential streets (like Scott and Savoline).  I don’t know which ones of these I support, but here are some ideas I have seen in cities I’ve lived in (I lived in 8 different cities in a 7 year period after my wife & I first got married):

Click here to expand the rest of this article

I recently watched a documentary on ancient civilizations.  One conclusion I walked away with is this: take a community’s people away, and its buildings and infrastructure will turn into ruins.  Leave its people and they will build another town, often better. 

Municipalities spend a lot of time talking about infrastructure.  But what about its people?  Economic growth (and resulting property values) is directly tied with a community`s ability to retain its residents.

Are people paying a premium to move into your community or are they there because they cannot afford a home anywhere else?

One of my main goal is to make Ward 8 (West Milton) the most desirable part of Milton.  People should not move here for cheap houses, they should be willing to a premium to be here.

Am I the only one who is annoyed at the lack of right-turn-lanes in Milton?

I often have to go south towards Derry.  It doesn’t matter whether I take Thompson or Ontario, neither have a dedicated right-turn lane. 

The image above shows that there is more than enough clearance for a right turn lane.  Why, oh planners, do you insist on not putting them in?  I often find myself stuck on red lights behind just one car waiting to turn right.

Annise Parker, the newly elected Mayor of Houston, said the local office was the highest office.  She is right.  The paradox is that people vote in federal and provincial elections but they ignore local offices. But if your shower doesn’t have water in the morning and you are stuck in a traffic jam because the traffic light isn’t working then who the heck cares about anything federal and provincial politicians do. 

Look around, most things you are impacted by is decided by your municipality (from the transit service to the roads you drive on to local of sidewalks, traffic lights and stop signs to police & fire service to … well, you got the idea).