PDA

View Full Version : Lansdowne Park Revitalization | N/A | N/A | Proposed


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19

Davis137
Mar 25, 2010, 12:52 PM
I would go back through everything to read it, but I think my head might explode...80 pages of posts now, and has this project really gone anywhere?

LOL

phil235
Mar 25, 2010, 6:46 PM
These two ideas aren't necessarily incompatible. That gap in Bank Street is real and bridging at least part of it with main street retail makes sense to me. But you don't need 300,000-400,000 square feet to bridge it. You could do it with the 60,000 square ft. of retail that the BIA study says the street can support.
The rest of the site could be given over to exhibition space with pavilion style buildings.
Trinity and Minto will argue that this won't bring in the same revenue, but frankly the revenue and tax base growth projections for the retail are very cloudy and the City is going to have to pay for exhibition space elsewhere anyway.

That's a good point. I think the counter is that 60,000 sq feet won't attract enough people from outside the Glebe to make the site a year-round people place, but maybe there is a compromise. Personally I'd rather see more residential incorporated along Bank and Homewood, which would serve the same revenue-generating purpose and could replace some of the retail, but that seems just as contentious. Ultimately I think the amount of commercial l is less important than the type of commercial development and the form it takes.

Will the City have to pay for new exibition space, or is it possible that the new facility will be self-sustaining? I understand that the space at Lansdowne made money.

umbria27
Mar 29, 2010, 3:05 PM
Will the City have to pay for new exibition space, or is it possible that the new facility will be self-sustaining? I understand that the space at Lansdowne made money.

Trade shows generated about 2 million in revenue last year.

There's an RFP out for exhibition space now.

According to the OBJ, it's expected to cost 40 million. A new facility would not be self sustaining. The proposal seems to be to subsidize a private company (with a one-time monetary contribution, annual operating grants or a property tax exemption) to operate it. Revenues in such a scheme would not go to the city, but to the private operator.

http://www.obj.ca/Local/City-Hall/2010-02-02/article-627851/UPDATE%3A-City-to-invite-P3-proposals-for-%2440M-exhibition-hall/1

Shenkman seems to have the lead on this with a site out by the airport. I think it would be a shame to move it out of town, especially when we're wondering how to keep Lansdowne busy.

phil235
Mar 30, 2010, 2:36 PM
Trade shows generated about 2 million in revenue last year.

There's an RFP out for exhibition space now.

According to the OBJ, it's expected to cost 40 million. A new facility would not be self sustaining. The proposal seems to be to subsidize a private company (with a one-time monetary contribution, annual operating grants or a property tax exemption) to operate it. Revenues in such a scheme would not go to the city, but to the private operator.

http://www.obj.ca/Local/City-Hall/2010-02-02/article-627851/UPDATE%3A-City-to-invite-P3-proposals-for-%2440M-exhibition-hall/1

Shenkman seems to have the lead on this with a site out by the airport. I think it would be a shame to move it out of town, especially when we're wondering how to keep Lansdowne busy.


Thanks. I agree - I'd love to see this stay somewhere central.

waterloowarrior
Mar 30, 2010, 4:02 PM
Nominated by Glebe CA as an endangered heritage place
http://communities.canada.com/OTTAWACITIZEN/blogs/designingottawa/archive/2010/03/30/gca-calls-lansdowne-park-quot-an-endangered-place-quot.aspx

waterloowarrior
Apr 1, 2010, 6:15 AM
Friends’girding for battle over plan
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Friends+girding+battle+over+plan/2750558/story.html

BY RANDALL DENLEY, THE OTTAWA CITIZENMARCH 31, 2010 11:02

We should see the first details of the revised Lansdowne Park plan this month, with the rest of the important pieces all revealed by early June. The public will be asked if the proposal to create an urban park, rebuild Frank Clair Stadium and add some commercial uses to the site merits support, but the Friends of Lansdowne Park don’t need to wait for the details. The downtown-centred community group is planning an aggressive campaign to stop the Lansdowne project.

In an e-mail to supporters, Friends of Lansdowne Park head June Creelman lays out a strategy that calls for “a tight political-style campaign” aimed at getting city councillors to reverse their support for the project. The campaign will include “media stunts,” and is expected to offer “some sort of exit strategy/face saving proposal for councillors as they have gone so far down this road that it may be hard to retreat without a plan B.”

“The goal should be to STOP the current process, not just improve it,” Creelman said in her e-mail.

In an interview, Creelman said “we don’t have any real plans at the moment,” and the group is waiting to see more details before reacting. That’s certainly not the impression that one would form from her e-mail, which described an organizational meeting attended by representatives of the Glebe Community Association, the Old Ottawa East Community Association, the Old Ottawa South Community Association, the Centretown Citizens Community Association, Heritage Ottawa, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the Ottawa Farmers Market and “a few concerned individuals from outside the city core.”

At that meeting, five people were chosen as sub-committee chairs who will help lead the fight.

At the mid-March meeting, the group concluded that a broader coalition was required to co-ordinate the effort. “This city-wide coalition might benefit from a name change from Friends of Lansdowne Park, which is seen as Glebe-dominated,” Creelman said.

Enemies of Lansdowne Park is still available and might prove apt.

The group identified 17 potential areas of opposition, but decided that it couldn’t go after all of them. The focus will be on two “key issues of city-wide concern.”

Finances “was seen to be the strongest city-wide issue by far.” On that front, the group sees its points as the cost and risk to the taxpayers, the “giveaway” of a valuable asset, the bad precedent of allocating taxes from the development to cover its costs, and the impacts on business.

The secondary front will be transportation. Due to Lansdowne’s “poor location,” people will not be able to get there by transit. This will choke Bank Street with cars, hurting Glebe businesses and causing problems for north-south commuters. Due to all these defects, the project is likely to fail and the site to become a white elephant, the group claims

City councillors voted 15-9 to keep going with the Lansdowne plan, so the group knows its task is to convince four councillors to change their minds. The potential weak links on council are “the main target audience.”

“To reach councillors, we may have to consider influencing community leaders, electoral candidates, politicians at other levels of government, the media and the public. We need to keep our eye on the ball and identify the councillors who are most apt to be influenced and focus efforts on them rather than just going madly off in all directions,” Creelman wrote.

Madly indeed. The Lansdowne plan is a test of our community’s ability to work constructively together to make our city better. The original plan proposed by a private-sector sports group wasn’t good enough. It offered real value by giving Lansdowne a new focus, but the plan’s retail component wasn’t compelling, and no one had given much real thought to how to improve the whole site. City councillors and the private-sector group reacted to those deficiencies and we will soon see the results.

The plans are unlikely to be perfect, but they are likely to be the best we are collectively capable of. If the city does not move ahead on that basis, Lansdowne will languish for years to come.

Creelman says the people in her group don’t oppose revitalization of Lansdowne and don’t want to maintain the status quo. At the same time, it’s not their job to come up with an alternative. That’s a copout. If they don’t want the status quo, or the proposed changes, what do they want?

Instead of expending their energy planning campaigns to stop the people who want to improve Lansdowne, the “friends” should spend their time developing a better idea. That’s how you build a better city. Just saying no doesn’t contribute much to the public debate.

Jamaican-Phoenix
Apr 1, 2010, 5:17 PM
Instead of expending their energy planning campaigns to stop the people who want to improve Lansdowne, the “friends” should spend their time developing a better idea. That’s how you build a better city. Just saying no doesn’t contribute much to the public debate.

Nailed it.

jchamoun79
Apr 2, 2010, 12:20 AM
"At the mid-March meeting, the group concluded that a broader coalition was required to co-ordinate the effort. “This city-wide coalition might benefit from a name change from Friends of Lansdowne Park, which is seen as Glebe-dominated,” Creelman said.

Enemies of Lansdowne Park is still available and might prove apt."

I, for one, would go with 'Friends of Complacency and Dilapidation'.

AuxTown
Apr 2, 2010, 2:49 PM
:hell:

This kind of crap really angers me. Hopefully, when this plan comes to the table again, I will be in town and able to stand face to face with these idiots from FOL. I would like to explain to them how they can't halt the re-development of this dying piece of prime land just to further their narrow-minded, selfish, NIMBY opinions. Lansdowne is not, and will never be, a park. It is a meeting place, a sports venue, and a close second to Lebreton as the best example of misused (and I would venture to say abused) properties in this city. Let's shelf Lansdowne Live and take this spot to #1!

reidjr
Apr 2, 2010, 2:55 PM
:hell:

This kind of crap really angers me. Hopefully, when this plan comes to the table again, I will be in town and able to stand face to face with these idiots from FOL. I would like to explain to them how they can't halt the re-development of this dying piece of prime land just to further their narrow-minded, selfish, NIMBY opinions. Lansdowne is not, and will never be, a park. It is a meeting place, a sports venue, and a close second to Lebreton as the best example of misused (and I would venture to say abused) properties in this city. Let's shelf Lansdowne Live and take this spot to #1!

I see there case is beeing very very weak for many reason but the biggest is them saying its not up to them to come up with a plan.

Mille Sabords
Apr 3, 2010, 1:05 AM
Nailed it.

Exactly what I thought. Goes back to what we've been saying about Randall Denley. I find myself liking what he writes a lot more often these days.

umbria27
Apr 9, 2010, 4:18 PM
Friends’girding for battle over plan
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Friends+girding+battle+over+plan/2750558/story.html

BY RANDALL DENLEY, THE OTTAWA CITIZENMARCH 31, 2010 11:02

....
Instead of expending their energy planning campaigns to stop the people who want to improve Lansdowne, the “friends” should spend their time developing a better idea. That’s how you build a better city. Just saying no doesn’t contribute much to the public debate.

There's a certain irony to asking Lansdowne Live opponents to be co-operative and work within the process. OSEG took over the process for Lansdowne by shutting down the existing design process. Their approach has been anything but collaborative. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming into public consultations and having conducted them have generally disregarded the input.
Denley may be right to chide Friends of Lansdowne for the obstructionist approach, but I don't recall seeing an article from him criticizing OSEG for refusing to participate in the design competition.

ajldub
Apr 9, 2010, 4:37 PM
Good point. I'm still blown away by the fact that we excluded ourselves from possibly hundreds of millions of federal and provincial subsidies on this project by sole-sourcing it, essentially just so we could do a rush job. It will end up filtering out to hundreds per taxpayer. A very, very costly mistake and I think one of the biggest obstacles in Lansdowne Live now making it to shovel.

reidjr
Apr 9, 2010, 5:18 PM
Good point. I'm still blown away by the fact that we excluded ourselves from possibly hundreds of millions of federal and provincial subsidies on this project by sole-sourcing it, essentially just so we could do a rush job. It will end up filtering out to hundreds per taxpayer. A very, very costly mistake and I think one of the biggest obstacles in Lansdowne Live now making it to shovel.

The issue is its really not a rush job the place is falling a part and something needs to be done.The land has been there for years no one really come up with a plan yet landsdown live comes and all of a sudden people want other things done.So no i would not call this a rush job if there was land and the buildings were in good shape then a group wanted to do something then yes.The fact is the buildings are not in good shape and something needs to be done soon.

ajldub
Apr 9, 2010, 8:03 PM
So if the stadium is falling apart, then tear it down and charge local taxpayers a few million bucks. Instead it gets sole-sourced, and local taxpayers are out up to $100 000 000 in subsidies. Why the rush to go with Lansdowne Live? Is it worth a hundred million dollar premium?

reidjr
Apr 9, 2010, 8:36 PM
So if the stadium is falling apart, then tear it down and charge local taxpayers a few million bucks. Instead it gets sole-sourced, and local taxpayers are out up to $100 000 000 in subsidies. Why the rush to go with Lansdowne Live? Is it worth a hundred million dollar premium?

Its not that simple you tear it down you have to tear the civic centre down.Again its not beeing rushed its been like that for years and if landsdown live is rejected it will more then likely remain like that for years nothing.If the city was to tear it down then they would have to build at very very leasta new arena and small football stadium some where.As for beeing rused again i don't see how you can say its beeing rushed its been like that for what about 15 years with no real interest any group durring that time could have made a offer and very few legit groups did.

ajldub
Apr 10, 2010, 12:27 AM
If you are talking about the process of the whole site deteriorating prior to the unveiling of Lansdowne Live, I agree with you. That is a process that has been going on for years.

What I am talking about is the rush to bring Lansdowne Live to shovel. The reason no group came forward with redevelopment plans is that no request for proposals was issued. This is how things are done in developed economies. It ensures a competitive and fair process, and it is favoured by Ontario and the federal government for these reasons. That is why they say local projects have to be tendered this way if they want upper level subsidies. City Hall knows this. For Ottawa to go ahead and hand pick a developer to go ahead and build and waive all that subsidy is a rush job. It's actually pretty suspicious behaviour, the kind of stuff that raises the eyebrows of auditors. It leads you to think that the City is either so incompetent that they can't budget their way out of a paper bag, or the deal is dirty. The whole sense of urgency, that Lansdowne needs to be built right away and we can't even put out an RFP and save hundreds of millions by doing so, is really something that was cooked up. It's just not true.

Uhuniau
Apr 10, 2010, 4:10 AM
Lansdowne is not, and will never be, a park.

And, most importantly, never was, except in the Fenway Park sense of Park.

reidjr
Apr 10, 2010, 10:37 AM
If you are talking about the process of the whole site deteriorating prior to the unveiling of Lansdowne Live, I agree with you. That is a process that has been going on for years.

What I am talking about is the rush to bring Lansdowne Live to shovel. The reason no group came forward with redevelopment plans is that no request for proposals was issued. This is how things are done in developed economies. It ensures a competitive and fair process, and it is favoured by Ontario and the federal government for these reasons. That is why they say local projects have to be tendered this way if they want upper level subsidies. City Hall knows this. For Ottawa to go ahead and hand pick a developer to go ahead and build and waive all that subsidy is a rush job. It's actually pretty suspicious behaviour, the kind of stuff that raises the eyebrows of auditors. It leads you to think that the City is either so incompetent that they can't budget their way out of a paper bag, or the deal is dirty. The whole sense of urgency, that Lansdowne needs to be built right away and we can't even put out an RFP and save hundreds of millions by doing so, is really something that was cooked up. It's just not true.

The probleam is no matter what the city did go to a open compeition where there would have to be a arena and stadium included.Or build a arena and stadium on there own some where else and open landsdown up to anyone people still would not be happy.

ajldub
Apr 10, 2010, 10:20 PM
I don't really follow your last message, but the point that I'm making is that if they had opened up the process, taxpayers would be $100 000 000 richer. I'm not talking about being people being happy about the project, I'm talking about the finances of the project. They are terrible, and it's undeniable.

reidjr
Apr 10, 2010, 10:26 PM
I don't really follow your last message, but the point that I'm making is that if they had opened up the process, taxpayers would be $100 000 000 richer. I'm not talking about being people being happy about the project, I'm talking about the finances of the project. They are terrible, and it's undeniable.

My point is no matter if they open it up or not if the end result is a sports stadium some will be aginst it.

KHOOLE
Apr 11, 2010, 4:10 AM
Not much logic in your point reidjr. ..ajldub is quite right and I agree with him (her). Without federal and provincial help, the City of Ottawa will have to borrow 129,000,000 dollars or more on the market and the City is already in the red for a whole bunch more.
Get a 129M$ mortgage on your assets at 5-6% interest amortized over 20 years and you will end up by paying 300M$ to get a clear deed (not even counting maintenance costs).
That’s the same as making each and every property owner pay 1000 dollars in taxes for a stadium that most do not even care about even if they are football fans.

It is much more rational to build a brand new world class stadium with rapid transit transportation (meaning no cars, no parking costs, no time wasted) coming from Gatineau as well as Ottawa with Little Italy, Chinatown and Uptown restaurants, accommodations and tourist attractions nearby. The dilapidated City Centre monstrosity is just ripe for hotel, business, townhouses and restaurant development. Mastercraft is about to build a 20+ twin tower building just south of the area and there should be a lot more to come if the stadium complex is built at Bayview Yards. The whole area west of the tracks is presently parking lots, warehouses and small shops.

And that means a whole bunch more property taxes to fill up the City coffers than the tittly-winks stuff that it could maybe get at Lansdowne Park in about 30 years

So what’s the rush? Let’s build a stadium that would be directly connected to the airport, that would be accessible from the entire Eastern Ontario and Western Quebec in a reasonable time and acceptable cost (parking garages near transit line in the suburbs) and that would not cost an arm and a leg to the Ottawa taxpayers.

lrt's friend
Apr 11, 2010, 5:12 AM
Not much logic in your point reidjr. ..ajldub is quite right and I agree with him (her). Without federal and provincial help, the City of Ottawa will have to borrow 129,000,000 dollars or more on the market and the City is already in the red for a whole bunch more.
Get a 129M$ mortgage on your assets at 5-6% interest amortized over 20 years and you will end up by paying 300M$ to get a clear deed (not even counting maintenance costs).
That’s the same as making each and every property owner pay 1000 dollars in taxes for a stadium that most do not even care about even if they are football fans.

It is much more rational to build a brand new world class stadium with rapid transit transportation (meaning no cars, no parking costs, no time wasted) coming from Gatineau as well as Ottawa with Little Italy, Chinatown and Uptown restaurants, accommodations and tourist attractions nearby. The dilapidated City Centre monstrosity is just ripe for hotel, business, townhouses and restaurant development. Mastercraft is about to build a 20+ twin tower building just south of the area and there should be a lot more to come if the stadium complex is built at Bayview Yards. The whole area west of the tracks is presently parking lots, warehouses and small shops.

And that means a whole bunch more property taxes to fill up the City coffers than the tittly-winks stuff that it could maybe get at Lansdowne Park in about 30 years

So what’s the rush? Let’s build a stadium that would be directly connected to the airport, that would be accessible from the entire Eastern Ontario and Western Quebec in a reasonable time and acceptable cost (parking garages near transit line in the suburbs) and that would not cost an arm and a leg to the Ottawa taxpayers.

This all sounds logical but it isn't. We have two groups interested in operating sports franchises out of a major stadium. These two groups are the best and most viable that have shown up in this city in at least a generation, more likely ever. Neither group is interested in Bayview, because they want to share existing facilities. This makes financial sense to both groups. Building a new stadium at Bayview will cost more, likely much more and does not give either group the benefit of sharing facilities. The fairy tale transit system that you mention will not be fully in place for decades and will cost billions. The savings that you talk about is a drop in the bucket compared with the expenditure for a completely new stadium and the transit system needed to serve it.

There is definitely a rush, because both bidders will not wait forever, and then what? It is really no different from what happened when we cancelled the LRT contract. The city loses all credibility as a business partner. This is why the city now has to go through a provincial agency to conduct a RFP for the new LRT plan. Who else will want to deal with the city on the stadium issue, if there is anybody else out there that will be interested?

We are not going to build a stadium without a guarantee of a sports franchise and if we spit in the face of both the current groups, we are going to be waiting a long, long time before we get a chance again.

Just remember the Ottawa Senators. We all agree that Scotiabank Place is not ideally located, but if the backers had waited for our definitions of a 'perfect' location, we would have never landed an NHL franchise nor built a world class arena.

I will also comment that the city of Monction will be hosting a CFL regular season game this year in a newly constructed stadium. This is a serious step towards testing the viability of the CFL in the Atlantic provinces. Let's not let smaller cities leave Ottawa in the dust. Ottawa is gaining a reputation as a city that can't get things done. Study is sometimes an excuse for inaction.

ajldub
Apr 11, 2010, 12:43 PM
I agree with you on some points, lrt, but I disagree with you on the point that this makes financial sensibility to the city. This is one that taxpayers are going to be carrying a long time, and while we may be able to make CFL work in this city it is by no means a given. We've had two teams go under in the last two decades. If a third team were to go under after Lansdowne Live had made it to shovel, the whole cost of this thing would just be unbelievable.

reidjr
Apr 11, 2010, 1:06 PM
Not much logic in your point reidjr. ..ajldub is quite right and I agree with him (her). Without federal and provincial help, the City of Ottawa will have to borrow 129,000,000 dollars or more on the market and the City is already in the red for a whole bunch more.
Get a 129M$ mortgage on your assets at 5-6% interest amortized over 20 years and you will end up by paying 300M$ to get a clear deed (not even counting maintenance costs).
That’s the same as making each and every property owner pay 1000 dollars in taxes for a stadium that most do not even care about even if they are football fans.

It is much more rational to build a brand new world class stadium with rapid transit transportation (meaning no cars, no parking costs, no time wasted) coming from Gatineau as well as Ottawa with Little Italy, Chinatown and Uptown restaurants, accommodations and tourist attractions nearby. The dilapidated City Centre monstrosity is just ripe for hotel, business, townhouses and restaurant development. Mastercraft is about to build a 20+ twin tower building just south of the area and there should be a lot more to come if the stadium complex is built at Bayview Yards. The whole area west of the tracks is presently parking lots, warehouses and small shops.

And that means a whole bunch more property taxes to fill up the City coffers than the tittly-winks stuff that it could maybe get at Lansdowne Park in about 30 years

So what’s the rush? Let’s build a stadium that would be directly connected to the airport, that would be accessible from the entire Eastern Ontario and Western Quebec in a reasonable time and acceptable cost (parking garages near transit line in the suburbs) and that would not cost an arm and a leg to the Ottawa taxpayers.

But thats my point if it was a stadium and arena i agree money from the gov would be the best route to go.The probleam is some in this city want green space or nothing the amount of people that call in to radio stations saying we want a park and then you have some that don't want any money going to sports.Look at some aginst landsdown they have there protest and have sings thats say we want green space.If they had sings and said we support a stadium and arena but not this was ok then lets look at going the rouite of having the city build one and leasing it out.As for the football stadium don't forget it could host soccer/concerts etc its not just football.Again my concern is some want green space or nothing that is what worries me more then anything.As for whats the rush the civic centre is in bad shape the football stadium is in bad shape is it worth it to say take the time building the new ones while we pump millions in to the current ones to keep them from falling even more apart.

Ottawan
Apr 11, 2010, 2:45 PM
I agree with you on some points, lrt, but I disagree with you on the point that this makes financial sensibility to the city. This is one that taxpayers are going to be carrying a long time, and while we may be able to make CFL work in this city it is by no means a given. We've had two teams go under in the last two decades. If a third team were to go under after Lansdowne Live had made it to shovel, the whole cost of this thing would just be unbelievable.

There is definately risk involved with the current Lansdowne proposal, but the cost-sharing AND profit-sharing arrangement inherant to it means that if successful, the city could end up more than recouping it's costs (once we factor in the fact that the debt financing will also be offset by the $4 million plus operations savings).

It's disingenuous to look at this as just the cost of building a new stadium anywhere offset by unpredictable new tax revenues. When one adds the cost of doing nothing (tearing down the rest of the current south structure, or maintaining whatever's left enough that it doesn't kill people), current operating costs for Aberdeen and the Civic Centre, the revenue-sharing from rent in the retail portion, as well as the potential tax revenue growth, on top of the additional benefits of this plan (turning parking lots into park, repairing and maintaining heritage buildings - both things the city would likely pay for at great cost otherwise), then the plan starts to make financial sense.

As I said at the beginning, it is a risk (rental income & taxes may not pan out as high as hoped), but it is a risk that all factors considered makes financial and economic sense.

ajldub
Apr 11, 2010, 7:55 PM
There is definately risk involved with the current Lansdowne proposal, but the cost-sharing AND profit-sharing arrangement inherant to it means that if successful, the city could end up more than recouping it's costs (once we factor in the fact that the debt financing will also be offset by the $4 million plus operations savings).


That is a monster of an 'if'. I understand the unique nature of this project with its pro sports, heritage, current costs of upkeep etc. as considerations, but I don't think anybody has yet come forward with a valid reason to justify excluding it from up to $100 000 000 in provincial and federal cash. I just don't think people understand how insanely expensive this will be for Ottawa if it doesn't work.

KHOOLE
Apr 11, 2010, 9:03 PM
Not only insanely expensive but also insane in terms of transportation. Anybody having the experience of getting out of the parking lot at Scotia Place or going to a 67’s game or a home show at Lansdowne Park knows the frustration of wasting time in a traffic jam.
23,000 spectators at a football game at Lansdowne Park will create an absolute gridlock all over Centertown of Ottawa with backups on all the major thoroughfares leading to it.
At the World Junior hockey games, cars were lined up on the Queensway trying to get on the Bronson ramp.

How many cars can Bank Street accommodate for a game? If you stand on a corner on Bank Street south of the Queensway on a busy afternoon (most weekdays) and count the cars going one-way South between two green traffic lights and calculate the number of green lights per hour, you will come up with 900 cars per hour. With an average of 2.5 passengers per car, that means 2250 passengers per hour. How long will it take 23,000 spectators to go down Bank Street? Using buses would be even worse since buses are slower to pick up speed and must slow down gradually. There are traffic lights at most corners so the buses will be backed-up and thus slow the car traffic even more.

Lansdowne Park is like being on an island. From the South, traffic has to go over the Billings Bridge and then the Bank St Bridge. From the East, traffic has to go over the Pretoria Bridge. From the North, you have the Chaudiere, Portage, Alexandra and MacDonald-Cartier bridges. If you have a gridlock in the centre of the city, traffic will backup over all of these bridges.

It’s going to be an absolute mess.

Going down Bronson Ave may be a bit faster (1200 cars per hours). However, that will be only for parking your car at Carleton University ($$$) and taking a shuttle bus to Lansdowne Park. There is no direct link between Carleton University and Lansdowne Park, so buses will have to travel through regular traffic streets and then get snarled on Bank Street to cross the Bank Street Bridge. Another gridlock!

Insanely expensive for the taxpayers and insanely frustrating for the fans! There has to be a better way!

waterloowarrior
Apr 11, 2010, 9:12 PM
^ Most of us here have been to Rough Riders and/or Renegades games and survived... and that's with much less transit than is planned for the new stadium.

c_speed3108
Apr 11, 2010, 10:46 PM
Okay a couple points...

The actual construction of the stadium will go out to tender. This is the very same way other things are done. The city decides it wants something ie an O-train, a bus, a road, a side walk and then puts it out to tender. It does not tender deciding what it is it wants. In this case it the decision was do we want a stadium. The untendered part (or at least unconventionally tendered anyway as there was two proposals) is management of this facility.

Traffic:

The difference between Lansdowne and Scotiabank place is that with Lansdowne everyone does not park at the stadium. Thousands of people park thoughout the neighbourhood.

The other thing is that Lansdowne/the Glebe/Old Ottawa south have many possible exit routes in all directions. Scotiabank place mostly just has the Queensway in one direction.

The world juniors was a special case traffic wise since the games were scheduled very close together time wise. Scotiabank place had problems with parking too. I remember them telling people "do not come early" since they did not have parking for two arenas worth of fans. Normal events do not work this way.

ajldub
Apr 11, 2010, 10:57 PM
Good points but, and forgive me for sounding like a broken record, we have nonetheless excluded ourselves from higher subsidy with the way we have gone about this. The solution, in my mind, would be a masterplan-type initiative that triangulated Otrain, Bayview/Lebreton, and Lansdowne developments and that, if done properly, would still get us a big boost from Ontario and GCan. Unfortunately the City is too timid and discordant to come up with something as bold as that.

AuxTown
Apr 12, 2010, 1:23 AM
I guess I will have to post this again....wish I could find my old post and copy/paste it....

Lansdowne Park is at the geographic centre of the NCR. This means that, unlike SPB, people will be leaving in all directions insead of just one (East in the case of SBP). Not only do people park in different locations for events at Lansdowne but they also use different routes to get to and from the game (i.e. Bank, Bronson, Queen Elizabeth, O'Connor) and this will further split up the traffic. Another big plus for this location is the hoards of people who live within a 20 minute walking/biking radius of the stadium. I've never seen gridlock on the sidewalks pathways that prevented people from getting where they need to go. I've been to many Roughrider/Renagade games, the SuperEx, and a Rolling Stones concert attended by 50000+ people. Traffic has always been reasonable and, for me, traffic was never an issue as I always walked or used public transit to get there and, by the time I left the pub after the game, there wasn't any traffic anyway. The Glebe is filled with restaurants, pubs, and great retail destinations (for afternoon games) that people can go to before and after the events which will even further spread out the rush of traffic. Basically, to make a short story long, Lansdowne will work from a traffic perspective for all the reasons above. It worked great for the last 100 years and the population of the neighbourhood and street grid have hardly changed during that time. It is only the attitudes of Glebite elitists that threaten to cancel Lansdowne Live with their baseless fears.

I realize there would be some benefits of having a stadium at Bayview, but no one is proposing a stadium there nor has it even been zoned for such a use. The decision our city has is whether or not we want a world-class stadium in the next 10 years. Very closely linked to that decision is whether or not we are willing to accept Lansdowne Park crumbling into an even worse state that it is already. You decide....

ajldub
Apr 12, 2010, 3:22 AM
Nobody proposed a stadium at Bayview because there was no RFP. The logic is circular.

We have to decide whether we want a world class stadium in the next ten years, agreed. But we also have to decide if we're going to rush ahead with this proposal and forego up to $100 000 000 in cash. A crumbling Lansdowne is not a good enough reason to pass up on that kind of investment.

phil235
Apr 12, 2010, 4:03 PM
Nobody proposed a stadium at Bayview because there was no RFP. The logic is circular.

We have to decide whether we want a world class stadium in the next ten years, agreed. But we also have to decide if we're going to rush ahead with this proposal and forego up to $100 000 000 in cash. A crumbling Lansdowne is not a good enough reason to pass up on that kind of investment.

The point about $100,000,000 in cash is a red herring. Senior federal officials made it very clear that if Ottawa applied for stadium funding, that would be deducted from other infrastructure projects, including the transit plan. When you look at the big picture, we are not actually giving up any funding by going a different route here.

In fact, by delaying the project further there would be a cost in that a fairlysignificant investment is required just to keep the arena and trade facility from falling on peoples' heads in the interim.

c_speed3108
Apr 12, 2010, 4:28 PM
I don't think there has really been much in the way of federal provincial funding for these types of projects in some time, with the exception of projects for specific things like the Olympics.

Regardless the province and feds don't really have funding to give right now (ask Toronto about there transit projects), so I don't think this is really a worry.

---------

For the most part, the lions share of arguments against this are just NIMBY's in the glebe or anti-football types. These realize those arguments don't hold water so they resort to all sorts of these process arguments.

People like the NIMBY's would not complain if the city sole-sourced a $100,000,000 park with zippo federal or provincial funding. They would be fine with it.

On the flip side if some sort of design competition process resulted in the Lansdowne Live proposal winning they still would not be happy with it.

reidjr
Apr 12, 2010, 4:36 PM
Toronto had no issues getting funding for bmo field.

waterloowarrior
Apr 12, 2010, 5:11 PM
The City of Ottawa is seeking proposals to provide development services and financial backing for the revitalization of Lansdowne Park. The Park is currently a combined sports complex for hockey and Canadian football, and is surrounded by world class public space.

Proponents will be expected to build and fully finance a world class park, professional football stadium (not to exceed 10,000 seats in order to minimize traffic impacts), 8,000 seat hockey rink, skating oval, community centre, child care facilities, athletic track, outdoor skating rink, world class public library, free-range chicken space, farmer's market, convention centre, Olympic-sized swimming pool, artisan studios, canal-side beach, exhibition space, community gardens, soccer fields, amateur performing space, and Parisian cafés. Ideally it will resemble Convent Garden, Tivoli Gardens, and Maple Leaf Gardens combined. The development will be required to have a minimum of 75% open space (excluding Silvia Holden Park)

No housing, large format retail, or "chain stores" (i.e. retailers or restaurants with more than one location) will be permitted on the property. The proponent will be able to build up to 50,000 square feet of retail to recoup costs. Please note that this retail may not compete in any way with any existing stores on Bank Street between Wellington Street and Mitch Owens Road. A City Committee consisting of three councillors, two community association members, three Glebe BIA members and one representative from the proponent (non-voting member) will select all tenants and determine fair and equitable rents.

The City of Ottawa will maintain ownership of all facilities and lease them to the proponent at full market value, and will collect a 25% royalty on all pre-tax revenues. The proponent must allow amateur sporting events and charitable organizations to have access to the majority of the space at any time for no cost. The City will have the cake and maintain its right to eat it too.

umbria27
Apr 12, 2010, 6:48 PM
The City of Ottawa is seeking proposals to provide development services and financial backing for the revitalization of Lansdowne Park... The City will have the cake and maintain its right to eat it too.

That's quite a big straw man you've build there waterloo. Yes there are a lot of competing and contradictory desires for Lansdowne. That's why a competition is useful, to evaluate and choose between these alternatives. Proponent A brings a sculpture park an x amount of funding. Propopent B brings a velodrome and x amount of funding. According to the terms of reference that have been agreed on beforehand, which is better?

The terms of reference for the design competition had not been set when the competition was closed, but the consultation phase was underway and an open air stadium was always going to be a requirement. Nobody was under the delusion that the proponent was going to fund the whole thing. I think what surprises and dismays many people about the OSEG proposal is that the proponent isn't funding any of the stadium construction.

What we're trying to do now is to set the terms of reference after the deal has been negotiated. That's why it's such a mess.

reidjr
Apr 12, 2010, 6:52 PM
Those aginst this project i want you to be 100% honest.If they did open it up and the best bid was a 80,000 stadium and a 15,000 arena you would be fine with that even if it meant little to no parks land.

waterloowarrior
Apr 12, 2010, 7:23 PM
Of course no one is that extreme, but my point was that there are a lot of ideas and claims out there are very one-sided to the point where there's no reason/incentive for a developer to be involved. There's also the idea that a competition would automatically result in much better development and the implication that with a competition there would be less retail/housing and more public space along with less cost to the city. The City did a competition in the 1990s, here's what we got

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2123/4515720934_b1f7880a25_b.jpg

Another key point is that in the current proposal the City maintains ownership of the Park (those previous proposals also had the developer getting half the land)

I'm not saying it's a perfect plan, or the best possible deal, but I think there are a lot of unrealistic expectations out there.

phil235
Apr 12, 2010, 8:32 PM
The City of Ottawa is seeking proposals to provide development services and financial backing for the revitalization of Lansdowne Park. The Park is currently a combined sports complex for hockey and Canadian football, and is surrounded by world class public space.

Proponents will be expected to build and fully finance a world class park, professional football stadium (not to exceed 10,000 seats in order to minimize traffic impacts), 8,000 seat hockey rink, skating oval, community centre, child care facilities, athletic track, outdoor skating rink, world class public library, free-range chicken space, farmer's market, convention centre, Olympic-sized swimming pool, artisan studios, canal-side beach, exhibition space, community gardens, soccer fields, amateur performing space, and Parisian cafés. Ideally it will resemble Convent Garden, Tivoli Gardens, and Maple Leaf Gardens combined. The development will be required to have a minimum of 75% open space (excluding Silvia Holden Park)

No housing, large format retail, or "chain stores" (i.e. retailers or restaurants with more than one location) will be permitted on the property. The proponent will be able to build up to 50,000 square feet of retail to recoup costs. Please note that this retail may not compete in any way with any existing stores on Bank Street between Wellington Street and Mitch Owens Road. A City Committee consisting of three councillors, two community association members, three Glebe BIA members and one representative from the proponent (non-voting member) will select all tenants and determine fair and equitable rents.

The City of Ottawa will maintain ownership of all facilities and lease them to the proponent at full market value, and will collect a 25% royalty on all pre-tax revenues. The proponent must allow amateur sporting events and charitable organizations to have access to the majority of the space at any time for no cost. The City will have the cake and maintain its right to eat it too.


That is awesome.

Seriously, I would like to see some of those pushing the RFP route to try to come up with parameters for the design competition they want to see including the financial provisions. It is quite easy to suggest that an RFP will solve all of our problems, but if you actually try to draft one for the entire site, and attempt to satisfy all of the competing interests at play , I suspect that it will end up looking like something no developer would ever want to respond to.

ajldub
Apr 12, 2010, 8:59 PM
It is quite easy to suggest that an RFP will solve all of our problems

I don't think anybody's saying that, Phil. What I'm saying, anyways, is that by not taking this to tender by the generally accepted rules(which includes an RFP) we have excluded ourselves from a motherlode of spending.

matty14
Apr 12, 2010, 9:38 PM
Proponents will be expected to build and fully finance a world class park, professional football stadium (not to exceed 10,000 seats in order to minimize traffic impacts), 8,000 seat hockey rink, skating oval, community centre...

10 000 seat stadium?!?! That cannot be right there's no way a CFL team would survive in such a small stadium.

waterloowarrior
Apr 12, 2010, 9:43 PM
^ exactly ;)

in other news
The end of an agricultural era in Ottawa
http://www.agrinewsinteractive.com/fullstory.htm?ArticleID=10805&ShowSection=News

Some recent articles from Maria Cook and David Reevely
http://communities.canada.com/OTTAWACITIZEN/blogs/greaterottawa/archive/2010/04/09/ian-lee-on-lansdowne.aspx
http://communities.canada.com/OTTAWACITIZEN/blogs/greaterottawa/archive/2010/04/12/polluting-the-discourse.aspx
http://communities.canada.com/OTTAWACITIZEN/blogs/designingottawa/archive/2010/04/07/who-pays-for-lansdowne.aspx
http://communities.canada.com/OTTAWACITIZEN/blogs/designingottawa/archive/2010/04/09/stadiums-and-taxpayers.aspx
http://communities.canada.com/OTTAWACITIZEN/blogs/designingottawa/archive/2010/04/09/frank-clair-stadium-reno-bad-deal-or-fair-proposal.aspx

jchamoun79
Apr 12, 2010, 10:37 PM
Toronto had no issues getting funding for bmo field.

That's because it was built for the 2007 FIFA U-20 World Cup.

reidjr
Apr 12, 2010, 10:50 PM
That's because it was built for the 2007 FIFA U-20 World Cup.

Toornto has a fair amount of other stadiums and arenas that did and do get funding.

c_speed3108
Apr 16, 2010, 12:46 PM
The claim appears to be that these are outdated concepts but non the less it does give us a first look at some renderings.

(from the Ottawa Sun)

http://storage.canoe.ca/v1/dynamic_resize/?src=http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa/2010/04/15/WEBsketch.jpg&size=640x400&quality=90

http://storage.canoe.ca/v1/dynamic_resize/?src=http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa/2010/04/15/WEBsketch2.jpg&size=640x424&quality=90

http://storage.canoe.ca/v1/dynamic_resize/?src=http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa/2010/04/15/WEBsketch6.jpg&size=640x335&quality=90

http://storage.canoe.ca/v1/dynamic_resize/?src=http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa/2010/04/15/WEBsketch7.jpg&size=640x335&quality=90


Came with expected comments from each party:

Business association screens bloody murder
Proponents say they are just preliminary and outdated.
Reality is somewhere in between :rolleyes:


Glebe BIA fumes over Lansdowne plans

By Jon Willing, City Hall Bureau

The city’s private partners in the Lansdowne Park redevelopment have circulated early designs, panicking opponents of the project’s retail component.

“It’s like a done deal,” Glebe BIA executive director Catherine Lindquist said Thursday.

The BIA called a news conference after they learned a series of conceptual drawings have been floated around the commercial sector.

The drawings show plans for two residential towers on each end of Holmwood Ave. and a large “whole foods” store with two levels, both 31,000 square feet. There are 10 buildings drawn up, plus the Aberdeen Pavilion.

Kevin McCrann, a representative of the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG), said the drawings are “a number of iterations ago” and not recent.

McCrann emphasized the drawings haven’t been signed off by the city’s design review panel led by George Dark.

The drawings were done about three weeks ago.

“They’re almost irrelevant to what we’re doing today,” McCrann said. “Three weeks in a two-month process is a long time.”

McCrann dismissed the suggestion OSEG is “shopping” around retail plans and that the floor space on the drawings, such as the 62,000-square-foot food store, are “grossly exaggerated.”

The drawings are part of the research process, he said.

“It’s only responsible on our part to go out and start talking to potential tenants and that’s the exercise we’re undertaking,” McCrann said.

“We haven’t signed a lease with anybody. We haven’t been selling this in the community. What we’re doing is talking with potential tenants,” he said.

There has to be a list of potential tenants because council and the BIA will eventually ask those questions, McCrann said.

Lindquist accused OSEG of not including the BIA in the planning. There was “shock and outrage” when the BIA learned the drawings were sent out to the commercial sector, she said.

A recent study by J.C. Williams group suggested the retail development should centre around grocery and specialty food stores and include a cinema.

A peer review of past retail studies of Lansdowne is ongoing. The BIA is also particularly concerned about the possibility of residential towers.

McCrann said a residential component is still being considered and OSEG is taking direction from the design review panel.

It’s premature to say what the final design will be because it must be approved by the design panel, McCrann said.

City council is expected to make a final decision on the redevelopment in June.

jon.willing@sunmedia.ca

waterloowarrior
Apr 16, 2010, 12:51 PM
Developers regularly publish plans before getting all the approvals.. Just check out the websites of Trinity, Taggart, Riocan, SmartCentres etc. One reason is that they want retailers to be aware of the project so they'll choose Lansdowne over other places (e.g. if Whole Foods was looking to start in Ottawa they'd choose Lansdowne over another part of the city). Not everyone is like Shoppers and has one store every 2 blocks ;)

ajldub
Apr 16, 2010, 1:11 PM
I say we start a poll on what the odds are that a Shoppers won't end up in this development.


These renderings are OK if a little vague.

jcollins
Apr 16, 2010, 1:48 PM
I hope OSEG ends up putting a residential component in this project, I think that it's important to do so.

Are there plans for the 67's ice rink to still be on site? It was hard to tell from the drawings and there was no mention in the article.

AuxTown
Apr 16, 2010, 1:58 PM
You can totally see why they would release this diagrams early. This clearly shows that the retail portion of this project is not huge compared to the surrounding neighbourhood and that the scale is completely in context with the rest of the Glebe. From the looks of it, the retail will make up the equivalent of 1.5 Glebe blocks (both sides) AT MOST! Not to mention that these will be new retailers who will not bring a significant amount of competition to the primarily specialty stores in the area. If anything, it will keep central Ottawaans in the city with things like Whole Foods, movie theatre, smaller chain stores etc. instead of having to run off to South Keys, Trainyards, or Gloucester Centre for shopping.

The Glebe NIMBYs had our imaginations on their side when they described this project as "big box", "out of scale", and "excessive". I know many people in the neighbourhood and around the city were picturing the Kanata Centrum part 2 being built on this prime piece of land. At least these preliminary drawing will put one of their cheap scare tactics to rest.

I hope OSEG ends up putting a residential component in this project, I think that it's important to do so.

Are there plans for the 67's ice rink to still be on site? It was hard to tell from the drawings and there was no mention in the article.


The tower along Bank Street is residential and there will be apartments/condos on top of all the retail buildings up to 3-4 floors (much like the rest of Glebe). It also looks like there may be townhouses fronting onto Holmewood. The 67's will continue to play out of the Urbandale Centre which is located under the North side stands pictured in the rendering. The arena will be getting major renovations though.

waterloowarrior
Apr 16, 2010, 2:57 PM
I say we start a poll on what the odds are that a Shoppers won't end up in this development.

Shoppers is having a lot of trouble these days, so maybe not.

Uhuniau
Apr 16, 2010, 3:25 PM
I totally want to open a retail store called "SIGNAGE".

I have no idea what I'd sell. But I want that name.

I hope the new "street" south of Holmwood and parallel to it would be more streety and less stupidopenspacey, but those drawings at least do a decent job of respecting and extending the Bank Street street wall. Montreal Road, Rideau Street, etc., take note.

c_speed3108
Apr 16, 2010, 3:34 PM
I totally want to open a retail store called "SIGNAGE".

I have no idea what I'd sell. But I want that name.

I hope the new "street" south of Holmwood and parallel to it would be more streety and less stupidopenspacey, but those drawings at least do a decent job of respecting and extending the Bank Street street wall. Montreal Road, Rideau Street, etc., take note.


They appear to be calling that street "Lansdowne Avenue" on the plans.

umbria27
Apr 16, 2010, 5:51 PM
Of course no one is that extreme, but my point was that there are a lot of ideas and claims out there are very one-sided to the point where there's no reason/incentive for a developer to be involved. There's also the idea that a competition would automatically result in much better development and the implication that with a competition there would be less retail/housing and more public space along with less cost to the city.

No argument from me on any of those points. Your parody RFP, however, has the effect of representing all dissenting opinions as being unreasonable, which is just as one sided.
A competition, by taking in input at first and setting out the terms of reference, would have built consensus, and the more radical opponents would have fewer allies. There's no use beating the dead horse of this. The competition is not going to be revived, but in the absence of the competition with clear terms of reference, interest groups have a useful role in providing criticism and feedback.

On that topic, OSEG's latest design is a bit a puzzler. It's at odds with the recommendations of George Dark in several ways. It looks like main street retail. Aside from the tower, the buildings seem to be about 7 storeys and there's a mix of residential and commercial, but they aren't on the traditional main street. They are perpendicular to Bank. It does nothing to reinforce Bank as a traditional main street, which was one of the Dark's key recommendations. By aligning the buildings with Holmwood it removes the traditional open area between the Holmwood and the park that Dark recommended keeping. He was very much against having townhouses on Holmwood.

http://ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/lansdowne_partnership/peer_review.pdf

I can't see Dark's review board approving this alignment.

As for the tower, I can't believe OSEG is foolhardy enough to propose this and galvanize another set of opponents in. I can only imagine that this is on the plan as something they can remove, so as to be seen as making a compromise. Either I'm cynical or OSEG is.

c_speed3108
Apr 16, 2010, 6:07 PM
As for the tower, I can't believe OSEG is foolhardy enough to propose this and galvanize another set of opponents in. I can only imagine that this is on the plan as something they can remove, so as to be seen as making a compromise. Either I'm cynical or OSEG is.


I agree the tower strikes me as it was put there deliberately has a "honey-pot" to keep opposition occupied and will ultimately be negotiated out.

jcollins
Apr 16, 2010, 6:15 PM
The 67's will continue to play out of the Urbandale Centre which is located under the North side stands pictured in the rendering. The arena will be getting major renovations though.

Ok thanks. I wasnt sure by looking at the rendering.

Ottawan
May 5, 2010, 5:49 PM
Financing for this model sees City money at about a quarter of current cost.

Development will be private based on Battery Park concept, only additional working model will be run as the CPC (Central Park Conservancy) in the form of a trust.

It may be a quarter the nominal City cost, but without the possibility for the City to recover all it's money if the venture is successful.

Also, a quarter of the cost for a much smaller fraction of the benefit does not stack up well against a project that would have a larger cumulative impact on the vibrancy and well-being of the city.

AuxTown
May 7, 2010, 1:03 PM
As posted in the Frank Claire thread, a message from Lansdowne Live:

Hello friends.

You are cordially invited to attend the public unveiling of plans for the new Lansdowne Park on Thursday, May 27th at 1:00 pm in the Bell Theatre, Minto Centre, Carleton University. It’s an opportunity to be among the first to view detailed renderings of the proposed new stadium and mixed-use areas, and to hear the thinking behind the designs from the architects who created them. You’ll also hear an outline of the next steps in the process to revitalize Lansdowne and how you can take part.

If you’re a fan of professional football or soccer, outdoor concerts and vibrant Ottawa destinations, you’ll be in for a treat. Admission to the unveiling event is free but seating is limited so we recommend you come early. Paid parking is available on campus and an “O Train” stop is located near the venue.

To view an interactive map of the Carleton University Campus follow this link: http://www2.carleton.ca/campus. Minto Centre is identified with the letters MC.

It's time for us to represent!

reidjr
May 7, 2010, 1:23 PM
As posted in the Frank Claire thread, a message from Lansdowne Live:



It's time for us to represent!

Do you know how to contact frank.

waterloowarrior
May 7, 2010, 2:12 PM
Do you know how to contact frank.

Frank Clair passed away in 2005

c_speed3108
May 7, 2010, 3:21 PM
Frank Clair passed away in 2005

I believe some of his ashes were spread on the field.

reidjr
May 7, 2010, 3:35 PM
Frank Clair passed away in 2005

I was not talking about clair i was sure there is a person named frank i forgot his last name who is part of the group in some way.

AuxTown
May 7, 2010, 4:17 PM
I was not talking about clair i was sure there is a person named frank i forgot his last name who is part of the group in some way.

Just start a thread about PRT, monorail, or hovercraft transportation in Ottawa and he will surface no doubt.

;) I kid.

jemartin
May 8, 2010, 1:26 PM
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post
The City of Ottawa is seeking proposals to provide development services and financial backing for the revitalization of Lansdowne Park. The Park is currently a combined sports complex for hockey and Canadian football, and is surrounded by world class public space.

Proponents will be expected to build and fully finance a world class park, professional football stadium (not to exceed 10,000 seats in order to minimize traffic impacts), 8,000 seat hockey rink, skating oval, community centre, child care facilities, athletic track, outdoor skating rink, world class public library, free-range chicken space, farmer's market, convention centre, Olympic-sized swimming pool, artisan studios, canal-side beach, exhibition space, community gardens, soccer fields, amateur performing space, and Parisian cafés. Ideally it will resemble Convent Garden, Tivoli Gardens, and Maple Leaf Gardens combined. The development will be required to have a minimum of 75% open space (excluding Silvia Holden Park)

No housing, large format retail, or "chain stores" (i.e. retailers or restaurants with more than one location) will be permitted on the property. The proponent will be able to build up to 50,000 square feet of retail to recoup costs. Please note that this retail may not compete in any way with any existing stores on Bank Street between Wellington Street and Mitch Owens Road. A City Committee consisting of three councillors, two community association members, three Glebe BIA members and one representative from the proponent (non-voting member) will select all tenants and determine fair and equitable rents.

The City of Ottawa will maintain ownership of all facilities and lease them to the proponent at full market value, and will collect a 25% royalty on all pre-tax revenues. The proponent must allow amateur sporting events and charitable organizations to have access to the majority of the space at any time for no cost. The City will have the cake and maintain its right to eat it too.

That is awesome.

Seriously, I would like to see some of those pushing the RFP route to try to come up with parameters for the design competition they want to see including the financial provisions. It is quite easy to suggest that an RFP will solve all of our problems, but if you actually try to draft one for the entire site, and attempt to satisfy all of the competing interests at play , I suspect that it will end up looking like something no developer would ever want to respond to.

Great tongue in cheek by waterloo warrior, but a real presentation in the form of an unsolicited proposal by the Lansdowne Park Conservancy is on its way.

c_speed3108
May 10, 2010, 12:48 PM
Sounds like this is going to be pretty awesome.


As Lansdowne plan evolves, experts’ optimism grows

Members of the review panel overseeing the design of the Lansdowne Park redevelopment were initially unimpressed by plans for the site. But now the trio is feeling positive about several elements of the project.

By Don Butler, The Ottawa Citizen May 10, 2010 6:09 AM

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Lansdowne+plan+evolves+experts+optimism+grows/3007020/story.html#ixzz0nWwYhBKq


OTTAWA — As first conceived, Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group’s Lansdowne Live proposal fell sadly short of the mark. It was a “theme park.” It “wasn’t sophisticated enough.” It was “a big mistake.” It “just wasn’t good enough.”

Those quotes don’t come from the Lansdowne redevelopment’s implacable foes in the Glebe. They are the sentiments of the three distinguished members of the design review panel chosen to advise city council on the project’s suitability.

But the Lansdowne plan has evolved considerably since George Dark, Marianne McKenna and Rick Haldenby were appointed to the review panel last November.

In interviews late last month, the three complimented city staff, heaped praise on the proposed design for a renewed Frank Clair Stadium and spoke glowingly about the five firms competing to design Lansdowne’s proposed “urban park.”

They even had nice things to say about the developers.

While the Lansdowne design is still a work in progress, panel members now believe something memorable is possible on a site that’s currently little more than a parking lot engulfing a few deteriorating buildings.

“The challenge was always to apply some imagination to this project that was going to lead it to a singular solution that would make Ottawa proud,” says Haldenby, who heads the University of Waterloo’s school of architecture.

“All of us are kind of fixed on trying to get this right. That’s the main thing, is trying to get it right, trying to push the designers to get the best possible project.”

Dark, the Toronto urban designer who chairs the panel, believes Lansdowne should rival celebrated sites such as Vancouver’s Granville Island, The Forks in Winnipeg and Montreal’s Old Port.

“This is your chance to really distinguish yourself with a civic asset. It’s perfectly located. It’s by the canal. It should be a really special place.”

Though some have likened a renewed Lansdowne to a pearl along the Rideau Canal, Dark says that analogy doesn’t capture its potential value. “I think this could be a diamond.”

The third panel member, Marianne McKenna — the “M” in the architectural firm KPMG — has just finished designing the new Royal Conservatory of Music building in Toronto.

“Ottawa certainly is fertile for reinvestment in a great national urban park,” McKenna says. “The bar should be set that high. And that’s what we’re looking for.

“We believe everybody can do their best work and, with the support of the design review panel, get something great for Ottawa.”

The design competition for Lansdowne’s urban park has attracted five of the best landscape architects in the world, Dark says. “It’s one of the best open-space competitions going on in North America currently.”

Dark and McKenna are on the jury that will pick the winning design. And, Dark predicts, there will be a clear winner. “One of them will be quite a bit above the rest.”

The firms in the competition won’t get everything right, he warns. “But they’re going to show you something you haven’t seen before. They’re going to bring you ideas from all over the world and put them down on the Rideau Canal.”

Though he’s a Toronto native who now lives in Kitchener, Haldenby has spent time in Ottawa. As a child, he regularly visited his grandfather, Ross Macdonald, who was speaker of the House of Commons and later government leader in the Senate.

As a student, he did measured drawings of O’Brien House at Meech Lake for the NCC in the 1970s, when the fate of the historic Aberdeen Pavilion — now Lansdowne’s crown jewel — hung in the balance. “I just have a deep attachment to Ottawa,” he says.

Judging by e-mails he receives, Haldenby says some people in Ottawa seem convinced the city is bent on destroying Lansdowne Park.

However, he says, “my experience is quite the opposite. I’ve found, from the city’s side, they’re really trying to get this right.”

Panel members have been encouraged to speak their minds directly and forcefully, Haldenby says. “That’s come from the city, and I am really very pleased.”

City officials, Dark says, have “released huge intellectual power on this thing. It’s really remarkable. There is a huge amount of thinking that’s going on.”

Like the rest of Ottawa, the panel won’t see the urban park designs until the competition closes on May 20, but the three have held four or five “peer review” sessions with Ottawa architects Barry Hobin and Ritchard Brisbin, who are designing the commercial elements of the project, and stadium architect Rob Claiborne of Cannon Design in Toronto.

“They’re trying to convince us that they’re doing the right thing, and we ask questions and push them on things,” Haldenby says.

The architects “need to be encouraged and supported to do their best work,” Mckenna says. The panel can help by advocating bolder ideas with developers, who “often don’t want to think outside the box.”

McKenna has been impressed, though, by OSEG developers Roger Greenberg, John Ruddy, Bill Shenkman and Jeff Hunt. “I have the sense that these developers are listening,” she says. “I think that’s a positive start.”

At one point, McKenna says someone asked if the developers should be present for the design review sessions. “I said, ‘like, yeah.’ If they’re actually part of the process, it makes it much more interesting, much more possible that the best initiatives will be the ones that stay in there.”

So far, Claiborne’s stadium design has generated the most enthusiasm among panel members.

Conceptual drawings show a stadium that merges seamlessly with surrounding parkland to the south and east, and has connections to Bank Street and the proposed commercial development to the north.

Its most striking feature is a curvaceous “veil” of glued laminated Alaskan yellow cedar that encloses new southside stands.

Dark believes the stadium should be an icon, like the “Bird’s Nest” stadium in Beijing or the Richmond Oval built for the 2010 Vancouver Olympics. “It seems to me that this one’s going to be yours,” he says. “It will be just as cool.”

Haldenby calls Claiborne’s stadium design “very promising — that whole idea of seeing a stadium that isn’t an isolated thing with walls around it.”

McKenna agrees. “A stadium can be a great behemoth,” she says. “You just hear a great sucking sound when it’s active, and the rest of the time it’s just dead.

“My big thing is, ‘Can a river run through it?’ How do you send a green path through the stadium so it becomes something you actually can walk through? You walk through, and it’s like walking through the Coliseum.”

Claiborne’s design acknowledges that objective by allowing pedestrians and cyclists to weave through the stadium’s veil. “It’s interesting how they’re interpreting what we have asked for,” McKenna says. “I think it’s coming along quite nicely.”

Panelists aren’t yet as keen on what they’ve seen of the commercial component being designed by Hobin and Brisbin for the Lansdowne Park’s northwest quadrant.

“If you ask me today what part still gives me concern,” Haldenby says, “it’s the retail part. I just haven’t seen what it is architecturally.”

However, Haldenby adds, there was “a huge amount of progress” at the last design review session. “What we’re looking at now is much more complex, much more urban, has much greater diversity of use and form.”

Dark blames the “narrow-minded” influence of commercial real-estate specialists for the retail design’s slow start.

“Commercial real estate people actually were allowed to make too many decisions about too many things for too long,” he says. “Once that got released, it launched ahead very quickly.”

The design panel is looking for something special from the commercial component. “I just don’t think it should be an ordinary experience,” Dark says. “You have a lot of shopping malls. I don’t think you need another one.”

Dark visualizes a mixed use development of several stories, with commercial activities not generally found in Ottawa at ground level, and housing or other uses above.

“It has to be a mixed use, very authentic part of the city or it will be a little artificial,” he says. “The more it’s single-purpose retail, the more I think it’s a shopping mall.”

McKenna thinks extending the city’s street grid into Lansdowne’s commercial zone makes sense, while Haldenby believes distinctive architecture is key. “If we end up with a standard big box shopping mall with buildings that are no better than signs, then we’ve failed,” he says.

The three panelists continue to meet regularly with OSEG’s architectural team, whose designs are expected to be made public on May 27. “Our responsibility is to the people of Ottawa to push the designers and the proponents to get a project that is appropriate,” Haldenby says.

Once a winner is declared in the urban park competition June 7, the two design teams will be integrated. The review panel will then assess the whole project and deliver its verdict to city council before its vote on June 28.

“It would be good if we could be as simple and straightforward as possible,” Haldenby says, but the panel’s judgment is unlikely to be a blanket thumbs up or thumbs down.

“Our job is not simply to say, yeah, people worked on it for six months and there it is, and it’s fine,” Dark says. “If the project has missing pieces, I think we have a responsibility to tell what they are.”

There will be flaws, he says. “If anybody’s setting up the expectation that this little moment of perfection will be delivered, they’re going to be very disappointed.”

But that doesn’t necessarily mean the project should be abandoned, Dark says. “Part of what I see going on now is you get people who will pull any little piece out of it and declare it fatal. Seldom does the world work that way.”
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Lansdowne+plan+evolves+experts+optimism+grows/3007020/story.html#ixzz0nWwMkGpA

KHOOLE
May 10, 2010, 8:02 PM
Glebites, jemartin, KHOOLE and Franky will all bitch about this regardless.

I have no problem with Rob Claiborne‘s rendering for a stadium. It’s beautiful and it befits his great talents and vision. However, this stadium would suffer by being placed in front of a late-afternoon and setting sun and by being too close to the Queen Elizabeth Driveway and the Rideau Canal. The National Gallery, the Museum of Civilization, the War Museum, the Eiffel Tower, the Peace Tower, the Pyramids and Beijing’s Bird’s Nest are all admired from a distance. Being confined to the eastern limit of Lansdowne Park and being so close to traffic, pedestrians and a canal bridge will not do honour to Claiborne’s masterpiece.
Haldenby said that the Aberdeen Pavilion, which btw nearly got the same fate as the Daly Building, is a crown jewel. Claiborne’s stadium also should be a crown jewel. However, it seems to me that putting two crown jewels so close together would be like putting the Chateau Laurier on the front lawn of Parliament Hill.
Let’s fix up Frank Clair’s stadium to last maybe 10-15 years (a CFL franchise probably won’t last that long) and concentrate on investing taxpayers dollars on rapid transit from Orleans to the train station to the bus station to Kanata to Barrhaven to the airport to downtown and to all the shopping malls, medical centres and hospitals and government offices along the Carling Ave/ Queensway / Hgy 174 axis. Link up with NCC’s Ceremonial route and Gatineau’s Rapi-Bus and forget about a tunnel that will be underutilized and will go from nowhere to nowhere. At the tune of 2.1 billion dollars, could we not get something more and better than a hole in the ground?
Why should the taxpayers of Ottawa be stuck with hundreds of millions of dollars of debt for a stadium right away when much more expensive and necessary infrastructure expenditures such as sewage and transportation are just around the corner. Ottawa taxpayers are going to get hit in a big way very soon. When you have only 40 bucks for groceries, you don’t go out and buy a two-four.
I would love to have Claiborne’s stadium. It’s a beauty and an inspiration. It could be built later on, when rapid transit and sewage expenses are sorted out. Bayview Yards would be an excellent place for a stadium but it is not the only place. Carleton University’s campus, sitting on rapid transit and close to the Rideau River and the Rideau Canal and Brewers Park and Hogg’s Back and Mooney’s Bay and Terry Fox facility and Vincent Massey Park would be another excellent choice. Another area would be the Carling Avenue-Dow’s Lake area that would extend to Chinatown and Little Italy. We could have a playing field and stadium sitting on top of the O-train. Such a stadium could be at the intersection of East-West and North-South LRT rapid transit. Mastercraft is planning two tall towers just about there.

Claiborne’s visionary stadium is fantastic. But, NOT NOW and NOT THERE. KHOOLE

K-133
May 10, 2010, 8:12 PM
I have no problem with Rob Claiborne‘s rendering for a stadium. It’s beautiful and it befits his great talents and vision. However, this stadium would suffer by being placed in front of a late-afternoon and setting sun and by being too close to the Queen Elizabeth Driveway and the Rideau Canal. The National Gallery, the Museum of Civilization, the War Museum, the Eiffel Tower, the Peace Tower, the Pyramids and Beijing’s Bird’s Nest are all admired from a distance. Being confined to the eastern limit of Lansdowne Park and being so close to traffic, pedestrians and a canal bridge will not do honour to Claiborne’s masterpiece.
Haldenby said that the Aberdeen Pavilion, which btw nearly got the same fate as the Daly Building, is a crown jewel. Claiborne’s stadium also should be a crown jewel. However, it seems to me that putting two crown jewels so close together would be like putting the Chateau Laurier on the front lawn of Parliament Hill.
Let’s fix up Frank Clair’s stadium to last maybe 10-15 years (a CFL franchise probably won’t last that long) and concentrate on investing taxpayers dollars on rapid transit from Orleans to the train station to the bus station to Kanata to Barrhaven to the airport to downtown and to all the shopping malls, medical centres and hospitals and government offices along the Carling Ave/ Queensway / Hgy 174 axis. Link up with NCC’s Ceremonial route and Gatineau’s Rapi-Bus and forget about a tunnel that will be underutilized and will go from nowhere to nowhere. At the tune of 2.1 billion dollars, could we not get something more and better than a hole in the ground?
Why should the taxpayers of Ottawa be stuck with hundreds of millions of dollars of debt for a stadium right away when much more expensive and necessary infrastructure expenditures such as sewage and transportation are just around the corner. Ottawa taxpayers are going to get hit in a big way very soon. When you have only 40 bucks for groceries, you don’t go out and buy a two-four.
I would love to have Claiborne’s stadium. It’s a beauty and an inspiration. It could be built later on, when rapid transit and sewage expenses are sorted out. Bayview Yards would be an excellent place for a stadium but it is not the only place. Carleton University’s campus, sitting on rapid transit and close to the Rideau River and the Rideau Canal and Brewers Park and Hogg’s Back and Mooney’s Bay and Terry Fox facility and Vincent Massey Park would be another excellent choice. Another area would be the Carling Avenue-Dow’s Lake area that would extend to Chinatown and Little Italy. We could have a playing field and stadium sitting on top of the O-train. Such a stadium could be at the intersection of East-West and North-South LRT rapid transit. Mastercraft is planning two tall towers just about there.

Claiborne’s visionary stadium is fantastic. But, NOT NOW and NOT THERE. KHOOLE

His rendering would compliment the war museum nicely. But that would decrease density for the area - and ZOMG we know what that means!

Terry Fox is another great idea. My concern with that would be congestion - though that's the problem with the current place as well. And would likely be a problem at the Flats. Going back to areas near Dow's Lake is Carleton, which would probably suffer the least from congestion issues. I'm no urban planner though.

Wherever a sports stadium is built, it has to be an area which can be made flexible for transit options. No matter how much we push public transit, there will always be a huge crowd which drives.

Jamaican-Phoenix
May 10, 2010, 9:36 PM
I have no problem with Rob Claiborne‘s rendering for a stadium. It’s beautiful and it befits his great talents and vision.

But...

However, this stadium would suffer by being placed in front of a late-afternoon and setting sun and by being too close to the Queen Elizabeth Driveway and the Rideau Canal.

Seriously? That's the best reason you can come up with for why it shouldn't be there? The stadium wouldn't suffer; Glebites like you would "suffer". This beautiful stadium will be in a beautiful spot along a beautiful UNESCO World Heritage Site that is central to Ottawa and has dealt with the stadium being there since the earliest days of the city.

The National Gallery, the Museum of Civilization, the War Museum, the Eiffel Tower, the Peace Tower, the Pyramids and Beijing’s Bird’s Nest are all admired from a distance.

They are also admired from up close and from the inside as well. Your point is invalid.

Being confined to the eastern limit of Lansdowne Park and being so close to traffic, pedestrians and a canal bridge will not do honour to Claiborne’s masterpiece.

Your basis for that would be what, exactly?

Haldenby said that the Aberdeen Pavilion, which btw nearly got the same fate as the Daly Building, is a crown jewel. Claiborne’s stadium also should be a crown jewel. However, it seems to me that putting two crown jewels so close together would be like putting the Chateau Laurier on the front lawn of Parliament Hill.

Seriously? THAT's the analogy/argument you're going to make here? Dude, the Chateau Laurier might as well be on Parliament Hill's Front Lawn. They're close enough and almost all pictures of the Federal District include the Chateau. They look fine where they are and COMPLIMENT each other.

Let’s fix up Frank Clair’s stadium to last maybe 10-15 years (a CFL franchise probably won’t last that long) and concentrate on investing taxpayers dollars on rapid transit from Orleans to the train station to the bus station to Kanata to Barrhaven to the airport to downtown and to all the shopping malls, medical centres and hospitals and government offices along the Carling Ave/ Queensway / Hgy 174 axis. Link up with NCC’s Ceremonial route and Gatineau’s Rapi-Bus and forget about a tunnel that will be underutilized and will go from nowhere to nowhere. At the tune of 2.1 billion dollars, could we not get something more and better than a hole in the ground?

Wow. Everything you ever have said and will say is now discredited since you clearly have no clue what you are talking about.

1. Fixing up Frank Clair to last for only 10-15 years is a COLOSSAL waste of taxpayers money which is scarce these days. You are actually advocating that Ottawans pay millions for a temporary solution, that will be replaced by a permanent money-losing situation that they will have to pay for on top of that.

2. The Carling/Queensway/174 Axis is NOT what Ottawa should aspire for with regards to the basis of a rapid transit line. Also, funding has been allocated for these transitway/rapid-transit projects so you don't need to worry about a stadium taking away from that.

3. Again, good luck getting the NCC to do anything, let alone get Gatineau and Ottawa to somehow figure out how to integrate their transit systems.

4. Please enlighten me as to how the tunnel will be underused? The whole point of the tunnel is to accommodate the demand AND provide for future expansion of demand in the city's future. It's planning for the here and now, AND for the future. Sounds smart to me.

5. Considering tunnels are expensive and there aren't any truly suitable alternatives for Ottawa, yes; a tunnel is the best we can do.

Why should the taxpayers of Ottawa be stuck with hundreds of millions of dollars of debt for a stadium right away when much more expensive and necessary infrastructure expenditures such as sewage and transportation are just around the corner. Ottawa taxpayers are going to get hit in a big way very soon. When you have only 40 bucks for groceries, you don’t go out and buy a two-four.

You clearly have not been following the funding procurement for Lansdowne Live, have you? Compared to other projects and suggestions from people like you, jemartin and Franky, LL provides a remarkably good deal for the city financially. It allows us to MAKE money from Lansdowne instead of wasting $10M a year on basic upkeep to keep it from crumbling any further.

I would love to have Claiborne’s stadium. It’s a beauty and an inspiration. It could be built later on, when rapid transit and sewage expenses are sorted out.[quote]

We don't have until later. We have an excellent opportunity right now that came knocking on our door. Ottawa has delayed too many projects and tried to stall development. It's time for this city to grow up.

[quote]Bayview Yards would be an excellent place for a stadium but it is not the only place.

No it wouldn't. Infrastructure there as we've recently learned is insufficient and needs a city review. Also, nothing exists there and access is limited and fun things to do are far away.

Carleton University’s campus, sitting on rapid transit and close to the Rideau River and the Rideau Canal and Brewers Park and Hogg’s Back and Mooney’s Bay and Terry Fox facility and Vincent Massey Park would be another excellent choice.

Except for, you know, the fact that they're an expanding university and ahve plans for the land allotted to them. :rolleyes:

Another area would be the Carling Avenue-Dow’s Lake area that would extend to Chinatown and Little Italy. We could have a playing field and stadium sitting on top of the O-train. Such a stadium could be at the intersection of East-West and North-South LRT rapid transit. Mastercraft is planning two tall towers just about there.

Let me get this straight...

You want to stick a stadium...On land that would require the demolition of people's houses and require incredible amounts of new infrastructure...In an area with limited transit access...ridiculous congestion... that would require neighbourhood little street roads to access...

Are you completely goosed in the head?

Another thing I'd like to point out; you keep mentioning all these other places that would be suitable for a stadium, but for some reason the Glebe isn't. Your proposed sites are hardly helpful, have people living in the area, so why should they matter less than you Glebites? This seems to be an "anywhere but the Glebe" which isn't going to win people to your cause. In fact, it's downright selfish, ignorant and arrogant of you to suggest some of these places as "serious alternatives".

Claiborne’s visionary stadium is fantastic.

I agree wholeheartedly.

But, NOT NOW and NOT THERE. KHOOLE

Yes now, and yes there. Jamaican-Phoenix.

jemartin
May 10, 2010, 11:09 PM
The fatal flaw as George Dark puts it will be cost and space.

The backlawn will be expanded upon but the entire park needs to be managed by a conservancy.

The development and stadium will relocate to the more financially rewarding area adjacent to the Ottawa River.

Two sites done well.

Ciemny
May 11, 2010, 1:37 AM
Nice fantasy. You seem so sure that Lansdowne will be managed by a conservancy, a new stadium will be built in LeBreton and everyone will hold hands and sing songs of joy.....sort of.

If this happens it will be a "gleebe" park, not for everone else, not for the whole city. Why would tourists, who have better things to see, want to go to the Glebe to see a part with a few structures, soccer fields and nothing that makes Ottawa stands out. Any of the museums in the city, downtown attractions, shopping centers would be more likley to attract tourists than grassy plains, lawns with a few trees. Even the arboretum at the experimental farm would be far more attractive.

But hey this is Ottawa............we need more parks......to make the minority happy.

jemartin
May 11, 2010, 2:17 AM
Nice fantasy. You seem so sure that Lansdowne will be managed by a conservancy, a new stadium will be built in LeBreton and everyone will hold hands and sing songs of joy.....sort of.

If this happens it will be a "gleebe" park, not for everone else, not for the whole city. Why would tourists, who have better things to see, want to go to the Glebe to see a part with a few structures, soccer fields and nothing that makes Ottawa stands out. Any of the museums in the city, downtown attractions, shopping centers would be more likley to attract tourists than grassy plains, lawns with a few trees. Even the arboretum at the experimental farm would be far more attractive.

But hey this is Ottawa............we need more parks......to make the minority happy.
I would not want to proceed if the only benefactor were the immediate area.

The history of the site demonstrates a park that has been used for over 100 years by the entire region, the CCE and Farm Shows confirm that.

The current proposal aims to eliminate them. The Conservancy wishes to preserve, manage and promote the rural/urban interaction.

The Trade Shows are also being eliminated, yet with the conservancy more space is being added and they will be enhanced.

Amateur sport will lose space under the current proposal, yet with the conservancy it will be increased.

The benefits of the conservancy will be clear when it is formally introduced in the press in the next few weeks.

The stadium is not the pressing issue, Lansdowne Park is.

The stadium model with financing will see a better offer under the competitive framework that will inevitably be introduced.

jemartin
May 11, 2010, 2:23 AM
His rendering would compliment the war museum nicely. But that would decrease density for the area - and ZOMG we know what that means!

Terry Fox is another great idea. My concern with that would be congestion - though that's the problem with the current place as well. And would likely be a problem at the Flats. Going back to areas near Dow's Lake is Carleton, which would probably suffer the least from congestion issues. I'm no urban planner though.

Wherever a sports stadium is built, it has to be an area which can be made flexible for transit options. No matter how much we push public transit, there will always be a huge crowd which drives.
To K-133,

Over 4,000 parking spots empty and available every game time within 150 meters of Bayview Stadium at Tunney's Pasture.

Jamaican-Phoenix
May 11, 2010, 2:58 AM
I would not want to proceed if the only benefactor were the immediate area.

Then you can stop since your "plan" would kill any sense of tourism or draw Lansdowne has really had.

The history of the site demonstrates a park that has been used for over 100 years by the entire region, the CCE and Farm Shows confirm that.

As do the football games, the hockey games, the concerts, the sports events, etc. Why get rid of that and one of the few major sources of revenue?

The current proposal aims to eliminate them. The Conservancy wishes to preserve, manage and promote the rural/urban interaction.

Bullshit. The current plan calls for the Farmer's market to stay and expand. They don't want to kill anything except the boredom and decrepit state of Lansdowne, which people like YOU are trying to prevent.

The Trade Shows are also being eliminated, yet with the conservancy more space is being added and they will be enhanced.

The trade shows aren't being eliminated, they are being moved. There's a group of people who want to build a lovely centre out by the airport, there's the Hampton Conference Centre on the Vanier Parkway, the new Congress Centre under construction, etc. There's more than enough room.

Amateur sport will lose space under the current proposal, yet with the conservancy it will be increased.

I'd rather have professional sports than amateur sports. And your spurious claim that they will lose space is nuts since the group still plans to lease the stadium AND there are SUPPOSED to be sports fields in the park section that is being designed.

The benefits of the conservancy will be clear when it is formally introduced in the press in the next few weeks.

Except it won't since a bunch of here have already poked more holes in your proposal and arguments than there are holes in all the Swiss cheese in Switzerland.

The stadium is not the pressing issue, Lansdowne Park is.

The two are connected and therefore are not mutually exclusive.

The stadium model with financing will see a better offer under the competitive framework that will inevitably be introduced.

Riiiiight, since people clearly came calling before. :rolleyes:

To K-133,

Over 4,000 parking spots empty and available every game time within 150 meters of Bayview Stadium at Tunney's Pasture.

So, in other words, you want to turn Bayview into a version of Scotiabank Place, only right beside downtown and on precious urban land. Bloody brilliant. :rolleyes: :koko:

waterloowarrior
May 11, 2010, 7:09 AM
City wants art at the park
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/travel/City+wants+park/3010992/story.html
All sides support plan that includes art gallery as single largest element

BY RANDALL DENLEY, THE OTTAWA CITIZEN MAY 11, 2010 1:02 AM COMMENTS (1)


OTTAWA — The city’s Lansdowne redevelopment is making a dramatic switch from commerce to culture. Officials from the city, the Ottawa Art Gallery and the Lansdowne private partnership have been quietly developing a proposal to build a new gallery at Lansdowne that would significantly alter the commercial tone of the project. At 50,000 square feet, the gallery would be the largest single use in the new development.

Spokesmen for all three key parties see the gallery as a good fit. For the city, it is a chance to get a new gallery without a substantial capital outlay. For developers Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group, the gallery would provide a reliable long-term tenant. For the gallery itself, a new building in a prominent location would be a dream come true, finally enabling it to show the people of Ottawa a unique and valuable collection.

The move would also make possible another creative plan from the city. The art gallery is shoehorned into city-owned Arts Court in the former county courthouse on Nicholas. City council requested a redevelopment plan for the crowded site a couple of years ago and staff will propose a public-private partnership with a boutique hotel or condo building on vacant land beside the former courthouse.

The sale or lease of that land would provide the capital required to redevelop the rest of the site as a much better cultural centre with two theatres, artists’ studios and display spaces.

The city is having “serious discussions” with OSEG and the art gallery board, says city councillor Peter Hume, who is spearheading the proposal at City Hall. Architects are already working to determine how to give the gallery the prominence it wants. Hume says one of the ideas being investigated is building onto the north face of the stadium.

“We think it would be a great addition,” says OSEG spokesman Kevin McCrann. “It would be a use that we’d be excited about having.”

Ottawa lawyer Lawson Hunter, chair of the gallery board, says the new gallery has the potential to be a significant tourist attraction that will help define Ottawa by showcasing what its artists have done. “We could really make a statement for the city of Ottawa.”

City councillor Georges Bédard voted against the Lansdowne proposal, but he’s keen on adding the gallery to the site. “Every city that respects itself has an art gallery of some significance,” Bedard says.

City manager Kent Kirkpatrick says he and the city’s various Lansdowne design experts also support the art gallery proposal.

Everyone involved with this plan thinks it’s great, but some might ask why Ottawa needs its own art gallery when we are lucky enough to have the National Gallery here. The two would serve completely different purposes. About 10 times larger, the National Gallery is broad in scope. The Ottawa gallery would be a place to showcase Ottawa artists and the city’s Firestone collection.

Just visit the existing art gallery if you want to see the term “grossly inadequate” defined. “The state of the municipal gallery in Ottawa is almost an embarrassment if you look at what other cities do,” board chairman Hunter says.

Forget almost. This is an embarrassment. The gallery has bits and pieces of space in Arts Court, but it’s only a quarter of what it needs. There isn’t sufficient space to display the gallery’s collection or the city-owned Firestone collection. That is a major collection of Canadian art valued at $17 million that was donated to Ottawa by noted collector O.J. Firestone. There are 1,600 works in the collection, including major pieces by the Group of Seven. Due to lack of a proper gallery, the public only gets to see 30 to 40 of these works at a time. The city’s failure to provide a proper home for this generous gift is shameful.

Given the state of support for the arts on this council, a proposal for a standalone gallery would never succeed. Put the same kind of project at Lansdowne, and it takes on a new complexion. A gallery in the commercial part of the project would certainly say that this is an important municipal space, not a retail opportunity. Another attraction of the Lansdowne plan is that the rent paid by the gallery would, in part, go back into the city’s pocket through its partnership with the private sector group that would build the gallery and act as landlord. After 30 years, the city would own the gallery outright.

Firm numbers are not yet available, but Kirkpatrick estimates that operating a gallery on that scale could require a budget of about $2 million a year. Not all of that would come from the city, which provides about 30 per cent of the gallery’s $1 million annual operating budget. Most of the money comes from grants from various arts and government organizations.

OSEG is expected to propose that the gallery be a tenant when plans are released in a few weeks. Councillors will then receive a report asking them to approve the redevelopment of Arts Court and the creation of a new gallery at Lansdowne.

The Lansdowne vote late next month will not hinge on the gallery deal, but one can only hope that city councillors will not pass up a marvellous opportunity to improve the Lansdowne proposal while snagging a new art gallery and improving Arts Court, all without laying out any major money.

Contact Randall Denley at 613-596-3756 or by e-mail, rdenley@thecitizen.canwest.com

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

phil235
May 11, 2010, 12:44 PM
This is unbelievable! I was hoping that the team would come up with a coup like this - a gallery or the concert hall. This is an absolutely huge step that will go a long way to building consensus for the proposal, as the Ottawa Art Gallery is in desperate need to a new facility. I'd actually be likely to go to a gallery were it located at Lansdowne. It's great to see what can be done when people are willing to take a step back from their personal agendas and work together on a compromise.

And speaking of personal agendas, good to see you over here, JeMartin. At least you are now trying to dominate the right thread with your personal, sorry I mean public, interest advocacy. Good luck with your press conference. Once you stretch your 15 minutes just a little farther people will surely start to realize that your park is a much better idea than the Lansdowne Live proposal that has been developed with the input of so many stakeholders.

reidjr
May 11, 2010, 1:22 PM
I would not want to proceed if the only benefactor were the immediate area.

The history of the site demonstrates a park that has been used for over 100 years by the entire region, the CCE and Farm Shows confirm that.

The current proposal aims to eliminate them. The Conservancy wishes to preserve, manage and promote the rural/urban interaction.

The Trade Shows are also being eliminated, yet with the conservancy more space is being added and they will be enhanced.

Amateur sport will lose space under the current proposal, yet with the conservancy it will be increased.

The benefits of the conservancy will be clear when it is formally introduced in the press in the next few weeks.

The stadium is not the pressing issue, Lansdowne Park is.

The stadium model with financing will see a better offer under the competitive framework that will inevitably be introduced.

Would you agree there has to be some give and take on both sides.More and more see those who just want a park and thats it there not willing to come down the middle.

Jamaican-Phoenix
May 11, 2010, 3:01 PM
This is unbelievable! I was hoping that the team would come up with a coup like this - a gallery or the concert hall. This is an absolutely huge step that will go a long way to building consensus for the proposal, as the Ottawa Art Gallery is in desperate need to a new facility. I'd actually be likely to go to a gallery were it located at Lansdowne. It's great to see what can be done when people are willing to take a step back from their personal agendas and work together on a compromise.

Agreed. We need to stop relying on the Federal Government for giving us art and culture in this city. This is a step in the right direction and I definitely feel more strongly about an art gallery than a movie theatre. I hope city council sees past their own mental inefficiencies and ward-centric interests and come together to reach a compromise that can please as many people as possible.

jemartin
May 11, 2010, 6:40 PM
Unfortunately you can't compromise on public land.

Any use such as Art Gallery that is public is fine.

Hotels and Condominiums and shopping centres are not.

it really is that simple.

jemartin
May 11, 2010, 6:48 PM
@ PhilP

I hate to be the one to inform you but the Conservancy model from NY has been around the bend and proven itself as a successful model.

The real stakeholders are the general public, not developers as you seem to believe.

In the meantime I congratulate you leading the band at the head of the parade.

While you feel a need to criticize someone proposing a non-profit group as somehow personally benefiting, do you not think your comments are telling more about what may be behind your motivation?

To be so assured that a private development with a profit motive somehow has no personal motivation behind it?

Sometimes, as Roger Greenberg likes to say, "methinks thou dost protest too much".

reidjr
May 11, 2010, 6:57 PM
Unfortunately you can't compromise on public land.

Any use such as Art Gallery that is public is fine.

Hotels and Condominiums and shopping centres are not.

it really is that simple.

No it really is that not that simple at all.I am not sure if you have funding lined up but in the fall there were groups like your had all great idea yet they had zero funding.Its one thing to have a very solid plan with atleast some funding to back it up its another just to have an idea.It seems not all but some of these anti sports groups and i am not saying your are one of them but some of them want and want and are unwilling to give up or bend.We wanta a $200 million dollar libaray we want a new concert hall we want to tear down the stadium and arena.Yet when sports get brought up oh now we don't want that thats a huge no no a park is a much bigger draw some would say which it is not.Yes the public is a major players yet those in the glebe don't seem to care what a fair amount want they just wanta park and no one else matters.

Jamaican-Phoenix
May 11, 2010, 10:04 PM
Unfortunately you can't compromise on public land.

Any use such as Art Gallery that is public is fine.

Hotels and Condominiums and shopping centres are not.

it really is that simple.

Yes, you CAN compromise on public land, especially when the land in question is rarely used by the public, costing the public money and is falling apart. You just need to be open to compromise, something you've just shown you are incapable of.

P.S. There's not going to be a shopping centre/mall/whatever Glebite's are trying to call this thing, and nothing is ever that simple.

@ PhilP

I hate to be the one to inform you but the Conservancy model from NY has been around the bend and proven itself as a successful model.

Show me. Show me where you got the information that somehow states that the NY model is applicable to Ottawa.

The real stakeholders are the general public, not developers as you seem to believe.

We pay for this if it's left alone, we pay for it if it isn't. I dunno about you, but I support the development of useful facilities and things to do at Lansdowne.

In the meantime I congratulate you leading the band at the head of the parade.

And I congratulate you for driving on the wrong side of the road and refusing to acknowledge that maybe you're going about this the wrong way.

While you feel a need to criticize someone proposing a non-profit group as somehow personally benefiting, do you not think your comments are telling more about what may be behind your motivation?

I can't speak for him, but allow me to speak for myself.

I feel a need to criticize empty ideas and fanciful proposals that will deliberately lead people astray and will cause more harm to this city than good. That's what you're doing, and I'll be damned if I'm not going to do everything I can to try and stop people like you from ruining great chances for this city.

Your own comments paint a ridiculous picture. Most of us here can see that because most of us here actually know what we're talking about. You don't.

To be so assured that a private development with a profit motive somehow has no personal motivation behind it?

There's always a personal motive behind everything, even your own proposal. Developers obviously want to make money, but they also know they have to convince people to buy into the product they're trying to sell. Right now, due to compromise, public input and serious discussion, this project is producing some great ideas and designs. At the rate this project is coming along, the finished project should be astounding, something everyone can be proud of and looks fantastic.

Sometimes, as Roger Greenberg likes to say, "methinks thou dost protest too much".

Right back at cha, kiddo.

jk1982
May 11, 2010, 10:23 PM
I would sooner see the Art Gallery en lieu of the Lansdowne Live bs, with a foot ball arena (which no matter how many times you attempt to bring them back WILL NOT WORK!).

Though personally, I would honestly prefer something more, like an Aquarium or something.

reidjr
May 11, 2010, 10:32 PM
I would sooner see the Art Gallery en lieu of the Lansdowne Live bs, with a foot ball arena (which no matter how many times you attempt to bring them back WILL NOT WORK!).

Though personally, I would honestly prefer something more, like an Aquarium or something.

If it is done right it will work and jeff hunt and company is the perfect group for this.What people have to get off of is the stadium is just for the cfl its not it could be home to alot of team's all the way from youth to pro.As for the arena the ottawa 67s are one of the most successful team attendance wise in the country.You may not like it but ottawa needs a stadium and a arena you can't just say bla we don't need sports all we need is arts and culture you can't go that way.I have no probleams with arts and culture but you have to have a mix of that and other things such as sports.

jemartin
May 12, 2010, 10:25 AM
If it is done right it will work and jeff hunt and company is the perfect group for this.What people have to get off of is the stadium is just for the cfl its not it could be home to alot of team's all the way from youth to pro.As for the arena the ottawa 67s are one of the most successful team attendance wise in the country.You may not like it but ottawa needs a stadium and a arena you can't just say bla we don't need sports all we need is arts and culture you can't go that way.I have no probleams with arts and culture but you have to have a mix of that and other things such as sports.

Agreed that the site is intended for a variety of things that clearly include sport.

The only issue is that one component of the site not overwhelm it, which a stadium clearly does to the detriment of the rest.

Returning the site to historical intent as a site that is human in scale and every square inch used as much as possible means that the stadium gets moved.

It also means keeping the historically important items such as the Farm shows, having a place of horticulture for children to learn about the food that is grown, a farmers market, arts and culture with outdoor stages, additional fields of play, an enhanced 67's arena with more trade space underground and eventually on the top floor after the North Stands are removed and small restaurants, cafes within existing structures, and buskers, artisans, craftspeople year round providing an interesting dynamic to what will become a central place for our region and Nations Capital.

And yes fields of play to have extra places where our young players can develop in soccer, track, skateboarding, ultimate frisbee, rugby and football.

But all of it run by a public/private management group and take it off the hands of the City who are desperately trying to remove themselves of that responsibility.

Under a Conservancy model, the Lansdowne Park Conservancy,

ajldub
May 12, 2010, 11:07 AM
Put the Ottawa Art Gallery in the Soeurs building already!!! Glad to see people are taking this issue more seriously, but an art gallery right next to a sports venue will clash. Very different destinations.

matty14
May 12, 2010, 11:37 AM
The only issue is that one component of the site not overwhelm it, which a stadium clearly does to the detriment of the rest.


How does a stadium "clearly" overwhelm the site? It never has before, this is strictly your opinion.

umbria27
May 12, 2010, 1:22 PM
Put the Ottawa Art Gallery in the Soeurs building already!!! Glad to see people are taking this issue more seriously, but an art gallery right next to a sports venue will clash. Very different destinations.

Not a bad idea to put the gallery in our newest heritage building, but on the other hand I don't think a gallery at Lansdowne is a venue clash. We've been told that the stadium is for concerts too and I thought I saw something in the descriptions of the Claiborne design about an open stage built into the back of the stadium facing the "front lawn", so I think sports and culture can coexist at Lansdowne. Think too about the Olympics where there's always a cultural element of concerts and art to go along with the sport.

The bigger question for me is what does this gallery look like. As CFL supporters point out, one of the reasons the CFL failed at Lansdowne was the poor facilities. To succeed, pro football needs a building of a certain design level with the appropriate facilities. Art galleries are no different. You can't just stick a gallery in a retail space and think it will succeed. Attention needs to be paid to the layout of galleries, the lighting etc. And as we've seen from everywhere from Bilbao to Toronto, architecture matters for galleries.

It makes me wish we could go back about 18 months and think more imaginatively about the site. If we had examined all the public projects that were on our wishlist: gallery, main library, concert hall, exhibition space, we might have found ways to divert existing funding and bring new funding to the site. Imagine 2 or more of those cultural buildings, plus a stadium, rethought greenspace and shops and hotel facing Bank Street. If only we could have had a discussion about possibilities rather than the constant dumbing down of the discussion to "CFL will never succeed" vs. "Glebites only want a park for themselves."

phil235
May 12, 2010, 1:42 PM
@ PhilP

I hate to be the one to inform you but the Conservancy model from NY has been around the bend and proven itself as a successful model.

The real stakeholders are the general public, not developers as you seem to believe.

In the meantime I congratulate you leading the band at the head of the parade.

While you feel a need to criticize someone proposing a non-profit group as somehow personally benefiting, do you not think your comments are telling more about what may be behind your motivation?

To be so assured that a private development with a profit motive somehow has no personal motivation behind it?

Sometimes, as Roger Greenberg likes to say, "methinks thou dost protest too much".

JeMartin, I'm not sure I'm leading any band. And contrary to your baseless insinuations, my only motivation here is to see what is best for the city as a whole. I defy you to demonstrate otherwise.

Look, I admire your passion and I don't doubt that you truly believe in what you are doing. There is no doubt that you would get some personal benefit from your proposal, but as you point out, the fact that you have personal motivation does not necessarily mean we should discount what you are saying. I agree with that.

I first criticized you because of your pushiness in foisting your ideas on the wrong discussion thread. That is the internet equivalent of talking over people and it's plain rude.

I also criticize because I think your plan is almost certainly unworkable, and is definitely unworkable in the timeframes that you are suggesting. Further, I have no confidence that you actually know what you are talking about. My first clue in that regard is that anyone with the wherewithal to actually pull off the huge projects that you are proposing would know that they are immensely complex, and would not portray them as being as simple to achieve as you do. Nor would they make the type of categorical statements that you continue to make - "retractable is the only model" etc.

If you have real world experience in any of the relevant areas (stadium construction, procurement, financing, development, pro sports administration, park administration, running a non profit) and can prove me wrong, please put that on the table. Otherwise, stop pretending to be an expert.

I also don't think you speak for any broad cross-section of Ottawa residents. The councillor for your area and your community association have done everything they can to publicly distance themselves from you. You claim to be acting in the "public interest", but you have done exactly nothing to determine what the public's interest actually is. You are simply promoting what you personally think is a good idea. That is not public interest advocacy by any stretch.

My guess is that you enjoy the attention this has brought you. I don't begrudge you that, I simply think that you should stop presenting yourself as something you are not. You don't speak for the public, and you are not an expert. You are a guy with an idea. Period.

As for Central Park, I think I have made it very clear in previous posts why that comparison is too simplistic to be of any use here. To even make the comparison hurts your credibility. But it's your proposal, so your call. In any event, even if the Central Park Conservancy was comparable, could you tell us how long they took to actually get to the point of fundraising? Seven years is what I have read. Real investment didn't come until some time later, and even then, huge investments by the city were required.

So do you have any basis for suggesting that you can get going more quickly than that? Can you be specific as to where you will come up with the money to renovate the arena and existing convention facilities, build underground parking build a gallery (and charge lower rent than OSEG) and demolish the stadium? Even by your estimates that would cost upwards of $100 million.(Note: saying that people will pay for wristbands on a trolley isn't going to cut it.)

Where is your real world example for that type of development by a conservancy? And on that topic, where is your real world example of developers building a stadium in exchange for "density"? Or are we to understand that you will be the first to achieve all of these things? Credibility is earned, and I just don't think you are there yet.

Jamaican-Phoenix
May 12, 2010, 2:24 PM
JeMartin, I'm not sure I'm leading any band. And contrary to your baseless insinuations, my only motivation here is to see what is best for the city as a whole. I defy you to demonstrate otherwise.

Look, I admire your passion and I don't doubt that you truly believe in what you are doing. There is no doubt that you would get some personal benefit from your proposal, but as you point out, the fact that you have personal motivation does not necessarily mean we should discount what you are saying. I agree with that.

I first criticized you because of your pushiness in foisting your ideas on the wrong discussion thread. That is the internet equivalent of talking over people and it's plain rude.

I also criticize because I think your plan is almost certainly unworkable, and is definitely unworkable in the timeframes that you are suggesting. Further, I have no confidence that you actually know what you are talking about. My first clue in that regard is that anyone with the wherewithal to actually pull off the huge projects that you are proposing would know that they are immensely complex, and would not portray them as being as simple to achieve as you do. Nor would they make the type of categorical statements that you continue to make - "retractable is the only model" etc.

If you have real world experience in any of the relevant areas (stadium construction, procurement, financing, development, pro sports administration, park administration, running a non profit) and can prove me wrong, please put that on the table. Otherwise, stop pretending to be an expert.

I also don't think you speak for any broad cross-section of Ottawa residents. The councillor for your area and your community association have done everything they can to publicly distance themselves from you. You claim to be acting in the "public interest", but you have done exactly nothing to determine what the public's interest actually is. You are simply promoting what you personally think is a good idea. That is not public interest advocacy by any stretch.

My guess is that you enjoy the attention this has brought you. I don't begrudge you that, I simply think that you should stop presenting yourself as something you are not. You don't speak for the public, and you are not an expert. You are a guy with an idea. Period.

As for Central Park, I think I have made it very clear in previous posts why that comparison is too simplistic to be of any use here. To even make the comparison hurts your credibility. But it's your proposal, so your call. In any event, even if the Central Park Conservancy was comparable, could you tell us how long they took to actually get to the point of fundraising? Seven years is what I have read. Real investment didn't come until some time later, and even then, huge investments by the city were required.

So do you have any basis for suggesting that you can get going more quickly than that? Can you be specific as to where you will come up with the money to renovate the arena and existing convention facilities, build underground parking build a gallery (and charge lower rent than OSEG) and demolish the stadium? Even by your estimates that would cost upwards of $100 million.(Note: saying that people will pay for wristbands on a trolley isn't going to cut it.)

Where is your real world example for that type of development by a conservancy? And on that topic, where is your real world example of developers building a stadium in exchange for "density"? Or are we to understand that you will be the first to achieve all of these things? Credibility is earned, and I just don't think you are there yet.

Couldn't have said it any better. :tup: :worship: :notacrook:

waterloowarrior
May 12, 2010, 4:29 PM
CFRA interview with Clive Doucet on Lansdowne/Art gallery
http://www.cfra.com/chum_audio/Clive_Doucet_May12.mp3

So awkward...

Ciemny
May 12, 2010, 7:35 PM
Jemartin,

"historically important items such as the Farm shows, having a place of horticulture for children to learn about the food that is grown, a farmers market, arts and culture with outdoor stages, additional fields of play, an enhanced 67's arena with more trade space underground and eventually on the top floor after the North Stands are removed and small restaurants, cafes within existing structures, and buskers, artisans, craftspeople year round providing an interesting dynamic to what will become a central place for our region and Nations Capital."


How is this to become a central place for the NCR? Honestly I do not see anything overly interesting in this proposal that would make me want to spend time at Lansdowne. Most of these attractions can be had in the market in DT Ottawa which also gives tourists access to museums, parks, scenic vistas and a whole melody of attractions. I've lived and traveled in Europe, most city attractions there involve historic city areas, museums, major attractions such as theme parks, downtown areas even shopping centers. Having lesser and weaker copy of some of Ottawa's DT attractions at Lansdowne will not bring the majority of tourists into the area. After the supposed paid trolly ride with writsbands all tourists will come to see is disapointment.

It appears that this is your pet idea of what "you" think would work in the area. If this is your idea of a vibrant, exciting, active Lansdowne than Ottawa will be even more the city of "meh".

jemartin
May 12, 2010, 8:00 PM
JeMartin, I'm not sure I'm leading any band. And contrary to your baseless insinuations, my only motivation here is to see what is best for the city as a whole. I defy you to demonstrate otherwise.

Look, I admire your passion and I don't doubt that you truly believe in what you are doing. There is no doubt that you would get some personal benefit from your proposal, but as you point out, the fact that you have personal motivation does not necessarily mean we should discount what you are saying. I agree with that.

I first criticized you because of your pushiness in foisting your ideas on the wrong discussion thread. That is the internet equivalent of talking over people and it's plain rude.

I also criticize because I think your plan is almost certainly unworkable, and is definitely unworkable in the timeframes that you are suggesting. Further, I have no confidence that you actually know what you are talking about. My first clue in that regard is that anyone with the wherewithal to actually pull off the huge projects that you are proposing would know that they are immensely complex, and would not portray them as being as simple to achieve as you do. Nor would they make the type of categorical statements that you continue to make - "retractable is the only model" etc.

If you have real world experience in any of the relevant areas (stadium construction, procurement, financing, development, pro sports administration, park administration, running a non profit) and can prove me wrong, please put that on the table. Otherwise, stop pretending to be an expert.

I also don't think you speak for any broad cross-section of Ottawa residents. The councillor for your area and your community association have done everything they can to publicly distance themselves from you. You claim to be acting in the "public interest", but you have done exactly nothing to determine what the public's interest actually is. You are simply promoting what you personally think is a good idea. That is not public interest advocacy by any stretch.

My guess is that you enjoy the attention this has brought you. I don't begrudge you that, I simply think that you should stop presenting yourself as something you are not. You don't speak for the public, and you are not an expert. You are a guy with an idea. Period.

As for Central Park, I think I have made it very clear in previous posts why that comparison is too simplistic to be of any use here. To even make the comparison hurts your credibility. But it's your proposal, so your call. In any event, even if the Central Park Conservancy was comparable, could you tell us how long they took to actually get to the point of fundraising? Seven years is what I have read. Real investment didn't come until some time later, and even then, huge investments by the city were required.

So do you have any basis for suggesting that you can get going more quickly than that? Can you be specific as to where you will come up with the money to renovate the arena and existing convention facilities, build underground parking build a gallery (and charge lower rent than OSEG) and demolish the stadium? Even by your estimates that would cost upwards of $100 million.(Note: saying that people will pay for wristbands on a trolley isn't going to cut it.)

Where is your real world example for that type of development by a conservancy? And on that topic, where is your real world example of developers building a stadium in exchange for "density"? Or are we to understand that you will be the first to achieve all of these things? Credibility is earned, and I just don't think you are there yet.

Hi Phil,

Sorry but no time for your games. I have work to do.

You'll have to wait for the public unveiling like everyone else.

All the best,

jem

Umpaidh
May 12, 2010, 9:21 PM
CFRA interview with Clive Doucet on Lansdowne/Art gallery
http://www.cfra.com/chum_audio/Clive_Doucet_May12.mp3

So awkward...

Stop spinning my message! Holy cow, I don't listen to CFRA myself, because I do find that the commentary is inflammatory for the sake of being inflammatory, but my god, he seems like a raving lunatic.

ajldub
May 12, 2010, 9:38 PM
Umbria:

Safe call with the degeneration of the conversation in this thread and others on the board. Nonetheless, I can't see anybody interested in going to a gallery on a game day, and you would probably be able to hear the game from inside a gallery. I can't see it working.

Ottawa Art Gallery + Les Soeurs De La Visitation = brilliant idea, fantastic cultural destination, and win/win solution

citizen j
May 12, 2010, 9:49 PM
I agree that the Soeurs de la Visitation site is a great location for the gallery, particularly in light of its relative proximity to the so-called QUAD (Quartier des Arts District). But I wonder about economics. How would it be funded? And is it more likely to be built if it's included in the Lansdowne scheme? Would the city negotiate with Ashcroft for some sort of private/public venture? And would the neighbourhood be able to stomach the results? (i.e., increased density on part of the site in exchange for funding for the gallery)? I see problems getting in the way of opportunity here.

waterloowarrior
May 12, 2010, 10:29 PM
Overtures made to House of Blues
By SUSAN SHERRING, CITY HALL BUREAU
Last Updated: May 11, 2010 10:40pm
http://www.ottawasun.com/news/columnists/susan_sherring/2010/05/11/13914246.html

The famous House of Blues — closely associated with local boy Dan Aykroyd — is being courted to be a key venue at Lansdowne Park.

Lansdowne Park insiders believe the well-known entertainment hot spot would be a good fit and a strong draw for the area.

Those closely associated with the Lansdowne Park plans — which will be unveiled gradually over the next few weeks — say they’re excited with the progress to date, though there’s still much work to be done.

Negotiations are underway — pending an agreement with the city — to bring the Millwall Lions soccer team from London, England to do a series of exhibition games at the stadium.

“Everyone is concerned that the stadium would only be used by football, and the goal is to increase its use. With soccer such a big thing now, the exhibition games would be a huge draw,” said a member of the design committee, adding Bill Shenkman, member of the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG), is associated with the team.

Ensuring the stadium is part of the park and not a separate entity is a real concern.

“We want it to be open, to be something the public feels is theirs, something they can come visit, throw a football around, kick a soccer ball about.

“It will be open on both ends of the stadium. And the entire building is curved. As you go down the hill toward Lansdowne Park, you’ll see the curves, like a wave. And it will be considerably shorter than the present stadium,” the member said.

Great pains are being taken to ensure that once one of the five designs is approved by council they work closely with the city to ensure some of the concerns of the design committee can still be addressed.

One of the biggest issues now being looked at is honouring Ottawa’s heritage and history.

That could very likely lead to something like a public square honouring 19th century Ottawa inventor Thomas Ahearn or Glebe community activist Sylvia Holden.

Big plans are also being mulled for the Civic Centre — with huge glass walls all along the building flanking the entrance.

“It would go all along the way, heading toward the Cattle Castle, it would be spectacular,” said one design committee member.

While the House of Blues is an exciting prospect, the design committee also wants to hear from OSEG to see what other retail outlets could be on board. Initially, there was a strong concern that nothing but big-box stores would dominate the retail space.

That concern is difficult to address, said Roger Greenberg, the public face of OSEG.

“It’s sort of a chicken and egg situation,” he said Tuesday.

He said without being able to tell retailers where they might be located or when they might be able to open their doors, getting a commitment is proving difficult.

And even if the plan is approved next month, it’s expected the project will be appealed at the Ontario Municipal Board.

“There’s just so many moving parts, it really is a very complicated and substantial transaction, putting all those parts together is difficult,” Greenberg said.

Last November, council gave conditional approval to proceed with Lansdowne as long as a series of conditions were met. They include a review of the financial projections and analysis by the Office of the Auditor General, transportation studies and the development of a retail and commercial strategy.

The conditions also include a competition for the design of what’s been called the “front lawn” of the park, including the Ottawa Farmers’ Market, the Horticultural Building and the Aberdeen Pavilion.

Susan Sherring is the Sun’s municipal affairs columnist. Contact her at 613-739-5160 or by e-mail at susan.sherring @sunmedia.ca

waterloowarrior
May 12, 2010, 10:40 PM
Millwall?... you'd think they could at least get a Championship team... lol

edit: Not that there's anything wrong with bringing over the team, and they did make the playoffs this year.... but when I read a soccer team from London, England I pictured a grand opening of the stadium featuring the likes of Fulham or Tottenham ;)

phil235
May 12, 2010, 10:58 PM
Umbria:

Safe call with the degeneration of the conversation in this thread and others on the board. Nonetheless, I can't see anybody interested in going to a gallery on a game day, and you would probably be able to hear the game from inside a gallery. I can't see it working.

Ottawa Art Gallery + Les Soeurs De La Visitation = brilliant idea, fantastic cultural destination, and win/win solution

Sorry, I take some responsibility for that. I am just quite worried that this distraction is taking away from what I see as real progress on the Lansdowne plans. In any event, you'll hear no more from me on that issue.

I could see either one of those locations working well. Do you know if Les Soeurs de la Visitation is suitable for an art gallery, or are you thinking a new structure?

Jamaican-Phoenix
May 13, 2010, 1:40 AM
Hi Phil,

Sorry but no time for your games. I have work to do.

You'll have to wait for the public unveiling like everyone else.

All the best,

jem

Dude, you've said this to so many people when they've had legitimate criticisms and questions about your "proposal". This is called "dodging" and just shows us that you have nothing to back up your claims.