Oh Thames, how we (sort of) love thee

BLOG #581: The Thames River could be London’s most important natural, cultural, recreational and aesthetic resource, if only we’d pay it more attention. A new study provides some interesting ideas how we could do it but are Londoners really ready for commitment?

Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2012 – London

“The Thames River Valley is London’s most important natural, cultural, recreational and aesthetic resource.”

That’s the opening sentence of a narrative, penned by city planner Bruce Page who works in the parks planning and design department, which accompanies the final report of the Thames Valley Corridor Plan presented last night to council’s strategic planning and priorities committee.

Mr. Page’s bold start captures exactly what the Thames River should mean to this city. Unhappily so often it does not.

For the most part London ignores the river and, when we can’t, we attempt to control it, tame it, exploit it and all too frequently despoil it.

The report Mr. Page was responsible for introducing to the members of city council last night argues there is huge benefit to the Forest City if we would simply embrace the historic river.

And while council did, ultimately, unanimously accept the report in principle, there was an attempt by the Ward 11 councillor, Denise Brown, to add a clause that made darn sure no money got slipped into the budget this year to help the river.

That the Thames needs a little help in these troubled times is not in the least its fault. It does what rivers do, flows downhill, often carrying more water than it was meant to because humans have cut down most of the trees along its path. So over the years we’ve dammed it and diked it and occasionally dynamited it to control those angry outbursts.

Now we want to gussy it up a bit, make it more presentable to tourists or perhaps to locals who’d like to live in high-rise condos along the banks or to folks who like to stroll or roll along its shores.

Meantime, though, as the study by Dillon Consulting and D.R. Poulton and Associates makes clear, for all we’ve done or not to the Thames since it was rather cavalierly renamed by John Simcoe in 1793, the river is not doing badly.

“The Thames River was one of the first rivers in the province formed after the last glacial retreat,” says the study. “As a ‘gateway’ river, with a direct link via Lake St. Clair, the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River to the Atlantic Ocean, it has played a significant role in the human settlement and development of southwestern Ontario. In recognition of its outstanding natural and cultural contributions, quality recreational opportunities and demonstration of a health river environment, the Thames was recognized as a Canadian Heritage River in 2000.”

Official policy for London doesn’t want to change that. What the city has pledged to do is “protect and enhance natural features and attributes that are significant to the maintenance of ecosystem health.” As well, the city wants “an expanded system of parklands, natural areas and trails along the valley and ravines of the Thames River (that) will provide continuous corridors for recreation, wildlife habitat and refuge from urban life.”

And that’s the context of the study and its accompanying pages of recommendations and suggestions designed to allow Londoners to enjoy the river to better advantage. And yes, assuming we get serious about our obligations, we could make the river better too.

Most of the recommendations have to do with developing the Thames corridor, that narrow strip of land along both banks, three-quarters of which is still in a natural state.

In urban areas, this might mean boardwalks and promenades along the river in front of new residential and commercial developments in places like the South Street Hospital grounds or the London Hydro lands. It might mean a renovated Harris Park with expanded facilities.

In residential areas, it would mean expansion of the Thames Valley Parkway, the paved biking and walking pathway that today is London’s most used recreation facility.

And throughout it would mean more explanatory signage, more viewing areas, perhaps more bridges – all of it done in a way that both promotes and pampers the river.

There will also be places – environmentally significant areas – which will be protected because of the variety of habitats and landforms they contain. Meadowlily Woods, Kains Woods, Killaly Meadows and Komoka Provincial Park are four such areas where ‘proper use’ will be enforced.

All in all, it’s an ambitious plan, long overdue. Portions – the bits that don’t cost extra money or are already in this year’s capital budget – will start this summer. Overall staff is probably low-balling the price tag at something around $5 million over 10 years. Even at two or three times that, it’s money well spent.

That, of course, remains to be seen. When it comes to spending money to protect the environment London’s record isn’t exactly stellar and Ms. Brown’s suggestion got more than one nod of support.

But here’s the thing: As a community, London has lived alongside this river since 1826, long enough you’d think to really get our arms around it. But be honest, London doesn’t exactly embrace the Thames, does it? Time we did.