Lansdowne Park Revitalization | N/A | N/A | Proposed

[Franky]

So here's the thing. You guys say I'm wrong, that it's a great proposal and that it's "only NIMBYs" that oppose this proposal. You are obviously wrong and name-calling doesn't prove your contention that this is a good deal.

Also, claims that it will set us back 20-30 years are just ridiculous. The wheels were in motion to fix up Lansdowne when the Lansdowne Live proposal gummed up the works. If anything, it is the LL proposal that is setting us back.

I want to see what is possible. I want this city to be great and what is offered for Lansdowne is just a cheap giveaway that doesn't match what will make this city great. Let's not do "quick and dirty" let's "do it right".

[blackjagger]

So here's the thing. You guys say I'm wrong, that it's a great proposal and that it's "only NIMBYs" that oppose this proposal. You are obviously wrong and name-calling doesn't prove your contention that this is a good deal.

Also, claims that it will set us back 20-30 years are just ridiculous. The wheels were in motion to fix up Lansdowne when the Lansdowne Live proposal gummed up the works. If anything, it is the LL proposal that is setting us back.

I want to see what is possible. I want this city to be great and what is offered for Lansdowne is just a cheap giveaway that doesn't match what will make this city great. Let's not do "quick and dirty" let's "do it right".

My argument to "lets do it right" is what is right? For every project there is analysis done, pros and cons, criteria based decisions. Often, time and money fall into the decision making. Meaning that the "best" plan in the world could come forward and it might score high on everything else but doesn't meet the funding or monetary constraints.

What do you think that the city should spend? I know your fondness for a park, but you have also mentioned grander plans. At what price point does a "do it right" plan cost too much?

Cheers,
Josh

[Franky]

My argument to "lets do it right" is what is right? For every project there is analysis done, pros and cons, criteria based decisions. Often, time and money fall into the decision making. Meaning that the "best" plan in the world could come forward and it might score high on everything else but doesn't meet the funding or monetary constraints.

What do you think that the city should spend? I know your fondness for a park, but you have also mentioned grander plans. At what price point does a "do it right" plan cost too much?

Cheers,
Josh

If your definition of park=greenspace, that's not necessarily what I want.

I want to see the best ideas with price tags and I want an open, consultative process to pick the right one. That's what a design competition allows.

What we have now is development on free land plus a stadium we pay for next to it. If we're paying for the stadium (and underground parking) anyway, what do we need the development for?

[blackjagger]

If your definition of park=greenspace, that's not necessarily what I want.

I want to see the best ideas with price tags and I want an open, consultative process to pick the right one. That's what a design competition allows.

What we have now is development on free land plus a stadium we pay for next to it. If we're paying for the stadium (and underground parking) anyway, what do we need the development for?

I wasn't saying that you didn't want more then just a park or green space. What my question was is what do you think a maximum cost for a project should be?

I'm not trying to be argumentative; I'm trying to work backwards on your logic and figured that a good place to start would be the costing side.

Deciding who pays for it or how we come up with a proposals is a side issue.

Cheers,
Josh

[Acajack]

If your definition of park=greenspace, that's not necessarily what I want.

I want to see the best ideas with price tags and I want an open, consultative process to pick the right one. That's what a design competition allows.

What we have now is development on free land plus a stadium we pay for next to it. If we're paying for the stadium (and underground parking) anyway, what do we need the development for?

A big issue I have is that you make it sound as if 100% of the renovation costs will be paid by the city, whereas all of the partnership documents clearly show the costs for renovations and other construction (new more attractive frontage on Bank St.) will be shared 50-50 between the city and OSEG.

Your logic is also fallacious if you look at how major sports facilities are financed elsewhere in North America. In a lot of places (mostly in the U.S.), the city pays 100% of the cost for the facility, and a pro sports team gets to play there for free and keep all the concession and parking money.

Now, I am not saying this is ideal but consider how the two new soccer stadiums in Montreal and Toronto were built.

Montreal’s Saputo Stadium was built entirely with private money but the land next to Olympic Stadium was effectively donated by the Régie des installations olympiques (RIO), a provincial government body. The actual arrangement was a 40-year emphyteutic lease, which is a legal term particular to Quebec. Basically, you lease the land for peanuts - perhaps as little as $1 - in exchange for something. In the case of Saputo, that something is that the stadium becomes the RIO’s property after 40 years.

Toronto’s BMO Field was built on land owned and donated by the City of Toronto that was estimated to be worth $10 million. The stadium was paid for by private money in addition to contributions from all three levels of government, of which was an additional $9 or 10 million from the City of Toronto on top of the land they gave up.

[Franky]

A big issue I have is that you make it sound as if 100% of the renovation costs will be paid by the city, whereas all of the partnership documents clearly show the costs for renovations and other construction (new more attractive frontage on Bank St.) will be shared 50-50 between the city and OSEG.

Your logic is also fallacious if you look at how major sports facilities are financed elsewhere in North America. In a lot of places (mostly in the U.S.), the city pays 100% of the cost for the facility, and a pro sports team gets to play there for free and keep all the concession and parking money.

Now, I am not saying this is ideal but consider how the two new soccer stadiums in Montreal and Toronto were built.

Montreal’s Saputo Stadium was built entirely with private money but the land next to Olympic Stadium was effectively donated by the Régie des installations olympiques (RIO), a provincial government body. The actual arrangement was a 40-year emphyteutic lease, which is a legal term particular to Quebec. Basically, you lease the land for peanuts - perhaps as little as $1 - in exchange for something. In the case of Saputo, that something is that the stadium becomes the RIO’s property after 40 years.

Toronto’s BMO Field was built on land owned and donated by the City of Toronto that was estimated to be worth $10 million. The stadium was paid for by private money in addition to contributions from all three levels of government, of which was an additional $9 or 10 million from the City of Toronto on top of the land they gave up.

Yes, my mistake there. I think OSEG pays half the parking (which they will use) and some or all of the landscaping (whatever is left after the buildings are built).

There places where the stadium is built with private money too. Given that football has failed twice, I would not consider a stadium a city wide pleaser.

In a way, I'd rather pay a bit more (a few million in this case) and not have a shopping mall on Lansdowne Park. A design competition would get us the best ideas.

We are giving up the land for the stadium AND the land for the development AND we are putting in $125M for a refurbished stadium in a poor location.

Anyway. I think everyone knows where I stand - I meant to make 1 post to this thread, but everyone jumped on it.

[Dado]

"I'm very nervous, especially with all the antics that have been going on at all the consultation meetings. There are some councilors that are working very hard at getting people riled up. They're trying to intimidate people and get councilors to change their positions. It's not a done deal, that's for sure", Monette said.

Ya Bob... it's got to be the councillors that are getting people riled up. It can't possibly be that some people just don't like it one bit, or the way it has all been done, or the sham of the consultations themselves, or that Lansdowne is in a neighbourhood with a disproportionate number of excitable people... nooo sirree... it's got to be those other councillors doing it.

Bob, I just hope you haven't been doing anything to get people riled up about something, like, say, the Interprovincial Crossings Study when more crossings were added for further study closer to your bailiwick, by, say, putting a link to Common Sense Crossings (http://www.commonsensecrossings.com) on your own website (http://www.bobmonette.ca). Oh. You did. Damn.

[Mille Sabords]

There places where the stadium is built with private money too. Given that football has failed twice, I would not consider a stadium a city wide pleaser.

In a way, I'd rather pay a bit more (a few million in this case) and not have a shopping mall on Lansdowne Park. A design competition would get us the best ideas.

We are giving up the land for the stadium AND the land for the development AND we are putting in $125M for a refurbished stadium in a poor location.

Anyway. I think everyone knows where I stand - I meant to make 1 post to this thread, but everyone jumped on it.

Well, you certainly enjoy jumping back. We know you like debating. That's what the forum is for. No need to play offended virgins here.

I'm not sure, when you or others say that "we are GIVING UP" the land for the development, what exactly we are giving up that is so priceless. Because quite frankly, as it is today, Lansdowne is nothing to write home about.

We are not, by the way, "giving up the land for a stadium". The stadium is already there. It trumps anything else that might be proposed. It astounds me that the simple logic of this premise can still be challenged.

What exactly would we do with all this land? Lansdowne Live offers more than enough green space. How much more green space must we tolerate at the expense of having a real city?

I'm not sure you appreciate this, but fanaticism from any standpoint doesn't win any friends. Green space may be a worthy thing to defend, but becoming a Green Space Stalin just means that you will create Underdogs of Justice who will be against you. There has to be a balance. Sweeping Glebite NIMBY under the rug of "green space" is an odoriferous, odious and obnoxious tactic.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

So here's the thing. You guys say I'm wrong, that it's a great proposal and that it's "only NIMBYs" that oppose this proposal. You are obviously wrong and name-calling doesn't prove your contention that this is a good deal.

Also, claims that it will set us back 20-30 years are just ridiculous. The wheels were in motion to fix up Lansdowne when the Lansdowne Live proposal gummed up the works. If anything, it is the LL proposal that is setting us back.

I want to see what is possible. I want this city to be great and what is offered for Lansdowne is just a cheap giveaway that doesn't match what will make this city great. Let's not do "quick and dirty" let's "do it right".

Why do I get the feeling I and others are going to end up telling you "I told you so"?

[m0nkyman]

It's just a bad proposal, anyone can see that. No rapid transit, a shopping mall on one of the city's most valued sites and a sole sourced sweetheart deal to boot.

It's not a shopping mall, and sole sourced deals aren't anathema if they are a good deal, and there is a better chance of seeing rapid transit brought to Landsdowne than to Scotiabank Place....

Now, if you want to argue about the financials, there is probably a good argument to be made on both sides of the coin.

[Franky]

Well, you certainly enjoy jumping back. We know you like debating. That's what the forum is for. No need to play offended virgins here.

I'm not sure, when you or others say that "we are GIVING UP" the land for the development, what exactly we are giving up that is so priceless. Because quite frankly, as it is today, Lansdowne is nothing to write home about.

We are not, by the way, "giving up the land for a stadium". The stadium is already there. It trumps anything else that might be proposed. It astounds me that the simple logic of this premise can still be challenged.

What exactly would we do with all this land? Lansdowne Live offers more than enough green space. How much more green space must we tolerate at the expense of having a real city?

I'm not sure you appreciate this, but fanaticism from any standpoint doesn't win any friends. Green space may be a worthy thing to defend, but becoming a Green Space Stalin just means that you will create Underdogs of Justice who will be against you. There has to be a balance. Sweeping Glebite NIMBY under the rug of "green space" is an odoriferous, odious and obnoxious tactic.

Wow, serious misrepresentation.

I wasn't "playing offended virgin", I'm a bit offended by some of the reactions because I don't agree with certain people, not offended by people having a different opinion. Like you say, if we agree, there is no discussion.

Yes, right now, Lansdowne is in a sorry state. I think we all know it is at end of life cycle and needs to be rejuvenated - we mostly agree here.

The disagreement is with what to do with it. A) Take the first offer that comes along, a "limited time offer" - reminds me of the slap-chop: "if you call within the next 20 minutes, you'll also get... ...we can't do this all day..." then they run the same commercial all day long. Funny.
B) Have a design competition with public consultation and see what can be done.

A) to me is wrong on so many levels, but other have decided this is the only offer the will get. Why is not clear, this is the Nation's Capital and a pretty good showcase area and the site is beyond compare.
B) makes sense to me. Others claim it will set us back 10 years. Don't see why, the design competition would have been done already and we'd be hammering out details on the best one(s).

I didn't say anything about the stadium land and you know it, I'm talking about the development land which is a gift to the developer - no lease on that land.

It doesn't have to be greenspace and (again) a design competition would get the best ideas.

Thanks for not stooping to that level... Lansdowne doesn't have to be all greenspace and I don't live in the Glebe. Glebe taxpayers can ask for whatever they feel will benefit their community, that's OK, they'll be affected by it more than any of us. To claim it's "only a few NIMBYs" is just outlandish.

[Franky]

It's not a shopping mall, and sole sourced deals aren't anathema if they are a good deal, and there is a better chance of seeing rapid transit brought to Landsdowne than to Scotiabank Place....

Now, if you want to argue about the financials, there is probably a good argument to be made on both sides of the coin.

If it's not a shopping mall, what do you call rows of stores along a pedestrian mall?

Rapid transit IS going to SBP. It's in the TMP.

[Franky]

Sweeping statements about how everyone agrees with your point of view are obliviously false based on the feedback you get here.

As for sole sourced, good for OSEG. They have convinced a group of elected officials, which have a fiduciary responsible to the residents of Ottawa, to entertain the thought and now negotiate a deal , which still has to be democratically voted on ,to development as you say "one of the city's most valued sites". OSEG will take on risk that the city does not what to take, employee citizens that the city can't/won't, pay taxes on the money earned with goes back to Canada, and elevate Ottawa back to the national and international state again in football and soccer. And this plan will include a relatively short time frame for development.

Probably the worst news to hit Ottawa in a long time eh?

Did not say everyone agreed, said anyone can see the problems with the deal - some chose to ignore those problems, usually because they want football now.

I have trouble getting happy that a developer managed to pooch the city. Even Big Box stores look like they have economic benefits, the same ones you mentioned, yet few people think of them as beneficial.

[Franky]

“Most valued sites”... this and other comments about the sacred character of Lansdowne remind me of St. Peter’s Square in Rome. Or the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

Yes, it is true that it is a prime piece of real estate, but there are plenty of other prime pieces of real estate in Ottawa that no one is developing (Bayview, near Hurdman Station, etc.), or are developing excrutiatingly slowly (Lebreton).

There is, it is a true, a reasonably healthy demand for centrally-located land in Ottawa, but let’s not get carried away and imply that it’s midtown Manhattan for God’s sakes...

All of those lands are NCC land.

[matty14]

If it's not a shopping mall, what do you call rows of stores along a pedestrian mall?


I would call it exactly what you call it. A pedestrian mall. If you actually look at the plans you will see that that is exactly what it is supposed to be. Not a "big box shopping mall".

[eternallyme]

It's not a shopping mall, and sole sourced deals aren't anathema if they are a good deal, and there is a better chance of seeing rapid transit brought to Landsdowne than to Scotiabank Place....

Better chance of rapid transit to Lansdowne? How would that be possible, a super-expensive Bank Street subway?

[Franky]

I would call it exactly what you call it. A pedestrian mall. If you actually look at the plans you will see that that is exactly what it is supposed to be. Not a "big box shopping mall".

"pedestrian mall" doesn't convey the rows of shops aspect. Shopping mall does. It's just semantics though.

[waterloowarrior]

Some articles about heritage aspects of Lansdowne
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/open+oasis+life+times+Ottawa/2064481/story.html
http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/designingottawa/archive/2009/10/04/lansdowne-what-about-heritage.aspx

Lyrics for the `This Land`Lansdowne version
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/entertainment/Finding+harmony+disharmony/2064482/story.html

Citizen editorial: A call for civility
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/editorials/call+civility/2062198/story.html

[Franky]

Some articles about heritage aspects of Lansdowne
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/open+oasis+life+times+Ottawa/2064481/story.html
http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/designingottawa/archive/2009/10/04/lansdowne-what-about-heritage.aspx

Lyrics for the `This Land`Lansdowne version
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/entertainment/Finding+harmony+disharmony/2064482/story.html

Citizen editorial: A call for civility
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/editorials/call+civility/2062198/story.html

Thanks for the links.

Here's a cool idea from the first link:
"A more daring approach would have had a section of the Driveway buried so that the green space of Lansdowne Park and the canal could merge. This would allow a free flow of people between the two."

Wow.

[lrt's friend]

So much for the heritage value of Lansdowne and the canal when we are suggesting that the Queen Elizabeth Parkway be put in a tunnel. The Queen Elizabeth Parkway is over 100 years old in itself. This scenic driveway is used by countless tourists every year to see beautiful views of the city, and especially during the Tulip Festival and Winterlude. This is a total waste of tax money and makes improvements to Lansdowne by taking away benefits enjoyed by the greater community.

[Franky]

So much for the heritage value of Lansdowne and the canal when we are suggesting that the Queen Elizabeth Parkway be put in a tunnel. The Queen Elizabeth Parkway is over 100 years old in itself. This scenic driveway is used by countless tourists every year to see beautiful views of the city, and especially during the Tulip Festival and Winterlude. This is a total waste of tax money and makes improvements to Lansdowne by taking away benefits enjoyed by the greater community.

I think that burying that section would improve pedestrian and recreational enjoyment of the canal when linked to Lansdowne and NCC lands. Think beyond the car-centric view. There is a parkway on both sides of the canal. I never thought I'd be arguing against the heritage of asphalt.

[lrt's friend]

I don't understand how this will be a great benefit to the City. Again, it is really a glorified benefit to the people living in the Glebe. Think about the number of tour buses, and the number of visitors who have driven along the Queen Elizabeth Parkway. Put those people in a tunnel and so ends that attraction for visitors. We already have bike paths and pedestrian walkways along the canal. The busyness of the location in many respects makes it more fun. The parkway is only 2 lanes wide and does not create a significant barrer, nothing compared to the Ottawa River Parkway which is almost a freeway. Also, we already have a great park in central Ottawa with direct access to the canal shore. It is called the Arboretum. We don't need another imposing dead zone devoid of traffic in the evening. Traffic is actually an asset for security after dark.

A tunnel = $$$$$+++++ Why is it that these ideas presented by opponents of Lansdowne Live always involve more tax payer dollars? Do we not realize that the more expensive an alternative plan costs the less likely that anything will get done.

[Franky]

I don't understand how this will be a great benefit to the City. Again, it is really a glorified benefit to the people living in the Glebe. Think about the number of tour buses, and the number of visitors who have driven along the Queen Elizabeth Parkway. Put those people in a tunnel and so ends that attraction for visitors. We already have bike paths and pedestrian walkways along the canal. The busyness of the location in many respects makes it more fun. The parkway is only 2 lanes wide and does not create a significant barrer, nothing compared to the Ottawa River Parkway which is almost a freeway. Also, we already have a great park in central Ottawa with direct access to the canal shore. It is called the Arboretum. We don't need another imposing dead zone devoid of traffic in the evening. Traffic is actually an asset for security after dark.

A tunnel = $$$$$+++++ Why is it that these ideas presented by opponents of Lansdowne Live always involve more tax payer dollars? Do we not realize that the more expensive an alternative plan costs the less likely that anything will get done.

Those are good points, but it's not the whole parkway that was proposed be put underground, just a part by Lansdowne.

Lots of people enjoy the canal from the recreational paths, not from their cars/buses and it's not just people who live in the Glebe. I think removing the barrier between the canal and Lansdowne would increase it's use by others instead of being an island only people who live in the Glebe can access easily. You could bike or walk up the recreational path right to the Park. That part of QED is on a curve and is not easy to cross safely.

Security - unlike the Arboretum, there is the Bank St. bridge and the CBy parkway on the other side so not as much hiding possibility.

Say 800 m underground (less if you straighten out the tunnel), would cost what? $15M cut and cover? But you get 2 acres of prime land back plus you increase the usefulness and value of the park. Lansdowne Park is valued at $160M for 40 acres, that's $4M/acre, so half of the construction cost is covered by value added, maybe all of it when you consider the value added from having a continuous area. Also, it would be an NCC project, not a city of Ottawa project. Combining some of Lansdowne park as greenspace with the NCC greenspace would create a really nice green component for whatever goes into Lansdowne.

There may even be an opportunity to create some underground parking there for access to the park.

[lrt's friend]

There is no need for more underground parking if it is not going to serve as a major venue. You have stated that you want to rid the park of the stadium.

As I said, we already have bike paths and walkways there. What value added is there? If crossing the parkway is a problem, there are cheaper ways to solve the problem. A traffic signal? A decorative walking bridge over the parkway?

[Franky]

There is no need for more underground parking if it is not going to serve as a major venue. You have stated that you want to rid the park of the stadium.

As I said, we already have bike paths and walkways there. What value added is there? If crossing the parkway is a problem, there are cheaper ways to solve the problem. A traffic signal? A decorative walking bridge over the parkway?

Some plans call for the Civic Centre to remain as well as amateur level stands, basically development on a scale that fits the area and transit and parking accessibility.

I would like to see some sort of revenue generating facility - I've posted ideas in that vein here, none anyone likes. Maybe a design competition could come up with some good ideas.

Yes, true about the accessibility problem. There was never much reason to cross there before. A few bridges could work if you want to go on the cheap.

[RTWAP]

Say 800 m underground (less if you straighten out the tunnel), would cost what? $15M cut and cover? But you get 2 acres of prime land back plus you increase the usefulness and value of the park. Lansdowne Park is valued at $160M for 40 acres, that's $4M/acre, so half of the construction cost is covered by value added, maybe all of it when you consider the value added from having a continuous area. Also, it would be an NCC project, not a city of Ottawa project. Combining some of Lansdowne park as greenspace with the NCC greenspace would create a really nice green component for whatever goes into Lansdowne.

There may even be an opportunity to create some underground parking there for access to the park.

Burying the transitway at Baseline station is costing about $200million, but that includes moving utilities and a few bridges and such. My gut feel is that $15million wouldn't be enough but who knows.

I'm in favour of a redevelopment like LL, but I would love to see it be car-less, at the surface level. I don't know how expensive it would be, or how reasonable, but from a simplistic point of view I wish they'd just excavate the entire site (including QED) and put the roads and parking underground. Just have entry and exit ramps at the edges of the property, on Bank Street and along QED. Imagine an intersection half-way through the QED tunnel that allowed traffic to enter the LL underground parking complex.

I have seen entire streets and roundabouts underground in various places (London, Chicago). I wonder if it would be a good fit for what they're trying to accomplish at Lansdowne.

Imagine if that main thoroughfare that they show in the artists conceptions (the one with the great view of the Aberdeen Pavillion) were actually a pedestrian space, with space for some seasonal programming. Have petting zoo under a tent in the summer. Or a beer garden during Octoberfest. Arts and crafts stalls one day of the week. Whatever. Make it a true pedestrian space, not cars and sidewalks.

[Dado]

As I said, we already have bike paths and walkways there. What value added is there? If crossing the parkway is a problem, there are cheaper ways to solve the problem. A traffic signal? A decorative walking bridge over the parkway?

I'd make it easier to cross by splitting the lanes/putting in a wide median (rather like it is between Bronson and Bank). That way pedestrians who are crossing only have to concern themselves with one direction at a time, and the fact of driving on a one-lane road will tend to slow motorists down as well. Crosswalks could be added if needed. The idea of a tunnel is just kind of fanciful.

[lrt's friend]

I think that Lansdowne Live goes a long way towards a carfree environment for the park. Parking is underground and road access is minimized. Maybe I am wrong, but the vistas towards the Aberdeen Pavillion are to for pedestrians, which is a far cry from what is there today, which is pedestrian hostile. It also takes into consideration additional transit access for very large events.

[Franky]

Burying the transitway at Baseline station is costing about $200million, but that includes moving utilities and a few bridges and such. My gut feel is that $15million wouldn't be enough but who knows.

I'm in favour of a redevelopment like LL, but I would love to see it be car-less, at the surface level. I don't know how expensive it would be, or how reasonable, but from a simplistic point of view I wish they'd just excavate the entire site (including QED) and put the roads and parking underground. Just have entry and exit ramps at the edges of the property, on Bank Street and along QED. Imagine an intersection half-way through the QED tunnel that allowed traffic to enter the LL underground parking complex.

I have seen entire streets and roundabouts underground in various places (London, Chicago). I wonder if it would be a good fit for what they're trying to accomplish at Lansdowne.

Imagine if that main thoroughfare that they show in the artists conceptions (the one with the great view of the Aberdeen Pavillion) were actually a pedestrian space, with space for some seasonal programming. Have petting zoo under a tent in the summer. Or a beer garden during Octoberfest. Arts and crafts stalls one day of the week. Whatever. Make it a true pedestrian space, not cars and sidewalks.

Welcome RTWAP.

The idea of an underground entry point is interesting. The intersection can be open-air, but below grade to keep costs down and allow more generous excavation (maybe a short turn lane and a merge lane?). The roundabout idea might work well too.

I think you're right on tunnel cost - $4,000/m^2 at Baseline, so 8,000 m^2 = $32M. That's very expensive.

What does a 1100 parking space underground garage cost? $50M at $50,000 per parking space?

[waterloowarrior]

Province won't help with sole-sourced Lansdowne project, Watson says
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Province+help+with+sole+sourced+Lansdowne+project+Watson+says/2068209/story.html

[jchamoun79]

Why is it that these ideas presented by opponents of Lansdowne Live always involve more tax payer dollars? Do we not realize that the more expensive an alternative plan costs the less likely that anything will get done.

I think your second question answers your first question.

[waterloowarrior]

Lansdowne Live open to changes, but they'll have to be negotiated, team says

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Lansdowne+Live+open+changes+they+have+negotiated+team+says/2068209/story.html
By Patrick Dare, The Ottawa CitizenOctober 5, 2009 7:21 PMComments (29) (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:jumpToAnchor%28%27#Comments%27%29)
OTTAWA — The business partnership behind the Lansdowne Live project is open to changing its plan but they would have to come through negotiations with the city, not ill-informed criticisms, says the businessman leading the project.

Roger Greenberg, spokesman for Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group, said Monday that he has sensed in recent days some softening of support from city council for the proposed redevelopment of Lansdowne Park.

“There are about 12 councillors who are sitting on the fence,” said Greenberg, chief executive of The Minto Group and one of four businessmen who put together the proposal.

Greenberg said it’s possible for the business partnership to reduce space for the retail component of the development but the city would have to accept that less revenue would come from the site.

Greenberg said he is taken aback by the misinformation that’s being circulated about the proposed development and he assembled four business community supporters to express their support Monday. He has also got the permission of city manager Kent Kirkpatrick to show up at city public meetings on the project to answer questions.

The city is considering entering a partnership with a group of four Ottawa businessmen who comprise the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group; Greenberg, John Ruddy, William Shenkman and Jeff Hunt. The $250-million project would see the deteriorating football stadium and Civic Centre arena refurbished, stores, a theatre complex and offices built, restaurants added to the Aberdeen Pavilion and a section of the property near the Rideau Canal turned into greenspace. The city would put up roughly half of the capital for the project while the business group would manage the site.

A Canadian Football League franchise, the Ottawa 67’s hockey team and a pro soccer team would be part of the partnership. In the second phase of the project, residential buildings and a hotel would be constructed along Bank Street and Holmwood Avenue.

Ottawa businessman Peter Cleveland, a top executive at Ernst & Young before founding his own consulting firm, said that the proposed business deal is good because: all of the 37 acres of Lansdowne Park would remain in public ownership; the private partnership would bear the risk for construction and operating losses; and the city would still get property taxes on the new retail space regardless of how successful the buildings are.

Cleveland said the fears of Bank Street bankruptcies are wrong because the project would increase pedestrian traffic in the area. He said just as Westboro saw boosted property values and business sales in the area when large new businesses arrived, so too would the Lansdowne project give the Glebe business area a boost.

Cleveland said critics are making a lot out of the profit the business partnership would make from the project but he said they could never raise capital for the project if they couldn’t make money.

Businessman Jim Wright said the four business people in the partnership have their reputations at stake and aren’t about to do a development that would tarnish those reputations. He also said that allowing Lansdowne Park to decay would be the wrong thing to do.

“We need an outdoor stadium. We’re the capital of Canada,” said Wright.
Erin Kelly, executive director of the Ottawa Chamber of Commerce, said people need to think of what happens if council doesn’t approve the business partnership and Lansdowne continues its downward slide.

Greenberg said critics have thrown out incorrect information, such as the Glebe Business Improvement Area’s description of the retail space as the size of a big regional mall of 600,000 square feet, when the actual new store space would be closer to 200,000 square feet. Greenberg said that while some have told Glebe residents that the area would be flooded with people and cars, most of the event days at Lansdowne would have modest crowds averaging 7,500.

“Change is paralysing,” said Greenberg. “There’s been a lot of fear that’s
been put into people.”

On Monday the Ottawa Farmers’ Market came out against the Lansdowne Live proposal as it stands, saying it would hurt the viability of the market, which operates at Lansdowne Park on Thursdays and Sundays from May to October.

The farmers’ market opposes any change that would see a new non-city group being its landlord. The farmers’ market also opposes the proposed moving of the Horticulture Building, due to its heritage status. As well, the farmers’ market says it would like to be housed in the Aberdeen Pavilion, rather than see restaurants there.

One of the criticisms of the Lansdowne Live deal is that it’s a sole-source procurement, with the city negotiating exclusively with Greenberg's group.

If the City of Ottawa wants to go ahead with a sole-source deal, it’s free to do so. But the city cannot count on the provincial government for any financial contribution to the project, says Municipal Affairs Minister Jim Watson.

A letter from Watson to Capital Councillor Clive Doucet says that the provincial government would require that any joint project involving the provincial government would have to include a competitive process. And the province made that clear to the city’s officials at the August meeting of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario convention in Ottawa.
Watson was writing Doucet on behalf of the provincial government. Doucet, who is leading the battle against Lansdowne Live, had inquired whether the provincial government could intervene in the project.

Watson, the MPP for Ottawa West-Nepean, responded by saying municipal governments are responsible governments with the powers to run their own business.

The city has obtained a legal opinion that it can contract with the business group without a competitive process because the group brings a unique opportunity due to the sports franchises under its control.

All construction using public money, however — the stadium, the Civic Centre and the parking garage — would be put to competitive tender.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[rodionx]

I think your second question answers your first question.

Lol. That's the darker interpretation. I've been wondering if the opponents really believe their own fantasies, or if their underlying goal is just to keep anything from happening there. They must enjoy the quiet of the semi derelict stadium and event spaces next door. If they obstruct long enough, it will become greenspace by default. Nothing but weeds and a ridiculously overpriced farmer's market, with kids tobogganing on the ruins in winter. :rolleyes:

[lrt's friend]

Who gets the privilege of pushing the button to explode the next part of Lansdowne Park? A boy's dream ........ to demolish something, the bigger the better.

[Franky]

"If the City of Ottawa wants to go ahead with a sole-source deal, it’s free to do so. But the city cannot count on the provincial government for any financial contribution to the project, says Municipal Affairs Minister Jim Watson."

That says a lot.

[waterloowarrior]

latest open house article
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/pack+latest+session+discuss+plan/2069375/story.html

[waterloowarrior]

Lansdowne could have less shopping if taxpayers pay more, top bureaucrat says

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Lansdowne+could+have+less+shopping+taxpayers+more+council+told/2072140/story.html

[matty14]

"If the City of Ottawa wants to go ahead with a sole-source deal, it’s free to do so. But the city cannot count on the provincial government for any financial contribution to the project, says Municipal Affairs Minister Jim Watson."

That says a lot.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we were seeking funding from them in the first place. There goes Jim again, making his opinion of municipal matters public that are none of his business.

[rodionx]

latest open house article
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/pack+latest+session+discuss+plan/2069375/story.html

There's a good first person summary of this meeting (http://westsideaction.blogspot.com/2009/10/lansdowne-live.html) in the West Side Action blog. This blogger lives near Bayview, home of the imaginary stadium that will replace the one at Lansdowne. I thought this quote was quite appropriate:

The alternatives to Lansdowne only look attractive because they are not fleshed out, they are conceptual ideas only, being compared to a detailed Lansdowne plan. Of course it is easy to pick at the detailed plan and fantasize about the vague one. Sell the sizzle.

[Franky]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we were seeking funding from them in the first place. There goes Jim again, making his opinion of municipal matters public that are none of his business.

It does open the door to funding from the province if we start a proper design competition.

[waterloowarrior]

It does open the door to funding from the province if we start a proper design competition.

Unlike Melnyk's proposal, LL doesn't rely on or require funding from upper tier governments.

Councillor Doucet asked Watson to shut everything down and Watson said no.

Liberals have funded sole sourced projects and unsolicitated proposals before, like the Bombardier TTC subway cars, but right now it's all about optics
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ontario-health-minister-resigns/article1314335/

[Franky]

Unlike Melnyk's proposal, LL doesn't rely on funding from upper tier governments.

No, it relies on our tax dollars, our reserve funds, 10 acres of free land, the Aberdeen pavilion, free use of the underground parking and facilities until the waterfall model kicks in some money (maybe) in 2030...

If the provincial or federal gov't are willing to kick in some cash for this city, why not go for it?!

[rodionx]

If the provincial or federal gov't are willing to kick in some cash for this city, why not go for it?!

Cash for what? The opponents have excluded a stadium and commercial and residential uses. The only thing they've consistently expressed support for is a meadow and a farmers market. You yourself have generously suggested a rec centre of some kind. We might get a few bucks for that, but really...

[Mille Sabords]

"If the City of Ottawa wants to go ahead with a sole-source deal, it’s free to do so. But the city cannot count on the provincial government for any financial contribution to the project, says Municipal Affairs Minister Jim Watson."

Jim Watson has a very negative way of making political hay out of issues he thinks will help him in the race for Mayor. I, for one, don't have an ounce of respect for someone who tries to get elected on a platform of "no", especially when it's about an important city-building project like this one.

[Franky]

Cash for what? The opponents have excluded a stadium and commercial and residential uses. The only thing they've consistently expressed support for is a meadow and a farmers market. You yourself have generously suggested a rec centre of some kind. We might get a few bucks for that, but really...

I'm thinking about a stadium in a proper location as well as redevelopment of Lansdowne.

[Franky]

Jim Watson has a very negative way of making political hay out of issues he thinks will help him in the race for Mayor. I, for one, don't have an ounce of respect for someone who tries to get elected on a platform of "no", especially when it's about an important city-building project like this one.

I guess you took exception when John Baird killed light rail?

[waterloowarrior]

Cash for what? The opponents have excluded a stadium and commercial and residential uses. The only thing they've consistently expressed support for is a meadow and a farmers market. You yourself have generously suggested a rec centre of some kind. We might get a few bucks for that, but really...

They want the developers to pay for almost everything (and build it in someone else's neighbourhood) and the city to pay for nothing or almost nothing. Check out this RFP:

http://vitallyottawa.ca/rfpeng.pdf

[waterloowarrior]

O’Brien pledges Lansdowne plan will be revenue-neutral
Sole-sourcing remains hot button issue at final public consultation

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Brien+pledges+Lansdowne+plan+will+revenue+neutral/2073320/story.html
By Tony Spears, The Ottawa CitizenOctober 6, 2009 10:41 PM

[Franky]

O’Brien pledges Lansdowne plan will be revenue-neutral
Sole-sourcing remains hot button issue at final public consultation

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Brien+pledges+Lansdowne+plan+will+revenue+neutral/2073320/story.html
By Tony Spears, The Ottawa CitizenOctober 6, 2009 10:41 PM

I love how Larry backs up his claims with nothing - just like the "Zero means Zero" failed promise. That's his MO, make big promises, deliver little. If Larry guarantees it, were pretty much pooched.

I love the: we don't need no stinking provincial or federal money, we have a $37M lawsuit to settle and a $5B transit plan in the works.

What a boob.

[rodionx]

They want the developers to pay for almost everything (and build it in someone else's neighbourhood) and the city to pay for nothing or almost nothing. Check out this RFP:

http://vitallyottawa.ca/rfpeng.pdf

Good God. What a find! This is a plan for Bayview, not Lansdowne. At least they're not pretending anymore. They don't want to redevelop Lansdowne at all: they just want the stadium gone. What's particularly bizarre is that in the midst of raving about residents not being consulted, they've gone and developed a whole stadium plan for someone else's neighbourhood. :koko: They've even got a line in there about letting the Hintonburg Community Association keep its building. So gracious of them.

So maybe we should let the Dalhousie and Hintonburg Community Associations come up with the Lansdowne plan, as a quid pro quo. I'm thinking lots of social housing, transitional housing for substance abusers, and perhaps a safe injection site to complete the street wall along Bank. Oh, and greenspace! :cool:

[Franky]

They want the developers to pay for almost everything (and build it in someone else's neighbourhood) and the city to pay for nothing or almost nothing. Check out this RFP:

http://vitallyottawa.ca/rfpeng.pdf

Yea, I'd rather see a design competition. Put the stadium wherever you think it should go, combine Lansdowne revitalization in the deal, cost it out, make a deal (could involve prov. and fed. money). Then compare all offers with public consultation, refine/define the best deals and choose a winner.

[k2p]

Good God. What a find! This is a plan for Bayview, not Lansdowne. At least they're not pretending anymore. They don't want to redevelop Lansdowne at all: they just want the stadium gone...

So maybe we should let the Dalhousie and Hintonburg Community Associations come up with the Lansdowne plan, as a quid pro quo. I'm thinking lots of social housing, transitional housing for substance abusers, and perhaps a safe injection site to complete the street wall along Bank. Oh, and greenspace! :cool:

Right on. :tup:

I loved this part...

15. The negotiations with Local (Ottawa and Gatineau), Provincial (Ontario and Québec) and the Federal government to resurrect the rail across to Gatineau from the Bayview Transit Exchange will take place over the course of the development period.

16. The establishment of October 1, 2009 as the opening date for which the
bidding on the RFP commences with all bids due no later than midnight
December 31, 2009.

17. The establishment of a review of proposals in the month of January 2010 with request for more information to be completed by the end of January 2010. A review committee made up of all levels of Government, Architects, Engineers, Urban Planners, Community Leaders, members of the NCC and Parks Canada will review all materials and make any and all requests for further information and announce the winning proposal.

18. Final review and winning bid to be announced Wednesday February 24, 2010.

Brilliant. The NCC, a federal department, two provincial governments, Ottawa City Council and community associations. All agreeing. In two months. This, keen observers will recall, is the "plan" proposed by the "developer" that Franky has been touting as a viable alternative.

The really priceless bit is the grand masterplan does not include one word about public consultation. Which, when you think about it, is the way it should be. Because the Glebe matrons have spoken.

[k2p]

From the Citizen story...

Outside the Shenkman Theatre, a man wearing a green “Ask me about sole sourcing” T-shirt was cuffed in the head by another man who wanted nothing to do with proffered information sheets.

Other green-shirted representatives tried to get ahead of the presentation by encouraging attendees to sign a petition against the project. A trio playing a tune on acoustic guitar and banjo set the tone.

“Lansdowne is our legacy, it shall not be moved,” they sang.

The mental image here is priceless. Nothing screams ready for the 21st Century and growing up as a city better than a banjo. Too bad the trio wasn't cuffed in the head along with the pamphleteer imho.

[jchamoun79]

From the Citizen story...



The mental image here is priceless. Nothing screams ready for the 21st Century and growing up as a city better than a banjo. Too bad the trio wasn't cuffed in the head along with the pamphleteer imho.

Word. Also, that song doesn't make any sense. Since the stadium has been at Lansdowne Park for over 100 years, isn't that lyric ("Lansdowne is our legacy, it shall not be moved") kinda contradictory?

[blackjagger]

My personal favourite points are:

9. The mandate that all power at both the Lansdowne Site and the Bayview Site be 100%
renewable energy combining sun, wind and geo-thermal with maximum points awarded to
solutions providing a net return to grid.

and

10. The highest level or Platinum of LEED, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
in all design and materials.

Not that these aren't great ideas. But the costs to do both these points would be incredibly high to the point where a for-profit development would not be feasibly.

Cheers,
Josh

[Acajack]

My personal favourite points are:

9. The mandate that all power at both the Lansdowne Site and the Bayview Site be 100%
renewable energy combining sun, wind and geo-thermal with maximum points awarded to
solutions providing a net return to grid.

and

10. The highest level or Platinum of LEED, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
in all design and materials.

Not that these aren't great ideas. But the costs to do both these points would be incredibly high to the point where a for-profit development would not be feasibly.

Cheers,
Josh


They could have saved themselves a lot of time and energy by just posting the following one-liner: “We think it’s perfectly fine that Ottawa be the only metropolitan area of more than 1 million in the entire western world that doesn’t have a stadium that seats at least 25,000 people”.

[blackjagger]

They could have saved themselves a lot of time and energy by just posting the following one-liner: “We think it’s perfectly fine that Ottawa be the only metropolitan area of more than 1 million in the entire western world that doesn’t have a stadium that seats at least 25,000 people”.

Yeah no joke there eh. Lets see,

Make the development so costly no profit can be made (Check)

Make the deadline for the proposal submission, review and approval impossibility short. (Check)

Involve as many government and bureaucratic entities as possible (Check)

Make the construction start in the dead of an Ottawa winter?? and give them only two years to complete (Check)

Offer only the Land (as a lease) and $40M to build a $250M stadium and let the city own it. (Check)

Yeah there are going to be a lot of developers chopping at the bit for this one.

What better way to look like so open to ideas and yet achieve nothing.

Cheers,
Josh

[Proof Sheet]

Yeah there are going to be a lot of developers chopping at the bit for this one.

What better way to look like so open to ideas and yet achieve nothing.

Cheers,
Josh

You summed it up perfectly. The website looks to me like something that 1st year Urban Planning students armed with a smattering of developer terms have come up with as a term project.

[waterloowarrior]

An airport for the Glebe


http://www.ottawacitizen.com/columnists/airport+Glebe/2073950/story.html

By Ken Gray, The Ottawa CitizenOctober 7, 2009 9:32 AMBe the first to post a comment (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:jumpToAnchor%28%27#PostComment%27%29)

You know, I'm not the drooling, rabid dog that Mayor Larry O'Brien thinks I am. I've had my shots.

Neither am I particularly cynical. But when I receive a torrent of e-mails all with the same catchy subject line "Lansdowne Park Public Consultation," well, I get a little suspicious. Sort of like I might be on the end of a mass mailing. I know, call me paranoid, but it rather brings out the cold, heartless, blood-sucking, mean, horrible side in me.

Sending all these e-mails, getting into the way of my workaday toil, well it's not a good way to make friends and influence people ... like me for example. I had an open mind to both sides in this Lansdowne debate prior to the e-mail avalanche. Less so now.

Sure, you Glebesters want some internationally competed-for design for your park with fountains and trees and bushes and a noble view of the world-heritage-site Rideau Canal. We could cover it all in fairy dust. No vulgar stadium or retail. No sir.

And I think you should get that park because you sent me all those e-mails, treating civility like a disposable commodity. In return, we should expropriate the Glebe. And turn it into an airport. The Clive Doucet International Airport. Kinda has a roar to it, doesn't it?

After all, the Glebonauts are always whining about traffic rushing down Bronson Avenue to Ottawa airport. This would solve the problem. And bring the airport closer to downtown ... and the Glebe. Imagine the reduction of pollution and greenhouse gases. The energy savings. The cheaper taxi rides.

Oh sure, the noise would be a spot of bother for the NIMBYists in Old Ottawa South, but then they wouldn't have to listen to the Glebians complain. I think you could sell that trade-off as a wash.

Yup, just knock down all the pesky houses and apartments and businesses. I mean the denizens of those abodes are perpetually moaning about the lack of parking for Lansdowne and all the flotsam from other neighbourhoods taking up their street spots. So let's pave the Glebe. The whole damn thing.

Lots of parking for everyone.

Because of all these e-mails I'm receiving, I've starting a lobby for the new Doucet airport. I'm about to begin amassing councillor votes.

I might still have a friend or two on council. Maybe. I've got to start working the phones.

"Hey Clive, how about that runway down Fourth Avenue? It's a lock, right?"
"Damn straight, Ken, damn straight."

Well, there's one vote. Never thought Clive would go for it. I should try to get this through the editorial board.

We could make the runways ecologically friendly -- say construct the tarmac from ground-up, recycled Toyota Prius tires and Birkenstocks, though it would be a shame to see all the locals in bare feet next summer.
Rather a rubber LeBreton Flats.

We could get the National Capital Commission to take it over. That way it would never get redeveloped.

Uh-oh, what's that sound? A dull whining noise. Can't be Clive. An airplane?

No, it's 40,000 computer hard-drives near Bank Street starting Microsoft Word. More e-mails.

Look, here's the poop. You take me off your mass e-mail list, I'll stop lobbying to pave the Glebe.

Deal? Natch.

- - -
Ken Gray is a Citizen editorial board member who produces a monthly podcast, Inner City, at ottawacitizen.com/innercity (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/innercity) and a blog, The Bulldog, at ottawacitizen.com/bulldog (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/bulldog) .
His column runs on Wednesdays.
E-mail: kgray@thecitizen.canwest.com.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[Radster]

http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa/2009/10/08/11343651.html


Of course, Franky will disagree.

[Franky]

http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa/2009/10/08/11343651.html


Of course, Franky will disagree.

Ron was hired to make this work (so the extra buses costing $230k/year just in operating losses I'm guessing), not to look at it with a critical eye. Did he mention Bank St. would be closed to parking 2 hours before and after games? That should not be good for Bank St. businesses. I'd like to see the new report. If it's based on the preliminary study, the one they guessed at the amount of "adjacent parking" available and defined adjacent to mean up to 2 km away, then yes. If not, I'd like to see the new report. Not that I don't trust Ron based on previous experience.

I'm glad you think of me so much, it's touching, really. I think transportation systems tend to find their own equilibrium. When the transit strike had been on for a while, you could say people got along OK if you just look at traffic, but that discounts the number of people who didn't get to work or to other places and decided to just stay home. I think this will happen at Lansdowne. People will just not bother and the franchise and other attractions will suffer. Putting a stadium on a LRT line makes so much more sense and the crossing of 2 LRT lines, even more so.

[lrt's friend]

Ron was hired to make this work (so the extra buses costing $230k/year just in operating losses I'm guessing), not to look at it with a critical eye. Did he mention Bank St. would be closed to parking 2 hours before and after games? That should not be good for Bank St. businesses. I'd like to see the new report. If it's based on the preliminary study, the one they guessed at the amount of "adjacent parking" available and defined adjacent to mean up to 2 km away, then yes. If not, I'd like to see the new report. Not that I don't trust Ron based on previous experience.

I'm glad you think of me so much, it's touching, really. I think transportation systems tend to find their own equilibrium. When the transit strike had been on for a while, you could say people got along OK if you just look at traffic, but that discounts the number of people who didn't get to work or to other places and decided to just stay home. I think this will happen at Lansdowne. People will just not bother and the franchise and other attractions will suffer. Putting a stadium on a LRT line makes so much more sense and the crossing of 2 LRT lines, even more so.

The problem with this thinking is that the uproar will probably be as loud or louder when we try to put a new stadium at Bayview. The only real alternative will be in Kanata next to Scotiabank Place where there is next to no transit and all kinds of well documented traffic problems. It should be no surprise that the only 2 bids to build a stadium have been at Lansdowne and Kanata. It is really the only places that make sense, when you look beyond strictly transportation issues.

[k2p]

Ron was hired to make this work, not to look at it with a critical eye. Did he mention Bank St. would be closed to parking 2 hours before and after games? That should not be good for Bank St. businesses.

I just love Clive's shrill troubadours. They pretend to be forward-thinking environmentalists. One of them was quoted in the Citizen saying LL was backwards 20th Century thinking because it wasn't on a transit line. And Franky, who's always reliable, comes up with another clunker here.

How, exactly, is closing Bank Street bad for business? Even when all the parking spots are full, there are more customers than cars.

And the street would be closed for...ah yes, 20,000 or so people.

This is the same silly argument businesses made about road closures around City Hall when Bluesfest (or some festival) was there. Yeah, heaven forbid you have pedestrian traffic nearby.

In any event, Clive and the NIMBYs can't argue we don't need a stadium because CFL has failed twice; and that Lansdowne is the wrong place for it because there's no transit. If there are no crowds, they don't need transit. And if the crowds will be so big they need transit, the team will succeed.

[Franky]

The problem with this thinking is that the uproar will probably be as loud or louder when we try to put a new stadium at Bayview. The only real alternative will be in Kanata next to Scotiabank Place where there is next to no transit and all kinds of well documented traffic problems. It should be no surprise that the only 2 bids to build a stadium have been at Lansdowne and Kanata. It is really the only places that make sense, when you look beyond strictly transportation issues.

Who knows if there will be an "uproar", according to LL proponents, this whole thing is orchestrated by the unreasonable people of the Glebe and by their champion Clive. Surely, the reasonable people of Bayview won't make a peep and will embrace the changes to their neighbourhood. It can't be argued both ways. One would hope that a design competition that includes (real) public consultation would get the objections out early so they can be addressed properly.

Is it fair to say there were only 2 bids when the competition barely got underway before it was stopped? Someone suggested Hurdman - there is some city owned land south of the station, but it may interfere with the AVTC parkway (I'd be OK with that though :-) ). Bayview was #1 on the location study, and 5 others were ahead of Lansdowne. Why are Kanata and Lansdowne the only options?

[Franky]

I just love Clive's shrill troubadours. They pretend to be forward-thinking environmentalists. One of them was quoted in the Citizen saying LL was backwards 20th Century thinking because it wasn't on a transit line. And Franky, who's always reliable, comes up with another clunker here.

How, exactly, is closing Bank Street bad for business? Even when all the parking spots are full, there are more customers than cars.

And the street would be closed for...ah yes, 20,000 or so people.

This is the same silly argument businesses made about road closures around City Hall when Bluesfest (or some festival) was there. Yeah, heaven forbid you have pedestrian traffic nearby.

In any event, Clive and the NIMBYs can't argue we don't need a stadium because CFL has failed twice; and that Lansdowne is the wrong place for it because there's no transit. If there are no crowds, they don't need transit. And if the crowds will be so big they need transit, the team will succeed.

People going to the stadium will not be stopping at shops along Bank St. for the most part and the lack of parking and crowds will keep customer away (depends on the type of business of course). Yes, businesses know their customers, Bluesfest is a good example. They understand the difference between a shopper and a passerby.

Neither scenario is good - either too many people, ruining the surrounding area or an empty stadium. This points to finding a better location, one with rapid transit access.

BTW, the personal attacks are getting a bit old.

[k2p]

Disagreeing isn't a personal attack. The performance of LL opponents over the last while, however...

Don't know if you saw Greenberg's piece in the Citizen, but he makes a more cogent point than Clive and the NIMBYs:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/Here+truth+about+Lansdowne+plan/2073952/story.html

It's just silly to suggest nobody going to a game would shop or eat in the Glebe. And the merchants *opposed* road closures when Bluesfest was on Laurier.

Anyway, what I liked about Greenberg's piece is he made the case for a more lively place outside of sporting events or concerts. And since that's what this is really about -- grass for the Glebe, or something urban for everyone -- it's refreshing that he called a spade a spade.

[Franky]

Disagreeing isn't a personal attack. The performance of LL opponents over the last while, however...

Don't know if you saw Greenberg's piece in the Citizen, but he makes a more cogent point than Clive and the NIMBYs:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/Here+truth+about+Lansdowne+plan/2073952/story.html

It's just silly to suggest nobody going to a game would shop or eat in the Glebe. And the merchants *opposed* road closures when Bluesfest was on Laurier.

Anyway, what I liked about Greenberg's piece is he made the case for a more lively place outside of sporting events or concerts. And since that's what this is really about -- grass for the Glebe, or something urban for everyone -- it's refreshing that he called a spade a spade.

I didn't know "Clive and the NIMBYs" was a term of endearment.

Yes, "Roger Greenberg is chairman and CEO of the Minto Group." - took it with a grain of salt - quite the sales job. I would not take his word over the shop owners represented by the Glebe BIA.

I'm sure lots of people will use Lansdowne's retail after a game, not so sure about the rest of the area.

[k2p]

I didn't know "Clive and the NIMBYs" was a term of endearment.

You got that right. But it's still hardly a personal attack. Calling them a bunch of hysterical, pampered, contradictory idiots desperately in search of a village...that would be a personal attack.

[Franky]

:previous: Funny. It's just getting ridiculous. The number one reason to build the stadium is becoming: to stick it to Glebe residents. It's a good reason I suppose, but I'm not willing to give away millions, part of Lansdowne plus the Aberdeen pavilion a have to build a new trade show space just to piss them off.

[k2p]

I predicted Clive would become LL's secret weapon. And sure enough, he has. But it's unfair to say the #1 reason to inject some life into Ottawa is to piss the Glebe's NIMBYs off. Watching their heads explode is merely an unexpected plus.

[waterloowarrior]

Letter to the editor in Today's Citizen

Is it simply NIMBYism?
The Ottawa CitizenOctober 7, 2009

Re: Hintonburg session attracts full house, Oct. 6.

Since residents of Hintonburg have worked to reclaim our area as a vibrant and exciting part of Ottawa, my neighbours and I might be expected to sympathize with those who fear that Lansdowne Live! threatens all that makes the Glebe special.

The numbers and the passion of the green T-shirted Glebe residents who packed the room for the consultation at Tom Brown Arena on Monday was impressive. But it also made it very difficult for west-end residents to make themselves heard.

And all my admiration evaporated when Councillor Alex Cullen, prompted by a Glebe questioner, declared that a stadium and trade show space should be built at Bayview Yards. The many Glebe residents who applauded seemed unaware that they were kicking the neighbours who were hosting them in the teeth.

Bayview Yards may or may not be a good place for a stadium. To date, no one has asked those who would be most affected -- the people of Hintonburg, Mechanicsville, and Dalhousie -- for their opinions.
Glebe residents should ask themselves why they think the objections to locating a stadium beside a residential community have more validity in their neighbourhood than ours. Plucking the most distasteful bits out of their problem and dropping them on someone else only entrenches the view that their cause is simple NIMBYism, rather than a threat to the whole city.

If those opposing the Lansdowne Live proposal focused their criticism on its abundant flaws and on the dicey process that brought it forward, they might create allies instead of resentment.

Rachel Eugster,
Hintonburg

[Dado]

This is the greatest soap opera in town... every day it seems there's some new wrinkle with new characters getting added all the time. It's far more entertaining than the average CFL game could ever hope to be. Today, for example, it's the NCC's turn:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2009/10/08/ottawa-cfl-queen-elizabeth-drive-shuttle-bus-lansdowne.html

NCC nixes CFL shuttle bus plan
Last Updated: Thursday, October 8, 2009 | 4:52 PM ET
CBC News

Football fans won't be able to take a shuttle bus along Queen Elizabeth Drive to future CFL games, as the proponents of the Lansdowne redevelopment had hoped.

The National Capital Commission will only allow OC Transpo shuttle buses on Queen Elizabeth Drive for Lansdowne events that draw 40,000 or more fans, commission spokesman François Lapointe said Thursday.

Only two events have drawn 40,000 people to Lansdowne Park in recent years: the Grey Cup final in 2004, and the Rolling Stones concert in 2005.
A regular CFL game in Ottawa would draw about 25,000 people, according to projections.

Lapointe, the commission's executive director of capital planning, was speaking at a joint meeting of the city's transportation and transit committees, which were reviewing a report on transportation issues related to the Lansdowne redevelopment.

Lapointe said the commission is willing to work on the issues with the city.

--

Guess that was another big 'oops'.

[waterloowarrior]

Independent Lansdowne traffic study needed: Cullen

Last Updated: Thursday, October 8, 2009 | 5:37 PM ET Comments4 (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2009/10/08/lansdowne-traffic-study-independent-cullen-delcan.html#socialcomments)Recommend4 (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2009/10/08/lansdowne-traffic-study-independent-cullen-delcan.html#)

CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/credit.html)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2009/10/08/lansdowne-traffic-study-independent-cullen-delcan.html

An Ottawa city councillor is calling for an independent traffic study for the Landsdowne Park redevelopment plan, after discovering the developers hired a consulting firm to study the potential impact of the project on traffic, transit and parking.

The Ottawa Sport and Entertainment Group hired Delcan, a consulting firm that collaborated with various city departments, and completed the work in August. Delcan presented its report on Thursday at a joint meeting of Ottawa's transit and transportation committees.

Bay Ward Coun. Alex Cullen believes an independent study of the traffic issues is necessary, even though it's common practice for developers to hire their own consultants to conduct traffic studies, environmental assessments, and retail surveys.

"The public does deserve having an independent review because we're talking about a large public property, and millions of dollars of public money," Cullen said.

"We need to have that credibility that we're acting on the public's behalf."

But Ron Jack, vice-president of Delcan, said the fact that his firm was paid by OSEG didn't affect the objectivity of the study.

"That should have no bearing on how you conduct the work, and the quality of the work, or the quality of your recommendations," Jack said. "If it does, then you're not going to be working for very long on these interesting projects."

Among Delcan's findings:

Transit service to Lansdowne Park will be "easily provided."
On-site parking of just under 1,500 spaces will be sufficient for daily use.
Traffic on Bank Street will only increase by 15 per cent on a typical weekday

[Franky]

Among Delcan's findings:

Transit service to Lansdowne Park will be "easily provided."
On-site parking of just under 1,500 spaces will be sufficient for daily use.
Traffic on Bank Street will only increase by 15 per cent on a typical weekday

How do you quantify "easy"?
"Daily use" means when there is no event at Lansdowne.
"15%" compared to what? What about weekends?

An independent study would be nice.

[lrt's friend]

This is the greatest soap opera in town... every day it seems there's some new wrinkle with new characters getting added all the time. It's far more entertaining than the average CFL game could ever hope to be. Today, for example, it's the NCC's turn:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2009/10/08/ottawa-cfl-queen-elizabeth-drive-shuttle-bus-lansdowne.html

NCC nixes CFL shuttle bus plan
Last Updated: Thursday, October 8, 2009 | 4:52 PM ET
CBC News

Football fans won't be able to take a shuttle bus along Queen Elizabeth Drive to future CFL games, as the proponents of the Lansdowne redevelopment had hoped.

The National Capital Commission will only allow OC Transpo shuttle buses on Queen Elizabeth Drive for Lansdowne events that draw 40,000 or more fans, commission spokesman François Lapointe said Thursday.

Only two events have drawn 40,000 people to Lansdowne Park in recent years: the Grey Cup final in 2004, and the Rolling Stones concert in 2005.
A regular CFL game in Ottawa would draw about 25,000 people, according to projections.

Lapointe, the commission's executive director of capital planning, was speaking at a joint meeting of the city's transportation and transit committees, which were reviewing a report on transportation issues related to the Lansdowne redevelopment.

Lapointe said the commission is willing to work on the issues with the city.

--

Guess that was another big 'oops'.

I really don't understand all of this. It is like this is some sort of mad transportation experiment. We must have very short memories. Haven't crowds of 25,000 been handled by transit on Bank Street alone for not just years, but decades?

[lrt's friend]

:previous: Funny. It's just getting ridiculous. The number one reason to build the stadium is becoming: to stick it to Glebe residents. It's a good reason I suppose, but I'm not willing to give away millions, part of Lansdowne plus the Aberdeen pavilion a have to build a new trade show space just to piss them off.

The number one reason is that the stadium has been there for 100 years and you will find no other location where we can build a new stadium cheaper in this city. It is really as simple as that. Why is this sticking it to Glebe residents? On the contrary, it is Glebe residents who are trying to stick it to Hintonburg residents by pushing Bayview and they are also trying to stick the rest of the city's taxpayers with a big tax bill for a brand new stadium.

Hmmm, I guess according to Franky, public/private partnerships are by definition tax give aways.

[waterloowarrior]

Denley's column on LL
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Denley+good+deal+others+worse/2080155/story.html

Lansdowne cinemas threaten historic Mayfair
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2009/10/07/ottawa-lansdowne-mayfair-movie-theatre-cinema.html

Lansdowne Plan worries old Ottawa South
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2009/10/08/ottawa-lansdowne-plan-old-ottawa-south.html


McGregor said there are two kinds of shoppers — some who go to "malls" such as the complex being proposed at Lansdowne, and others who prefer street shopping.

"The two rarely mix. There won't be any spillover," he said. "People will not walk out of that area."


Hmmm.. if that is actually true, than he shouldn't be worried since mall shoppers wouldn't have gone to to his store anyways...

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

It's funny, ever since Scary Larry was elected, I've founf myself more and more displeased with our elected five year olds (city council) and I'm really starting to like Denley.

[AuxTown]

Denley's column on LL
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Denley+good+deal+others+worse/2080155/story.html

Lansdowne cinemas threaten historic Mayfair
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2009/10/07/ottawa-lansdowne-mayfair-movie-theatre-cinema.html

Lansdowne Plan worries old Ottawa South
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2009/10/08/ottawa-lansdowne-plan-old-ottawa-south.html



Hmmm.. if that is actually true, than he shouldn't be worried since mall shoppers wouldn't have gone to to his store anyways...

Well said Randall. This guy really got on my nerves a few years ago, but his recent columns, especially those on Lansdowne, seem to be the only voice of reason that this city has.

[Franky]

I really don't understand all of this. It is like this is some sort of mad transportation experiment. We must have very short memories. Haven't crowds of 25,000 been handled by transit on Bank Street alone for not just years, but decades?

There was more parking than there will be, less development and it never worked well and may have contributed to the CFL's failures.

[Franky]

Hmmm.. if that is actually true, than he shouldn't be worried since mall shoppers wouldn't have gone to to his store anyways...

But his customers might well go to the mall instead and the shops on Bank St. will close.

[Franky]

Denley... LOL... What a joke.

[AuxTown]

But his customers might well go to the mall instead and the shops on Bank St. will close.

Then let the consumers decide! If Bank Street's shops are so fragile that they can't handle a little competition, along with thousands of new potential customers every week (football, soccer, conferences, residents...) then maybe it's for the best that they close. Ottawa is a big city and no neighbourhood, especially those inside the Greenbelt, is immune to progress. Life can not stand still in such a central neighbourhood just for the sake of nostalgia or some kind of misplaced vision that the Glebe should be like a little small town.

[Franky]

Then let the consumers decide! If Bank Street's shops are so fragile that they can't handle a little competition, along with thousands of new potential customers every week (football, soccer, conferences, residents...) then maybe it's for the best that they close. Ottawa is a big city and no neighbourhood, especially those inside the Greenbelt, is immune to progress. Life can not stand still in such a central neighbourhood just for the sake of nostalgia or some kind of misplaced vision that the Glebe should be like a little small town.

So you're saying Big Box stores are OK and should replace all our neighbourhood stores? If CFL fails, it should just be left dead? If a stadium can't pay for itself, it should not be built? Sprawl, McMansions - all good?

[lrt's friend]

There was more parking than there will be, less development and it never worked well and may have contributed to the CFL's failures.

Franky, you don't know what you are talking about. First, there is proposed to me more transit with LL. There wasn't that much transit provided at football games, at least in more recent years. Transportation had little to do with the failure of the CFL. It was poor ownership and management that couldn't put a decent product on the field for a generation. If a decent team had been put on the field for some of those years and there was stable ownership, the CFL would have never folded in Ottawa.

[k2p]

So you're saying Big Box stores are OK and should replace all our neighbourhood stores? If CFL fails, it should just be left dead? If a stadium can't pay for itself, it should not be built? Sprawl, McMansions - all good?

Oh, for pity's sake that's not what he is saying at all.

First off, there are no big box stores in LL. And it's the opponents of LL who effectively want more sprawl in their classic NIMBY opposition to residential intensification. McMansions?!? Is that what they call friggin townhomes now?

What I read O-Town saying was urban mainstreets need to be innovative to keep attracting customers, or those customers will flee to big box retail outside the core. And what better way to keep retail in the core than to build pedestrian-friendly shops like LL proposes, and create hives of activity.

Once that's been done, what I read O-Town as saying, it's up to the businesses to make things work. And if, say, the Folklore Store can't, then it will close and something else will fill its place. But whatever that something is, it won't be a big box store because I've shopped at the Folkore Store and it's not big enough for one. I'll also make a bold prediction that the retail at LL won't include some McFolkore franchise, so they'll be fine.

[Dado]

I really don't understand all of this. It is like this is some sort of mad transportation experiment. We must have very short memories. Haven't crowds of 25,000 been handled by transit on Bank Street alone for not just years, but decades?

Beats me. I'm just following along for its sheer entertainment value now. It's become a question of how badly they can screw things up and still push on. Who goes out and comes up with a transit solution involving the NCC without involving the NCC, and then presents that to a Council Committee not as a conceptual option but as the actual plan?

I'm really starting to wonder about these guys' ability to organize a drinking party at a pub, never mind a redevelopment or a CFL team. :cheers:

[Franky]

Oh, for pity's sake that's not what he is saying at all.

First off, there are no big box stores in LL. And it's the opponents of LL who effectively want more sprawl in their classic NIMBY opposition to residential intensification. McMansions?!? Is that what they call friggin townhomes now?

What I read O-Town saying was urban mainstreets need to be innovative to keep attracting customers, or those customers will flee to big box retail outside the core. And what better way to keep retail in the core than to build pedestrian-friendly shops like LL proposes, and create hives of activity.

Once that's been done, what I read O-Town as saying, it's up to the businesses to make things work. And if, say, the Folklore Store can't, then it will close and something else will fill its place. But whatever that something is, it won't be a big box store because I've shopped at the Folkore Store and it's not big enough for one. I'll also make a bold prediction that the retail at LL won't include some McFolkore franchise, so they'll be fine.

You're kidding right? How about you re-read my post.

[jchamoun79]

So you're saying Big Box stores are OK and should replace all our neighbourhood stores? If CFL fails, it should just be left dead? If a stadium can't pay for itself, it should not be built? Sprawl, McMansions - all good?

Just when I thought you couldn't get any more insufferable, you post this nonsensical drivel.

It's already been stated countless times that the retail portion of Lansdowne Live won't include big box stores. But why let facts get in the way of your hysterical nonsense.

[k2p]

.

[rodionx]

But his customers might well go to the mall instead and the shops on Bank St. will close.

Setting aside for a moment the fact that the proposed retail space is no more a mall than the Byward market is a mall, isn't there a mall at Billings Bridge? Aren't there malls all over Ottawa? According to your logic, large numbers of people are utterly unaware of this and are driving down Bank street in a futile quest for a mall - any mall at all -and upon failing to find one, they drag themselves out of their cars and trudge into Bank street businesses. Don't think so. People who want to go to malls aren't going anywhere near Bank street. Unless, of course, it's to the Billings Bridge mall.

[k2p]

You're kidding right? How about you re-read my post.

No, not kidding.

[Dado]

A more reasonable question is what would happen if the redevelopment is successful enough to start pushing up all land values in the area as more people decide to become Glebites* (although the increase in supply of retail space should push land values down for a bit). That increases rents as well as property taxes (which also increases rents). I could see a real possibility that local neighbourhood-oriented stores go under and get replaced with high-end boutiques. That has been a problem in Westboro for awhile, though of late it seems to have levelled off. Still, it would be a bit of a loss for a reasonably walkable part of the city to be deprived of the neighbourhood stores that make it walkable.

*I sometimes wonder if you Glebite-bashers have fully thought through the consequences of providing more high-priced residential units in the Glebe...

[aesthetic]

So you're saying Big Box stores are OK and should replace all our neighbourhood stores? If CFL fails, it should just be left dead? If a stadium can't pay for itself, it should not be built? Sprawl, McMansions - all good?

Yes that's absolutely what he's saying. :koko: My God, I wish there was an ignore button in this forum.

[waterloowarrior]

This is the greatest soap opera in town... every day it seems there's some new wrinkle with new characters getting added all the time. It's far more entertaining than the average CFL game could ever hope to be. Today, for example, it's the NCC's turn:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2009/10/08/ottawa-cfl-queen-elizabeth-drive-shuttle-bus-lansdowne.html

NCC nixes CFL shuttle bus plan
Last Updated: Thursday, October 8, 2009 | 4:52 PM ET
CBC News

Football fans won't be able to take a shuttle bus along Queen Elizabeth Drive to future CFL games, as the proponents of the Lansdowne redevelopment had hoped.

The National Capital Commission will only allow OC Transpo shuttle buses on Queen Elizabeth Drive for Lansdowne events that draw 40,000 or more fans, commission spokesman François Lapointe said Thursday.

Only two events have drawn 40,000 people to Lansdowne Park in recent years: the Grey Cup final in 2004, and the Rolling Stones concert in 2005.
A regular CFL game in Ottawa would draw about 25,000 people, according to projections.

Lapointe, the commission's executive director of capital planning, was speaking at a joint meeting of the city's transportation and transit committees, which were reviewing a report on transportation issues related to the Lansdowne redevelopment.

Lapointe said the commission is willing to work on the issues with the city.

--

Guess that was another big 'oops'.


Hmmm. this is a quote from the traffic study. (http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/lansdowne_partnership/transportation_strategy.pdf)

Queen Elizabeth Drive, because of its lack of connectivity to most potential satellite shuttle bus parking lots, should only be used for shuttle service by transit vehicles, for the largest of events (±45,000).And there are lots of other points that say using QED is only proposed for these major 45,000+ events. Maybe this is a non-story from the CBC, it sounds like the NCC is actually supporting the proponents plan :???:

[m0nkyman]

McGregor said there are two kinds of shoppers — some who go to "malls" such as the complex being proposed at Lansdowne, and others who prefer street shopping.

"The two rarely mix. There won't be any spillover," he said. "People will not walk out of that area."

Which is why the Byward Market is such an abysmal failure, with the mall right next to it, sucking the life out of it. :koko:

Do these people not go out and look at what people actually do? They seem to think that the trendy folks who live in the Glebe never drive to the Merivale strip to do some box store shopping or that Sandy Hill folks never hit the Innes/Cyrville box stores. That people might walk around a fair amount after finding parking.

Can we please just stop talking about how something that has worked for a hundred years can't possibly work. It's stupid and embarassing.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong about having a stadium within a reasonable walking distance of downtown.

Now, there are reasonable questions about the finances of the deal, and that's a fair and reasonable thing to bring up. I'm not sure I understand the 'waterfall' as well as I could.

Arguing that Landsdowne is an impossible place to put the stadium is silly. It's there now. It will probably continue to be there. Putting it there will add more incentive to putting transit along Bank St., which to me is a no-brainer in the long term.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Which is why the Byward Market is such an abysmal failure, with the mall right next to it, sucking the life out of it. :koko:



Or Old Ottawa South being a wasteland of closed businesses because of Billing's Bridge just minutes away.

[k2p]

A more reasonable question is what would happen if the redevelopment is successful enough to start pushing up all land values in the area as more people decide to become Glebites* (although the increase in supply of retail space should push land values down for a bit). That increases rents as well as property taxes (which also increases rents). I could see a real possibility that local neighbourhood-oriented stores go under and get replaced with high-end boutiques. That has been a problem in Westboro for awhile, though of late it seems to have levelled off. Still, it would be a bit of a loss for a reasonably walkable part of the city to be deprived of the neighbourhood stores that make it walkable.

*I sometimes wonder if you Glebite-bashers have fully thought through the consequences of providing more high-priced residential units in the Glebe...

OK, I'll bite. Hands up who thinks Wellington St. / Richmond is better today than ten years ago? And hands up who thinks urban neighbourhoods like the Plateau, Outremont, Bloor Street West, the Annex, Cabbagetown, Vancouver's West End, etc. are not walkable because they have higher-end stores? Many have a neighbourhood feel, and are family-owned.

In any event, walkability improves the more people there are. That's the key. Not local shops. Paris, the Glebe councillor's endless example of what Ottawa should be, is plenty walkable, but there aren't too many neighbourhood-y stores around.

The irony of defending the Glebe on affordability grounds I'll leave aside. But not before noting it had, not so long ago, plenty of student housing, and decreasing affordability didn't seem to bother folks much. Cities grow and change. That's why they're good.

On the more substantive point, Glebe property values will stay high no matter what. And the more its voices -- that'd be Clive -- fight intensification and height, the higher land prices will go. Freezing development doesn't fix that.

Ramifications of more higher-value property is not the root of this NIMBYism.

Still, if it's the real danger -- not a stadium and people around -- there is a solution. Ask for six or seven transition homes, and some Centretown or Hintonburg style social housing. That'd go a long way to averting the danger of yet more high-end homes dealing an Annex-like catastrophe to the Glebe. Gimme a break.

[Franky]

And there are lots of other points that say using QED is only proposed for these major 45,000+ events. Maybe this is a non-story from the CBC, it sounds like the NCC is actually supporting the proponents plan :???:

I read this too, but when the announcement was made a while back, it sounded like it would be a general solution. The CBC should have been more clear.

[Franky]

Just consider that some long-existing businesses will likely fail and sure, they'll be replaced by other tenants in time, but the area probably will not be as vibrant as before. Much of the character of the Glebe can be lost. The only two things we know are going into Lansdowne retail are a supermarket and movie theatres, both of which will likely kill established businesses in the Glebe. I'd like to believe promises that the stores going into Lansdowne won't interfere with businesses on Bank St., but I don't believe in fairy tales.