Lansdowne Park Redevelopment Phase 1 | Completed

[canabiz]

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

I guess you have missed a lot of the info concerning this project for Ottawa. TD Place has always been presented as an expendable venue (yes, to 40,000). I suspect that it would get between 5 and 10K permanent seating and the rest would be temporary if we get the event.And Watson made his intentions clear last year about hosting matches here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada..._World_Cup_bid

It's not Ottawa which concerns me... What worries me a little is that we need an other 60K+ stadium in a top tier city in order to stage quarter-finals and up. In canadian terms this means Montreal and Toronto, but not Edmonton. So the key for Canada getting the World Cup is Toronto... Without this, our chances are much lower.

Thanks for the extra info. Yes I am definitely not aware of any *buzz* about this until I read the recent discussions yesterday in this thread about seating capacity and a light bulb went off in my head about World Cup and I started Googling and found out quite a bit of support and naysayers for this idea.

God bless Mayor Watson and although I don't believe he will still be our mayor in 2026 (never know tho!), it's nice to hear him offering support.

I wonder what the Glebites will think about the potential of soccer hooligans and louts descending in their neck o' the woods. Oh the horror

[El Diablo]

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

I guess you have missed a lot of the info concerning this project for Ottawa. TD Place has always been presented as an expendable venue (yes, to 40,000).

Any venue is expandable. So what? Legitimate World Cup suitors tend to propose the construction of new venue(s) that are aimed to impress bid evaluators. To be a serious candidate you kinda have to push the envelope. In true "government town" fashion, Ottawa's whole stadium concept was based on delivering a modest and frugal facility that meets our minimum requirements. WE CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. If our intention was to someday bid on higher profile events, we should have ponied up with a better stadium. It is what it is.

[bikegypsy]

Originally Posted by El Diablo

Any venue is expandable. So what? Legitimate World Cup suitors tend to propose the construction of new venue(s) that are aimed to impress bid evaluators. To be a serious candidate you kinda have to push the envelope. In true "government town" fashion, Ottawa's whole stadium concept was based on delivering a modest and frugal facility that meets our minimum requirements. WE CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. If our intention was to someday bid on higher profile events, we should have ponied up with a better stadium. It is what it is.

Oh please. Based on your logic, we might as well just put this country's candidacy in the trash as Canada's entire set of stadiums is rather underwhelming.... They're all fucked, too old, too small, big enough but in the wrong place or inappropriately built. This country cannot push the enveloppe... it's just not in our nature to try to impress by showing our big dicks. Canada has a great chance to get the World Cup, WITH Ottawa hosting matches. It will be what it will be buddy boy.

[bikegypsy]

Originally Posted by canabiz

Thanks for the extra info. Yes I am definitely not aware of any *buzz* about this until I read the recent discussions yesterday in this thread about seating capacity and a light bulb went off in my head about World Cup and I started Googling and found out quite a bit of support and naysayers for this idea.

God bless Mayor Watson and although I don't believe he will still be our mayor in 2026 (never know tho!), it's nice to hear him offering support.

I wonder what the Glebites will think about the potential of soccer hooligans and louts descending in their neck o' the woods. Oh the horror

What matters is that he's the mayor while Canada is going through the candidacy process. Besides, I think citizens are getting used to have mayors with progressive ideas, I'm therefore not too worried for Ottawa in the future. As for Glebites, they'll complain and we'll listen, for a little while at least.

[El Diablo]

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

we might as well just put this country's candidacy in the trash as Canada's entire set of stadiums is rather underwhelming.... They're all fucked, too old, too small, big enough but in the wrong place or inappropriately built. This country cannot push the enveloppe... it's just not in our nature to try to impress by showing our big dicks.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

Canada has a great chance to get the World Cup, WITH Ottawa hosting matches.

Disagree. You are delusional if you really believe this. I wish you were right, but you're not.

[Horus]

Originally Posted by canabiz

Fair points and politics aside, I also see many positive sides: sponsorship and advertising fees (this sporting event is arguably bigger than the Olympic), temporary job creation, influx of visitors, stadia that can the CFL and other sports teams can use after the event is over.

Sponsorship and advertising are strictly controlled by FIFA. As we saw during the recent WWC, all stadium branding here in Ottawa was masked (even putting a piece of tape over reference to TD Place on the Frank Clair statue plaque!). Only FIFA-approved (read - paid) sponsors may display branding for the World Cup. Therefore - no sponsorship or ad revenues for Canada in the event of a World Cup.

Temporary job creation - true, but they are still temporary.

Influx of visitors - also true, but again, this is only temporary during the 1 month of the tournament. More on this below.

Stadia to use for the CFL or other sports (MLS) - we already have these stadia, and it's proposed that they would all need to be temporarily (key word) fitted out to larger capacities and grass fields. After the tournament, they'd all be scaled back down to the size they started at, so there is no legacy gained there. If a new stadium is built in a non-CFL city (i.e Halifax, Quebec, Iqaluit), then there is some legacy left behind.

Originally Posted by canabiz

I don't mean to compare apples and oranges because the 2 events (men's and women's World Cup) are quite different but would you consider the recently-finished Women's WC a success? If not, I would like to hear your reasons why.

I do agree that the WWC could be considered a success. Here's why -
1) Canada was able to host the tournament in existing stadia with a minimum amount of work needed to get them ready. Most of the work was in implementing the FIFA branding, and a couple of locations had new turf installed (Edmonton, Vancouver), which DOES leave a legacy as those surfaces are now in use for the venues' permanent tenants.
2) The WWC is the proper scale for Canada and the facilities that we have in place.
3) The Canadian team had a legitimate and competitive chance to succeed in this tournament. There was a great deal of buzz around the performance of the Canadian team, and they had a legitimate chance to have reached the semi-finals, possibly even the final had things gone well.

We can point at the Men's U-20 and Women's World Cup as success stories, but those are smaller, lower profile events compared to the Men's World Cup and they fit the size and quality of the facilities we already own.

I believe Canada CAN host a World Cup. I do not believe Canada SHOULD host a World Cup. Spending Billions of dollars for a 1-month bump in tourism to 8-10 cities, and possibly 1 or 2 legacy stadiums does not seem like a good investment. It's debatable whether the intangible benefits (i.e. national pride) would make up for some of that (I'm skeptical - I think our national team is terrible and I have no reason to believe it can become competitive enough in 10 years time - my opinion), but again, that's a hefty price to pay for what could be a limited-time effect. We'd get the same swell of national pride from a World Cup of Hockey for much, much less of a cost.

[Horus]

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

Canada has a great chance to get the World Cup, WITH Ottawa hosting matches. It will be what it will be buddy boy.

Originally Posted by El Diablo

Disagree. You are delusional if you really believe this. I wish you were right, but you're not.

It's been proven that anyone can host a World Cup if they are willing to pay for it.

[movebyleap]

Originally Posted by loga0082

I do not know why they would compare the Water Plaza to R Victims of Communism memorial. It seems strange to me. When I read the article in the Ottawa Citizen yesterday, the kids seems to enjoy the water plaza. It is a good way for them to have some fun in the water.

loga0082

Hi Sylvia!
The problem is that the water park looks NOTHING like the initial renderings. This is so typical of this city. The "water feature" itself has a harsh, unappealing design and is tiny. there is barely a trickle of water and the kids look like they're standing in a narrow irrigation channel or something! Apparently I am not the only one who thinks so - check out this article from today's Citizen.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...es-water-plaza

[Buggys]

Originally Posted by El Diablo

Any venue is expandable. So what? Legitimate World Cup suitors tend to propose the construction of new venue(s) that are aimed to impress bid evaluators. To be a serious candidate you kinda have to push the envelope. In true "government town" fashion, Ottawa's whole stadium concept was based on delivering a modest and frugal facility that meets our minimum requirements. WE CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. If our intention was to someday bid on higher profile events, we should have ponied up with a better stadium. It is what it is.

I'm with Horus on this one. If we don't win a bid because of our frugalness, then so be it. It's not right to use public funds to gain low/negative return on investment. ...Especially if winning a bid results in bragging rights for pi**ing off taxpayers.

[mykl]

I'm very disappointed that they shrank the water park down to nothing. I was actually at Lansdowne yesterday and from a distance I didn't think it was open yet. That's not a good sign.

[loga0082]

Originally Posted by movebyleap

Hi Sylvia!
The problem is that the water park looks NOTHING like the initial renderings. This is so typical of this city. The "water feature" itself has a harsh, unappealing design and is tiny. there is barely a trickle of water and the kids look like they're standing in a narrow irrigation channel or something! Apparently I am not the only one who thinks so - check out this article from today's Citizen.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...es-water-plaza

You are absolutely right to criticize the water plaza. It does not look anything like the initial design three years ago. When I saw a picture, there was suppose to be water in a tiny pool. When I watched the video, it seems to me that the children are walking on a wet pavement. Also the children's playground is not in the shade, especially in a very hot day like today. It is not good for small children to take too much sun, because they have soft delicate skin. It is not good for adults to take too much sun either especially white people. Skin cancer can develop on people, if they are not careful with the sun. Melanoma especially is a very dangerous form of skin cancer. I cannot see the water plaza or playground lasting, if people are going to complain about it. Even the trees are planted too much in the sun and the leaves just dry up, even if they are young trees. God know how well Lansdowne will do in the future!

loga0082

[movebyleap]

Since everyone in this forum loves to compare Ottawa against other cities (what we could have had as opposed to what we actually got), let me try my hand at it too! I recently went to Seattle, and WOW! what a water feature they have there! It`s called the International Fountain and this thing is a blast! It attracts tons of both tourists and locals and lets out hundreds of spurts of water in every pattern and direction imaginable - including massive water explosions every couple of minutes which everyone waits for! Now THAT is a landmark!

Hopefully you`ll be able to see the photo! (Not sure how to post it so it just appears without the necessity of another click).
https://photos.google.com/album/AF1Q...JpKqRIMzol-mFL

[movebyleap]

And BTW this fountain dates back to practically prehistoric times - the 1962 World`s Fair. It is so cool and so well designed that I don`t think it will ever look outdated!

[bikegypsy]

Originally Posted by canabiz

I don't mean to compare apples and oranges because the 2 events (men's and women's World Cup) are quite different but would you consider the recently-finished Women's WC a success? If not, I would like to hear your reasons why.

I think it was a success... But there were a few weak points, which makes me give the event a B.

In terms of attendance Vancouver, Ottawa and Winnipeg performed very well. On the other hand, Montreal and Edmonton were sometimes disappointing. To host matches in Moncton was just silly; those matches should have gone to Ottawa and Winnipeg; an other option would have been to have either Hamilton or Toronto be part of the host cities.

Montreal proved to be rather weak for those group matches, but the city does have a huge number of activities all competing for attention at the same time. Montreal should have shared the anchor role with Vancouver and should have hosted more qualifying matches instead of Edmonton. I was in Asia when this event was going on and watching Commonwealth Stadium at only 1/3 capacity for those particular matches was quite embarrassing, particularly the 3rd place match. Edmonton is just too small and isolated to co-anchor a medium scale event like this one.

In terms of coverage I think it was the most successful WWC so far. Excellent reporting with a strong public following.

In terms of stadium appearances, their performances varied. Olympic Stadium looked like crap; they really have to adapt this stadium in a more visually pleasing way. Commonwealth look good when full but silly otherwise. The stadiums in Ottawa and Winnipeg looked beautiful and BC Place looked stunning. Montreal and Edmonton get a C, Ottawa and Winnipeg a B and Vancouver an A. Moncton gets a wtf.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

In terms of attendance Vancouver, Ottawa and Winnipeg performed very well. On the other hand, Montreal and Edmonton were disappointing. To host matches in Moncton was just silly; those matches should have gone to Ottawa and Winnipeg; an other option would have been to have either Hamilton or Toronto be part of the host cities.

Hamilton and Toronto were tied up with Pan-Am Games.
The Moncton Stadium is a certified venue for FIFA events.

Also, FIFA tournaments like to have a national scope to them...since Quebec City and Halifax don't have proper venues, Moncton did the trick. They also did incredibly well for attendance despite you giving them a "WTF" rating.

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

Montreal proved to be rather weak for those group matches, but the city does have a huge number of activities all competing for attention at the same time. Montreal should have shared the anchor role with Vancouver and should have hosted more qualifying matches instead of Edmonton. I was in Asia when this event was going on and watching Commonwealth Stadium at only 1/3 capacity for those particular matches was quite embarrassing, particularly the 3rd place match. Edmonton is just too small and isolated to co-anchor a medium scale event like this one.

Montreal continues to prove over and over that they're simply a Habs city and moderately lukewarm to other sports teams when those particular teams are winning.

The choice of Edmonton was, again, probably due to two factors:
1)No GTA games
2)Montreal having an abysmally bad stadium for FIFA events.

If anything, Ottawa has proven time-and-time again that we can fill stadiums for sporting events (FIFA U20, FIFA Women's Worlds) and that we should be given a larger share of matches in the future (in the possible event Canada ever hosts a WC).

[Horus]

Originally Posted by JHikka

If anything, Ottawa has proven time-and-time again that we can fill stadiums for sporting events (FIFA U20, FIFA Women's Worlds) and that we should be given a larger share of matches in the future (in the possible event Canada ever hosts a WC).

To be fair, Ottawa has only half as many seats to fill as Edmonton and is a little more easily accessible (short hop from Toronto or Montreal, our major international gateways) than Edmonton.

But agreed, Ottawa has shown enthusiastic support for these events and definitely should get consideration for future shares in things like these.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by canabiz

Fair points and politics aside, I also see many positive sides: sponsorship and advertising fees (this sporting event is arguably bigger than the Olympic), temporary job creation, influx of visitors, stadia that can the CFL and other sports teams can use after the event is over.

I don't mean to compare apples and oranges because the 2 events (men's and women's World Cup) are quite different but would you consider the recently-finished Women's WC a success? If not, I would like to hear your reasons why.

I'm pretty sure FIFA gets all the advertising and sponsor fees (they won't even allow fans to wear non-sponsor merch). Brazil spent an enormous amount of money and got little out of it (and that is a soccer country).

I'm in favour of big sporting events when they leave a legacy that can be useful (improvements at Whistler have boosted tourism long-term and created lots of jobs for Australians).

The men's world cup requires 12 stadiums, 40k minimum capacity, with at least one 80k stadium. And as the women that complained said, there is no way they would allow turf for the Men's world cup. There are only a handful of stadiums that have a 40k capacity (Olympics, Commonwealth, Rogers Centre and BC Place all with artificial fields) plus a handful more that could get up to that with lots of temporary bleachers in the endzone (CFL stadiums mostly), although I'm not sure FIFA would consider this an adequate solution. CFL and MLS teams don't have the bank to fund massive stadium projects of this type, so taxpayers would foot the bill for a lot of white elephants.

Maybe someday MLS or CFL will be bigger Canada will have more 40k or 80k soccer stadiums. And maybe Canadian Men's soccer will be better and we could expect a non-embarrassing finish, but until then a world cup bid would be a disaster for Canada, even if we bribed the right FIFA officials.

[loga0082]

Originally Posted by movebyleap

Since everyone in this forum loves to compare Ottawa against other cities (what we could have had as opposed to what we actually got), let me try my hand at it too! I recently went to Seattle, and WOW! what a water feature they have there! It`s called the International Fountain and this thing is a blast! It attracts tons of both tourists and locals and lets out hundreds of spurts of water in every pattern and direction imaginable - including massive water explosions every couple of minutes which everyone waits for! Now THAT is a landmark!

Hopefully you`ll be able to see the photo! (Not sure how to post it so it just appears without the necessity of another click).
https://photos.google.com/album/AF1Q...JpKqRIMzol-mFL

I saw the Trevi fountain in Rome and it is far better that the water park which they have at Lansdowne park. I saw a water fountain in Chicago and it was far more superior than Lansdowne park. What a waste of money to build such a rubbishy waterfront at Lansdowne!

loga0082

[movebyleap]

Originally Posted by loga0082

I saw the Trevi fountain in Rome and it is far better that the water park which they have at Lansdowne park. I saw a water fountain in Chicago and it was far more superior than Lansdowne park. What a waste of money to build such a rubbishy waterfront at Lansdowne!

loga0082

LOL! I totally agree with you! Haha! They should have built a copy of the Trevi Fountain - after all Las Vegas has two of them (I think) so it CAN be done!!

[OTSkyline]

Agreed.. what a waste that is... I went to Lausanne, Switzerland this summer and saw public space + water feature done right. It's called "Place de la navigation" and features this long ankle/knee-deep pool with stairs around and little bridges over them. Lots of people had their feet soaked in and were enjoying the summer. This would've been great at Lansdowne or even downtown! Think of the concrete jungle and office towers and heating pavement and having this refreshing public space in the middle somewhere. People walking by, tourists, government workers on lunch break would all enjoy such a space. But no... not in Ottawa