London has a real tension between preserving its heritage and allowing the city to grow. The current conversation too often collapses into two extremes: demolish everything for redevelopment, or designate everything and hope someone else pays for upkeep. Neither works. Vacant designated buildings deteriorate. Demolished heritage is gone for good.
Direction and Results · Heritage That Works
Heritage that works.
Keep the buildings worth keeping. Put them back to work. Show the cost. Heritage That Works is my proposal for making preservation and redevelopment practical — not current City policy.
POLICY PROPOSAL · PUBLIC REVIEW
Heritage That Works is a candidate policy proposal, not current City policy. The motion direction on this site is a draft for public review and is not yet before Council.
- Status
- Candidate proposal — not City policy
- Motion direction
- Draft — not yet before Council
- Public file
- Proposal, motion and review package available
- First action
- Staff-report and policy-review request
Start here
Protect what matters. Make reuse possible. Show what happened.
Plan
What I would bring forward
In the first 60 days, I would ask for a Heritage That Works plan covering the real questions: what the building needs, what reuse could work, what incentives are lawful, what it costs and what happened after the decision.
Plan
What already exists
London already has heritage policy, planning tools, incentive options and a Downtown Plan that contemplates land and asset reuse. The public file and draft motion on this site show how those existing tools could be made easier to judge.
Plan
When I would start
First 60 days: bring the staff-report motion. After each decision: publish the reasoning and vote. 12 months later: report what actually happened to the property.
Plan
What I would track
Adaptive-reuse timelines. Incentives used and results. Designation, demolition and reuse decisions published. Properties returned to productive use. Twelve-month follow-up completed — yes or no.
Why this matters
What needs attention, what I would propose, and what residents should be able to see.
Heritage protection must be paired with a working path to reuse: transparent financial analysis, real incentives, adaptive-reuse support, and public tracking of every decision so residents can see what was considered, what was decided, and what actually happened to the building.
Every heritage designation, demolition, and reuse decision published with the reasoning, the vote, the outcome, and a 12-month follow-up on what happened to the property — so residents can see what was considered, what was decided, and what actually happened.
Full file
Detailed proposal, reuse approach and source material.
Open the full Heritage That Works file
Transparent financial analysis
For any heritage-affected property, publish a plain-language financial picture: condition, repair cost estimates, potential revenue from reuse, and the public cost of demolition or continued vacancy.
Stronger preservation incentives
Review the lawful incentive tools London actually offers or could lawfully consider — including current heritage and community-improvement incentives — and report which are used, their public cost, and the result.
Adaptive-reuse support
Ask staff to identify a clearer adaptive-reuse path: early heritage and building-code coordination, reusable guidance for common issues, a named staff contact, and published review stages where lawful.
Public decision tracking
Every heritage designation, demolition, and reuse decision published with the reasoning, the vote, the outcome, and a 12-month follow-up on what happened to the property.
This isn’t me asking the City to do something new. Its own Downtown Plan commits to a Land and Asset Strategy — acquiring and reusing key properties instead of letting them sit. Heritage buildings are exactly the kind of asset that strategy should cover. Reuse that pays its own way beats a demolition we all pay for.
Source: Downtown Plan, Action 18.3.
Adaptive reuse means taking an existing building — often older or heritage-related — and giving it a working future: housing, mixed-use, community space, or commercial use that fits the structure. Cost, timing and environmental performance depend on the condition of the building and the proposed use, so those questions should be tested rather than assumed.
Barriers can include building condition, financing, code and heritage requirements, approvals, servicing and whether the project can actually work financially. The municipal job is to make the City-controlled process understandable and show which incentives or approvals were actually used. The Heritage That Works plan is meant to make those City-controlled barriers easier to navigate and show what happens afterward.
This isn’t anti-development. It’s pro-delivery. A city that reuses its good buildings and redevelops what genuinely cannot be saved is a city that actually grows.
That City staff be directed to report back on a Heritage That Works plan combining: (a) a transparent financial-analysis template applied to every heritage-affected property decision; (b) a public review of every lawful preservation incentive and how often each is used; (c) a clear reuse approval process with deadlines; and (d) public tracking of every designation, demolition, and reuse decision with a 12-month follow-up on the property's actual outcome.
Draft concept — not submitted to Council. A motion like this would be brought forward in the first 60 days if elected.
Heritage and redevelopment decisions in London are governed by the Ontario Heritage Act, The London Plan, municipal planning and property rules, and the City’s heritage-permit process. London currently offers heritage and community-improvement incentives, while alteration permits may be decided through delegated authority or Municipal Council depending on the file. These current tools are the starting point for the proposed plan.
The public file
Read the full documents
The policy proposal and the complete 471 Nightingale Avenue public review package.
THE PROPOSAL AND THE MOTION
This page explains the full issue, evidence, and public response. The documents below provide a clean public-review version of the policy proposal and the candidate-proposed Council motion direction.
HERITAGE THAT WORKS
A Third Option for Heritage Protection, Financial Viability, Existing Jobs, and Adaptive Reuse
PUBLIC REVIEW EDITION
HERITAGE THAT WORKS — MOTION DIRECTION
A Staff-Report and Policy-Review Motion for London City Council
PUBLIC REVIEW EDITION — NOT YET BEFORE COUNCIL
471 NIGHTINGALE AVENUE — COMPLETE PUBLIC REVIEW PACKAGE
Article, Policy Proposal, Motion Direction, Sources, Status, and Resident Response
Council Decision Pending
Public Response
What do you think?
Should London create a Heritage That Works plan combining transparent financial analysis, stronger preservation incentives, adaptive-reuse support, and public decision tracking?
Your response is voluntary and anonymous. No name, email, or phone number is required to answer the poll. Aggregate results may be published once the minimum response threshold is met.
0/500 · Never published automatically.
Choose your response to enable Submit.
This is voluntary public feedback—not a scientific poll, binding vote, or representative sample.
Feedback is collected continuously. Public grouped results appear only after privacy thresholds and review requirements are met.
This is voluntary public feedback collected through the BISSON13 campaign website. It is not a scientific poll, referendum, or binding Council vote. Results reflect only the people who chose to respond.
Raw comments are not automatically published. Aggregate results may be shared publicly and included in campaign or Council-facing summaries.
What people are saying
BISSON13 · Ward 13