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

[k2p]

The process does matter. This looks like a handout, a giveaway. It makes the city look like they do back-room deals - and they have. It looks corrupt.

No, it looks like a city...all those pedestrians, and shops and restaurants, and people out for the night. Oh, sorry, I forgot Ottawa had to shut at 6pm.

Corrupt? Please. Twice now, council has voted, in the full glare of public scrutiny, to proceed. And they will again vote, after public consultation, whether to proceed again.

Still, what a classic Ottawa objection: process. Put up some stands around a Parliamentary committee at Bayview, and no doubt you'd buy tickets from a scalper to watch.

[phil235]

For one, a few have. I believe you even posted an article in which architect Barry Padolsky complained about it. But generally, other developers are not going to complain because they might be the future beneficiary of such a thing.




You mean kind of like the one that LL came up with in the first place? You recall the one - it had such obviously well thought-out elements like the idea to put an aquarium in a listed heritage agricultural building.




And that proves what, exactly? The design competition hadn't actually started yet, and LL's intervention resulted in it being cut short. Why would there be any other concepts at that point? Everyone else was playing by the rules so it's hardly surprising there weren't any other concepts floating around yet. The next time the City initiates a design competition for some piece of prime City-owned land, it will be interesting to see if anyone jumps the gun and tries for a sole-sourcing. And then of course, there's this post from 2008 by someone or other complaining about the image of some other concept shown in the post previous to it:



Here's the image and link:
http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/greaterottawa/archive/2008/02/06/a-lansdowne-concept.aspx
http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.PostAttachments/00.00.16.84.50/Lansdowne drawing.jpg

Sure sucks to have to eat one's own words, doesn't it? :D (btw, I agree with the assessment of that particular concept).


Many seem to be forgetting the sequence of events here:
1) Design competition announced in early 2008 (see first post - Deez wrote "Let the ideas flow" - the url to the City's page curiously now resulting in a 404 error...).
2) As design competition is about to get underway, OSEG makes LL announcement at Lansdowne (it was kind of funny because many had a hard time finding the actual room it was being held in).
3) City suspends design competition to consider LL and initiates stadium location study. Meanwhile, the promotion frenzy for LL continues.
4) Melnyk responds with his own MLS proposal. Public pissing match between the two groups ensues.
5) A few others, usually associated with Clive Doucet, propose other concepts for Lansdowne.
6) Stadium location study finds that Bayview is the best location for a stadium, with Lansdowne only making 6th and Kanata 7th, but the results are promptly ignored by just about everyone.
7) Council decides to negotiate with OSEG and not Melnyk.
8) City staff and OSEG negotiate/plan LL, taking twice as long as they were supposed to (which is probably just as well).
9) OSEG publishes a decent LL follow-up plan that is much changed from the original.

So be clear on this last point: this concept plan is not very much like the original one, which, quite frankly, other than its potential for getting a CFL franchise, was pretty much a joke. It got through solely on its potential for a CFL franchise which included the fixing up of the stadium. Everything in it other than the stadium has now been changed (and even the stadium has changed a bit). The layout is much different. Gone is the reflecting pool, the aquarium (either in the Aberdeen Pavilion or elsewhere), the surface parking, etc. In comes a better Bank Street presence, a greater pedestrian orientation, a more respectful use for the Aberdeen Pavilion, some recognition of the presence of the Canal, a mixture of residential, etc. The miracle is that we ended up with something decent after such an awful starting point.




It would become clear before long which ideas and concepts the public generally preferred.

As for no input, well, there was. I've got some email from the City from May 2008 which contained a link (the same defunct one as Deez posted originally) to where the input could be viewed.


I agree with a lot of what you say. However, I don't think that it is a miracle that we ended up with something quite different from the original concept. That is the advantage a negotiation process has over a competitive process. There is much more flexibility to seek out and accommodate the requirements of the various stakeholders. The new, improved plan is clearly a result of that.

Despite the e-mail link you refer to, I don't think there was any meaningful opportunity for broad public input prior to the initiation of Design Lansdowne. And once a competitve process is underway and proposals are accepted, there is very little room to make alterations to the proposals. To allow any significant alterations to proposals after they are submitted would undermine the integrity of the process (and invite challenges from the unsuccessful proponents). So whether public preferences would have been clear or not, the nature of the competitive process removes the opportunity for compromise and revision of the proposal that we had here, and which led to a good result.

I think we took a poor route to get to the right process.

[phil235]

Is that before or after the engineer's report that showed it was in need of major structural repair?

That decision was made before there was any detailed information at all on the state of the facility. The city could have had the stadium assessed before the competition, but it chose not to do so. It couldn't have been the critical factor in that decision.

Even with the major structural repair, it is still clearly far cheaper to repair the exisiting facilities than demolish them and build an entirely new stadium and an entirely new arena. It is also quicker than starting from scratch at an entirely new urban site, with all of the complexities that entails. Timing was a very key factor, given the deterioriation of the facilities that was obvious to all. I suspect the decision would have been the same had the engineer's report been in their hands.

[Franky]

No, it looks like a city...all those pedestrians, and shops and restaurants, and people out for the night. Oh, sorry, I forgot Ottawa had to shut at 6pm.

Corrupt? Please. Twice now, council has voted, in the full glare of public scrutiny, to proceed. And they will again vote, after public consultation, whether to proceed again.

Still, what a classic Ottawa objection: process. Put up some stands around a Parliamentary committee at Bayview, and no doubt you'd buy tickets from a scalper to watch.

I don't understand what you wrote it's incoherent.

I wrote council looks corrupt and you say council voted to proceed. They should not have done that, it looks corrupt, it looks like they're doing favours for a single group and they are.

[Franky]

That decision was made before there was any detailed information at all on the state of the facility. The city could have had the stadium assessed before the competition, but it chose not to do so. It couldn't have been the critical factor in that decision.

Even with the major structural repair, it is still clearly far cheaper to repair the exisiting facilities than demolish them and build an entirely new stadium and an entirely new arena. It is also quicker than starting from scratch at an entirely new urban site, with all of the complexities that entails. Timing was a very key factor, given the deterioriation of the facilities that was obvious to all. I suspect the decision would have been the same had the engineer's report been in their hands.

As you know, the Bayview proposal keeps the arena and north-side stands. Builds a stadium that will accommodate Soccer and Football in a location with Rapid Transit access.

[Acajack]

My idea was an indoor water park on the North side stand slope.

Forget about the stadium or the waterpark. Lansdowne would make a great UFO landing site I would say.

[phil235]

The process does matter. This looks like a handout, a giveaway. It makes the city look like they do back-room deals - and they have. It looks corrupt.

The process does matter, but it isn't the only thing that matters. Just like transit isn't the only thing that matters. They are both factors that should be weighed against the significant advantages to the proposal. Every big project has its drawbacks. The drawbacks of Bayview would become more apparent as soon as you started getting into specifics.

In any event, this is not a "backroom deal". It will be subjected to public scrutiny and approval by our democratic representatives in a public forum. And as I have made clear, while the decision making was handled poorly, I think the process chosen is the best process to serve the many interests at play here.

[Franky]

Forget about the stadium or the waterpark. Lansdowne would make a great UFO landing site I would say.

Submit a proposal. :)

[rakerman]

Big-box fears ‘outrageous,’ Lansdowne partner says
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/fears+outrageous+Lansdowne+partner+says/1970199/story.html

BY PATRICK DARE, THE OTTAWA CITIZENSEPTEMBER 7, 2009 11:23 PM

...

John Ruddy, president of Trinity Development Group and one of four partners in the project, said there’s been a major misunderstanding of the group’s plans for retail development at Lansdowne Park.

He said people have latched on to the figure of 400,000 square feet of commercial space and concluded that it would be all store and restaurant space, the equivalent of a regional shopping mall. In fact, he says, that commercial space would include a mix of stores, restaurants, offices and a large cinema, with eight screens and perhaps an IMAX theatre.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Stores, restaurants, and a cinema? Sounds like Kanata Centrum to me.

Kanata Centrum may be many things, but no one is going to mistake it for a public park.

[blackjagger]

Stores, restaurants, and a cinema? Sounds like Kanata Centrum to me.

Kanata Centrum may be many things, but no one is going to mistake it for a public park.

More like Kanata Centrum with no surface parking lots, less big box stores, and tighter pedestrian ways. Throw in office space and residential plus a local population that can walk to it, a farmers market and park land.

I think that a movie theatre can be a great way to bring people to the site. I often make a night of going to see a movie, whether that’s dinner first or just a coffee. Look at Centrum and Barrhaven. The movie theatres bring in a huge population and there is no way to get there except to drive. I think this proposal is making a good attempt at making Lansdowne a place to go all seasons and at all times. It will have shopping, work, grocery store and farmers market, sporting events, and people will actual live onsite or close by.

Cheers,
Josh

[canadave]

Stores, restaurants, and a cinema? Sounds like Kanata Centrum to me.


Oh come one. The Byward Market has "stores, restaurants and a cinema". The World Exchange Plaza has "stores, restaurants and a cinema". You can apply that description to tons of places around the city, it doesn't mean anything. It all comes down to how it's implemented.

Stores and restaurants are a vital component of any thriving urban area, and as for the cinema... well, why shouldn't people who live downtown have somewhere modern to go see the latest blockbuster without trekking to the 'burbs? Isn't that exactly the sort of service we should be trying to bring back to the core?

[kwoldtimer]

Byward Market has a cinema? Where has it been hidden? :shrug:

[Mille Sabords]

Byward Market has a cinema? Where has it been hidden? :shrug:

Maybe he means the old Rideau Centre tri-screen relic from 1982... and there's always the Bytowne. I suspect the new owners of the Mayfair can't be too pleased with 10 new screens of competition at Lansdowne. Although, having just gone to see a movie there 2 weeks ago, I'm 100% sure their clienteles won't really overlap... Mayfair has true cinéma d'auteur now.

[rocketphish]

That would be the Bytowne Cinema at 325 Rideau Street.

Check out their listings, you might see something you'd like: www.bytowne.ca (http://www.bytowne.ca)

[AuxTown]

I think you're kidding yourself if you think that Ottawa has a proper urban movie theatre. Movie technology has come a long way since Rideau, Bytowne, Mayfair, and even World Exchange were constructed. We need a downtown(ish) theatre that has Imax capabilities and multiple large screens as well as seating able to handle all of the newest releases. This is a great central location for a theatre with lots of potential customers who currently have to drive to Silver City, South Keys, or The Colliseum to see a movie in a decent venue. Those of you who are going to disagree with me on this are obviously not real movie fans, and, while I like the nostalgia component of places like the Mayfair and Bytowne, there's no substituting them in for a theatre with multiple screens and cutting edge technology.

[canadave]

Maybe he means the old Rideau Centre tri-screen relic from 1982... and there's always the Bytowne. I suspect the new owners of the Mayfair can't be too pleased with 10 new screens of competition at Lansdowne. Although, having just gone to see a movie there 2 weeks ago, I'm 100% sure their clienteles won't really overlap... Mayfair has true cinéma d'auteur now.

I was referring to both, really. I know they're not technically in the Market, but they're close enough.

And I wouldn't worry about the Mayfair. I love it to death (along with the Bytowne) but it fills a completely different niche from a multiplex. I go to the Mayfair if I want to see something alternative or a classic movie for $5, and I go to a multiplex when I want to see a new release. And I think almost everyone who frequents the place is of the same or similar mind. What a multiplex will do, on the other hand, is bring people into the neighborhood who might not have come there otherwise, which I think we can all agree is a good thing.

[rakerman]

Oh come one. The Byward Market has "stores, restaurants and a cinema". The World Exchange Plaza has "stores, restaurants and a cinema". You can apply that description to tons of places around the city, it doesn't mean anything. It all comes down to how it's implemented.

Stores and restaurants are a vital component of any thriving urban area, and as for the cinema... well, why shouldn't people who live downtown have somewhere modern to go see the latest blockbuster without trekking to the 'burbs? Isn't that exactly the sort of service we should be trying to bring back to the core?

I agree, it does all come down to how it's implemented. But I still think it's a project that either doesn't know what it is, or is afraid to state what it is. If it is urban densification, then there should be some serious residential there. If it's a park, there should be some serious parkland. As it is, it's some sort of "we want the stadium so let's build some kind of outdoors mall space around it to justify it" as far as I can tell. This is not going to be organic urban development and renewal, this is classic developer-driven Urban Planning. Given the history of Urban Planning in North American city cores since the 1950s, and given the decades of mallification of everywhere, you can understand how someone might be sceptical.

Right now, you've got a project where if you raise greenspace objections, they can cry "urban densification", and if you raise urban planning issues, they can cry "greenspace". If that doesn't end us up with some mutant hybrid that meets neither densification nor greenspace goals, I will be surprised. Pleasantly surprised.

[rakerman]

Fundamentally, my issue is this: you can Google Earth or Microsoft Virtual Earth (Bing Maps) downtown Ottawa and there is still tons of surface parking. I would be more than happy to see all that black space replaced with towers and cinemas and underground parking and ground-level retail. The market should drive this densification of downtown. If the city encourages it through policy, so much the better. But as long as the city thrives, that change is inevitable anyway. It costs us, as taxpayers, relatively little. Private densification is in some sense, relatively straightforward. The chance of those parking lots becoming greenspace is pretty much zero, and that's entirely understandable. But in Lansdowne we have a big expanse of public land. Yes it's paved, but so what. It could become public greenspace. Sure, it's easy to put a non-existent public greenspace plan against a concrete stadium-densification-hybrid and find the greenspace lacking, but greenspace hasn't been seriously considered. If every surface parking downtown had already been converted to a tower, I'd say sure, gosh, I guess we need to find some more densification space, but that's nowhere near the case.

So what the city is saying to me as a taxpayer is I get to walk by surface parking in the core of downtown for the next decades, because we took over a hundred million taxpayer dollars to tilt the market and jam retail into Lansdowne. And not high-density, tower retail with residential, the same old low-density mall-type retail we know and not-love from the suburbs. Kanata Centrum with underground parking and some trees. This is still what it looks like to me:

1. suburban outdoors mall with some minor greenspace and densification window-dressing
2. lost opportunity for big canal-side greenspace / urban park in downtown Ottawa (keeping in mind I mean green + restaurants + market, not blank green lawns)
3. millions in taxpayer dollars to subsidise private development
4. meanwhile parking lots still cover big chunks of downtown Ottawa

I don't think the government should be in the business of subsidising private development, in this intimate elaborate secret negotiations grand planning way. We have lesson after lesson from history to warn us: stadiums in cities often cost big taxpayer bucks for private gain. Teams can go away, leaving stadiums empty and the taxpayers holding the bag. Developers build the same generic subsidised artificial retail everywhere, and big retail often sucks the life out of downtown. What happens when the 40,000 square foot Whole Foods kills Hartman's and Herb & Spice, blowing a hole in Centretown's grocery retail? Or what happens if Whole Foods fails and the taxpayers are left ("socialised risk") holding a big empty space in downtown, while the developers go merrily on in separate corporations ("privatise profits").

The city has lots of legitimate uses it can make of taxpayer dollars downtown: buy the Dominican Garden, put water fountains in parks and along the canal to encourage municipal water over bottled, encourage mixed, dense development of downtown parking lots, build a great central library, fix up the park next to the library land... these are all good uses of public dollars.

Tilting the land and retail market for the benefit of one group of developers, which if it succeeds may 1) create traffic and transit snarls 2) create densification pressure that the Glebe will fight endlessly 3) undermine local unsubsidised businesses 4) kill the market for densification elsewhere in Centretown - I just don't see it. A park, the market in Aberdeen and some restaurants costs so much less than this and has so much less risk.

In any case, it's all moot, they'll do the consultation, ignore the feedback, Lansdown Live will be challenged in court and the OMB will rule in favor of the developers, as they almost always do. All we can do is hope that the project turns out much, much better than the history of public-private partnership, malls, developer-led urban development, grand urban plans, and stadiums would lead us to expect.

[AuxTown]

If it is urban densification, then there should be some serious residential there. If it's a park, there should be some serious parkland.

Now, this is one of the more interesting arguments floating around right now, that being whether the entire site (HUGE) should be single use? IMO, no. If you look at the diagram there is a very large park component that makes good use of its canal proximity and will provide ample space for sports, leisure activities, small festivals, etc. How much park do people need? The density, including a small amount of residential (something Lansdowne Live's opponents are against for some ridiculous reason) is all concentrated along Bank Street which I think will only add the the current charm and appeal of the Glebe. And, as for those townhouses along Holmewood, I think they will create a very nice buffer, both visually and acoustically, for the existing homes along that stretch.

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/1261/lansdownelivegreenspace.jpg

If this is not enought greenspace for you then I don't know what is?? There will be nothing in central Ottawa with close to that much parkland other than the Experimental Farm (most of which is not useable land anyway).

http://www.lansdownelive.ca/images/gallery/aerial_large.jpg

[Acajack]

Fundamentally, my issue is this: you can Google Earth or Microsoft Virtual Earth (Bing Maps) downtown Ottawa and there is still tons of surface parking. I would be more than happy to see all that black space replaced with towers and cinemas and underground parking and ground-level retail. The market should drive this densification of downtown. If the city encourages it through policy, so much the better. But as long as the city thrives, that change is inevitable anyway. It costs us, as taxpayers, relatively little. Private densification is in some sense, relatively straightforward. The chance of those parking lots becoming greenspace is pretty much zero, and that's entirely understandable. But in Lansdowne we have a big expanse of public land. Yes it's paved, but so what. It could become public greenspace. Sure, it's easy to put a non-existent public greenspace plan against a concrete stadium-densification-hybrid and find the greenspace lacking, but greenspace hasn't been seriously considered. If every surface parking downtown had already been converted to a tower, I'd say sure, gosh, I guess we need to find some more densification space, but that's nowhere near the case.



I can’t for the life of me see the link you apparently do between “no Lansdowne Live” and “densification downtown”. It’s not happening in downtown now and there’s nothing happening at Lansdowne at the moment to compete with downtown either. Sure we can talk about incentives from the city but all the incentives in the world won’t necessarily make private investors budge.

BTW, the Lansdowne Live proposal is totally consistent with what is emerging in many European and North American cities, with entertainment/dining/shopping poles popping up next to sports facilities and creating what you might call an urban fun centre.

Now, for those who already say that Ottawa already has an urban fun centre in the Byward Market, I would ask why should it only have one? With more than one million people, there should be more than one area in the region where you actually see a good number of people walking around evenings and weekends. OK, to be fair, Elgin St. also is quite vibrant, but other than that? Maybe the tiny area around Aubry and Laval in Hull? For the talk about them being hip areas, Westboro, Beechwood and even Bank St. in the Glebe are pretty dead after 6 pm, even on Friday and Saturday nights.

So rather than killing what little is already there, making Bank St. around Lansdowne more lively would be a welcome addition.

[harls]

We need a downtown(ish) theatre that has Imax capabilities.

The Museum of Civilization fits that bill... sort of.

[Franky]

Now, this is one of the more interesting arguments floating around right now, that being whether the entire site (HUGE) should be single use? IMO, no. If you look at the diagram there is a very large park component that makes good use of its canal proximity and will provide ample space for sports, leisure activities, small festivals, etc. How much park do people need? The density, including a small amount of residential (something Lansdowne Live's opponents are against for some ridiculous reason) is all concentrated along Bank Street which I think will only add the the current charm and appeal of the Glebe. And, as for those townhouses along Holmewood, I think they will create a very nice buffer, both visually and acoustically, for the existing homes along that stretch.

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/1261/lansdownelivegreenspace.jpg

If this is not enought greenspace for you then I don't know what is?? There will be nothing in central Ottawa with close to that much parkland other than the Experimental Farm (most of which is not useable land anyway).


Um, what you greened out includes Sylvia Holden Park (~12 acres?) and chunk of NCC land.

[phil235]

Rakerman, I thought your post was one of the best thought-out criticisms of Lansdowne Live that I have seen. You actually considered the bigger picture issues in a balanced way, rather than focusing on one drawback or another that you see with the plan without noting the positives.

However, I do think that your rationale is based on a number of assumptions that may not be fair.

1. You are assuming that the private development is subsidized by the city. Whether that is true depends on your assessment of the risks involved in the deal. Yes the city is putting money into the stadium and arena, but it owns those facilities. After reading the materials, my view is that the developers are assuming almost all of the risk in the deal, which has significant value and offsets the fact that the land is being leased at nominal rent.

2. You are assuming that the development is akin to a suburban outdoor mall. I don't think that is the case at all. Much of the retail is along the traditional mainstreet. The rest will be small-scale retail along a pedestrian walkway to the Aberdeen Pavillon. I see that as entirely appropriate for the area and very different from any other retail development in Ottawa.

3. You are assuming that this development will delay intensification downtown and suck the life out of Centretown. I completely disagree. I think this development will provide services that are required to draw more people downtown. It will also keep downtown residents from heading to the burbs to shop (I can tell you that as a Glebe resident, I would love to be able to shop in the neighbourhood, but in some cases it just isn't possible.) To that extent, it will be competing with suburban malls rather than existing retail. In my view anything that increases the level of services available in the core and adds to the dynamism of the area will favour increased infill development.

My view is that the type of commercial development proposed (including office development) is exactly what the neighbourhood needs, and will compliment existing development. I also think that the balance of retail and greenspace is right, and that the refurbishment of the stadium complex is a very judicious use of public resources, as it preserves and enhances an existing asset. While conceptual arguments are important, we also need to look at the practical realities facing the city, and the most likely outcome if this doesn't proceed. In my view, that is continued deterioration of the facilities and continued underuse of the site in general for many years to come.

[Franky]

Fundamentally, my issue is this: you can Google Earth or Microsoft Virtual Earth (Bing Maps) downtown Ottawa and there is still tons of surface parking. I would be more than happy to see all that black space replaced with towers and cinemas and underground parking and ground-level retail. The market should drive this densification of downtown. If the city encourages it through policy, so much the better. But as long as the city thrives, that change is inevitable anyway. It costs us, as taxpayers, relatively little. Private densification is in some sense, relatively straightforward. The chance of those parking lots becoming greenspace is pretty much zero, and that's entirely understandable. But in Lansdowne we have a big expanse of public land. Yes it's paved, but so what. It could become public greenspace. Sure, it's easy to put a non-existent public greenspace plan against a concrete stadium-densification-hybrid and find the greenspace lacking, but greenspace hasn't been seriously considered. If every surface parking downtown had already been converted to a tower, I'd say sure, gosh, I guess we need to find some more densification space, but that's nowhere near the case.

So what the city is saying to me as a taxpayer is I get to walk by surface parking in the core of downtown for the next decades, because we took over a hundred million taxpayer dollars to tilt the market and jam retail into Lansdowne. And not high-density, tower retail with residential, the same old low-density mall-type retail we know and not-love from the suburbs. Kanata Centrum with underground parking and some trees. This is still what it looks like to me:

1. suburban outdoors mall with some minor greenspace and densification window-dressing
2. lost opportunity for big canal-side greenspace / urban park in downtown Ottawa (keeping in mind I mean green + restaurants + market, not blank green lawns)
3. millions in taxpayer dollars to subsidise private development
4. meanwhile parking lots still cover big chunks of downtown Ottawa

I don't think the government should be in the business of subsidising private development, in this intimate elaborate secret negotiations grand planning way. We have lesson after lesson from history to warn us: stadiums in cities often cost big taxpayer bucks for private gain. Teams can go away, leaving stadiums empty and the taxpayers holding the bag. Developers build the same generic subsidised artificial retail everywhere, and big retail often sucks the life out of downtown. What happens when the 40,000 square foot Whole Foods kills Hartman's and Herb & Spice, blowing a hole in Centretown's grocery retail? Or what happens if Whole Foods fails and the taxpayers are left ("socialised risk") holding a big empty space in downtown, while the developers go merrily on in separate corporations ("privatise profits").

The city has lots of legitimate uses it can make of taxpayer dollars downtown: buy the Dominican Garden, put water fountains in parks and along the canal to encourage municipal water over bottled, encourage mixed, dense development of downtown parking lots, build a great central library, fix up the park next to the library land... these are all good uses of public dollars.

Tilting the land and retail market for the benefit of one group of developers, which if it succeeds may 1) create traffic and transit snarls 2) create densification pressure that the Glebe will fight endlessly 3) undermine local unsubsidised businesses 4) kill the market for densification elsewhere in Centretown - I just don't see it. A park, the market in Aberdeen and some restaurants costs so much less than this and has so much less risk.

In any case, it's all moot, they'll do the consultation, ignore the feedback, Lansdown Live will be challenged in court and the OMB will rule in favor of the developers, as they almost always do. All we can do is hope that the project turns out much, much better than the history of public-private partnership, malls, developer-led urban development, grand urban plans, and stadiums would lead us to expect.

I thought these were good points. It seems clear the LL people will make any promise necessary to make the stadium happen, but once it's built, watch out. They'll promise not to compete with Glebe retail for example, but when there are no takers for their stores, those rules will either relax or the city will start losing money. It's going to be pretty funny/sad to watch.

[phil235]

I thought these were good points. It seems clear the LL people will make any promise necessary to make the stadium happen, but once it's built, watch out. They'll promise not to compete with Glebe retail for example, but when there are no takers for their stores, those rules will either relax or the city will start losing money. It's going to be pretty funny/sad to watch.

Franky, how exactly does the city start losing money if the stores are empty?

[Franky]

Franky, how exactly does the city start losing money if the stores are empty?

Let's see, you put in $100M+, you give away the land for 30 years and you make no profit. That's a loss. It's a loss in interest payments on $100M and on the land that could have been used for less mundane purpose as yet another shopping area.

[phil235]

Let's see, you put in $100M+, you give away the land for 30 years and you make no profit. That's a loss. It's a loss in interest payments on $100M and on the land that could have been used for less mundane purpose as yet another shopping area.

That is only a loss if you are entirely selective with your financial numbers. The $100 million city contribution is for the stadium and arena, so that is money the city has to put out in any scenario in which Ottawa is to have a major outdoor stadium and junior hockey arena (and it is clearly less than some other scenarios). You can't honestly call that a loss.

There area also several financial benefits to the city that you are ignoring. Lansdowne Live allows the city to avoid the significant expense related to the upkeep and operation (or demolition) of the stadium/arena, so it gains there. The city also gains from the money Lansdowne Live puts into conversion of parking into greenspace (up to $5 million), which directly benefits residents. And on top of that there is the new tax revenue that will be generated regardless of whether the buildings are empty or full.

Like I've said a number of times, until you are ready to look at the full picture, you will never be able to properly assess the finances of the deal.

[Franky]

That is only a loss if you are entirely selective with your financial numbers. The $100 million city contribution is for the stadium and arena, so that is money the city has to put out in any scenario in which Ottawa is to have a major outdoor stadium and junior hockey arena (and it is clearly less than some other scenarios). You can't honestly call that a loss.

There area also several financial benefits to the city that you are ignoring. Lansdowne Live allows the city to avoid the significant expense related to the upkeep and operation (or demolition) of the stadium/arena, so it gains there. The city also gains from the money Lansdowne Live puts into conversion of parking into greenspace (up to $5 million), which directly benefits residents. And on top of that there is the new tax revenue that will be generated regardless of whether the buildings are empty or full.

Like I've said a number of times, until you are ready to look at the full picture, you will never be able to properly assess the finances of the deal.

I would expect that, where the city to invest $100M into a stadium, plus the land, that they would collect some rent over the life of the stadium equal to or exceeding the cost of the stadium plus interest for carrying the (very real) risk of a franchise failure.

The city doesn't "gain" anything. We lose our public space for a mini-mall, residential and hotels... And we pay for the stadium which should not cost $100M since it's building on what's already there and isn't even covered!

I understand that there isn't much land left to upkeep and the buildings will all be brand new, so not much (any) upkeep until the empty shells are returned to the city for repair or disposal - what a mess.

If the buildings are empty, you can bet the city won't be collecting any taxes.

This is just a bad deal.

[rakerman]

phil235 & o-town hockey: if what we get in the end in terms of the entire project is usable greenspace along the canal along with some development that is respectful of the character of the area (and doesn't glut downtown, stalling other developments), I think it will be a step forward. The stadium issue basically stands on its own - some people don't think the city should be putting money into it, others do.

[Richard Eade]

...
http://www.lansdownelive.ca/images/gallery/aerial_large.jpg
Of course, as Franky points out, the green space includes the Sylvia Holden Park, which the LL proposal takes over - yes, it is gone with this proposal. It becomes a "gateway" to the area; until the "optional" housing is built there.

The nice green area shown to the east of the Grande Allee and the area filled with people to its right are surfaced with "Grasscrete" so that there is room for 350 or so cars to park there.

The 'plaza' to the immediate east of the stadium looks nice and inviting, but this is the area which will be populated with the extra 20,000 seats when a Grey Cup or similar activity requires a 'Large Venue'.

The mooring position is a bit odd to me. Why not put it at the end of the Grande Allee since there the road is not right beside the canal.

There is a lot of green in the picture because that is what is appealing, but is it real? Notice that even the structure of the south stands is coloured green. How many of you thing there will actually be that much landscaping when the project is finished? Hedges or rows of trees are shown all over the place. Where is the underground parking access? I assume that most of the cars will be coming and leaving via the Queen Elizabeth Driveway, but this will require suitable roads within the 'Park'.

To me, this is a stadium proposal with extra amenities to support that goal - Hotel, Underground and surface parking - and a retail and office area to make money to support the stadium.

And I think the scale of this project is outside the ability of the transportation network.

[Richard Eade]

I find it interesting that people keep saying that Lansdowne is costing $4M a year to maintain; this completely ignores the roughly $3.1M income that offsets most of the costs. At about $900K per year, we could continue subsidizing it for quite some time before we had spent $100M - assuming that the money wasn't acruing any interest.

If we simply didn't borrow the $100M to put into this 'DEAL', then we would be saving the interest that the City needs to pay out. Just today the Council received a report that we issued a $100M debenture which will cost us 4.75% per annum for the next 10 years.

So, let's say the City doesn't borrow the $100M but instead increases the amount put into subsidizing and IMPROVING Lansdowne to $5M (net). Think of the wonderful jewel we could have.

[canadave]

phil235 & o-town hockey: if what we get in the end in terms of the entire project is usable greenspace along the canal along with some development that is respectful of the character of the area (and doesn't glut downtown, stalling other developments), I think it will be a step forward. The stadium issue basically stands on its own - some people don't think the city should be putting money into it, others do.

Anyone who doesn't think that the City shouldn't be putting money into the stadium hasn't been there recently. It's pretty clear that it needs a lot of work, as it's pretty sad right now.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2659/3904334015_d581ab613c_b.jpg

[Franky]

I find it interesting that people keep saying that Lansdowne is costing $4M a year to maintain; this completely ignores the roughly $3.1M income that offsets most of the costs. At about $900K per year, we could continue subsidizing it for quite some time before we had spent $100M - assuming that the money wasn't acruing any interest.

If we simply didn't borrow the $100M to put into this 'DEAL', then we would be saving the interest that the City needs to pay out. Just today the Council received a report that we issued a $100M debenture which will cost us 4.75% per annum for the next 10 years.

So, let's say the City doesn't borrow the $100M but instead increases the amount put into subsidizing and IMPROVING Lansdowne to $5M (net). Think of the wonderful jewel we could have.

I was looking for the balance sheet on Lansdowne Park , but never found it. It costing $900,000 makes more sense than the $4M.

Is Silvia Holden Park part of the 40% (actually 37%) green space claimed?! Can the park be converted with "optional" housing? The word travesty comes to mind.

[waterloowarrior]

Alex Cullen: MPP, Councillor, potential Mayor and...... Planner? ;)

Lansdowne Live 'Fails' Planning Principles: Cullen

Josh Pringle
Wednesday, September 9, 2009

An Ottawa City Councillor says "good planning" would be to build a new outdoor sports stadium where the Rapid Transit Network is located.

Alex Cullen suggests the new vision for Lansdowne Park fails the "first principles of planning", saying it proposes to locate a sports stadium and retail complex in a "location inaccessible to rapid transit and with woefully inadequate parking."

Cullen adds "no modern city" would permit a shopping complex or a 26-thousand seat stadium and eight-thousand seat hockey arena to be built in an area without access to rapid transit.

The multi-million dollar plan for Lansdowne Park includes a redeveloped Frank Clair Stadium and Civic Centre, plus 400-thousand square feet of retail development that includes buildings already on the property.

In an email to a constituent, Cullen says the City of Ottawa's Official Plan "states quite specifically" that a retail complex and a major public facility each require access to rapid transit.

[waterloowarrior]

I was looking for the balance sheet on Lansdowne Park , but never found it. It costing $900,000 makes more sense than the $4M.

Is Silvia Holden Park part of the 40% (actually 37%) green space claimed?! Can the park be converted with "optional" housing? The word travesty comes to mind.

Doesn't exactly answer your question, but the Park is part of the overall site for the partnership plan.

p. 36 of the report:
3. THE SITE AND ITS COMPONENTS
3.4 Lansdowne Park
The Project will involve the whole of Lansdowne Park and Sylvia
Holden Park.


I haven't noticed anything about "optional housing," where does it talk about that?

[Franky]

Doesn't exactly answer your question, but the Park is part of the overall site for the partnership plan.

p. 36 of the report:
3. THE SITE AND ITS COMPONENTS
3.4 Lansdowne Park
The Project will involve the whole of Lansdowne Park and Sylvia
Holden Park.


I haven't noticed anything about "optional housing," where does it talk about that?
"Residential Space

As part of Phase 2, OSEG will lease land to a residential developer to construct 40 new, 1,000 square-foot town homes on Holmwood Avenue and 168 new condominium units on Bank Street.

This residential project will require a capital outlay of approximately $45.8M by a residential developer. The City will receive proceeds from the sale of air rights for the townhomes and condominium units estimated at almost $4.4M. These revenues may be used to reduce the amount of the debt the City issues to fund Phase 1 of the development.

When built, the project is expected to generate approximately $1M in additional municipal property tax revenues annually.
"
http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/occ/2009/09-02/for%20printing%20-%20Lansdowne%20Report%20English%20%20Final2.htm

It's not in the park, but it erodes Lansdowne park boundaries by carving along Bank st. and Holmwood. This is bad. The more I read, the more it doesn't make sense for the city. I can see why the developers are salivating though...

[waterloowarrior]

"Residential Space

As part of Phase 2, OSEG will lease land to a residential developer to construct 40 new, 1,000 square-foot town homes on Holmwood Avenue and 168 new condominium units on Bank Street.

This residential project will require a capital outlay of approximately $45.8M by a residential developer. The City will receive proceeds from the sale of air rights for the townhomes and condominium units estimated at almost $4.4M. These revenues may be used to reduce the amount of the debt the City issues to fund Phase 1 of the development.

When built, the project is expected to generate approximately $1M in additional municipal property tax revenues annually.
"
http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/occ/2009/09-02/for%20printing%20-%20Lansdowne%20Report%20English%20%20Final2.htm

It's not in the park, but it erodes Lansdowne park boundaries by carving along Bank st. and Holmwood. This is bad. The more I read, the more it doesn't make sense for the city. I can see why the developers are salivating though...

What would you rather have on Bank Street though? It's a Traditional Mainstreet in the OP and the type and form of development proposed is exactly what should go on that type of street. Much better than the parking and driveway currently out front.

[Franky]

What would you rather have on Bank Street though? It's a Traditional Mainstreet in the OP and the type and form of development proposed is exactly what should go on that type of street. Much better than the parking and driveway currently out front.

Somehow, putting more houses full of people complaining about the noise from the parks seems like just about the most shortsighted idea. It's our public space, there should be Zero residential.

[Franky]

The full report, on page 30 has a map of shuttles to Tunney's pasture (3200 parking spots) for LL!
http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/occ/2009/09-02/for%20printing%20-%20Lansdowne%20Report%20English%20%20Final2.htm

Some of you argued that these could not be used for Bayview - hmm. Tunney's to Bayview would not even require a shuttle, the LRT/BRT line is right there.

[citizen j]

I find it fascinating that no hue and cry has been raised over the millions spent on building recreational infrastructure in the suburbs ($4.4 million just approved by committee and slated to go to council for approval for the purchase the land on which to build an new multi-million dollar sports facility at Greenbank and Cambrian Roads; $42 million already budgeted by council as part of its "Ottawa Builds 2009" program to build the Kanata North Recreation Complex, etc.) but according to critics, the city can't afford to spend precious tax dollars on infrastructure at Lansdowne Park. Curious.

[phil235]

I find it interesting that people keep saying that Lansdowne is costing $4M a year to maintain; this completely ignores the roughly $3.1M income that offsets most of the costs. At about $900K per year, we could continue subsidizing it for quite some time before we had spent $100M - assuming that the money wasn't acruing any interest.

If we simply didn't borrow the $100M to put into this 'DEAL', then we would be saving the interest that the City needs to pay out. Just today the Council received a report that we issued a $100M debenture which will cost us 4.75% per annum for the next 10 years.

So, let's say the City doesn't borrow the $100M but instead increases the amount put into subsidizing and IMPROVING Lansdowne to $5M (net). Think of the wonderful jewel we could have.

$900,000 per year doesn't even keep the facilities viable. I believe the city estimate was that a $38 million investment was required to mantain the existing facilities (and that was before reports that the south side stands would likely need to be entirely replaced). That would be your point of comparison. Either way, if we want a stadium and/or Civic Centre, major investment is required almost immediately.

[phil235]

.

[phil235]

Franky, you are arguing on one hand that the stadium's major tenant is at real risk of failure, and then on the other that the city should be able to collect enough rent from the tenant over the course of the lease to cover the cost of financing the stadium. Do you not see the inconsistency there?

In addition, this whole loss of public space argument is overly simplistic. Our public space has been a parking lot for 40 years. What exactly are we losing? Potential that could remain dormant for another 40 years? Here we gain usable space, including considerable green space and retail/entertainment uses. Just because the retail/entertainment uses are located on public land does not mean it is a loss for the public. By that logic, Granville Island is a loss to the City of Vancouver.

And if you really think that the maintenance and upkeep of commercial buildings over 30 years is not a significant expense, I'm guessing that you aren't involved in building management

Finally, taxes will be a first priority on the buildings, so unless the developers and their lenders are prepared to walk away from a $130 million investment without any recovery (doesn't happen), they will pay their taxes, empty or not.

[Franky]

Franky, you are arguing on one hand that the stadium's major tenant is at real risk of failure, and then on the other that the city should be able to collect enough rent from the tenant over the course of the lease to cover the cost of financing the stadium. Do you not see the inconsistency there?

You misquote me is the problem here. I said the stadium tenant should cover the capital plus interest (and more) for assuming the (very real) risk of a franchise failure.


In addition, this whole loss of public space argument is overly simplistic. Our public space has been a parking lot for 40 years. What exactly are we losing? Potential that could remain dormant for another 40 years? Here we gain usable space, including considerable green space and retail/entertainment uses. Just because the retail/entertainment uses are located on public land does not mean it is a loss for the public. By that logic, Granville Island is a loss to the City of Vancouver.

This is another misrepresentation. The city was about to pour some money into the site to spruce it up. Most plans would see the parking lot reclaimed with green space. We have LOTS of shopping centres, we don't need more.



And if you really think that the maintenance and upkeep of commercial buildings over 30 years is not a significant expense, I'm guessing that you aren't involved in building management

I'm not lots of things, so what. I know, mowing the lawn can really add up... Unless it's grasscrete.



Finally, taxes will be a first priority on the buildings, so unless the developers and their lenders are prepared to walk away from a $130 million investment without any recovery (doesn't happen), they will pay their taxes, empty or not.

It's a $20M investment and as soon as they cover that debt, bankruptcy will be tempting. It also depends how profits are distributed. I was talking about the profits (not taxes) that is supposed to cover the stadium investment.

It's a bad deal (shopping and housing on our public land). There is no rapid transit access to Lansdowne so it's a bad location for a stadium.

[rakerman]

Anyone who doesn't think that the City shouldn't be putting money into the stadium hasn't been there recently. It's pretty clear that it needs a lot of work, as it's pretty sad right now.

Frankly, I used some vague language about the stadium because I think we should be talking about the larger issue of what kind of integrated land use makes sense for a 21st century city. I think we can have a reasonable discussion there. As soon as you touch the stadium, there's no way you can get to consensus, because the views are diametrically opposed.

In my personal opinion, the stadium shouldn't exist. I would solve the problem of the stadium with a wrecking ball and demolition charges. It's not that I don't think the city should be putting money into stadium maintenance, I don't think the city should be spending dime one on the stadium existing. Take the charge to smash it down, and then use the land for a public soccer field in the summer and a public skating rink in the winter.

I don't see any amount of discussion that can bridge this position to someone who sees value in the stadium.

I can tell you why I am against a stadium. The whole stadium concept is based on an old, discredited idea of urban planning, the "destination halo". If you build it, they will come, and magically they will lift up the whole area around with incidental shopping. This simply doesn't work. It's repeatedly shown not to work. I can report anecdotally that it doesn't work, whether its Lincoln Centre in New York, where people pour in for a show, and then for the most part, go back home afterwards, or Kennedy Centre in Washington, stuck in the middle of nowhere, where people pour in on whatever transportation they can find, and all go back home afterwards, or Baltimore's Harbourfront, which has an artificial landscape of shops, a world-class aquarium, and a science museum, and which... maybe sees some people come in the middle of the day for a bit of shopping, and is otherwise dead and empty. For heaven's sake, even Scotiabank Place in Ottawa is so dead that people leave before the game is even over, jamming into their cars to rush home, in order to beat the traffic.

Even if I didn't have the evidence of my own eyes, I could just google

stadium boondoggle

and have more than enough material, written better than I can express anyway, based on decades of these failed urban experiments

'Despite all the talk of downsizing and "entrepreneurial government" buzzing around city halls and state capitals these days, there's one group of welfare recipients that elected officials can't seem to say no to: the owners of sports franchises.

In his recent book, Major League Losers, economist Mark S. Rosentraub recounted the largess. As of last June, about two dozen governments had provided, or proposed to provide, at least $100 million each in subsidies to professional sports teams. ...

These subsidized sports palaces are a bad deal for taxpayers and serve to line the pockets of multimillionaire owners and players while stroking the egos of the politicians who back them.

Any team that stands to make tons of money in a new sports arena is financially sound enough to build its own stadium.

And team owners who are too inept to profitably operate a professional sports franchise shouldn't expect taxpayers to subsidize their failures.

As Mr. Rosentraub notes in "Major League Losers," taxpayers rarely get their money back when they finance a franchise owner's dream house.

Since sports is but one form of entertainment, the money that families spend on game tickets, concessions and parking is money that won't be spent on the movies, theme parks or other recreational activities.

And any neighborhood ""economic development'' associated with building an arena is ephemeral at best. Mr. Rosentraub points out that the restaurants and bars surrounding Yankee Stadium are all but boarded up on the 280 days a year the team isn't playing a home game.'
- Reason Magazine, "The Stadium Boondoggle", June 23, 1997
http://www.reason.com/news/show/34445.html

This is what you're talking about: $110 million of taxpayer dollars, for a stadium that will at best, host a few games for a few hours a few days a year. Most of the choice seats will be bought up by corporations for giveaways. The rest will (expensively) serve a few thousand die-hard fans. People will pour in to see the game, and then flee in the cars back to their homes afterwards. The benefits of the stadium will flow to the private owners. There will be no "destination halo" of shopping and feet on the ground. A huge chunk of public money, to provide real private benefits, and to give a few thousand fans the opportunity to pay to see a few games. How is there possibly a case that this is $110 million of value for taxpayers?

Every single person in the city can use a park. They can use it in the summer, they can use it in the winter, they can use it during the day, they can use it at night. A city is legs on the street, dollars in stores. The ONLY way to make a city happen is organic, sensible growth, with private risk and public infrastructure. A park is core public infrastructure. A stadium IS NOT. There is no way to bridge this discussion - it all boils down to "stadium good" vs "stadium bad".

Stadium bad: Only a small number of privileged people can use a stadium. And they will only use it a few times a year anyway. I simply don't see how, given the history of teams in Ottawa, given the history of stadiums everywhere in North America, and given the huge amount of taxpayer money, that this can be justified.

Stadium good: Sports good. Magic destination halo.

I know which side of the argument I find more convincing.

[phil235]

You misquote me is the problem here. I said the stadium tenant should cover the capital plus interest (and more) for assuming the (very real) risk of a franchise failure.


This is another misrepresentation. The city was about to pour some money into the site to spruce it up. Most plans would see the parking lot reclaimed with green space. We have LOTS of shopping centres, we don't need more.


I'm not lots of things, so what. I know, mowing the lawn can really add up... Unless it's grasscrete.



It's a $20M investment and as soon as they cover that debt, bankruptcy will be tempting. It also depends how profits are distributed. I was talking about the profits (not taxes) that is supposed to cover the stadium investment.

It's a bad deal (shopping and housing on our public land). There is no rapid transit access to Lansdowne so it's a bad location for a stadium.


I'm not sure misquoting you was the problem. The issue is that you think a single tenant is going to pay more than the capital cost of the stadium plus interest? That is not even remotely possible in this circumstance. And you do recognize that Bayview has no tenant of any kind to cover that cost?

As far as maintenance costs go, you seem to forget that at some point these buildings are going to be 20 and 25 and 30 years old. I can't believe you are actually arguing that maintenance costs are not a factor. There is a little more involved in keeping buildings in like new condition than "mowing the lawn". If you own a house you should at least have some inkling of that.

Now I'm sure I am quoting you properly on this "The city was about to pour some money into the site to spruce it up." Exactly what money was to be poured into Lansdowne? The city hasn`t even been keeping up with the maintenance of the stadium.

And I'm right on this "as soon as they cover that debt, bankruptcy will be tempting." Do you have any idea how ridiculous that statement is? Do you know what bankruptcy means? What business pays off a debt (a small matter when the debt will be $97 million) and then declares bankruptcy? How is that tempting in any way?

This is not useful discussion.

[Franky]

I'm not sure misquoting you was the problem. The issue is that you think a single tenant is going to pay more than the capital cost of the stadium plus interest? That is not even remotely possible in this circumstance. And you do recognize that Bayview has no tenant of any kind to cover that cost?

As far as maintenance costs go, you seem to forget that at some point these buildings are going to be 20 and 25 and 30 years old. I can't believe you are actually arguing that maintenance costs are not a factor. There is a little more involved in keeping buildings in like new condition than "mowing the lawn". If you own a house you should at least have some inkling of that.

Now I'm sure I am quoting you properly on this "The city was about to pour some money into the site to spruce it up." Exactly what money was to be poured into Lansdowne? The city hasn`t even been keeping up with the maintenance of the stadium.

And I'm right on this "as soon as they cover that debt, bankruptcy will be tempting." Do you have any idea how ridiculous that statement is? Do you know what bankruptcy means? What business pays off a debt (a small matter when the debt will be $97 million) and then declares bankruptcy? How is that tempting in any way?

This is not useful discussion.

So what's the deal? We build a stadium, it cost $6M/year to service a $100M debt and the tenants don't even cover the payments. So how much do stadium tenants cover on the $6M?

Look, it's pointless to discuss the nitty-gritty of the deal (which will change) because it's the wrong location for a stadium - no Rapid transit. Building a shopping mall and housing on Lansdowne Park is also a no-no.

[phil235]

Rakerman, your argument on the stadium is based entirely on the urban planning perspective. Surely you can recognize that there are other reasons for building a stadium, or rather maintaining the one we have. If there weren't, why would Ottawa be the only metro area in North America with a million people without a major outdoor stadium if we let Frank Clair die? Surely all of these cities aren't just misguided.

I can't speak particularly knowledgeably to the urban planning theory aspect of this, but I question the argument that stadiums are based on a discredited idea of urban planning. If that were the case, why is the pronounced trend in North America towards new arenas and stadiums in central areas? Facilities like these constitute important gathering places for the community and have been used in countless cities in recent to spur downtown regeneration (Cleveland, Detroit, Charlotte, Seattle, Winnipeg, even Toronto and Montreal). Are all of those places behind the times?

Finally, I don't think you can generalize about stadiums. The ones you refer to are single purpose stadiums. Lansdowne would be multi-use, which would keep it busy more often, serving different groups of people. And don't forget that it would be open to recreational sports when not used for higher level sports, which means use virtually around the clock. Also, even the high level soccer and football teams being proposed are not inaccessible to the average person. This is not a facility that would cater to corporate elites or a small segment of the population. It would truly be a community facility.

To prove that point, just ask people in Ottawa whether they have attended an event in Frank Clair or the Civic Centre. My guess is that there is a huge proportion of the population that has used the facilities for some reason or another. And that is a pretty solid argument for using public money to maintain them.

[waterloowarrior]

rakerman, you make a lot of good points. There are dozens of examples of failed or less successful stadium revitalization efforts, just like there are with pedestrian streets, downtown malls, and other attempts to revitalize cores. I think there are a few differences between this proposal and some of the others that you are citing...

The retail is building on an existing situation, adding more to a traditional mainstreet, not isolated like Phoenix (http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=33.535206~-112.259363&style=h&lvl=16&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&ss=yp.arena~pg.1&encType=1) or the proposal for Kanata.. there are also plenty of uses not geared toward the sporting events at all.

This is such a good location that the retail and residential could be successful with or without a stadium. The grocery store, revitalized farmers market, restaurants, and movie theatre would be welcome additions to the area. No more trekking down to South Keys to see a new blockbuster, no need to go to the Market for Farmer's Market and extra specialty shopping on the weekends, or to get a good restaurant on a Friday night. As kwoldtimer has mentioned, there's nothing wrong with having more than one of these areas in the city.

The site has additional uses throughout the year, including Soccer and Football in the Summer to Fall, and Hockey in the Fall to Spring (and potentially things like indoor soccer and golf).. And of course there are things like the Farmer's Market, office space, movie theatre, hotel and grocery store to draw daily traffic. Plus it adds few hundred new residents for the area. This site could also be key for the canal during the winter or for summer festivals in the park. Again this is not an artificial construct out in the suburbs, the development is in an existing urban environment, with 10s of thousands of residents within walking distance, many with high incomes. I don't see the retail, office space, parkland, and residential development as dependent or even mainly oriented toward the stadium complex, I see it as a great addition to the Glebe and to Old Ottawa South.

[Luker]

Rapid Transit is not a neccesity for stadium development, their is examples from all over america in medium to big cities, to the new O2 Stadium in eastern Berlin, its in the middle of former industrial area, you dont need to have a direct link to RT rather a good integration and understanding of the area, bottomline its not the best transit in the world to lansdowne (atleast its only 25k capacity) but open the parkway for 9 games a year(football), another 40 for hockey, and probally 10 special events a year, and voila...

BTW Franky almost all american cities are lacking rapid transit, and other than the big boys NY, BOS, CHI, LA, Dallas, if they do have its in the inner most regions, even big ones such as Miami, Phoenix, Detroit all have a single track light rail track entertaining millions of people, it can always be done but with pessimist's, cynic's and nymbisim it makes it much more difficult to rally behind large capital projects which DO make sense, we are simply investing two decades of upkeep on a new stadium, which we will then be not responsible for.

AND YES ITS A GOOD SOUND MIXED USED DEVELOPMENT

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

I love how everyone against this is complaining that it's the wrong place for a stadium and that there is no rapid transit. I counter with this:

There has been a stadium there for decades and sports can and have worked there. Jeff Hunt is more than capable of making football and soccer work in Ottawa. Insofar, there are mo serious proposals to put it at bayview, adn Melnyk's offer out in Kanata is unacceptable. having a stadium in the core of a city is a boon, especially in an area such as the Glebe next to a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

As for transit, not only has it never been a real issue in the past, but the NCC has granted the group the use of Queen Elizabeth Drive for special buses to get spectators to the games. On top of that, you have people who can and will walk, take the 1 and the 7 and other buses to get into the area and others who will drive or plan a day in the Glebe to avoid any potential traffic issues.

[Franky]

Rapid Transit is not a neccesity for stadium development, their is examples from all over america in medium to big cities, to the new O2 Stadium in eastern Berlin, its in the middle of former industrial area, you dont need to have a direct link to RT rather a good integration and understanding of the area, bottomline its not the best transit in the world to lansdowne (atleast its only 25k capacity) but open the parkway for 9 games a year(football), another 40 for hockey, and probally 10 special events a year, and voila...

BTW Franky almost all american cities are lacking rapid transit, and other than the big boys NY, BOS, CHI, LA, Dallas, if they do have its in the inner most regions, even big ones such as Miami, Phoenix, Detroit all have a single track light rail track entertaining millions of people, it can always be done but with pessimist's, cynic's and nymbisim it makes it much more difficult to rally behind large capital projects which DO make sense, we are simply investing two decades of upkeep on a new stadium, which we will then be not responsible for.

AND YES ITS A GOOD SOUND MIXED USED DEVELOPMENT

But there is no parking or highway access either!

Sure a mini-mall and housing will work in Lansdowne Park, but it's supposed to be our public space. Mini-malls and housing gets developed all over the place. No need to sacrifice our limited public spaces for that sort of garbage.

[Franky]

I love how everyone against this is complaining that it's the wrong place for a stadium and that there is no rapid transit. I counter with this:

There has been a stadium there for decades and sports can and have worked there. Jeff Hunt is more than capable of making football and soccer work in Ottawa. Insofar, there are mo serious proposals to put it at bayview, adn Melnyk's offer out in Kanata is unacceptable. having a stadium in the core of a city is a boon, especially in an area such as the Glebe next to a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

As for transit, not only has it never been a real issue in the past, but the NCC has granted the group the use of Queen Elizabeth Drive for special buses to get spectators to the games. On top of that, you have people who can and will walk, take the 1 and the 7 and other buses to get into the area and others who will drive or plan a day in the Glebe to avoid any potential traffic issues.

Who pays for all the shuttle buses? Who pays for the congestion caused by the games? We are about to spend Five Billion Dollars on a transit system, and our stadium will not be accessible by Rapid Transit - Stupid.

[waterloowarrior]

But there is no parking or highway access either!

Sure a mini-mall and housing will work in Lansdowne Park, but it's supposed to be our public space. Mini-malls and housing gets developed all over the place. No need to sacrifice our limited public spaces for that sort of garbage.

There is tons of street parking within a walking distance, plus a couple thousand on site, plus all the off-site parking planned. The highway is not that far away, and there are far more alternative routes than a site with direct highway access like SBP.

Lansdowne is public land, not a public space, there's a key difference. You can't get into the stadium or the arena for a game without a ticket, and you can't get into the EX without a ticket, and otherwise the rest of the land is a parking lot (with the farmers market as the exception.\

edit: to clarify you can get in when the events are free (e.g. soccer tournament) or if it's just open, but it's a private city-owned facility, the city can kick you out or bar entrance etc

[migo]

Who pays for all the shuttle buses? Who pays for the congestion caused by the games? We are about to spend Five Billion Dollars on a transit system, and our stadium will not be accessible by Rapid Transit - Stupid.

This is an interesting debate.

I wonder how many anti-stadium protesters were around back in 196? when the City of Ottawa approved for & was preparing to rebuild the football stadium at Lansdowne Park which incorporated a 10,000-seat hockey arena and exhibition halls, which were added onto the north grandstand of the football stadium?

How many people back then believed that the existence of a football stadium at that location was a bad idea?

[waterloowarrior]

Here's the Cullen letter to the Citizen

I can't support Lansdowne Live for traffic chaos


THE OTTAWA CITIZENSEPTEMBER 10, 2009


Re: Time for a clean sweep at City Hall, Sept. 6.

Columnist Randall Denley may be upset with council's treatment of Lansdowne Park but, despite the charming pictures, the Lansdowne Park partnership fails the first principles of planning -- how to get large numbers of people to and from this major destination.

No modern city would permit a shopping complex with more than 25,000 square meters of retail space, 2,700-square-metre food store, 1,100-seat cinema, two office towers, etc., without access to rapid transit. There is none at this site, and the road infrastructure surrounding Lansdowne Park is not built to accommodate the traffic that would result.

No modern city would permit a 26,000-seat stadium and 8,000-seat arena on the same site without access to rapid transit. Indeed, the City of Ottawa's official plan, the legal document that guides the city's growth, requires retail complexes and major public facilities each to access rapid transit. It's not here.

The proposal provides only 1,385 parking spaces for a sports and shopping complex which would, under current policies, require more than 10,700 spaces.

This is another failure in planning.

The proponents expect the local neighbourhoods to absorb 5,000 cars, but that leaves the rest searching for non-existent parking on nearby streets.

The proponents propose adding 180 buses on Bank Street for events of up to 45,000 people at Lansdowne but such transit will be slow to clear the area and will face about 15,000 cars leaving as well -- a recipe for gridlock. For events of more than 45,000 people, the proponents plan to have more buses on Queen Elizabeth Drive leaving every 30 to 60 seconds for the Transitway five kilometres away. The proponents' expectation that public transit can clear 15,000 people from Lansdowne while 30,000 others leave by car at the same time is unrealistic. The infrastructure is not there.

While some point to the glory days when thousands thronged to Lansdowne to watch football in its heyday, it is not the same city any more.

Ottawa today has 800,000 people and will reach a million in three decades. We are building a rapid transit network, which includes a downtown tunnel, precisely because we cannot handle loading people into buses every 30 to 60 seconds.

Why commit to 30 to 50 years of traffic chaos in the name of nostalgia? Let's do this right. If we want a sports stadium, then put it where rapid transit is. That would be good planning.

Alex Cullen,

Ottawa

Bay Ward Councillor

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[Franky]

This is an interesting debate.

I wonder how many anti-stadium protesters were around back in 196? when the City of Ottawa approved for & was preparing to rebuild the football stadium at Lansdowne Park which incorporated a 10,000-seat hockey arena and exhibition halls, which were added onto the north grandstand of the football stadium?

How many people back then believed that the existence of a football stadium at that location was a bad idea?

Should we start talking about why they pulled up the streetcar rails and wires too? What difference does it make?

[AuxTown]

But there is no parking or highway access either!

Sure a mini-mall and housing will work in Lansdowne Park, but it's supposed to be our public space. Mini-malls and housing gets developed all over the place. No need to sacrifice our limited public spaces for that sort of garbage.

I'm definately getting tired of this thread, but I think it's time for us to take a little survey of how much use we really get out of this 'public' space. My prediction is that most people have used Lansdowne for functions (likely private) that will be preserved in the Lansdowne Live proposal (or will be relocated to a new facility elsewhere). Well, here goes....

How many times have you used Lansdowne over the past year? Please post number of times and (in brackets) the functions.

2 (worked at 2 WJHC games= awesome!)

[Franky]

I'm definately getting tired of this thread, but I think it's time for us to take a little survey of how much use we really get out of this 'public' space. My prediction is that most people have used Lansdowne for functions (likely private) that will be preserved in the Lansdowne Live proposal (or will be relocated to a new facility elsewhere). Well, here goes....

How many times have you used Lansdowne over the past year? Please post number of times and (in brackets) the functions.

2 (worked at 2 WJHC games= awesome!)

SuperEx attendance higher than last year

Updated: Mon Aug. 31 2009 16:01:55

ctvottawa.ca

The president of Ottawa's SuperEx says a focus on value for money drew high attendance numbers at this year's fair.

The SuperEx drew 422,000 people over the course of the 11-day exhibition, which filled Lansdowne Park with bright lights, rides and live music.

Although the numbers surpassed last year's attendance figures by three per cent, organizers still fell short of their goal to attract half a million people.
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090831/OTT_SuperEx_090831/20090831/?hub=OttawaHome

I haven't been to parliament hill lately either, maybe we should build a mini-mall there too.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Who pays for all the shuttle buses? Who pays for the congestion caused by the games? We are about to spend Five Billion Dollars on a transit system, and our stadium will not be accessible by Rapid Transit - Stupid.

With regards to the buses, not sure, but I'm sure we'll find out once the final details are ironed out. As for congestion; ever tried walking? Hell, even if you chose to drive, getting to Lansdowne has NEVER been that tricky for me in the dozens of times I've gone to the place. Have you ever been there? Congestion is practically non-existant when compared to SBP. And SBP is right next to a freeway for god's sake!

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

In the past year

Went to see a WJHC game. Sweden vs. Finland. Great game! Sucks that Finland lost though. :(

Super Ex for one night

Farmer's Market(three times)

Walking a dog(11 times)

Hanging out with friends (approx. 15-20 times)

Ottawa 67's games (twice)

[waterloowarrior]

re: Cullen's letter & the OP:

the requirement for rapid transit for a major shopping centre is a complex with 50,000 square metres (540k sq ft) of gross leasable area (Section 3.6.7 (11) ) , so the Lansdowne retail complex would not require rapid transit under the OP.

For major urban facilities, the policy (Section 3.6.7 (5) ) requiring rapid transit refers to new major urban facilities, not expanding existing facilities

[migo]

Should we start talking about why they pulled up the streetcar rails and wires too? What difference does it make?

The point is, what is perceived as a bad or a good plan is a matter of perspective (it's all in your mind). It may have been considered a good plan to renovate Lansdowne back in the mid 60s (when there were as many houses built and as many cars and people circulating around the park, ), and now, currently, to some people, it's a bad plan to renovate again.

What is motivating you to believe that it's a bad plan?

[Franky]

The point is, what is perceived as a bad or a good plan is a matter of perspective (it's all in your mind). It may have been considered a good plan to renovate Lansdowne back in the mid 60s (when there were as many houses built and as many cars and people circulating around the park, ), and now, currently, to some people, it's a bad plan to renovate again.

What is motivating you to believe that it's a bad plan?

Well, let's see, the city is larger, so people are coming from further away. It used to be a 5 minute drive to the park and 30 minutes to find parking, now it will be 30 minutes drive plus 40 minutes to find parking because there are more people fighting for fewer parking spots.

We will be spending a load of money on a transit system, why not use it?!

Things are not the same as 40 years ago, it not just in your mind.

[isaidso]

No modern city would permit a 26,000-seat stadium and 8,000-seat arena on the same site without access to rapid transit.

Perhaps, this will be an incentive for Ottawa to build rapid transit here in the future. Property values would rise, or are people in this area against that too? Ottawa isn't some small pokey little backwater, it's a capital city of 1.2 million people. You wouldn't know it based on some of the comments on here.

Cities smaller than you have a subway, for god's sakes.

[Franky]

Perhaps, this will be an incentive for Ottawa to build rapid transit here in the future. Property values would rise, or are people in this area against that too? Ottawa isn't some small pokey little backwater, it's a capital city of 1.2 million people. You wouldn't know it based on some of the comments on here.

Cities smaller than you have a subway, for god's sakes.

There is a site on the transit line at Bayview that would be pretty good for a stadium. It was ranked #1 of 23 sites. The Stadium at Lansdowne is pretty much done. South side stands are toast and north side need repair. It's time to put it in a better place. The cost of bringing a new rapid transit line would be much higher.

[Acajack]

Well, let's see, the city is larger, so people are coming from further away. It used to be a 5 minute drive to the park and 30 minutes to find parking, now it will be 30 minutes drive plus 40 minutes to find parking because there are more people fighting for fewer parking spots.

We will be spending a load of money on a transit system, why not use it?!

Things are not the same as 40 years ago, it not just in your mind.

You are right about people coming from further out because the city has expanded, but there won't be any more people coming to the stadium because it's capacity will only be 25,000. In fact, the stadium capacity will be lower that it has been for most of its history, which was generally around 30,000. During the 70s and 80s and much of the 90s, the stadium's capacity was actually around 35,000, and was only reduced to the 28,000 or so it had during the Renegades years when the bleachers were torn down in both of the end zones.

So the new 25,000-seat stadium is actually 10,000 seats smaller than what was there during most of our lifetimes.

Same goes for the Civic Centre - its current capacity is a little bit under what it was when originally built in the late 60s.

Lowering capacity is actually typical of modern sports facility design, with the emphasis on less seating, but of higher quality, and also on increasing demand for tickets by making sellouts more likely in a smaller venue.

[Franky]

You are right about people coming from further out because the city has expanded, but there won't be any more people coming to the stadium because it's capacity will only be 25,000. In fact, the stadium capacity will be lower that it has been for most of its history, which was generally around 30,000. During the 70s and 80s and much of the 90s, the stadium's capacity was actually around 35,000, and was only reduced to the 28,000 or so it had during the Renegades years when the bleachers were torn down in both of the end zones.

So the new 25,000-seat stadium is actually 10,000 seats smaller than what was there during most of our lifetimes.

Same goes for the Civic Centre - its current capacity is a little bit under what it was when originally built in the late 60s.

Lowering capacity is actually typical of modern sports facility design, with the emphasis on less seating, but of higher quality, and also on increasing demand for tickets by making sellouts more likely in a smaller venue.

True, not more people go to the stadium, but it's pretty busy along bank st. all the time. There's a lot of other stuff to go to and a lot of people to go there. There is also less parking at Lansdowne.

There are also temporary stands that can go in for big events. Plus people shopping, going to the hotel, to the new housing... Stupid idea not to put it where rapid transit goes.

[phil235]

I'm definately getting tired of this thread, but I think it's time for us to take a little survey of how much use we really get out of this 'public' space. My prediction is that most people have used Lansdowne for functions (likely private) that will be preserved in the Lansdowne Live proposal (or will be relocated to a new facility elsewhere). Well, here goes....

How many times have you used Lansdowne over the past year? Please post number of times and (in brackets) the functions.

2 (worked at 2 WJHC games= awesome!)

2 WJHC games, 4 67's games, 1 football game, market maybe 5 times, Race Weekend Expo once.

[phil235]

re: Cullen's letter & the OP:

the requirement for rapid transit for a major shopping centre is a complex with 50,000 square metres (540k sq ft) of gross leasable area (Section 3.6.7 (11) ) , so the Lansdowne retail complex would not require rapid transit under the OP.

For major urban facilities, the policy (Section 3.6.7 (5) ) requiring rapid transit refers to new major urban facilities, not expanding existing facilities

I wondered about that. It is just ridiculous that a veteran councillor is misrepresenting the official plan requirements in a letter to the editor.

Also noticed that he cited the transit requirements for the exceedingly rare 45,000 plus events rather than the regular 25,000 person events. And 5km to the transitway? Isn't it about 1.5km to the south transitway?

[bikegypsy]

Man.... This thread has become so old and dull. The ability of some to take out their little scissors and split those tiny hairs in four never stops to amaze me. This is like those threads where people manage to poison the talks with Libs-Cons comments.

Lansdowne, Bayview, Lansdowne, Bayview.... WHO CARES!!!! it all can work; it all depends on how the project gets implemented. Oh, and remember, the world is not perfect, so you'll always keep on complaining about something.

Landsdowne Live appears to be a well planned option, Bayview would be a viable location also, but I think that LL will get done. So let's start some positive building around what we have. Maybe Bayview can, in 20 years, be the location of a great sport complex to hold the PanAm or Commonwealth Games. That is IF we can get a forward looking municipal council in place for then.

The rapid transit argument is behond silly. I've attended huge concerts at Lansdowne... never any problem... it was actually kind of cool to walk back downtown with hoards of other concert goers.

[kwoldtimer]

Man.... This thread has become so old and dull. The ability of some to take out their little scissors and split those tiny hairs in four never stops to amaze me. This is like those threads where people manage to poison the talks with Libs-Cons comments.

Lansdowne, Bayview, Lansdowne, Bayview.... WHO CARES!!!! it all can work; it all depends on how the project gets implemented. Oh, and remember, the world is not perfect, so you'll always keep on complaining about something.

Landsdowne Live appears to be a well planned option, Bayview would be a viable location also, but I think that LL will get done. So let's start some positive building around what we have. Maybe Bayview can, in 20 years, be the location of a great sport complex to hold the PanAm or Commonwealth Games. That is IF we can get a forward looking municipal council in place for then.

The rapid transit argument is behond silly. I've attended huge concerts at Lansdowne... never any problem... it was actually kind of cool to walk back downtown with hoards of other concert goers.

Hear, hear!

BTW - twice to the farmers market and once to the home show.

[AuxTown]

Man.... This thread has become so old and dull. The ability of some to take out their little scissors and split those tiny hairs in four never stops to amaze me. This is like those threads where people manage to poison the talks with Libs-Cons comments.

Lansdowne, Bayview, Lansdowne, Bayview.... WHO CARES!!!! it all can work; it all depends on how the project gets implemented. Oh, and remember, the world is not perfect, so you'll always keep on complaining about something.

Landsdowne Live appears to be a well planned option, Bayview would be a viable location also, but I think that LL will get done. So let's start some positive building around what we have. Maybe Bayview can, in 20 years, be the location of a great sport complex to hold the PanAm or Commonwealth Games. That is IF we can get a forward looking municipal council in place for then.

The rapid transit argument is behond silly. I've attended huge concerts at Lansdowne... never any problem... it was actually kind of cool to walk back downtown with hoards of other concert goers.

20 years would be a great time to build a new downtown arena at Bayview, which is where (in a perfect world) the Palladium should have been built in the first place. Lansdowne is the most viable option at the momment and, as has been seen recently, they are open to significant changes to their plan as long as it brings the CFL back to Ottawa and gets the stadium (re-) built.

You also hit the nail on the head with respect to people complaining. One thing I've noticed over the years is that, whether it be at university, work, playing sports, or basically anywhere else there are always those people who are complainers and they'll always be complaining about something. We see that quite frequently on this forum.

[Franky]

So you're saying "yes it's the wrong location" and "yes it's not a good deal for Ottawa" but "Lets not argue and do it anyway cause I want CFL now (even though it failed twice) and I don't care how much it costs or who pays for it!".

Funny.

[isaidso]

There is a site on the transit line at Bayview that would be pretty good for a stadium. It was ranked #1 of 23 sites. The Stadium at Lansdowne is pretty much done. South side stands are toast and north side need repair. It's time to put it in a better place. The cost of bringing a new rapid transit line would be much higher.

Well that's a good start. It's time to end the constant chatter, and get things done. Consultation and debate is healthy, but it's just become a circus. Is this how things normally work in Ottawa? If it is, it's no wonder Canadians have become disenfranchised with the federal government.

People want more action and less endless debate.

[migo]

Well, let's see, the city is larger, so people are coming from further away. It used to be a 5 minute drive to the park and 30 minutes to find parking, now it will be 30 minutes drive plus 40 minutes to find parking because there are more people fighting for fewer parking spots.

We will be spending a load of money on a transit system, why not use it?!

Things are not the same as 40 years ago, it not just in your mind.

Oh really? After the city also approved the addition of an upper deck on the south side in the 1970s to up the attendence to 30,000+, at least 30,000+/- people were coming from who cares where to the park to congest the area to death or as you have described it. The amount of people ending up at Lansdowne has & will not change from 1, 2, 3, 4...decades ago.

[william91]

You also hit the nail on the head with respect to people complaining. One thing I've noticed over the years is that, whether it be at university, work, playing sports, or basically anywhere else there are always those people who are complainers and they'll always be complaining about something. We see that quite frequently on this forum.
Exactly! :haha:

I can't wait to go check out that movie theatre. And the grocery store spot would be a good place for a Sobeys urban fresh market. Also, could this be the location for a new Tommy & Lefevre?

[william91]

How much would it cost to build a short O-Train line along the canal from Carleton to a stop at Bank St.?

[waterloowarrior]

How much would it cost to build a short O-Train line along the canal from Carleton to a stop at Bank St.?

Kitchissippi made a nice map a little while back proposing to extend the Carling Line to the site.

Funny, but I have thought that *if* there was a Carling Line, it could go underground beside the Canal (there's quite a bit of room along the Queen Elizabeth Driveway where rumblings from a tunnel would not disturb residential areas in the Glebe). With a transfer at Hurdman it could basically provide service along the same corridor:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2048/2293500679_9f39d25959_o.jpg

The neat thing is that it could provide a direct link between Lansdowne and Scotiabank Place (and possibly the baseball stadium or a new stadium at Hurdman) if Ottawa decided to bid for a large sporting event like the Commonwealth games :)

Throw in a streetcar on Bank Street from Wellington to Billings Bridge and we'd be really good to go!

[Richard Eade]

Bayview has rapid transit, but not much in the way of big roads. As has been mentioned before, Hurdman would have an east-west train, plus a BRT south, plus good access to the 417. As well, if UofO was to use the stadium the most, it is within easy walking distance to there. The land is NCC so they might like the idea of institutional (sports complex) use.

[Franky]

Bayview has rapid transit, but not much in the way of big roads. As has been mentioned before, Hurdman would have an east-west train, plus a BRT south, plus good access to the 417. As well, if UofO was to use the stadium the most, it is within easy walking distance to there. The land is NCC so they might like the idea of institutional (sports complex) use.

This would be a good location transit and highway access wise, but there isn't much to offer around it. It's a 2 km walk to Elgin St. Potential for co-located facilities isn't as good as the Bayview site I would think.

The Ottawa Baseball stadium is right by there too.

[waterloowarrior]

Also it's contaminated like Bayview.....

[Franky]

Also it's contaminated like Bayview.....

It seems to me a good reason to decontaminate and build there instead of calling a contaminated site "park land". The Ottawa Train Yards project was build on contaminated land and it didn't feel like developers were encroaching on green space.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

It seems to me a good reason to decontaminate and build there instead of calling a contaminated site "park land". The Ottawa Train Yards project was build on contaminated land and it didn't feel like developers were encroaching on green space.

Have you BEEN to Train Yards? It makes Centrum look like sound urban planning! Also, Train Yards is far from the "park land" surrounding Hurdman and was in close proximity to existing industrial use buildings and warehouses.

On a completely seperate note now, I've been thinking, why is transit such a big issue for people who rail against Lansdowne Live? Not only has it never been a real issue in the past, but the NCC has granted conditional use of the QED for buses for games. On top of that, here is a list of transit options available that are all well within a respectable walking distance to Lansdowne.

1, 4, 6, 7, 85 and to a lesser extent the O-Train.

[Franky]

Have you BEEN to Train Yards? It makes Centrum look like sound urban planning! Also, Train Yards is far from the "park land" surrounding Hurdman and was in close proximity to existing industrial use buildings and warehouses.

On a completely seperate note now, I've been thinking, why is transit such a big issue for people who rail against Lansdowne Live? Not only has it never been a real issue in the past, but the NCC has granted conditional use of the QED for buses for games. On top of that, here is a list of transit options available that are all well within a respectable walking distance to Lansdowne.

1, 4, 6, 7, 85 and to a lesser extent the O-Train.

The Bayview site is another train yard/terminal that could use a face-lift.

[waterloowarrior]

On a completely seperate note now, I've been thinking, why is transit such a big issue for people who rail against Lansdowne Live? Not only has it never been a real issue in the past, but the NCC has granted conditional use of the QED for buses for games. On top of that, here is a list of transit options available that are all well within a respectable walking distance to Lansdowne.

1, 4, 6, 7, 85 and to a lesser extent the O-Train.

Even the Transitway (97, 98, 99) isn't that far, although not the most ideal situation for everyone. We used to park at Billings and walk to games.(20 min?)... then stop at Dairy Queen or Timmies on the way back :yes: For your daily commute, it wouldn't be that great to walk/drive 20 minutes from your parking lot/transit station, but for going to the football game a few times year it was a great :tup: The best part is that there isn't one big route that everyone goes on like at SBP, and by the time you get to your car the congestion isn't bad at all. It was much nicer to have that walk after the game than running up the stairs as soon as the Sens scored in OT or getting onto a crowded bus that just got stuck in traffic on the 417.

[rocketphish]

Who pays for all the shuttle buses? Who pays for the congestion caused by the games? We are about to spend Five Billion Dollars on a transit system, and our stadium will not be accessible by Rapid Transit - Stupid.

Face it folks, Franky won't be happy with the Lansdowne Live proposal unless it incorporates one of those crazy Urbanaut® Monorail systems. Then he'd be all over the idea. But since that won't be happening, you'll be arguing about this forever. Give it up. :rolleyes:

[Franky]

Face it folks, Franky won't be happy with the Lansdowne Live proposal unless it incorporates one of those crazy Urbanaut® Monorail systems. Then he'd be all over the idea. But since that won't be happening, you'll be arguing about this forever. Give it up. :rolleyes:

What amazes me is the lengths people are willing to go to to shoehorn a new stadium (plus supporting buildings) at Lansdowne. Bayview is clearly a better site.

These guys propose a monorail along one side (QED in this case) of the canal (and the removal of the road) to allow unhindered pedestrian access to the canal.
http://www.peoplefood.org/CCC/NCC/NCC-Jun18.htm
It fits in with Kitchissippi's Hurdman-Lansdowne-Carling line. I don't know if this line would be useful from a transit perspective since it skirts the city core.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

What amazes me is the lengths people are willing to go to to shoehorn a new stadium (plus supporting buildings) at Lansdowne.

Well aren't you doing the same with...

Bayview is clearly a better site..

Oh, the irony.

[Franky]

Well aren't you doing the same with...



Oh, the irony.

How do you figure?

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

How do you figure?

You(and others on this board) are trying to shoehorn a Bayview Stadium, just like we are apparently trying to shoehorn a Lansdowne Stadium. Not that hard a concept.

[Franky]

You(and others on this board) are trying to shoehorn a Bayview Stadium, just like we are apparently trying to shoehorn a Lansdowne Stadium. Not that hard a concept.

Ya, that part I got...

Bayview has Transit, Lansdowne does not.
Bayview has Parking, Lansdowne does not.
Bayview has Development potential, Lansdowne does not.

Where's the shoehorn for Bayview?

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Bayview has Transit, Lansdowne does not.

Yes, Lansdowne does. I already showed that.

Bayview has Parking, Lansdowne does not.

Yes, it does. Also, Bayview does NOT have parking.

Bayview has Development potential, Lansdowne does not.

Yes, Lansdowne has tonnes of development potential. That's why there's the LL proposal for pete's sake. Bayview does not since there are no amenities aside from the transitway station nearby. No one is planning to do anything with the site nor has actively come forward with a plan for the site. Also, it is NCC land. Give it up already.

Where's the shoehorn for Bayview?

It's right up there with you telling us that Bayview is viable, that Lansdowne isn't and saying that Bayview is the only real solution, the "perfect spot", etc.

[waterloowarrior]

Yes, Lansdowne has tonnes of development potential. That's why there's the LL proposal for pete's sake. Bayview does not since there are no amenities aside from the transitway station nearby. No one is planning to do anything with the site nor has actively come forward with a plan for the site. Also, it is NCC land. Give it up already..

Bayview does have long term plans (that were put on hold after LRT cancellation IIRC, but not 100% sure). Mr Martin was nice enough to scan a preliminary planning study (http://www.vo-ao.ca/bayviewsomersetreport.pdf) for the area that talks about estimates cleanup costs, timelines etc for the proposed neighbourhood. The area is owned partly by the City and partly by the NCC. (http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/planning/community_plans/completed/bayview/images/bg_existing_lg.jpg) The City plans to eventually clean up the site and build a mixed use neighbourhood on a portion of the lands. The mixed use neighbouhood would have around 1500 units and a civic facility (city library was suggested....).

http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/planning/community_plans/completed/bayview/images/recommended_concept.jpg

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Bayview does have long term plans (that were put on hold after LRT cancellation IIRC, but not 100% sure). Mr Martin was nice enough to scan a preliminary planning study (http://www.vo-ao.ca/bayviewsomersetreport.pdf) for the area that talks about estimates cleanup costs, timelines etc for the proposed neighbourhood. The area is owned partly by the City and partly by the NCC. (http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/planning/community_plans/completed/bayview/images/bg_existing_lg.jpg) The City plans to eventually clean up the site and build a mixed use neighbourhood on a portion of the lands. The mixed use neighbouhood would have around 1500 units and a civic facility (city library was suggested....).

http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/planning/community_plans/completed/bayview/images/recommended_concept.jpg

I am aware of that proposal and you're almost right; once specualtion began about cancelling N/S LRT it was put "indefinitely on hold". I got in contact with one of the people behind that proposal, and that's what they told me. Of course, things can change. The Library you're talking about I believe was to go where the current City Centre building is. This new neighbourhood was to be on the north side of Scott/Transitway beside Laroche Park.

And if anything, this all just continues to show how nothing's been done with Bayview. Sad, really. It is prime real estate.

[Franky]

What about using the site with the city centre building on it? It's surrounded by tracks, Wellington, Champagne and Somerset.
http://maps.google.ca/maps?oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&q=bayview,+ottawa&fb=1&split=1&gl=ca&cid=0,0,6836319191839282595&ei=TYusStSsE4OAlgfF8ozSCw&ll=45.40871,-75.719275&spn=0.007954,0.01502&z=16

Is it big enough for a stadium? Cost too much? It certainly is an eyesore.
http://www.barraclou.com/photo/skyline/on/ottawa_citycentre2.jpg
http://www.barraclou.com/photo/skyline/on/ottawa_citycentre.jpg

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

What about using the site with the city centre building on it? It's surrounded by tracks, Wellington, Champagne and Somerset.
http://maps.google.ca/maps?oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&q=bayview,+ottawa&fb=1&split=1&gl=ca&cid=0,0,6836319191839282595&ei=TYusStSsE4OAlgfF8ozSCw&ll=45.40871,-75.719275&spn=0.007954,0.01502&z=16

Is it big enough for a stadium? Cost too much? It certainly is an eyesore.


A) Already plans for City Centre Building.
B) I'd hardly call it surrounded and access to the site from those streets is very limited. Just walk or drive by there and you'll see what I mean.
C) I'm not sure if it's big enough for a stadium, but possibly with some creative reworking it MIGHT be possible, btu that is just a completely unfounded and uneducated guess.

[Acajack]

What amazes me is the lengths people are willing to go to to shoehorn a new stadium (plus supporting buildings) at Lansdowne. Bayview is clearly a better site.



It's not a question of shoehorning a stadium into Lansdowne. If you drive by there today you will notice that a stadium is already there!

[rakerman]

What about using the site with the city centre building on it? It's surrounded by tracks, Wellington, Champagne and Somerset.

There's a rumour about that being used as a farmers market for Preston Street http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4453734&postcount=1020

[Franky]

It's not a question of shoehorning a stadium into Lansdowne. If you drive by there today you will notice that a stadium is already there!

Bits of one anyway... $125M for a refurbished stadium with no roof seems steep to me.