LeBreton Flats 2.0 (RendezVous LeBreton) | Cancelled

[movebyleap]

By all accounts, the Demers family collection is one of a kind in the world. I really can't understand why they would need to concoct false (and easily verifiable) stories about the vehicles, thereby undermining their credibility.

Whether or not these cars were used in films or driven by celebrities, they do deserve to be exhibited in a special place.

Certain people might argue that Ottawa is not a "car town" - that a car museum would be better suited to cities like Windsor. This however would not be a museum of the car industry in Canada. Rather, it is a private collection of vehicles from all over the world. It is a Canadian collection - assembled by a Canadian family and stored in Canada. (Isn't that what NCC is looking for?)

I for one would visit. I would take friends from out of town to visit. It would be a unique and fascinating addition to this city. If the building were large enough, it could also hold traveling car related exhibits or perhaps some of the Science and Tech collection.

After reading up on this collection, I would say yes to the car museum. But the family needs to stop making ridiculous claims if they cannot be backed up.

Here is the official website.


http://www.collectionautodemers.com/#!home/ceis

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Interesting how you “don't buy for a second that the public availability is an afterthought that "might as well" be included.”
Here is an imagined scenario that might have happened:

Big-wig # 1: And there needs to be practice ice connected to the arena. Busing everywhere is a pain in the a**.
Designer: OK, but that’s going to take up a lot of space for something that is only used once a day.
Big-wig # 1: Well then make it public, we can rent out the ice when we aren’t using it.
Designer: Like creating a central Sensplex. They are pretty efficient with their 4 ice sheets.
Big-wig # 1: I like it. Only don’t take too much room. Just make it a 2-sheet facility.
Designer: Anything else being added? Any other training equipment?
Big-wig # 1: Only the usual weight training, hot tub, and necessities.
Designer: So, a workout area. Can the public use that as well?
Big-wig # 1: When we’re not using it, fine.
Designer: There’s an ‘Ability’ group that is always looking for physical training facilities. They add stuff that makes it accessible to all abilities. What about having them in on the public portion?
Big-wig # 1: Great idea. What’s their name? I’ll have my people talk to them.
Designer: So, to recap, you need practice ice and workout facilities and these should be a 2-sheet Sensplex with accessible facilities from the ‘Ability’ group, right?
Big-wig # 1: Right. Get started on that right away; the deadline is coming fast.

Of course it could have also happened the way you imagine it:

Big-wig # 1: And an arena, and a 2-sheet Sensplex for the public, and an ‘Ability’ workout area. There’s a group I know that I want to give space to.
Designer: Great, do you still need the bus bay if you have your practice ice right beside the arena?
Big-wig # 1: Hey, you know, I hadn’t thought of that. I guess having the Sensplex there also benefits the team. Good thinking. Well, get started designing those public facilities right away; the deadline is coming fast.

These are just two imagined scenarios. The first has the practice ice being the primary goal and the public access to it as the afterthought. The second has the public facilities coming first and the Senators use of them coming as an afterthought. Either way, there is a primary thought, and then successive thoughts after; building on the primary idea.

Anyway, I’m not sure what it is that makes it impossible for you to ‘buy’ one idea and not the other.

Or

Designer: How about a library?
Big-wig # 1: We have no control over that; it is a decision that will be made by the city and maybe LAC. We could have an architect design one, it might encourage the city to put it at Lebreton.
Designer: How about a YMCA?
Big-wig # 1: Those still exist? Are they relocating from downtown? Do they have any money? They keep closing branches, they seem like a pretty unreliable partner.
Designer: How about a School?
Big-wig # 1: In the middle of an entertainment/apartment/condo/seniors district? That would be weird.
Designer: You guys have built a bunch of those sensplex things; it is a proven model that has lots of community support, plus you have a huge charity foundation that could kick in a lot of money.
Big-wig # 1: Maybe, but we probably need something new.
Designer: Hey, I saw this cool video on Rick Mercer of this place in Toronto where people with different ability levels can do stuff; something like that would fit into a sensplex pretty well.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

I'm beginning to see the reasons of leaving the LRT exposed — LeBreton could actually end up being the most interesting section of the Confederation Line's route, especially considering that it will be a contrasting break between a dark downtown tunnel and a monotonous stretch of rock-cut trench westward. In the case of the Devcore proposal, it actually places the site in the daily visual consciousness of tens of thousands of commuters. Advertising is all about exposure, and having the landscaped gardens and attractions in view every day improves the perception of accessibility, which could entice people to impulsively pause their commute if they see something exciting happening or if it's nice day.

The movement of the trains would also contribute to the dynamic motion and animation within the site, as well as help improve security through the constant stream of witnesses. However, there should be more ways to cross the track.

Although I can agree with you – partially – I think that it might be trying to make the LRT do the job of a fast commuter line and a neighbourhood people-mover. This is the same issue that has been adding to the confusion right from the beginning: Are we building a commuter line, which has the purpose of quickly moving a lot of passengers from an outlying area to the city’s center? Or are we building a lower-speed line that encourages people to gawk out the windows and jump off at the next (relatively close) stop when they see something interesting?

In this case, I think that we are building a fast line from suburb to core and its prime job is to move commuters. The vast majority of the riders will not be concerned with what is outside of the train and will only want fast service. Having the tracks in a trench, or covered in a box, makes the travel seem faster and I think that this perception will, generally, be more appreciated by the passengers.

That said, I would not object to having the line covered but still open on the aqueduct side. From what I have seen, the RVL group plan to have a concrete wall on each side of the tracks with a concrete cover. If the aqueduct side were instead built as closely spaced, slender, pillars, the sense of speed would still be there for the passengers, but there would be a brief view of the aqueduct and bars/restaurants. Having the side open would also reduce the requirements for emergency egresses and ventilation. There, of course, would need to be some form of barrier to keep people off the tracks. (In Ottawa’s case, a 6’ high black chain-link fence; our ‘signature’ protection from transit.)

A benefit of covering the tracks is that there can be two levels of view of the aqueduct and two levels of amenities. There will need to be closely spaced connections between the upper and lower levels.

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by movebyleap

Here is the official website.


http://www.collectionautodemers.com/#!home/ceis

Well it will suck to shatter their dream then:

"The dream of the family, is to keep the collection in Quebec."

Roger Demers, Journal de Québec, december 18, 2013

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Or

Designer: How about a library?
Big-wig # 1: We have no control over that; it is a decision that will be made by the city and maybe LAC. We could have an architect design one, it might encourage the city to put it at Lebreton.
Designer: How about a YMCA?
Big-wig # 1: Those still exist? Are they relocating from downtown? Do they have any money? They keep closing branches, they seem like a pretty unreliable partner.
Designer: How about a School?
Big-wig # 1: In the middle of an entertainment/apartment/condo/seniors district? That would be weird.
Designer: You guys have built a bunch of those sensplex things; it is a proven model that has lots of community support, plus you have a huge charity foundation that could kick in a lot of money.
Big-wig # 1: Maybe, but we probably need something new.
Designer: Hey, I saw this cool video on Rick Mercer of this place in Toronto where people with different ability levels can do stuff; something like that would fit into a sensplex pretty well.

I would say that this, imagined, scenario is somewhat less likely since I doubt that the RVL group would have come up with the same options that the DCDLS group did.

I still think that it is more likely that the idea of including practice ice for the team was the requirement and that that idea grew into including a small Sensplex/Ability Centre on site. You are free to believe that they planned to offer a Sensplex, almost adjacent to an existing City arena, and that that plan lead them to think of using it for their practice ice, instead of continuing to bus to the Kanata Sensplex.

So, why do you think they are only planning to build a smaller 2-ice-sheet Sensplex and not take the additional space required for a more efficient 4-ice-sheet complex?

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I still think that it is more likely that the idea of including practice ice for the team was the requirement and that that idea grew into including a small Sensplex/Ability Centre on site. You are free to believe that they planned to offer a Sensplex, almost adjacent to an existing City arena, and that that plan lead them to think of using it for their practice ice, instead of continuing to bus to the Kanata Sensplex.

So, why do you think they are only planning to build a smaller 2-ice-sheet Sensplex and not take the additional space required for a more efficient 4-ice-sheet complex?

Obviously the smaller complex is planned for reasons of space. A 4-pad complex needs twice the room and twice the parking. I am not aware of a 4-plex in any dowtown area anywhere.

By the way, the Kanata Sensplex is also almost adjacent to an existing City arena, so I don't think that can be read into either. Too much conjecture for my liking.

[movebyleap]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Well it will suck to shatter their dream then:

Hahaha! Yes - I saw that! I guess just across the river from Quebec would be acceptable to them!

[Richard Eade]

I was, at first, skeptical about the car museum, but in talking to the DCDLS rep at the open house, I heard that there was the display of cars (and, perhaps, other vehicles) from a private collection and the National museum, but also an educational space that will be used for public education, as well as classroom space for places like the local college and universities. If there is access by the higher levels of learning to some of the more advanced (or future) technology of automobiles, then I think it could prove to be quite useful. Imagine engineer at Carleton having access to the latest ‘Bolt’ technology, or Algonquin’s technicians not having to rely on donated (often older) cars to learn on, or uOttawa’s high-mileage vehicle team getting the latest tips on improving engine efficiency. The Automobile Experience ‘attraction’, apparently, will be designed somewhat similar to the Communication Centre in that it will have a dedicated teaching component to it as well as a public facet.

With hundreds of cars in the Demers’ collection and hundreds more at the Museum of Science and Tech, there should be enough variety and rotation of the display to get repeat visits. And, it might even become the new home of the Ottawa Gatineau International Auto Show.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

So, why do you think they are only planning to build a smaller 2-ice-sheet Sensplex and not take the additional space required for a more efficient 4-ice-sheet complex?

I'm not sure why a 2-plex is less "efficient" than a 4 plex. Leafs practice at a 4plex, Habs practice at a 2plex, Canucks at a 3plex. Presumably the number of sheets is determined by a number of factors, including land availability, cost and demand.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by phil235

Obviously the smaller complex is planned for reasons of space. A 4-pad complex needs twice the room and twice the parking. I am not aware of a 4-plex in any dowtown area anywhere.

By the way, the Kanata Sensplex is also almost adjacent to an existing City arena, so I don't think that can be read into either. Too much conjecture for my liking.

Yup, that is what you do when you need to have practice ice but you can’t guarantee the availability of the nearby City owned ice, you build your own ice sheets. Notice that I said sheets (plural). This is because there might be times when both the Senators and a visiting team – yes, visiting teams can also practice at the Bell’s Sensplex – need practice ice at roughly the same time. There could also be times when the different trainers need to work on target skills, maybe a third goalie needs particular work while the other two are in a ‘game’ with the rest of the team. There are times when more than one ice surface is needed during practice, but the main ice might not be available. Maybe there is a concert being set up, or maybe the ice is just being prepared for a game that evening. Practice can do a good job of tearing up the ice since it can involve repetitive actions; so it might just be best not to practice on the ‘game ice’ if it is needed in a few hours.

If you have an NHL team, you need practice ice; preferably more than one sheet. If you can’t guarantee it from existing arenas then you build your own arenas. If you are building ice-sheets, and the land is cheap, or the rents are high enough to make it pay, then you build as many sheets as economical and rent them out when you are not using them.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I'm not sure why a 2-plex is less "efficient" than a 4 plex. Leafs practice at a 4plex, Habs practice at a 2plex, Canucks at a 3plex. Presumably the number of sheets is determined by a number of factors, including land availability, cost and demand.

A 4-plex arena can be more efficient to run than a smaller arena because some of the overhead costs are shared among more income facilities. For example, when setting up an arena complex, you need to buy freezer units, buy a Zamboni or two, allocate space for a bar, etc., and if you have only one ice-sheet, then the rent from that one ice-sheet has to pay for it all.

If there can be one bar for several ice-sheets, even if it needs to be a bit larger, it can be more cost effective. More people served per bartender, delivery costs per unit could be less, etc.. If the freezer can keep two or more surfaces frozen, even if there is a small incremental cost increase for a bigger machine, it might be more cost effective than having a machine per rink. Even having a Zamboni alternately service two or more rinks instead of sitting idle between hourly resurfacings can be a more efficient use of the equipment. It is the same argument that multiplex theatres use; by sharing the overhead across multiple revenue producers, the total cost can go down compared to individual facilities.

[Temperance]

Originally Posted by acottawa

This is such a gong show. There is no mention of these people in the Devcore proposal, no mention of them as a partner (the automotive partners are mostly in the business of selling and/or fixing cars) and these clowns are going around town touting some fake car collection as an attraction.

This whole article is a little melodramatic. Where is the "troubling" history part?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Temperance

This whole article is a little melodramatic. Where is the "troubling" history part?

La Presse (ironically owned by another Devcore partner) had more details. These guys seem to have been peddling this collection to every small town in Quebec, exaggerating the collection's value, misrepresenting the previous owners of many of the vehicles and trying to pass off copies and reproductions as originals.

http://auto.lapresse.ca/dossiers/dos...ion-demers.php

After failing to find a home in Drummondville, Shawinigan, Sherbrooke, Thetford Mines and Victoriaville, Ottawa is apparently next on the list, although it has no doubt acquired "national significance."

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Yup, that is what you do when you need to have practice ice but you can’t guarantee the availability of the nearby City owned ice, you build your own ice sheets. Notice that I said sheets (plural). This is because there might be times when both the Senators and a visiting team – yes, visiting teams can also practice at the Bell’s Sensplex – need practice ice at roughly the same time. There could also be times when the different trainers need to work on target skills, maybe a third goalie needs particular work while the other two are in a ‘game’ with the rest of the team. There are times when more than one ice surface is needed during practice, but the main ice might not be available. Maybe there is a concert being set up, or maybe the ice is just being prepared for a game that evening. Practice can do a good job of tearing up the ice since it can involve repetitive actions; so it might just be best not to practice on the ‘game ice’ if it is needed in a few hours.

If you have an NHL team, you need practice ice; preferably more than one sheet. If you can’t guarantee it from existing arenas then you build your own arenas. If you are building ice-sheets, and the land is cheap, or the rents are high enough to make it pay, then you build as many sheets as economical and rent them out when you are not using them.

I don't doubt your main point about the team ensuring availability of ice, but that doesn't make it the point of the exercise of building a Sensplex. No NHL team has ever built a practice facility because they can't get ice elsewhere. They do it because today's pro athletes are pampered, and they can attract talent more easily with a modern, convenient facility.

And let's be honest, you are making up a lot of the scenarios that you raise. When do teams need more than one ice surface for practice? A third goalie needs work at the same time two are in a "game" with the rest of the team? Not tearing up game ice if it is needed in a few hours? Different trainers need to work on target skills?

Teams practice together. NHL teams carry two goalies. Teams never practice a few hours before a game - if anything, they have a light game day skate, that takes place in the main arena, and a zamboni can take care of any "damage" to the ice quite quickly. The last one I don't even know what you are talking about.

If any of this were necessary, then all NHL teams building arenas would be attaching multiple practice sheets to their arenas. They are not, because one is plenty. Just think about it - a single ice sheet offers about 112 hours of ice per week. The most an NHL team would ever use for practice during the season is a small fraction of that, and that is when they aren't on the road. Yes, visiting teams occasionally use another team's practice facility, but that is relatively rare and teams can easily stagger practice time, or get ice at another arena (daytime ice is easy to come by). If you had mentioned that they would use more ice in training camp, that would have been a better point, but you don't build a multiplex for training camp.

Sensplexes are not money-making ventures as you seem to be suggesting. They are exactly as advertised - not for profit community facilities that are primarily used by the community. That's why there are three of them in Ottawa, and only one has anything to do with the NHL team.

[Temperance]

Originally Posted by acottawa

La Presse (ironically owned by another Devcore partner) had more details. These guys seem to have been peddling this collection to every small town in Quebec, exaggerating the collection's value, misrepresenting the previous owners of many of the vehicles and trying to pass off copies and reproductions as originals.

http://auto.lapresse.ca/dossiers/dos...ion-demers.php

After failing to find a home in Drummondville, Shawinigan, Sherbrooke, Thetford Mines and Victoriaville, Ottawa is apparently next on the list, although it has no doubt acquired "national significance."

Hmm. Kind of strange. Why would they misrepresent the collection when it already seems quite valuable? And why would those towns all turn it down? Are they asking for something big in return? So many questions but the car collection does sound promising, even though I'm not at all a car person.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Temperance

Hmm. Kind of strange. Why would they misrepresent the collection when it already seems quite valuable? And why would those towns all turn it down? Are they asking for something big in return? So many questions but the car collection does sound promising, even though I'm not at all a car person.

All good questions. But perhaps the more pertinent question is why the NCC would want to get mixed up with all of this.

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by Temperance

Hmm. Kind of strange. Why would they misrepresent the collection when it already seems quite valuable? And why would those towns all turn it down? Are they asking for something big in return? So many questions but the car collection does sound promising, even though I'm not at all a car person.

Au Contraire...

Doesn't anyone else find it a wee bit disturbing that someone is trying to get taxpayers to fund a shelter for his personal car collection??

Aside from the obvious conflict of interest... a car museum? really? Of all the attractions proposed, from day one that has always struck me as recipe for taking up a lot of space without adding to the animation of the neighbourhood at all.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by acottawa

La Presse (ironically owned by another Devcore partner) had more details. These guys seem to have been peddling this collection to every small town in Quebec, exaggerating the collection's value, misrepresenting the previous owners of many of the vehicles and trying to pass off copies and reproductions as originals.

http://auto.lapresse.ca/dossiers/dos...ion-demers.php

After failing to find a home in Drummondville, Shawinigan, Sherbrooke, Thetford Mines and Victoriaville, Ottawa is apparently next on the list, although it has no doubt acquired "national significance."

Holy crap, that La Presse article is absolutely devastating. People here really need to read that article. If you can't read French, you should throw it into Google Translate.

The chutzpah of Demers to keep pushing these lies is really quite breathtaking. These aren't even falsehoods, these are something entirely different. Words fail me.

[teej1984]

Yikes

[Temperance]

Originally Posted by HighwayStar

Au Contraire...

Doesn't anyone else find it a wee bit disturbing that someone is trying to get taxpayers to fund a shelter for his personal car collection??

Aside from the obvious conflict of interest... a car museum? really? Of all the attractions proposed, from day one that has always struck me as recipe for taking up a lot of space without adding to the animation of the neighbourhood at all.

I hear you. I found the car museum (an the brewseum) both to be strange elements of the DevCore proposal. There are a lot of things I would rather see in that spot. The collection does sound quite valuable, aside from the bizarre fabrications of Demers. I suppose you could view it as tax-payer funded shelter but you could also view it as a valuable donation (not unlike other donations of artifacts). Of course these cars are being loaned rather than donated. If Demers ever removed his cars we would be left with a white elephant.

Irregardless of all this I am still happy with all the public space and public activities contained in the Devcore proposal. It will be interesting to see where the NCC falls on these proposals.