Park(ing) Day

This was just brought to my attention by James Kingsley and I think it needs to be shouted from the rooftops.

PARK(ing) Day is an annual, one-day, global event where artists, activists, and citizens collaborate to temporarily transform metered parking spots into “PARK(ing)” spaces: temporary public parks.

Anyone can participate in PARK(ing) Day, though it is strictly a non-commercial project, intended to promote creativity, civic engagement, critical thinking, unscripted social interactions, generosity and play.

London has an overwhelming car-culture that strikes fear into pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users alike. Public transit is underused and (therefore) underfunded, relegated only to the untouchables of the city that aren’t invincible in their SUVs.

It’s definitely a problem. However urban sprawl isn’t just a phenomenon here, it’s a way of life. Box store hell is the place to be – with stores spread so far apart people drive from store to store. I’m not sure when malls became so untrendy. Some of the major shopping centres are completely (or unreasonably) inaccessible by transit and the city is spread thin by all the ‘little boxes all the same’.

It’s already a huge problem to get around in downtown London by car. The lights are synchronized such that every light seems red and drivers – in their frustration – make it worse. A few weeks ago it took an hour to drive from Masonville Place to the 401 via downtown. An HOUR. To travel 14km.

So instead of reclaiming the parking spots in urban centres, I propose that London needs Park(ing) Day in boxstore hell. I suspect that most boxstore hell lots are private-property so it wouldn’t last long.

Any thoughts as to how to bring this to where it is releveat to London?

Community-driven vs. driven Communities

Being from a small town, I grew up with a unique perspective on community. When you live with 700 other people, you can’t escape it – for all its good and all its bad.

I was asked recently why I instantly warmed-up to a community in Ottawa but have been repelled by an almost identically-composed community in London.

I knew there was a difference and I could feel it, but it’s been difficult to pinpoint.

Recently I’ve had a similar feeling over another completely separate community in London. Something hasn’t quite felt right and I couldn’t put my finger on it.

I’ve come to realize that while everything about a community can be the same, the subtle foundation of its existance makes a world of difference.

Driven Communities

Driven communities are brought together by a specific cause or interest. Profession, religion, hobby…these groups are formed – formally or informally – around a specific purpose.

Members become part of that community because it represents part of themselves. They participate because it gives them something spiritually, professionally, recreationally or socially.

Driven communities are satellites to people’s existing social networks and lives.

Community Driven

Community Driven communities are more organic. They’re often still formed around a common interest but as the community evolves, that common bond can become incidental to the bond of the community itself: Community for the sake of community.

Community driven communities are more of a country, with a hodgepodge of citizens that may be different but they all share a common identity. That identity leads to specific issues and interests the citizens may share together but the community always comes before the issue or interest.

Community-driven communities are often an integral part of the identities of the members. Relationships outside are either welcomed as in-laws or become the satellites.

To me these communities are like families. There’s always the crazy one and the one you always argue with, but there’s something deeper there than just a shared love of knitting. Members aren’t just part of the knitting club – they’re ‘knitters’.

It can be extremely difficult to tell the difference from the outside of a community (and they can certainly transform) but the difference is tremendous.

I have found that London is full of many driven communities but not many community-driven communities.

I think the reason I haven’t seen the ‘community’ here yet is because I’m still looking for a community-driven community. I’m not sure if it’s in the cards (or culture) here to find it.

It’s my road too

I don’t hide the fact that if I was slightly homicidal, biking in London would tip me over the edge.

This will be my second summer and the problems with biking on London’s streets are striking compared to Ottawa, where I regularly commuted by bike. These problems happen everywhere, but in London the frequency is incredible.

• Drivers don’t give cyclists enough any room when passing
• Drivers don’t respect cyclists’ rights as vehicles on the road
• Drivers often harass cyclists by honking at them or cutting them off
• Cyclists don’t obey the rules of the road when they’re on it
• Cyclists regularly bike on the sidewalk
• Pedestrians walk on designated bike lanes and don’t respond to bike bells

All of these problems are, in my opinion, part of a larger systematic problem.
It’s not just cyclists that have it rough. Greg Fowler is often running up against brick walls when it comes to pedestrian rights. And transit users don’t get it much better.

Rules are poorly enforced. I’ve never seen a cyclist ticketed for biking on the sidewalk in London. Nor have I ever seen a driver even warned for careening blindly across a bike lane or pedestrian crosswalk.

Instinctually, I feel that the best way to fight this problem is to be safely aggressive and to be a presence. By cycling timidly on the sidewalk, cyclists are lying down and taking it.

I’ve argued until blue in the face with some local cyclists who think that it’s safer to bike on the sidewalk or on the separate roadside bike paths (which, in my opinion are the *most* dangerous place to be – but that’s another story).

Today I found some vindication in the Globe and Mail:

…There are still a puzzling number of people who are resistant to cycling on the grounds that it’s dangerous or impractical. In fact, though, London [England] statistics show that the number of biking accidents actually goes down as the number of cyclists goes up.

In Germany, where bike riding is part of the normal culture, people are 10 times more likely to ride a bike than Americans and three times less likely to get hurt while doing so.

The problem with cycling in North America and Britain (as opposed to, say, the Netherlands or Japan) is that it’s treated like a recreational sport rather than a normal way of getting around. Instead of increasing bike lanes, North American governments prefer to pass mandatory helmet laws. The irony is, of course, that cycling accident rates in continental Europe, where helmets are almost unheard of, are generally much lower.

The lesson here is simple: The more stylish cycling becomes, the safer and more practical it will be. (emphasis mine)

Cyclists that don’t bike on the roads as the vehicles they are make the roads more dangerous for everyone.

It says “I’m not really a vehicle, and you don’t need to respect me”.

It says “I’m not going to follow the rules of the road so you can’t trust me or predict what I’m going to do”

I know the roads are dangerous and that London driver’s licences may be the result of a Kellogg’s promotion gone wrong, but things won’t change unless we make them change.

As a cyclist, you’ll see me on the road, taking my lane, signalling and using four way stops correctly. The more people join in, the safer it will be for everyone. And that’s critical, because in London, we’ve got a LONG way to go.