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

[Ciemny]

Assuming that due to business failure and new ones opening up the area will be not as vibrant is really not based in any reality. Stores close, new ones open up, thats business.


The only two things we know are going into Lansdowne retail are a supermarket and movie theatres, both of which will likely kill established businesses in the Glebe. I'd like to believe promises that the stores going into Lansdowne won't interfere with businesses on Bank St., but I don't believe in fairy tales.

Jesus does the Gleebe have to be in some kind of time freeze? Seems that if anything slightly disturbs, alters or changes the character of the Gleebe its automatically a bad thing. Franky you seem to portray LL as the "black death" of the area. Businesses on the street are not sacred if they fail something else will replace them as has been stated many times before. Its competition, its the market. I seriously doubt that all the people comming out of LL after an event will flee the area NOT stopping by local businesses.

Ive been to many cities where the established and the new can coexist together it seems that here some people have this viral fear and rage against any change in their neighbourhod, it borders on insanity.

[c_speed3108]

If they want a good traffic study and live simulation for free all they need to do is look at past Lansdowne events

There were many many football games that drew 25000 without significant issues. The Grey Cup attracted about 52000 again with nothing more than what Delcan is supposedly proposing (really they are just copying what was done before...)

I don't understand what the big traffic fuss is...there is nothing new here...just more of what already was.

As for event attendees supporting Bank street businesses: As a past season ticket holder I can say almost without exception there that we always met at some bank street resturant or pub before the game and very often after the game and sometime during the game depending how the game was going.

You also end up walking up bank street on the way to the game peaking in windows and popping into stores to look at things.


The retail argument: If there was any basis to this no business would ever want to locate around other businesses for fear of losing business to them. It is a ridiculous argument since no shopping centre would survive. No business street like bank or Dalhousie or Rideau would survive. Retail thrives on drawing people in since sadly many of the sales are on impulse. To draw people in you need a large cluster of stuff together. Heck even the bloody big box stores cluster themselves. Bigger clusters = bigger drawing power. This simply increases the size of the bank street/glebe/old Ottawa south cluster.

[Dado]

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

In some ways Richmond is better; it certainly looks a lot better. But we've also lost all our hardware stores so it's not longer possible to walk to a hardware store in Westboro. That decreases the neighbourhood's walkability. High-end stores are not per se the cause but an excess of them seem to be associated with decreases in walkability because they are generally dependent on more people coming from further away while the people who live nearby have to go further away to get the things needed for day-to-day living. Richmond Rd in Westboro has become a bit of an open-air mall for outdoor and fitness equipment stores that people drive to from elsewhere in the city. As I said, it was starting to get pretty bad for a while there, but the trends seem to have levelled off for the moment.


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

None of this is really true. Westboro has had quite an increase in population in this decade from all the infill in the area but walkability hasn't really improved over what it was before. It all looks prettier and I suppose if your definition of walkable is being able to window gaze on high-end stuff you don't want to buy, then sure, it's more walkable, but for someone trying to carry out the regular errands of life on foot it's not a whole lot different. True, we've now got a Loblaws but it's been laid out as a classic big-box except next to the sidewalk - the Loblaws makes you walk extra distance within the store itself to get anything done. Next to it is the LCBO, but that was stolen from Hintonburg so that's not an improvement. It is the local-oriented shops that make the difference of a place that is walkable and one that is an outdoor shopping district. And for Paris, I stayed at a hotel there this summer near the two main train stations and it was surprising that even in that part of the city one could find grocery and fresh produce stores and even hardware stores.


The irony of defending the Glebe on affordability grounds I'll leave aside. But not before noting it had, not so long ago, plenty of student housing, and decreasing affordability didn't seem to bother folks much. Cities grow and change. That's why they're good.
It should concern us that affordability and walkability are seldom found together as a general matter of planning interest. It seems that the few traditional walkable neighbourhoods that exist are becoming less affordable while no new affordable neighbourhoods are walkable and other neighbourhoods are not becoming walkable either. If you're looking for an affordable walkable neighbourhood to live in the city, you're pretty much out of luck.


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

Ramifications of more higher-value property is not the root of this NIMBYism.
Both true, and I'm not trying to defend the Glebe, either


Still, if it's the real danger -- not a stadium and people around -- there is a solution. Ask for six or seven transition homes, and some Centretown or Hintonburg style social housing. That'd go a long way to averting the danger of yet more high-end homes dealing an Annex-like catastrophe to the Glebe. Gimme a break.
I think you might have missed my sarcasm... I was pointing out that by including more high-priced residential units in the Glebe that we are going to get even more of the whining Glebites that people on here have been complaining about.

[Franky]

Assuming that due to business failure and new ones opening up the area will be not as vibrant is really not based in any reality. Stores close, new ones open up, thats business.



That's a pretty callous view. I know that if the business I spent a lot of time building on Bank St. was threatened, my livelihood was threatened, I would be objecting to the LL deal too.

We certainly don't need a shopping mall on Lansdowne park. Just the idea of it is silly.

[Franky]

Anyone know how many of the few parking spots will be taken up by Lansdowne owners or staff?

[waterloowarrior]

The detractors should be consistent... is Lansdowne Live a "shopping mall" like Billings Bridge, Rideau Centre and Carlingwood or is it "big box stores" like South Keys or Kanata Centrum?

[Ciemny]

Its not calous its reality, they are not building a Wal-Mart type development, its not going to have a blank wall on 3 sides. But business is business and some fail or move if competition sets up nearby and manages to take some customers away. The fear here I "assume" is that LL will just suck the life out of the Gleebe. Why would it, LL will not replicate any or all the specialized, niche businesses in the area, it will be integrated into the area for people to be able to walk there.

[Kitchissippi]

I'm one of those people who are completely neutral to this issue, and don't really care which way this one goes. What does bother me is the all-or-nothing, polarized atmosphere this has created.

Just like when you buy a house and there are offers and counter-offers, maybe there should be a reasonable counter-proposal on behalf of the city based on what's on the table but mitigating concerns that citizens have. If public transit is an issue, build in a solution directly tied to it, and make the project pay for it over the long run (maybe there should be a special transit tax applied to retail and events within the property)

Pitch in a Hurdman to Carling transit tunnel and see what happens :haha: :runaway:

[Richard Eade]

If they want a good traffic study and live simulation for free all they need to do is look at past Lansdowne events

There were many many football games that drew 25000 without significant issues. The Grey Cup attracted about 52000 again with nothing more than what Delcan is supposedly proposing (really they are just copying what was done before...)

I don't understand what the big traffic fuss is...there is nothing new here...just more of what already was.
...
If the plan was only to redo the stadium, then it might be as you said, that there is nothing new. However, there is also to be a whack (that's the technical term, I think:)) of new stuff that will also add to the traffic load.

In the below graph (there is no scale or real values, it is just a representation) the green line would represent what currently happens when there is an event at the Civic Centre - oops, the Urbandale Centre. The dashed blue line represents the failure of the transportation system around Lansdowne. Anything above that level and you would do better by walking.

http://REade.fileave.com/Misc/Lansdowne-Traffic-Load.jpg

Now look at the red line. Notice that its base level is already above the 'clogged road' limit. This is because there is now added traffic from retail, residences, a hotel, cinemas, restaurants, etc.. Adding an event simply adds more vehicles to those clogs. I have broadened the peak because people will be forced to spend a lot more time sitting in traffic jams.

Something to keep in mind is that the OSEG Traffic Study was limited to a relatively smooth flowing part of Bank, Fifth to Aylmer. It conveniently did not include intersections such as Sunnyside which is currently a failing intersection (rated 'F') or the 'E' rated ones north of Fifth.

[Richard Eade]

I'm one of those people who are completely neutral to this issue, and don't really care which way this one goes. What does bother me is the all-or-nothing, polarized atmosphere this has created.

Just like when you buy a house and there are offers and counter-offers, maybe there should be a reasonable counter-proposal on behalf of the city based on what's on the table but mitigating concerns that citizens have. If public transit is an issue, build in a solution directly tied to it, and make the project pay for it over the long run (maybe there should be a special transit tax applied to retail and events within the property)

Pitch in a Hurdman to Carling transit tunnel and see what happens :haha: :runaway:
Absolutely! The City, or those opposed to the Lansdowne Deal should put forth a proposal to trade the NCC Lansdowne for Hurdman; build a complete sports complex at Hurdman, with rail/bus/car transport; and win a PAN-AM (or similar) Game bid. (If we get a 'Games', would we get upper level funding?)

Personally, I think Hurdman would be the best location for a sports complex. There are excellent transportation links, both intra- and inter-city.

[migo]

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

What makes you think that your speculation about how "...some long-existing businesses will likely fail" and that "Lansdowne retail (supermarket and movie theatres) will likely kill established businesses in the Glebe" are not fairy tales?
What make you think? Please quantify...

[Franky]

Absolutely! The City, or those opposed to the Lansdowne Deal should put forth a proposal to trade the NCC Lansdowne for Hurdman; build a complete sports complex at Hurdman, with rail/bus/car transport; and win a PAN-AM (or similar) Game bid. (If we get a 'Games', would we get upper level funding?)

Personally, I think Hurdman would be the best location for a sports complex. There are excellent transportation links, both intra- and inter-city.

Good idea. Wouldn't we need a new design competition to get a proposal together? A partial land swap for City Centre land might work too.

[RTWAP]

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

The new stores will compete with Bank Street. But they shouldn't decimate it.

If the rumours are correct then the food store is a Whole Foods, which isn't really much of a direct competitor for a neighbourhood grocery store.

I keep hearing two arguments against the retail. One is that there would be big box stores, but LL reps have stated that isn't true.

The other is that it would be a shopping centre or shopping mall. To me, those two terms usually mean a large building with an indoor pedestrian area. That type of retail configuration could be damaging to Bank Street. If people had a nearby alternative to shopping in whatever weather Mother Nature was delivering then they'd probably do so. And shoppers attracted to the area might be less likely to wander up and down Bank Street.

So is it true? Is it an indoor mall, or an outdoor pedestrian mall like the Town Center retail projects that have been all the rage lately in the U.S. Much more pleasant than indoor malls, and higher retail efficiency too.

[Franky]

What makes you think that your speculation about how "...some long-existing businesses will likely fail" and that "Lansdowne retail (supermarket and movie theatres) will likely kill established businesses in the Glebe" are not fairy tales?
What make you think? Please quantify...

Well, the Mayfair and the Metro will get some stiff direct competition. Those are the only 2 retail businesses we know of and 100% of stores so far compete. No fairy tale there. If we extrapolate...

It's much easier to slide into an existing market than to try and create a new one. We also know some restaurants will get free rent (from the city) in the Aberdeen Pavilion (what a shame) and they will compete for the after-game crowd. I wouldn't expect restaurant to fail because of this competition though, there is enough variety, but they certainly won't get a boost from the stadium and may in fact lose some customers on game nights due to missing parking.

[Franky]

The new stores will compete with Bank Street. But they shouldn't decimate it.

If the rumours are correct then the food store is a Whole Foods, which isn't really much of a direct competitor for a neighbourhood grocery store.

I keep hearing two arguments against the retail. One is that there would be big box stores, but LL reps have stated that isn't true.

The other is that it would be a shopping centre or shopping mall. To me, those two terms usually mean a large building with an indoor pedestrian area. That type of retail configuration could be damaging to Bank Street. If people had a nearby alternative to shopping in whatever weather Mother Nature was delivering then they'd probably do so. And shoppers attracted to the area might be less likely to wander up and down Bank Street.

So is it true? Is it an indoor mall, or an outdoor pedestrian mall like the Town Center retail projects that have been all the rage lately in the U.S. Much more pleasant than indoor malls, and higher retail efficiency too.

Decimate is to remove 10%, so it may actually be an accurate word.

Don't know what Whole Foods is or if it will go there.

It's not Big Box, we seem to be clear on that. It's still a huge development for the area.

Outdoor/open/roofless shopping mall - pedestrian mall lined by rows of stores. It will be enough of an island to have a similar effect, especially if the "look" is homogeneous or cohesive.

It's just the wrong place for this shopping thing - Lansdowne is not a run of the mill development area. Private buildings have no place on this public space.

[k2p]

In some ways Richmond is better; it certainly looks a lot better. But we've also lost all our hardware stores so it's not longer possible to walk to a hardware store in Westboro. That decreases the neighbourhood's walkability. High-end stores are not per se the cause but an excess of them seem to be associated with decreases in walkability because they are generally dependent on more people coming from further away while the people who live nearby have to go further away to get the things needed for day-to-day living.

Westboro has had quite an increase in population in this decade from all the infill in the area but walkability hasn't really improved over what it was before. It all looks prettier and I suppose if your definition of walkable is being able to window gaze on high-end stuff you don't want to buy, then sure, it's more walkable, but for someone trying to carry out the regular errands of life on foot it's not a whole lot different. True, we've now got a Loblaws but it's been laid out as a classic big-box except next to the sidewalk - the Loblaws makes you walk extra distance within the store itself to get anything done. Next to it is the LCBO, but that was stolen from Hintonburg so that's not an improvement. It is the local-oriented shops that make the difference of a place that is walkable and one that is an outdoor shopping district.

Sorry if I missed sarcasm. Who knows these days?

I take your point re Loblaws. But its big box, no street interaction design was thanks as much to the NIMBYs as I understand it as the developer. Either way, it's there today and wasn't before. And mercifully that kind of design isn't planned for Lansdowne.

Where I don't agree is about population and walkability. The staples -- groceries, pharmacy, liquor store etc. -- won't be affected by LL. If anything, they will do much better. And whether it's a Folkore Store or a snazzy clothing boutique, chances are good folks won't shop there weekly.

Walkability doesn't have much to do with buying anything. Even window shopping is good. Anything that increases people out for a stroll. That's where vibrancy comes from. And they'll have a coffee or beer along the way.

Unrelated, I'm unbothered that debate is polarized. I don't say that to be glib. Ottawa has talked things out, started another committee, accommodated the NIMBYs forever. They'll never be happy. It's time the city grew up, and if there's friction about whether it should, fine.

[lrt's friend]

I briefly had a look at the public discussion at the city website and to say the least, I was shocked. What a pathetic bunch of people. When there was supposed to be a discussion about the vision for Lansdowne, all that people contributed was bashing of Lansdowne Live. Is this what people consider a vision for Lansdowne? There was no real comments about what people want for Lansdowne. Don't these people realize that this may be their last opportunity to influence what is built at Lansdowne? It may still be possible to make adjustments to the plan and have something added or taken away, or discuss the finer details of the project such as desirable architectural features. They are throwing all their eggs in one basket, hoping that the project will be killed. If the project proceeds, they have lost their chance to make a positive contribution and make it all a little more palatable. Even if they win, they have wasted this time to express their dreams of what they want, instead of what they don't want. Even then, it isn't clear, what is so objectionable about the project. It has been said before, that we need some idea of what we want at Lansdowne before we can have a meaningful design competition.

[Franky]

I briefly had a look at the public discussion at the city website and to say the least, I was shocked. What a pathetic bunch of people. When there was supposed to be a discussion about the vision for Lansdowne, all that people contributed was bashing of Lansdowne Live. Is this what people consider a vision for Lansdowne? There was no real comments about what people want for Lansdowne. Don't these people realize that this may be their last opportunity to influence what is built at Lansdowne? It may still be possible to make adjustments to the plan and have something added or taken away, or discuss the finer details of the project such as desirable architectural features. They are throwing all their eggs in one basket, hoping that the project will be killed. If the project proceeds, they have lost their chance to make a positive contribution and make it all a little more palatable. Even if they win, they have wasted this time to express their dreams of what they want, instead of what they don't want. Even then, it isn't clear, what is so objectionable about the project. It has been said before, that we need some idea of what we want at Lansdowne before we can have a meaningful design competition.

I bet if they opened up a DESIGN competition public consultation, people would comment now. You expect people to imagine how something they don't want should look when it goes in. That's a tall order.

If this thing passes, it will have to be rejected at the next elections.

I wonder if this group could come up with a few plans.

Stadium in Kanata:
http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/designingottawa/archive/2009/04/05/cyril-leeder-why-a-soccer-stadium-in-kanata-is-good-urban-design.aspx

Another Bayview idea (not Martin's):
http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/designingottawa/archive/2009/08/30/another-bayview-stadium-proposal-includes-sports-hall-of-fame.aspx

I wonder if a seasonal dome (not retractable) would work? What if glass panels were used instead of opaque walls to keep in air pressure (for a seasonal dome) but allow a view would work. Alternately, removable walls for summer games might be interesting.

[rodionx]

The one thing I'm iffy about in regards to the Lansdowne Live proposal is the high amount of additional retail space without a correspondingly high number of additional residents. Without residents, it could turn into something like Sparks Street - cute shops that survive off the rush periods, but turn the lights out the rest of time. The most questionable retail addition is the cinema complex. Maybe they wanted to get people coming and going at night, but it's still meh. Kanata Town Centrish.

My suggestion would be to take the space allocated for the cinema complex and use it for housing. Could be high end rentals mixed with 20% social housing. We could get provincial money for the social housing component. Residential is forbidden, though, isn't it? With all the talk about moving the stadium to Bayshore or Renfrew or whatever, I've lost the thread on this.

[Franky]

Anyone have an idea what the LL proposal's property assessment might be? The group puts in $80M, maybe add the city's $20M for the parking garage, we're at $100M in, land is worth $20M... What's it all worth when built? Range or ball park figure?

[AuxTown]

Another interesting Denley article. I normall like Alex Cullen, but pulling this kind of crap shows exactly how inept our council really is. Also, reading the comments section, it seems that the few hundred Glebites who have been so actively posting about this topic on every web forum and chat room that they can are starting to tire. Either that or the fact that they are so badly outnumbered by the rest of the city is beginning to show. It is gonna be a very tense day when this comes to the table in November and there will be some very angry people no matter what they outcome is.

Alex Cullen's bad day

Informed councillor makes rare slip in efforts to stymie Lansdowne Live

By Randall Denley, The Ottawa CitizenOctober 10, 2009

Opponents of Lansdowne Live will have to scratch planning, transit, parking and traffic off their long list of potential reasons to reject the rejuvenation of Lansdowne. City staff and an outside engineering consultant provided compelling evidence this week that there is a plan to deal with concerns in those areas, and it will work.

It was an embarrassing day for Councillor Alex Cullen, who pronounced Lansdowne Live to be defective the day the plan came out and called a special meeting of the transit and transportation committees to prove himself right. Within minutes of the proposal's release, Cullen had determined it didn't fit within the city's official plan and the transit provisions for the site wouldn't work. Cullen is known for informing himself before he takes a position, but this time he didn't and he found himself on the wrong side of the facts.

Cullen is one of those who favours a new stadium at Bayview, and he's casting around for a logical argument to support that idea. The fishing wasn't good.

Cullen has declared that the expansion of retail at Lansdowne qualifies it as a major regional centre and such centres have to be on major transit lines. Not quite. The official plan requires new "major urban facilities" to be on major transit routes. The key word is new. Lansdowne is already a major facility under this definition and it's specified as such in the plan, city staff said.

Not only that, but Bank Street is classified as a traditional main street. The city plan encourages four- to six-storey development along strips like the Lansdowne Park frontage on Bank. The development proposed at Lansdowne is actually less than what's allowed under the official plan, staff said, and it delivers a lot of the intensification the city always says it wants.

Cullen's next-best argument was that the site should have many, many thousands of parking spaces, based on the idea that virtually every sort of activity envisioned could be happening at the same time. More bad luck. The study done on the project so far shows that there are more than 3,000 parking spaces in the larger neighbourhood, in addition to those on the site. That's plenty of parking for most events.

Staff have put together a well-thought-out plan that involves carpooling, walking, cycling and transit instead of exclusively relying on cars. That's exactly what the city should be doing. It was amusing to see Cullen and Councillor Clive Doucet, the two leading champions of transit, express so much skepticism about the role transit can play at Lansdowne. Their own staff say OC Transpo is definitely up to the challenge.

Staff have suggested that tickets for major events all include a transit surcharge. People could use their tickets to get on the bus. It's a great incentive to use transit and the surcharge would cover the extra cost of buses for the major events. Normally, Doucet and Cullen would applaud an idea like this.

The city also plans shuttle-bus service from nearby parking lots for the very largest events Lansdowne would host. The city has actually done this before, although Doucet chose to characterize this rather mundane solution as going on "war footing."

To summarize, the Lansdowne Live plan fits easily within the city's official plan, parking is adequate for the site and there is a credible and detailed plan for transit. There will be a bit more traffic on Bank Street, but most Lansdowne events are not at peak traffic times.

It's simply irrational to argue that Lansdowne can't accommodate large crowds of people. Ottawans have been getting to Lansdowne for major events for decades, and as recently as last summer's Ex. Hear any controversy? The Grey Cup in 2004, about the biggest event we will ever get, disrupted traffic for two hours before the game and two hours after. Surely we can tolerate that.

Despite the clarity of the staff presentation, most members of the committee were keen to find a microflaw. They spent hours asking smaller and smaller questions, even worrying that there might be some overtime involved in running buses for big events. Heavens.

After careful examination, the staff report on planning, transit and traffic emerged unscathed. The best Cullen could do was suggest that the city should hire an independent consultant to look at traffic and parking issues. The consultant who worked with city staff is being paid by the private-sector partners behind Lansdowne Live. He's the same guy the city often hires to do this work, but maybe he counts differently when he's on the public tab. In effect, Cullen is calling for a consultant to give him the answers he wants, just what he accuses the private sector of doing. Not the councillor's best day.

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

Scoring a Stadium: Visit our comprehensive minisite at ottawacitizen.com/stadium


My favorite comment from The Ottawa Citizen website: "Status quo at Landsdowne is a decaying parking lot, stadium, and assorted buildings. Not good. City hasn't got the funds to fix/improve the site. Unsolicited gift proposal comes in. Thank you. Lets move forward with this."

[Davis137]

It's good that this entire Gong Show might be winding down, and progressing forward...

[Franky]

Another interesting Denley article. I normall like Alex Cullen, but pulling this kind of crap shows exactly how inept our council really is. Also, reading the comments section, it seems that the few hundred Glebites who have been so actively posting about this topic on every web forum and chat room that they can are starting to tire. Either that or the fact that they are so badly outnumbered by the rest of the city is beginning to show. It is gonna be a very tense day when this comes to the table in November and there will be some very angry people no matter what they outcome is.



My favorite comment from The Ottawa Citizen website: "Status quo at Landsdowne is a decaying parking lot, stadium, and assorted buildings. Not good. City hasn't got the funds to fix/improve the site. Unsolicited gift proposal comes in. Thank you. Lets move forward with this."

More Denley BS.

[AuxTown]

More Denley BS.

BS?

Actually, he used numbers, expert opinions, anecdotal evidence, and even presented some novel ideas on how to make this plan work better (i.e. transit surcharge). I guess this means I'm back in the debate :-)

[Franky]

BS?

Actually, he used numbers, expert opinions, anecdotal evidence, and even presented some novel ideas on how to make this plan work better (i.e. transit surcharge). I guess this means I'm back in the debate :-)

Too tired to argue tonight, sorry. Bottom line: the report is lacking and needs to be done independently. BTW, it's been available for weeks so Cullen and Doucet should not have been surprised or embarrassed by the report.

[matty14]

More Denley BS.

This is why a lot of people in this thread are really annoyed with you. Mr. Denley presented facts (that you can see for yourself in the Transportation Report) with a slightly sarcastic tone. However, because it doesn't fly with your opinion on the matter, you dismiss it as 'BS' without providing any sort of reason as to why you think it is such. Read my comment (Friend of Lansdowne Live) on the article and you will see how I feel on the subject.

[RTWAP]

The one thing I'm iffy about in regards to the Lansdowne Live proposal is the high amount of additional retail space without a correspondingly high number of additional residents. Without residents, it could turn into something like Sparks Street - cute shops that survive off the rush periods, but turn the lights out the rest of time. The most questionable retail addition is the cinema complex. Maybe they wanted to get people coming and going at night, but it's still meh. Kanata Town Centrish.

My suggestion would be to take the space allocated for the cinema complex and use it for housing. Could be high end rentals mixed with 20% social housing. We could get provincial money for the social housing component. Residential is forbidden, though, isn't it? With all the talk about moving the stadium to Bayshore or Renfrew or whatever, I've lost the thread on this.

I want the optional components (more housing and office space) to be build, both to increase the tax base and to increase the population density in the area which will support more retail variety.

I like the movie theatre idea. Getting people coming day and night is a good idea. Mixed uses are more vibrant than single-uses. I can see parents coming on a weekend afternoon and dropping the kids off for a movie and then shopping for a couple hours before meeting up again for dinner.

Maybe one of the stores would work as a Cosmic Adventures-type space. Parents could drop their kids off for some energetic child-minding and then shop for a few yours.

Yes, I'm a parent. 3 kids under 10.

[RTWAP]

Well, the Mayfair and the Metro will get some stiff direct competition. Those are the only 2 retail businesses we know of and 100% of stores so far compete. No fairy tale there. If we extrapolate...

It's much easier to slide into an existing market than to try and create a new one. We also know some restaurants will get free rent (from the city) in the Aberdeen Pavilion (what a shame) and they will compete for the after-game crowd. I wouldn't expect restaurant to fail because of this competition though, there is enough variety, but they certainly won't get a boost from the stadium and may in fact lose some customers on game nights due to missing parking.

Did I miss something? Why would the city charge no rent for the restaurants at Aberdeen Pavilion?

[isaidso]

Did I miss something? Why would the city charge no rent for the restaurants at Aberdeen Pavilion?

If there is free rent, I'd like to know where I can sign up.

[Franky]

This is why a lot of people in this thread are really annoyed with you. Mr. Denley presented facts (that you can see for yourself in the Transportation Report) with a slightly sarcastic tone. However, because it doesn't fly with your opinion on the matter, you dismiss it as 'BS' without providing any sort of reason as to why you think it is such. Read my comment (Friend of Lansdowne Live) on the article and you will see how I feel on the subject.

That's the thing. They aren't "facts" but they are presented as such. "Adjacent parking" can be 2 km or more away from Lansdowne. Delcan estimated the number of parking spots available in the (greater) area to be 3,500 out of 5,000 (70%). They didn't do a count yet (that I've seen). Bank St. is to be closed for 2 hours before and after games so that traffic flows smoothly, but they don't seem to account for the parking that displaces and the impact of that new decision isn't considered. None of the auxiliary parking areas (like Carleton U.) are secured. They haven't even been approached, so there may actually be "Zero" extra parking available. They are also silent about the fact that when parking seems too tight, they will want to open up the front lawn to parking yet they claim the front lawn will only be used for major event (2 times/year).

Denley is often loose with his "facts". He means to be controversial (it's his job), but he's just spreading propaganda which doesn't help anyone make rational decisions.

[Franky]

If there is free rent, I'd like to know where I can sign up.

Yes:
Developers get historic pavilion for free
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2009/10/06/ottawa-aberdeen-pavilion-lansdowne.html

[Umpaidh]

I think you are misreading that article, Franky. My understanding of it is that the developers (OSEG) will be using/operating/renting out the Pavilion for the next 30 years to other parties, who will, I assume, be paying rent.

Now whether or not OSEG getting the building for free or not is a good thing, I would think no, but it depends how much of the renovations of the building they will be doing with their own money.

[Suzie]

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

It’s interesting to contrast the laissez-faire attitude of Minister Watson with that of his Quebec counterpart. When faced with a similar, questionable transaction with regard to the revitalization of the Robert Guertin Arena in Gatineau, Minister Normandeau killed it and forced the City to conduct an open bidding process (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2009/05/12/ottawa-robert-guertin-arena-gatineau.html). I guess getting value for money, fairness and transparency in this City is too much to ask for.

[AuxTown]

It’s interesting to contrast the laissez-faire attitude of Minister Watson with that of his Quebec counterpart. When faced with a similar, questionable transaction with regard to the revitalization of the Robert Guertin Arena in Gatineau, Minister Normandeau killed it and forced the City to conduct an open bidding process (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2009/05/12/ottawa-robert-guertin-arena-gatineau.html). I guess getting value for money, fairness and transparency in this City is too much to ask for.

This is not even relevent. All of the construction projects for Lansdowne Live will be called to tender. There is a long history in Quebec of sketchy deals with construction companies and contractors (i.e. Montreal Olympics) so Gatineau is just making sure everything is transparent. It's very different than an unsolicited plan to re-develop a site that no one (including the city) had taken any interest in developing. Still, to this day, no one else has come forward with a concrete plan to re-develop Lansdowne in a practical, well-costed, and feasible manner. I will object if all the contracts for demolition and new construction at Lansdowne are handed out without a fair process because there are many potential bidders for these projects. The developing rights, on the other hand, had only one seriously interested party in the last 20 years; I'll keep my eyes open in case another comes on the scene. LL is probably going to happen and those that opposed it will look foolish 20 years from now.

[Franky]

I think you are misreading that article, Franky. My understanding of it is that the developers (OSEG) will be using/operating/renting out the Pavilion for the next 30 years to other parties, who will, I assume, be paying rent.

Now whether or not OSEG getting the building for free or not is a good thing, I would think no, but it depends how much of the renovations of the building they will be doing with their own money.

Yes, they will be paying rent to OSEG, not the city - no property taxes means no revenue until 2030 at best when the city may see a percentage of rent because of the waterfall model.

Also, building little glass cubes into the pavilion is like sacrilege, but that's a different story.

[Suzie]

This is not even relevent. All of the construction projects for Lansdowne Live will be called to tender. There is a long history in Quebec of sketchy deals with construction companies and contractors (i.e. Montreal Olympics) so Gatineau is just making sure everything is transparent. It's very different than an unsolicited plan to re-develop a site that no one (including the city) had taken any interest in developing. Still, to this day, no one else has come forward with a concrete plan to re-develop Lansdowne in a practical, well-costed, and feasible manner. I will object if all the contracts for demolition and new construction at Lansdowne are handed out without a fair process because there are many potential bidders for these projects. The developing rights, on the other hand, had only one seriously interested party in the last 20 years; I'll keep my eyes open in case another comes on the scene. LL is probably going to happen and those that opposed it will look foolish 20 years from now.

Actually, it is 100% relevant. For example, there are plenty of developers that would be interested in obtaining the development rights to build the retail, office, residential and office component of the project (i.e., the 10 acres). Just put it up for bid and you will see. We’re talking about land in the Glebe, not inner city Detroit. Unlike the OSEG, they would pay a market price for the privilege. Fairness and transparency has to apply to every step of the procurement process.

Then there’s the stadium portion. A long-term concession would likely attract many bidders. If not, the City or City Corp could easily go the traditional procurement route and transfer the construction risk to the successful contractor (which, incidentally, is what the OSEG is planning to do – see Section 6.7 of the Memorandum of Understanding).

This project is violating basic, common sense rules associated with public-private partnerships. These rules did not appear out of thin air. They are based on more than 30 years of experience throughout the world. They are there to protect the taxpayer and combat criticisms from those who are ideologically opposed to such deals.

But let’s go back to your post and use a hypothetical example. A developer approaches a city, on an unsolicited basis, to obtain the right to build an office building on city-owned property, either through an outright sale or a long-term lease. The developer offers to pay next to nothing for obtaining this right, even though the land is very valuable. Based on what you said in your post, this would be ok as long as the tendering process followed by the developer for the construction of the office building were open. This is not how public assets should be managed.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

I bet if they opened up a DESIGN competition public consultation, people would comment now. You expect people to imagine how something they don't want should look when it goes in. That's a tall order.

If this thing passes, it will have to be rejected at the next elections.

I wonder if this group could come up with a few plans.

Stadium in Kanata:
http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/designingottawa/archive/2009/04/05/cyril-leeder-why-a-soccer-stadium-in-kanata-is-good-urban-design.aspx

Another Bayview idea (not Martin's):
http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/designingottawa/archive/2009/08/30/another-bayview-stadium-proposal-includes-sports-hall-of-fame.aspx

I wonder if a seasonal dome (not retractable) would work? What if glass panels were used instead of opaque walls to keep in air pressure (for a seasonal dome) but allow a view would work. Alternately, removable walls for summer games might be interesting.

The first one is laughable. It's because of people like Cyril Leeder that Ottawa has some of the issues it does.

[Suzie]

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

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

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

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

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

The more I look at this, the more it becomes clear that this proposal would set a new high (or, more appropriately, a new low) in terms of the subsidization of professional sports in Canada. Not only are we, as taxpayers, paying a 100% of the cost of renovating the stadium, providing its land and charging no base rent for its use during the first 30 years, we are also giving the “philanthropists” in OSEG rent-free access to prime real estate next door, which they will use to generate revenues that will ensure they never lose money on the franchises themselves (i.e., the City is implicitly guaranteeing the franchises). For them, there is no risk. Compare that to similar, recent CFL/soccer projects in Canada. In these cases, the owners of the franchises are covering their own franchise costs and are contributing at least something (and, more often than not, quite a bit) towards the construction of the stadium. If this goes through as is, it will be a huge black eye to the City and a big loss for taxpayers.

[k2p]

The more I look at this, the more it becomes clear that this proposal would set a new high (or, more appropriately, a new low) in terms of the subsidization of professional sports in Canada.

Not certain about the "new low"...SkyDome likely took that prize...and in almost any other situation, I'd agree with you about pro sports. But this isn't any other situation. A stadium is an integral part of a major city. That, not the franchise fee, is what's being subsidized.

It can also be used for events like FIFA or the world junior track and field championships in Moncton. Or larger ones, like Francophonie/Commonwealth Games. A refurbished civic centre can host several amateur or semi-pro events including the 67s, World Junior hockey, figure skating and curling.

But if public subsidy of things that can be used by professionals is bad, then so is the NAC.

You've also ignored the public benefit. Yes, there will be some revenue from the retail and residential. But there will be no revenue from the canal-side docks or greenspace. Since the city also benefits from injecting life into the core after watching it decay for so long, is a worthwhile expense in my books.

People aren't just taxpayers. They are also people. And in every city in the world, they like watching sports as well as arts and being out after dark. Time Ottawa joined the club.

[waterloowarrior]

Lansdowne Plan B in the works


http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Lansdowne+Plan+works/2094494/story.html

By Randall Denley, The Ottawa CitizenOctober 12, 2009 11:13 PMBe the first to post a comment (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:jumpToAnchor%28%27#PostComment%27%29)

OTTAWA-Citizens who voiced criticisms of the Lansdowne Live plan are going to find that their efforts were not in vain. City councillors are working quietly on a compromise plan that will preserve the essential elements of the original proposal while responding to the concerns of the public.

Expect a Plan B with significantly less retail, no restaurants in the Aberdeen Pavilion, a design competition to propose more exciting uses for the open part of the site and postponement of plans for housing. In modifying the proposal, councillors hope to strengthen public support and assure that the deal goes ahead. At the moment, there are said to be 10 councillors in favour of the proposal, 10 against and four who are undecided.

The reduction in retail will be the biggest change in the plan. The plan the public has been reacting to includes 400,000 square feet of commercial space, including the Aberdeen Pavilion. What’s being discussed is a reduction of 100,000 square feet. The developers behind the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group have been taking all the heat for the amount of retail space in the plan, but it was actually the city that wanted the number boosted to 400,000 square feet, OSEG partner Roger Greenberg says. The developers’ original concept suggested 300,000.

One of the instructions from city councillors to their staff was that the Lansdowne rejuvenation have no net cost to taxpayers. To achieve that goal, city staff suggested that the retail component be increased, to boost the property taxes that will cover part of the mortgage on the rebuilt stadium and Civic Centre.

Councillors are considering replacing the retail space with a hotel and office space that was proposed as part of a second phase of the project. There has been little opposition to either of those uses on the site, but some in the public are worried that too much retail will lead to big-box stores or hurt businesses elsewhere in the Glebe.

Removing 100,000 square feet of retail space will lower the city’s tax take by about $800,000 a year. It’s a small price to pay for a plan that people will like better and it could be recouped by advancing the hotel and office components.

A design competition that would include the Aberdeen Pavilion and all the land stretching from there to the Rideau Canal would not fully mollify those who wanted a competition for the whole site, but it’s a practical alternative. The city’s original design competition specified a stadium, retail on Bank and the retention of the historic buildings. The open part of the site is the place for creativity and this proposal would benefit from more wow factor.

A good idea for the pavilion would also be in order. OSEG’s proposal to feature glass-enclosed restaurants in the cavernous building is an awkward fit. Restaurants and Lansdowne really should have access to the water, or at least a view of it.

The 208 units of housing proposed for Lansdowne have proven moderately controversial, partly because councillors did not ask for housing. The housing is not critical to the plan, and it’s a matter best resolved with a separate debate.

This evolving compromise would make Lansdowne Live more acceptable to councillors and the public, but there is a wild card that could blow up the entire plan.

The trade and consumer show operators that use Lansdowne are worried that they haven’t been included in Lansdowne Live and they haven’t been given any guarantee of consumer show space elsewhere. They have a legitimate complaint and their opposition creates an easy reason for councillors to vote against the plan without having to present compelling criticisms of its main aspects.

Moving trade shows elsewhere makes sense because Lansdowne was already overloaded with public uses. Now people want to add retail, green space and maybe even some housing. Something had to go.

It’s an imperfect solution because consumer shows are actually a major reason why people visit Lansdowne, but the show operators were told that one of the OSEG partners, William Shenkman, was investigating the possibility of a new trade show building at the airport. Shenkman has a consultant examining the idea, but he says he won’t be able to make a commitment before council is to decide on Lansdowne Live on Nov. 13.

In most cities, trade and consumer show space is offered in a government-owned centre. In Ottawa, we have met that need in a mediocre fashion with the existing buildings at Lansdowne. It wouldn’t be fair to abandon this industry and the consumers and businesses that rely on it. The city will probably have to do more than hope that Shenkman decides to go ahead.

The compromise councillors ultimately arrive at will have to be reality-checked, costed and made available to the public well before the two-day council meeting in November that will determine Lansdowne Live’s fate. Lansdowne and this project are simpy too important to be resolved by some compromise that’s the result of a flurry of motions on the floor of city council.

The public has examined the details of the Lansdowne plan and offered suggestions for change. The developers are offering no great opposition to the kind of changes that councillors are looking at. Plan B is in order, and the sooner it gets out of the backrooms, the better.

Contact Randall Denley at 613-596-3756 or by e-mail, rdenley@thecitizen.canwest.com
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[Gitfiddler]

Lansdowne Plan B in the works


http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Lansdowne+Plan+works/2094494/story.html

By Randall Denley, The Ottawa CitizenOctober 12, 2009 11:13 PMBe the first to post a comment (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:jumpToAnchor%28%27#PostComment%27%29)

OTTAWA-Citizens who voiced criticisms of the Lansdowne Live plan are going to find that their efforts were not in vain. City councillors are working quietly on a compromise plan that will preserve the essential elements of the original proposal while responding to the concerns of the public.

Expect a Plan B with significantly less retail, no restaurants in the Aberdeen Pavilion, a design competition to propose more exciting uses for the open part of the site and postponement of plans for housing. In modifying the proposal, councillors hope to strengthen public support and assure that the deal goes ahead. At the moment, there are said to be 10 councillors in favour of the proposal, 10 against and four who are undecided.

The reduction in retail will be the biggest change in the plan. The plan the public has been reacting to includes 400,000 square feet of commercial space, including the Aberdeen Pavilion. What’s being discussed is a reduction of 100,000 square feet. The developers behind the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group have been taking all the heat for the amount of retail space in the plan, but it was actually the city that wanted the number boosted to 400,000 square feet, OSEG partner Roger Greenberg says. The developers’ original concept suggested 300,000.

One of the instructions from city councillors to their staff was that the Lansdowne rejuvenation have no net cost to taxpayers. To achieve that goal, city staff suggested that the retail component be increased, to boost the property taxes that will cover part of the mortgage on the rebuilt stadium and Civic Centre.

Councillors are considering replacing the retail space with a hotel and office space that was proposed as part of a second phase of the project. There has been little opposition to either of those uses on the site, but some in the public are worried that too much retail will lead to big-box stores or hurt businesses elsewhere in the Glebe.

Removing 100,000 square feet of retail space will lower the city’s tax take by about $800,000 a year. It’s a small price to pay for a plan that people will like better and it could be recouped by advancing the hotel and office components.

A design competition that would include the Aberdeen Pavilion and all the land stretching from there to the Rideau Canal would not fully mollify those who wanted a competition for the whole site, but it’s a practical alternative. The city’s original design competition specified a stadium, retail on Bank and the retention of the historic buildings. The open part of the site is the place for creativity and this proposal would benefit from more wow factor.

A good idea for the pavilion would also be in order. OSEG’s proposal to feature glass-enclosed restaurants in the cavernous building is an awkward fit. Restaurants and Lansdowne really should have access to the water, or at least a view of it.

The 208 units of housing proposed for Lansdowne have proven moderately controversial, partly because councillors did not ask for housing. The housing is not critical to the plan, and it’s a matter best resolved with a separate debate.

This evolving compromise would make Lansdowne Live more acceptable to councillors and the public, but there is a wild card that could blow up the entire plan.

The trade and consumer show operators that use Lansdowne are worried that they haven’t been included in Lansdowne Live and they haven’t been given any guarantee of consumer show space elsewhere. They have a legitimate complaint and their opposition creates an easy reason for councillors to vote against the plan without having to present compelling criticisms of its main aspects.

Moving trade shows elsewhere makes sense because Lansdowne was already overloaded with public uses. Now people want to add retail, green space and maybe even some housing. Something had to go.

It’s an imperfect solution because consumer shows are actually a major reason why people visit Lansdowne, but the show operators were told that one of the OSEG partners, William Shenkman, was investigating the possibility of a new trade show building at the airport. Shenkman has a consultant examining the idea, but he says he won’t be able to make a commitment before council is to decide on Lansdowne Live on Nov. 13.

In most cities, trade and consumer show space is offered in a government-owned centre. In Ottawa, we have met that need in a mediocre fashion with the existing buildings at Lansdowne. It wouldn’t be fair to abandon this industry and the consumers and businesses that rely on it. The city will probably have to do more than hope that Shenkman decides to go ahead.

The compromise councillors ultimately arrive at will have to be reality-checked, costed and made available to the public well before the two-day council meeting in November that will determine Lansdowne Live’s fate. Lansdowne and this project are simpy too important to be resolved by some compromise that’s the result of a flurry of motions on the floor of city council.

The public has examined the details of the Lansdowne plan and offered suggestions for change. The developers are offering no great opposition to the kind of changes that councillors are looking at. Plan B is in order, and the sooner it gets out of the backrooms, the better.

Contact Randall Denley at 613-596-3756 or by e-mail, rdenley@thecitizen.canwest.com
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

I wonder how they'll decide to complain about this development in the saga?

Regardless of how one views the development, it has to be admitted that OSEG has been more than reasonable in attempting to accommodate varying interests.

So . . . if everything but the stadium and the bank st frontage goes to an open design competition, will that be good enough???

[k2p]

:previous:
If it's right, my money is on not good enough. However it's dolled up, when you get right down to it, the objection is about the stadium.

And as much as that part of me that wants the NIMBY crowd steamrollered has grown of late, if what Denley writes ends up happening, it could be good. I just hope the canal side gets some very people-heavy, 18-hour-activity urban frontage. Also, that they replace the lost retail with residential.

If this ends up as one more park...

[Franky]

Plan B?!

I didn't know the reports from public consultations were in already.

Rick Chiarelli was on CBC radio this morning talking about modifying the plan - we want a design competition, not a sole-sourced sweetheart deal redux.

[matty14]

Just reading the comments on that article. I knew there was no satisfying the NIMBYs. They are complaining about the costs and the retail, now there's less retail but the cost to the taxpayer is going to skyrocket. Enjoy.

[matty14]

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Alex+Cullen/2089550/story.html

'The city also plans shuttle-bus service from nearby parking lots for the very largest events Lansdowne would host. The city has actually done this before, although Doucet chose to characterize this rather mundane solution as going on "war footing."'

BUT

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/local/story.html?id=b1a8ab40-1849-4897-9e49-4f0bc97fd7e4&k=68355

'The situation does not surprise Virginia Carver, chairwoman of the Glebe Community Association environment committee.

“I guess there is generally quite a push on parking spaces,” she said Monday. “But we live with it for events like the Ex, football games or homes shows and other big events. The neighbourhood has always managed in the past.”

Her thoughts are echoed by Capital Ward Councillor Clive Doucet.

“It’s part of life for people in the Glebe,“ he said. “They are very good-hearted about it most of the time and I don’t get complaints.

“This is standard practice for big events at Lansdowne. We didn’t have any (parking) for the Rolling Stones concert or the francophone games. There was only room for the elite and 95 per cent parked at Carleton University.

“The bigger the event, the better it works. It gets people in and out far quicker.”'

Wow.

[phil235]

The more I look at this, the more it becomes clear that this proposal would set a new high (or, more appropriately, a new low) in terms of the subsidization of professional sports in Canada. Not only are we, as taxpayers, paying a 100% of the cost of renovating the stadium, providing its land and charging no base rent for its use during the first 30 years, we are also giving the “philanthropists” in OSEG rent-free access to prime real estate next door, which they will use to generate revenues that will ensure they never lose money on the franchises themselves (i.e., the City is implicitly guaranteeing the franchises). For them, there is no risk. Compare that to similar, recent CFL/soccer projects in Canada. In these cases, the owners of the franchises are covering their own franchise costs and are contributing at least something (and, more often than not, quite a bit) towards the construction of the stadium. If this goes through as is, it will be a huge black eye to the City and a big loss for taxpayers.

It's nice to see some intelligent debate going on here. Suzie, I would point out that you are making a few assumptions when you state that this is a high in terms of a subsidy to professional sports. Whether this is a huge subsidy depends on what value you put on the risk that OSEG is taking on. While you are assuming that the stadium will make money on balance, that is not the city's assumption. To my knowledge, no similar stadium in Canada makes money. They are provided by cities for the public good. Hence, in their view, there is no value in tendering the concession, as no one will bid on a money-loser. The value OSEG is contributing is found in the absorption of losses on the stadium, plus construction overruns (and let's be honest, a regular procurement process does not truly transfer those risks).

Your comment on recent soccer/football facilities is also an overstatement. I'm not sure of the exact details, but I believe the BC Lions/Whitecaps are making no contribution to the renovation of BC Place. On the other hand, Toronto FC put in $10 million to a $73 million project (including the land). That is about 14%. The Alouettes contributed about $6 million of the $43 million cost of renovating Molson stadium (13%). It is certainly arguable that the absorption of stadium operating losses and capital losses by OSEG constitutes a contribution in the same range. Yes billionaires in Montreal (Saputo) and Winnipeg (Asper) contributed more, but absent a billionaire ready to donate money, cities have to assume the bulk of the costs of this type of deal if they want to provide this type of facility.

As one final note, you also fail to recognize that the Civic Centre is also part of the equation. I believe that every single OHL hockey arena in Ontario is municipally-financed. So at least a quarter of the investment is in line with the what is the case in every other city in the province. The reality is that if the city wants that type of facility, no one is going to build it for us.

In the face of the many claims that a procurement process will address all of the issues and lead to a better result, the reason that many people are willing to accept this deal is that they recognize that the finances don't really work any other way, and there really aren't other groups that can bring all of this to the table.

[Suzie]

It's nice to see some intelligent debate going on here. Suzie, I would point out that you are making a few assumptions when you state that this is a high in terms of a subsidy to professional sports. Whether this is a huge subsidy depends on what value you put on the risk that OSEG is taking on. While you are assuming that the stadium will make money on balance, that is not the city's assumption. To my knowledge, no similar stadium in Canada makes money. They are provided by cities for the public good. Hence, in their view, there is no value in tendering the concession, as no one will bid on a money-loser. The value OSEG is contributing is found in the absorption of losses on the stadium, plus construction overruns (and let's be honest, a regular procurement process does not truly transfer those risks).

Let me say right off the bat that I understand that the stadium, especially if the costs of refurbishment are included, will require a large public subsidy. Fundamentally, there is no reason why it has to be that way, but it seems to be normal practice in Canada. Interestingly, this is not the case for most of the recently-built new arenas, which have been financed privately. This includes ScotiaBank Place. True, that arena was meant to be part of a larger real estate project but at least the land in that case was purchased through a private, commercial transaction (i.e., not from the City).

A large public subsidy for the renovation of the stadium is something that I could tolerate, especially if the facility has uses other than for professional sport or concerts (e.g., use by amateur sports). This being said, it is not something that I would enthusiastically support. For example, I would much prefer to see the City invest some of these funds in improving and increasing the number of sports fields across town.

If the subsidy is to be provided, then it should be minimized. The fact that a public facility loses money does not mean in itself that a long-term concession is not possible or there would be no private sector interest in obtaining one. In such cases, the winning bidder from the private sector would be the one that requests the lowest subsidy. A number of permutations in terms of what the private sector does and does not do (in terms of design, construction, financing and operation) are possible. It would be up to the City to decide based on what provides the best value. If the City somehow believes that there will be insufficient private sector interest in such a concession, then it can just follow the traditional procurement route. If the OSEG can get people to sign onto a maximum-price construction contract, so can the City.

I wholeheartedly agree that there is value in transferring risk. In fact, that is one of the main benefits of a good public-private partnership. However, I would argue that, due to the structure of this deal and the waterfall in particular, little meaningful risk transfer would take place. If the OSEG’s costs are higher than expected (e.g., a large operating loss at the stadium is incurred), it would need to put more money into the project (either through debt, equity or a combination thereof). Because of the waterfall, this extra money would have a priority claim on the project’s revenues and this would eat into the revenues that the City was expecting to make. So, ultimately, most of the cost would be borne by the City. Also, the OSEG is planning to transfer the construction cost overrun risk to the private sector firm or consortium that will win the construction bid. The bid price would no doubt reflect this risk transfer. I fully expect this to be reflected in the amount of money the OSEG asks for and the City provides to cover the cost of the renovation (currently estimated at $110M but could change).

In fact, because everything is bundled together and the structure of the waterfall, most of the risk associated with the franchises themselves (i.e., them losing money and going under) would be transferred to the City. Thus, overall, the City may be bearing more risk than it would under traditional procurement and certainly more than it would under my preferred option.

Once renovated and with a football team and possibly soccer, it is not clear to me whether the stadium would incur ongoing operating losses. What is the experience with other stadiums and smaller arenas in Canada? If there is an ongoing operating loss, it is always better to cover it in a transparent and open fashion (i.e., through an annual operating subsidy), instead of through a complex web of cross-subsidies.

Your comment on recent soccer/football facilities is also an overstatement. I'm not sure of the exact details, but I believe the BC Lions/Whitecaps are making no contribution to the renovation of BC Place. On the other hand, Toronto FC put in $10 million to a $73 million project (including the land). That is about 14%. The Alouettes contributed about $6 million of the $43 million cost of renovating Molson stadium (13%). It is certainly arguable that the absorption of stadium operating losses and capital losses by OSEG constitutes a contribution in the same range.

Are these teams paying rent? Did the provincial or municipal governments also give the teams access to land nearby on a rent-free basis in order to allow them to recoup the money they invested to obtain and operate the franchises? At least two of these teams contributed funding towards the stadium (in the case of Toronto, I thought the contribution was $18M).

Yes billionaires in Montreal (Saputo) and Winnipeg (Asper) contributed more, but absent a billionaire ready to donate money, cities have to assume the bulk of the costs of this type of deal if they want to provide this type of facility.

We do have someone here in Ottawa with a lot of money, but I guess he’s more interested in soccer and building something in Kanata.

As one final note, you also fail to recognize that the Civic Centre is also part of the equation. I believe that every single OHL hockey arena in Ontario is municipally-financed. So at least a quarter of the investment is in line with the what is the case in every other city in the province. The reality is that if the city wants that type of facility, no one is going to build it for us.

I can tolerate a subsidy for the arena, since it arguably falls under amateur sports.

In the face of the many claims that a procurement process will address all of the issues and lead to a better result, the reason that many people are willing to accept this deal is that they recognize that the finances don't really work any other way, and there really aren't other groups that can bring all of this to the table.

We don't need this project to be done by a single private sector entity. The proponents want to do this in order to cross-subsidize the sport-related costs (including the franchise costs) using revenues from real estate development. The project can easily be split up into more manageable chunks.

[phil235]

Suzie, you are absolutely right that NHL arenas have mostly been paid for by the teams. That is a case of the economics of the NHL making it viable, where the CFL is not even remotely in the same situation. (i.e. a $200 million business is much more capable of building an arena than a $7 million business is a stadium).

The stadium will definitely be used by more than pro sports and concerts. Even now, the bulk of the field time at Frank Clair is taken up by recreational sports. University teams also use the field. But perhaps more importantly, a proper stadium puts Ottawa in a position to host the U20 soccer, La Francophonie etc, important events that do not by themselves warrant the construction of a stadium, but without the stadium, events that Ottawa cannot host. Those types of events bring all sorts of benefits to the city, both tangible and intangible.

Finally, on the issue of the transfer of risk, I do not see the waterfall arrangement as being the critical point there. The City's primary goal in this deal is to reduce risk while providing the facilities at Lansdowne, not to make a profit. So yes, the developers have priority on revenues and stand the best chance to profit in this deal, but the point of the financial arrangement is, to the extent possible, to transfer both the chance of profit and risk of loss to the private sector. That is what this deal does.

[Franky]

Suzie, you are absolutely right that NHL arenas have mostly been paid for by the teams. That is a case of the economics of the NHL making it viable, where the CFL is not even remotely in the same situation. (i.e. a $200 million business is much more capable of building an arena than a $7 million business is a stadium).

The stadium will definitely be used by more than pro sports and concerts. Even now, the bulk of the field time at Frank Clair is taken up by recreational sports. University teams also use the field. But perhaps more importantly, a proper stadium puts Ottawa in a position to host the U20 soccer, La Francophonie etc, important events that do not by themselves warrant the construction of a stadium, but without the stadium, events that Ottawa cannot host. Those types of events bring all sorts of benefits to the city, both tangible and intangible.

Finally, on the issue of the transfer of risk, I do not see the waterfall arrangement as being the critical point there. The City's primary goal in this deal is to reduce risk while providing the facilities at Lansdowne, not to make a profit. So yes, the developers have priority on revenues and stand the best chance to profit in this deal, but the point of the financial arrangement is, to the extent possible, to transfer both the chance of profit and risk of loss to the private sector. That is what this deal does.

What was the deal for Melnyk's Kanata stadium proposal? He wants to bring MLS to Ottawa and is willing to accommodate CFL as well if I remember correctly.

Found it:
However, Melnyk's bid to bring MLS to the capital is conditional on the city approving his plan to build a $110-million soccer stadium and entertainment complex near Scotiabank Place.

That plan calls for the federal and provincial governments to pick up two-thirds of the cost to build the complex. The remaining third would be covered by the city and Senator Sports and Entertainment.

"I am prepared to personally invest over $50 million to bring an MLS team to Ottawa," said Melnyk.

"Hockey is Canada's game. But soccer is truly the world's game. With the exception of the Stanley Cup, I want nothing more than to bring the world to Ottawa," he said.
http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090310/OTT_Melnyk_Stadium_090310?hub=OttawaHome

<1/3 of $110M is less than $130M.

[blackjagger]

<1/3 of $110M is less than $130M.

Yes 1/3 of $110M is less than $130M. And a stadium out in Kanata is about 1/4 as good as one in the core (do you like how I created a quantitative measure to my qualitative opinion :) ). Not to mention we would still be left with the status quo with Lansdowne. So there would be additional costs to renovate the civic centre, either demolition costs or upkeep costs for Frank Clair, and still other costs to do whatever else that would be needed to make Lansdowne more than a parking lot. I agree that we need to be prudent with the city’s money, aka our money, but we have to measure optionss with cost vs benefit not just the cost.

Cheers,
Josh

[waterloowarrior]

Melnyk's deal was also "sole source" (the horror!)

[matty14]

What was the deal for Melnyk's Kanata stadium proposal? He wants to bring MLS to Ottawa and is willing to accommodate CFL as well if I remember correctly.

Found it:
However, Melnyk's bid to bring MLS to the capital is conditional on the city approving his plan to build a $110-million soccer stadium and entertainment complex near Scotiabank Place.

That plan calls for the federal and provincial governments to pick up two-thirds of the cost to build the complex. The remaining third would be covered by the city and Senator Sports and Entertainment.

"I am prepared to personally invest over $50 million to bring an MLS team to Ottawa," said Melnyk.

"Hockey is Canada's game. But soccer is truly the world's game. With the exception of the Stanley Cup, I want nothing more than to bring the world to Ottawa," he said.
http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090310/OTT_Melnyk_Stadium_090310?hub=OttawaHome

<1/3 of $110M is less than $130M.

CFL cannot play in an MLS stadium. MLS wants teams to have 'soccer-specific' stadia, i.e. no outside tracks (no track & field, no games, etc.) and I can guarantee if MLS learned that the stadium was to be shared with a football team, the bid is thrown out the window.

P.S. You have been a champion for sites having Rapid Transit, but Rapid Transit won't be reaching SBP for a long long time.

[waterloowarrior]

Looking for a Lansdowne solution

Councillors jockey to find winning compromise for development plan -- or a way to kill it

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Looking+Lansdowne+solution/2098810/story.html

[isaidso]

When is the shovel going in the ground? This is dragging on forever. You'd think Ottawa was drawing up plans for colonizing the moon, not something relatively easy like approving a stadium.

[AuxTown]

When is the shovel going in the ground? This is dragging on forever. You'd think Ottawa was drawing up plans for colonizing the moon, not something relatively easy like approving a stadium.

Actually, I don't mind the current timeframe. I think it sparks healthy debate and has even already spurred possible changes to the LL plan, which is a good thing in a democracy. Now the question is, if the vote is 'yes' in November, will construction/demolition get underway right away. This is a very 'shovel-ready' project in that the land is already there, much of it is vacant or has very little use (especially in Winter), and there would be no expropriation of residential propreties (often the biggest factor that delays projects). My heart hopes the answer is yes, but who knows whether or not Doucet is going to chain himself to the crumbling Southside stands or find some ridiculous legal loophole from the early 1900's that doesn't allow council to make such a decision. Should be an interesting month nonetheless.

[bikegypsy]

I say we should go down there like right now and throw rocks at the South side to accelarate the process. Who's in?

[Franky]

CFL cannot play in an MLS stadium. MLS wants teams to have 'soccer-specific' stadia, i.e. no outside tracks (no track & field, no games, etc.) and I can guarantee if MLS learned that the stadium was to be shared with a football team, the bid is thrown out the window.

P.S. You have been a champion for sites having Rapid Transit, but Rapid Transit won't be reaching SBP for a long long time.

Melnyk game for football
CFL franchise could play out of Kanata complex, councillors told
http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Football/CFL/Ottawa/2009/03/11/8706896-sun.html

I'm also pushing for rapid transit to Kanata, Barrhaven and Orleans instead of building more BRT to a transfer station just inside the green belt. We already have a stadium in Kanata, so adding a stadium there would only increases the justification to bring rapid transit to Kanata.

[bikegypsy]

Why would a soccer specific stadium not be able to accomodate football? It so much smaller?

[Franky]

Actually, I don't mind the current timeframe. I think it sparks healthy debate and has even already spurred possible changes to the LL plan, which is a good thing in a democracy. Now the question is, if the vote is 'yes' in November, will construction/demolition get underway right away. This is a very 'shovel-ready' project in that the land is already there, much of it is vacant or has very little use (especially in Winter), and there would be no expropriation of residential propreties (often the biggest factor that delays projects). My heart hopes the answer is yes, but who knows whether or not Doucet is going to chain himself to the crumbling Southside stands or find some ridiculous legal loophole from the early 1900's that doesn't allow council to make such a decision. Should be an interesting month nonetheless.

Is the Civic Centre going to remain operational for the 67s during the construction? It sounded like it would all be shut down - so the savings would be there - i.e. no lights, no ice, no refrigeration, no heat ...

What happens when we have an election and the #$%^& that put the sole sourced deal together are turfed?

[waterloowarrior]

We can't just give away the Kanata soccer stadium site in a sole-sourced deal... that's unacceptable. We need an international design competition, extensive public consultation, and an open RFP to see who else wants to build on the site. This is our public space!

[Franky]

We can't just give away the Kanata soccer stadium site in a sole-sourced deal... that's unacceptable. We need an international design competition, extensive public consultation, and an open RFP to see who else wants to build on the site. This is our public space!

Well, no. It's a field out in Kanata, not a "jewel/pearl on the Rideau Canal that's been public space over 100 years".

[AuxTown]

Well, no. It's a field out in Kanata, not a "jewel/pearl on the Rideau Canal that's been public space over 100 years".

Dude, get over it! Lansdowne is a piece of shit, end of story. There are no plans on the table to develop your "green" view of Lansdowne, nor is there money to fund such a proposal. That's not even mentioning the issues with relocating a stadium and finding a new group willing to back sports teams etc. You're comments suggest that they will be putting a big wall around Lansdowne and only Jeff Hunt and his buddies would be allowed to use it. This will become a great 'public space' in every sense of the word, except for maybe your near-sighted strict definition of such. If this plan goes down, I'm holding Franky 100% responsible! :)

[waterloowarrior]

Well, no. It's a field out in Kanata, not a "jewel/pearl on the Rideau Canal that's been public space over 100 years".

The Kanata site is a jewel on the Carp.....

A parking lot and a stadium for private events isn't public space. The 'front lawn' and new pedestrian oriented spaces will be...

Maybe we should go back to the way things used to be and put a wall around the site

http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/205/301/ic/cdc/superex/english/images/ex/city/1900aerialview.jpg

[Franky]

Dude, get over it! Lansdowne is a piece of shit, end of story. There are no plans on the table to develop your "green" view of Lansdowne, nor is there money to fund such a proposal. That's not even mentioning the issues with relocating a stadium and finding a new group willing to back sports teams etc. You're comments suggest that they will be putting a big wall around Lansdowne and only Jeff Hunt and his buddies would be allowed to use it. This will become a great 'public space' in every sense of the word, except for maybe your near-sighted strict definition of such. If this plan goes down, I'm holding Franky 100% responsible! :)

Yes, Lansdowne needs to be fixed up. That's why we had a design competition.

This LL giveaway is not the answer.

Offices, condos and much of that retail (too big) has no place at Lansdowne. Offices, condos and shopping malls can be built anywhere. Hotel would be OK depending on where it is sited.

[Franky]

The Kanata site is a jewel on the Carp.....

A parking lot and a stadium for private events isn't public space. The 'front lawn' and new pedestrian oriented spaces will be...

Maybe we should go back to the way things used to be and put a wall around the site

http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/205/301/ic/cdc/superex/english/images/ex/city/1900aerialview.jpg

Racetrack and casino? Not a bad idea. The rest, not so good.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_tP91EyXWrao/SPkT3WlR71I/AAAAAAAAASw/9pWMM45V0yQ/s1600/field_melnyk.JPG

http://www.transitottawa.ca/2008/10/ottawas-outdoor-stadium-debate.html

Official site:
http://www.bringtheworldtoottawa.ca/stadium-plans.php

[Gitfiddler]

Racetrack and casino? Not a bad idea. The rest, not so good.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_tP91EyXWrao/SPkT3WlR71I/AAAAAAAAASw/9pWMM45V0yQ/s1600/field_melnyk.JPG

http://www.transitottawa.ca/2008/10/ottawas-outdoor-stadium-debate.html

Official site:
http://www.bringtheworldtoottawa.ca/stadium-plans.php

Melnyk's proposal sure is shiny. And it looks good.

But there's a reason that I go to a lot more 67s games than I do Senators games. It's not the cost of the ticket. It's the convenience. I would go see a soccer or football team at Lansdowne far more than I would trek out to Kanata to watch the same teams. Hell if the Gee-Gees played out of Frank Clair and the CFL team out of Kanata - I'd likely be a Gee-Gee season ticket holder.

Sure, maybe Lansdowne's been a public space for 100 years. It's also been home to football and hockey for 100 years. You can't honestly expect that as time goes on absolutely nothing will change at that location, can you?

[Franky]

Melnyk's proposal sure is shiny. And it looks good.

But there's a reason that I go to a lot more 67s games than I do Senators games. It's not the cost of the ticket. It's the convenience. I would go see a soccer or football team at Lansdowne far more than I would trek out to Kanata to watch the same teams. Hell if the Gee-Gees played out of Frank Clair and the CFL team out of Kanata - I'd likely be a Gee-Gee season ticket holder.

Sure, maybe Lansdowne's been a public space for 100 years. It's also been home to football and hockey for 100 years. You can't honestly expect that as time goes on absolutely nothing will change at that location, can you?

I think if you lived in Kanata, you would go to the Kanata Stadium more than the Lansdowne one. It occurs to me that the supporters of CFL were more in Orleans, perhaps in more suburban areas (like Kanata) than in centre town. I'm sure Mr. Melnyk did his market research before risking his cash.

I would like to see the civic centre remain with the north side stands - this would allow concerts and recreational use of the field - year round in the bubble.

And you can't honestly equate Lansdowne Park to a field out in Kanata.

[Proof Sheet]

It occurs to me that the supporters of CFL were more in Orleans, perhaps in more suburban areas (like Kanata) than in centre town. I'm sure Mr. Melnyk did his market research before risking his cash.


Look for the highest concentrations of Tim Horton's/CFRA listeners and cradle Canadians and that is where the CFL supporters are to be found.

I'll get my coat now:banana:

[Gitfiddler]

I think if you lived in Kanata, you would go to the Kanata Stadium more than the Lansdowne one. It occurs to me that the supporters of CFL were more in Orleans, perhaps in more suburban areas (like Kanata) than in centre town.

I'm sure I would too. The only problem is that in a CMA of 1.2 million, only 100,000 live in Kanata, which wouldn't be a problem if that didn't make it so damn inconvenient for the other 1.1 million to get out there. Everyone coming from one direction, on one highway is a nightmare. We know this already.

Also, if the CFL supporters are all located in the suburbs rather than Centretown, it makes even more sense to keep the stadium as central as possible making it as accessible to all of the suburbs as possible. Also, where does the supposed Orleans centralization of fans come from? I'm sure there are plenty there, but what's the source for that?


I'm sure Mr. Melnyk did his market research before risking his cash.


I'm sure he did too. But his whole project was based on an MLS franchise, which he wasn't going to win. Ottawa, I think, is going to be a good soccer market in the long term, but to try to immediately jump to the top tier is foolish. The LL idea of first attracting a USL franchise is a much smarter idea as it gives the opportunity for the market to prove itself. If the Ottawa Fury move up to the USL and fail, it's not nearly as bad as if they jumped right to MLS and were a failure. Especially if the stadium was built specifically for that purpose. That's a huge huge risk, IMO.

A much bigger risk than going with CFL and OHL franchises on site, along with Gee-Gees football and a potential USL-1 franchise.

Even if one of those franchises failed, there'd still be 3 more to ensure that the sports facilities were well utilized.

Tying everything to one potential franchise that hasn't been awarded and was an extreme longshot to begin with, looks like a pretty big risk to me.


I would like to see the civic centre remain with the north side stands - this would allow concerts and recreational use of the field - year round in the bubble.


Who's going to pay to fix it all up? A large chunk of the money to renovate Frank Clair is for the Civic Centre.


And you can't honestly equate Lansdowne Park to a field out in Kanata.

Why not? You equate Lansdowne Park with a brownfield at Bayview.

[Franky]

I'm sure I would too. The only problem is that in a CMA of 1.2 million, only 100,000 live in Kanata, which wouldn't be a problem if that didn't make it so damn inconvenient for the other 1.1 million to get out there. Everyone coming from one direction, on one highway is a nightmare. We know this already.

Also, if the CFL supporters are all located in the suburbs rather than Centretown, it makes even more sense to keep the stadium as central as possible making it as accessible to all of the suburbs as possible. Also, where does the supposed Orleans centralization of fans come from? I'm sure there are plenty there, but what's the source for that?



I'm sure he did too. But his whole project was based on an MLS franchise, which he wasn't going to win. Ottawa, I think, is going to be a good soccer market in the long term, but to try to immediately jump to the top tier is foolish. The LL idea of first attracting a USL franchise is a much smarter idea as it gives the opportunity for the market to prove itself. If the Ottawa Fury move up to the USL and fail, it's not nearly as bad as if they jumped right to MLS and were a failure. Especially if the stadium was built specifically for that purpose. That's a huge huge risk, IMO.

A much bigger risk than going with CFL and OHL franchises on site, along with Gee-Gees football and a potential USL-1 franchise.

Even if one of those franchises failed, there'd still be 3 more to ensure that the sports facilities were well utilized.

Tying everything to one potential franchise that hasn't been awarded and was an extreme longshot to begin with, looks like a pretty big risk to me.



Who's going to pay to fix it all up? A large chunk of the money to renovate Frank Clair is for the Civic Centre.



Why not? You equate Lansdowne Park with a brownfield at Bayview.

Yes, Bayview is a better site from a transportation perspective, but the Kanata site already has SBP so people know how they get there (good or bad) and it seems to be successful.


"Can Frank Clair Stadium be renovated and football-ready at a lower cost?

Definitely. Frank Clair stadium currently has 20,000 useable seats. City staff has estimated that it would cost only $38 million ($3.8 million per year for 10 years) to maintain the stadium and the arena for another 28 years. Temporary seats could be installed for major events, including football – as has been done in Montreal. A CFL team could be playing at Lansdowne much sooner with this approach than by undertaking a luxury renovation."
http://www.friendsoflansdownepark.ca/home/issues-1/stadium

We can use property taxes from a shopping mall somewhere and direct them to fixing up the civic centre, same as the LL deal.

I did not "equate Lansdowne Park with a brownfield at Bayview".

[Gitfiddler]

Yes, Bayview is a better site from a transportation perspective, but the Kanata site already has SBP so people know how they get there (good or bad) and it seems to be successful.

For an NHL team. None of the events that would conceivably take place at Lansdowne have the same draw as the NHL. Not the CFL, not soccer, not the SuperEx. Sure, there'd be sellout crowds for things like a Grey Cup or a Rolling Stones concert. That's pretty much a given regardless of where the stadium is.

That being said, it's still a poor location for moving 20,000+ in and out of. SBP is successful in spite of its location, not because of it.


"Can Frank Clair Stadium be renovated and football-ready at a lower cost?

Definitely. Frank Clair stadium currently has 20,000 useable seats. City staff has estimated that it would cost only $38 million ($3.8 million per year for 10 years) to maintain the stadium and the arena for another 28 years. Temporary seats could be installed for major events, including football – as has been done in Montreal. A CFL team could be playing at Lansdowne much sooner with this approach than by undertaking a luxury renovation."
http://www.friendsoflansdownepark.ca/home/issues-1/stadium

We can use property taxes from a shopping mall somewhere and direct them to fixing up the civic centre, same as the LL deal.


So the default stance is to spend the absolute bare minimum and essentially do nothing? Even if the stadium lasted 28 years on the bare minimum which - given the structural issues that have already emerged - is a big if, 10 years from now this whole debate starts over. Except instead of costing $130 million to renovate the stadium and arena properly, it costs $200 million or $300 million.

You've called the site a jewel on the canal, but spending the bare minimum for a decade represents the same type of backwards thinking that allowed your jewel to deteriorate to the point it's at now. Have you been in the stadium lately? It's embarassing. I've been to a couple university games and it's absolutely horrible. Temporary seating is not the way to go. If it were you might as well just commit to an entire temporary stadium and put it up and tear it down whenever there's a game.

This is Ottawa. Either LL goes forward or the site continues to deteriorate. That's it. We hum and haw over ever major project and we end up with debacles like LeBreton. Or the former Daly site fiasco. That's the way this city works.

Either you go forward with a plan that reinvigorates the site, renovates the stadium and arena, introduces green space and actually sets aside as a first priority a fund for the upkeep of the facilities, or you have a parking lot with a crumbling stadium for the next 3 decades. Either/or. That's not to say that that there aren't other potential things that can be done there, it's just that the same debate will happen over any of them. And, still, nothing will get done.


I did not "equate Lansdowne Park with a brownfield at Bayview".

Riiiiiight.

[Franky]

For an NHL team. None of the events that would conceivably take place at Lansdowne have the same draw as the NHL. Not the CFL, not soccer, not the SuperEx. Sure, there'd be sellout crowds for things like a Grey Cup or a Rolling Stones concert. That's pretty much a given regardless of where the stadium is.

That being said, it's still a poor location for moving 20,000+ in and out of. SBP is successful in spite of its location, not because of it.


Talk to Melnyk I guess. It seems many stadiums get build on the edge of towns.


So the default stance is to spend the absolute bare minimum and essentially do nothing? Even if the stadium lasted 28 years on the bare minimum which - given the structural issues that have already emerged - is a big if, 10 years from now this whole debate starts over. Except instead of costing $130 million to renovate the stadium and arena properly, it costs $200 million or $300 million.

No, it would have to be done again in 28 years instead of 40 years. No new trade show space would be needed either.



You've called the site a jewel on the canal, but spending the bare minimum for a decade represents the same type of backwards thinking that allowed your jewel to deteriorate to the point it's at now. Have you been in the stadium lately? It's embarassing. I've been to a couple university games and it's absolutely horrible. Temporary seating is not the way to go. If it were you might as well just commit to an entire temporary stadium and put it up and tear it down whenever there's a game.


There would be a great stadium in Kanata and a mostly for concerts stands at Lansdowne - not for 20,000 fan games. We would still need a design competition for Lansdowne.



This is Ottawa. Either LL goes forward or the site continues to deteriorate. That's it. We hum and haw over ever major project and we end up with debacles like LeBreton. Or the former Daly site fiasco. That's the way this city works.

Either you go forward with a plan that reinvigorates the site, renovates the stadium and arena, introduces green space and actually sets aside as a first priority a fund for the upkeep of the facilities, or you have a parking lot with a crumbling stadium for the next 3 decades. Either/or. That's not to say that that there aren't other potential things that can be done there, it's just that the same debate will happen over any of them. And, still, nothing will get done.


Black and white thinking - not useful. Lot's of options exist.


Riiiiiight.

What the hell?

[k2p]

Talk to Melnyk I guess. It seems many stadiums get build on the edge of towns.

And? Plenty of big box stores, low density housing and six-lane roads get built there, too. That something happens doesn't make it good.

Anyway, Scotiabank Place is the oddity and Gitfiddler is right: people go there in spite of where it is. Other places, that like being cites, like Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver all put their new arenas in the core.

The point is not do people traipse out to Kanata to suffer traffic jams in the parking lot and then again on the Queensway. The point surely should be how much better Ottawa would be if the arena were centrally located, creating the kind of atmosphere and life that makes a city tick.

How about the people who don't want other people around move out to the edge of town, so people who like friggin cities can enjoy them?

[Franky]

And? Plenty of big box stores, low density housing and six-lane roads get built there, too. That something happens doesn't make it good.

Anyway, Scotiabank Place is the oddity and Gitfiddler is right: people go there in spite of where it is. Other places, that like being cites, like Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver all put their new arenas in the core.

The point is not do people traipse out to Kanata to suffer traffic jams in the parking lot and then again on the Queensway. The point surely should be how much better Ottawa would be if the arena were centrally located, creating the kind of atmosphere and life that makes a city tick.

How about the people who don't want other people around move out to the edge of town, so people who like friggin cities can enjoy them?

On the other hand, there may be a good reason behemoths get build there.

Maybe NHL, CFL and MLS cater to a car culture? There are buses that go out to Kanata (400 series), but they don't seem to be used much. People prefer to drive and be stuck in traffic than take the bus. If that's the case, neither Lansdowne nor Bayview would be good options. Maybe trains out to Kanata would work?

If CFL(and company) can't draw crowds, why sink over $100M into it? Why put it on prime land to please a few tens of thousand? The argument that "other cities have them" doesn't convince either.

[k2p]

On the other hand, there may be a good reason behemoths get build there.

And a week ago, Bayview was just the site for a "behemoth".

Maybe NHL, CFL and MLS cater to a car culture? There are buses that go out to Kanata (400 series), but they don't seem to be used much. People prefer to drive and be stuck in traffic than take the bus. If that's the case, neither Lansdowne nor Bayview would be good options. Maybe trains out to Kanata would work?

You're incredible. Absolutely, soccer is a car culture thing. All over Europe, people drive...oh, wait, they don't. The NHL, yes, absolutely. Maple Leaf Gardens, the Forum, the Boston Garden, Madison Square Garden all catered to a car culture. When the Senators played at the Civic Centre, it was just a disaster.

The CFL: the best stadium in the league is in Montreal, downtown. Why don't you stop talking about things you know nothing about?

"Trains out to Kanata"...really, that's your solution? You live in la-la land.

If CFL(and company) can't draw crowds, why sink over $100M into it? Why put it on prime land to please a few tens of thousand? The argument that "other cities have them" doesn't convince either.

As has been noted several times, the CFL did draw crowds. As did the Francophonie Games. As did FIFA.

And it is precisely because central locations like Lansdowne shouldn't revolve around the selfish needs of a "few tens of thousand" that the NIMBYs shouldn't have a veto to build their sterile park. I am, however, glad that what other cities do doesn't wash with the NIMBY crowd. Perhaps that will stop them talking about Paris.

But if indeed only a handful of people want to see a sports match, why would the city spend the billion or so building a train out to Kanata just to preserve your jewel, which in any other city is called a parking lot?

[waterloowarrior]

Maybe NHL, CFL and MLS cater to a car culture? There are buses that go out to Kanata (400 series), but they don't seem to be used much. People prefer to drive and be stuck in traffic than take the bus. If that's the case, neither Lansdowne nor Bayview would be good options. Maybe trains out to Kanata would work?.

The buses get stuck in traffic too.

[Franky]

The buses get stuck in traffic too.

So a rapid transit line out to Kanata would make the difference?

[lrt's friend]

How many millions are we willing to spend to not locate a stadium at Lansdowne Park?

Just think of the Grey Cup being played at SBP. Maybe the traffic will have cleared by the next morning.

[k2p]

:previous:
Exactly. No price too high to keep city life as far away from the city as possible. Welcome to Ottawa!

[Franky]

Why is Scotiabank Place where it is?
http://www.eqjournalblog.com/?p=261

[jchamoun79]

If CFL(and company) can't draw crowds, why sink over $100M into it? Why put it on prime land to please a few tens of thousand? The argument that "other cities have them" doesn't convince either.

A stadium is not a luxury, it's a necessity. The argument is not that "other cities have them", it's that EVERY city has them.

For the love of God, we're the capital of a major G8 country. I can't believe we're even arguing about the need for a stadium for sports and major events.

[RTWAP]

Why is Scotiabank Place where it is?
http://www.eqjournalblog.com/?p=261

You do realize that his article shoots holes in your argument, right?

His two reasons for not building the Palladium at Lansdowne are complaining neighbours that will bog down the process (check) and Lansdowne not being able to support events with 20,000 fans (proven wrong plenty of times).

And the real reason it was built in Kanata is later in the article, they were supposed to make $50 million from the city rezoning their land, and use that to pay for the team.

The Lansdowne Live guys want the city to keep owning the land, they'll pay for the new commercial buildings, share the profits with the city, and the city will own the land and the buildings in 30 years.

[Gitfiddler]

Why is Scotiabank Place where it is?
http://www.eqjournalblog.com/?p=261

Old article. Good article, but old. It was a real estate play that never panned out.

Notice one of the reasons for it was not having to deal with the city of Ottawa, though? Who woulda thunk it? It's too bad that, even back then, the inability of the city to take any type of action all but precluded them from actually getting an NHL team within city limits. Had they gone into negotiations, they would have never gotten an NHL team. That's a sad reality because the Ottawa-Gatineau market has clearly demonstrated it's ability to support a team.

I've been to Stanley Cup Finals games in three cities in the last few years - Kanata, Pittsburgh and Calgary. I saw the home team win at all three games. And by far the least awesome place to experience that was here. In both Calgary and Pittsburgh the celebration naturally carried over into the streets and bar districts. In Ottawa we crammed onto a bus for 45 minutes, and by the time we got back downtown, the bars were too packed to get in anywhere.

Now imagine a Grey Cup game, with thousands of visitors from all across Canada, played out in a field in Kanata and nowhere to go after the game? THat would be an absolutely embarassment. Even in a place like Bayview, with no immediate development around it. It would be kind of like Bluesfest, where after the concerts get out you see people by the thousands walking downtown in search of somewhere, anywhere, to continue their evening.

The fact is this - I've been to probably 20 or so arenas or stadiums across North America for sporting events - NHL, CFL, NBA, MLB and NFL. The vast majority of stadia built in the last 15 years are in downtown cores, and every single one of them has transit issues. Every one. THey are all a nightmare to get out of after the final horn. THat's just a reality of moving 20,000-70,000 folks in and out of one place.

If CFL(and company) can't draw crowds, why sink over $100M into it? Why put it on prime land to please a few tens of thousand? The argument that "other cities have them" doesn't convince either

The CFL can draw crowds, and it always did. It drew decently during all those years of not even attempting to field a competitive team. Saying fan support in Ottawa was the reason for the CFL's failure is like saying the fans were to blame for the Jets or Nordiques leaving their respective cities.

In 2005, with a hopelessly inept ownership group, coaching staff and a team that would have been lucky to beat the Ottawa Schooners, the Renegades averaged 18,489. This in a city who's last Grey Cup victory came in 1976 and who hadn't been to the big game since 1979. In a 9 team league, that type of ineptitude is almost impossible. What's even more impossible is that in 20 years, the Renegades/Rough Riders averaged just 5 wins a season.

Compare that to Toronto who won Grey Cups in 96 and 97 and were averaging a hair over 15000 per game in 2003.

Hamilton won it all in 1999 and were under 15000/game in 2003.

At one point in 1997, the Alouette's largest crowd was 17000.

BC won the Grey Cup in 2000 and two years later were averaging 18500.

Don't blame the fans for the loss of the Riders or Renegades. Doing that is just plain ignorant.

Look at the Sens - a couple of poor seasons and suddenly there are some empty seats. The Penguins had big attendance problems in the early part of the decade due to stinky teams. Now they've sold out for the last 4 seasons. Speaking of the Burgh, the Pirates get maligned for their attendance woes, but this is their 17th consecutive losing season. The Avalanche broke something like a 10 year sellout streak as a result of a non-competitive team. The Arizona Cardinals were a joke, but they went to the Superbowl and suddenly they are the hottest ticket in the midwest. The Expos fans set attendance records for MLB, but after years and years of losing, they stopped showing up. The Blue Jays regularly sold out SkyDome through the late 80s and early 90s and now struggle at the gate.

Winning matters. Outside of a small handful of markets and teams- the Leafs, for example - attendance slows when performance tanks.

There's a compact that owners have with fans. Fans will stand by the team as long as there's at least a reasonable effort put forward to produce a winner on the playing field. That didn't happen in Ottawa with the CFL for 20 years. At that point, getting even 18,000 fans should be considered nothing less than a testament to the quality of football fans that this city has to offer.

Additionally, the CFL is in a much stronger position than it was in the late 90s and early 2000's. They now have a proper TV deal, with every game being televised. Ratings are up, the teams are on better financial footing, there's more corporate money to go around, and facilities in almost every market either have been recently or will shortly be renovated or replaced.

It's clear, Franky, that you don't know very much about the history of professional football in Ottawa, or about the CFL as a whole. Making generalized statements about a perceived lack of fan support is pretty ignorant, especially considering that the CFL currently has the 3rd highest average attendace of any league in North America (After the NFL and MLB), and the sixth highest in the world. That's pretty damn impressive if you ask me.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Talk to Melnyk I guess. It seems many stadiums get build on the edge of town.


If CFL(and company) can't draw crowds, why sink over $100M into it? Why put it on prime land to please a few tens of thousand? The argument that "other cities have them" doesn't convince either.

You used the exact same argument in your previous post. God, you're insufferable.

[Franky]

You do realize that his article shoots holes in your argument, right?

His two reasons for not building the Palladium at Lansdowne are complaining neighbours that will bog down the process (check) and Lansdowne not being able to support events with 20,000 fans (proven wrong plenty of times).

And the real reason it was built in Kanata is later in the article, they were supposed to make $50 million from the city rezoning their land, and use that to pay for the team.

The Lansdowne Live guys want the city to keep owning the land, they'll pay for the new commercial buildings, share the profits with the city, and the city will own the land and the buildings in 30 years.

Lansdowne was ruled out. How does that "shoot holes in [my] argument"?

Kanata was not the "real reason", they did see an opportunity once the site was located.

Lansdowne needs a design competition.

"What about locating the team at Lansdowne Park? There were two significant issues with that choice. Firstly, there are more lawyers living in the Glebe than practically anywhere else in Ottawa. How would they and the Glebe community react to having another two million visitors descend on their neighborhood? I can tell you from hard experience—not well. The planning for a new arena might have taken years to get approved, if ever.

Secondly, the NCC would never allow OC Transpo to run buses on Queen Elizabeth Drive. Hence, the only way to get people in and out by public transit would be Bank Street. The MAXIMUM number of people that OC can run up and down Bank Street would be about 2,500 pph (people per hour). For an arena with a 20,000 capacity, it would take four hours to exit everyone from the building using buses and another three hours or so to get them there in the first place, if you were to rely on public transit for, say, 50% of our attendance at a game or an event. (Arrivals tend to be more spread out than departures since, if you lose to the New Jersey Devils in Game 7 of an Eastern Conference Final as the Sens did, EVERYONE wants to go home at exactly the same moment. Hence, departures for OC buses on Bank Street would have been problematic since the mix with cars would effectively lock down the street.)"
http://www.eqjournalblog.com/?p=261

[Franky]

...

Now imagine a Grey Cup game, with thousands of visitors from all across Canada, played out in a field in Kanata and nowhere to go after the game? THat would be an absolutely embarassment. Even in a place like Bayview, with no immediate development around it. It would be kind of like Bluesfest, where after the concerts get out you see people by the thousands walking downtown in search of somewhere, anywhere, to continue their evening.

...

The CFL can draw crowds, and it always did.


The Kanata development wants to capture the after-game market. I believe it's part of their vision/scheme. Bayview would be great - Preston St. would light up after a game.

You wrote: "For an NHL team. None of the events that would conceivably take place at Lansdowne have the same draw as the NHL. Not the CFL, not soccer, not the SuperEx. Sure, there'd be sellout crowds for things like a Grey Cup or a Rolling Stones concert. That's pretty much a given regardless of where the stadium is."

I understood this to mean that CFL wasn't as good a draw as NFL and that's what I was commenting on, your own words.

[ajldub]

Franky I admire your persistence in your beliefs. I agree, Lansdowne can't compete with Bayview for a stadium location. I'd like to see a design competition that incorporates both these properties simultaneously, then things would get interesting. Lebreton Flats is turning out to be mediocre at best because the NCC chased away the design competition. The City has the chance to not do the same thing.

[eemy]

One of the major benefits of Lansdowne the location is that post-game, a large number of people will head to bars on Bank Street, thus easing the burden on traffic and transit. You wouldn't get that at all in Kanata, and Bayview would only get marginal diversion to Wellington or Somerset or Preston due to the distance to those commercial districts (nevermind that I think Bayview would likely present a lot of constraints due to its limited size).

[Franky]

One of the major benefits of Lansdowne the location is that post-game, a large number of people will head to bars on Bank Street, thus easing the burden on traffic and transit. You wouldn't get that at all in Kanata, and Bayview would only get marginal diversion to Wellington or Somerset or Preston due to the distance to those commercial districts (nevermind that I think Bayview would likely present a lot of constraints due to its limited size).

I like the City Centre location just across the street better. It's closer to Preston St. and the site really needs redevelopment.

What do you think of this assessment:
"...if you lose to the New Jersey Devils in Game 7 of an Eastern Conference Final as the Sens did, EVERYONE wants to go home at exactly the same moment. Hence, departures for OC buses on Bank Street would have been problematic since the mix with cars would effectively lock down the street.)"
http://www.eqjournalblog.com/?p=261

[lrt's friend]

Franky, Franky, Franky, I have been to two Grey Cups at Lansdowne Park with 50,000+ fans. We did manage to get home reasonably efficiently. I have been to other games of 30,000 fans, when people all left at the last minute because it was a close game and there were no street closures. We all got home without a big hassle, certainly less of a hassle than with 19,000 at Scotiabank Place. Do you not understand, that Lansdowne has experienced crowds of this size before and we do know how to deal with it? We have real life experience. Forget about studies. We already know how to cope with it. This whole excuse about traffic chaos is really ridiculous.

[Franky]

Franky, Franky, Franky, I have been to two Grey Cups at Lansdowne Park with 50,000+ fans. We did manage to get home reasonably efficiently. I have been to other games of 30,000 fans, when people all left at the last minute because it was a close game and there were no street closures. We all got home without a big hassle, certainly less of a hassle than with 19,000 at Scotiabank Place. Do you not understand, that Lansdowne has experienced crowds of this size before and we do know how to deal with it? We have real life experience. Forget about studies. We already know how to cope with it. This whole excuse about traffic chaos is really ridiculous.

Um. I was at the last grey cup and they closed Bank St. to traffic except for a long wall of buses between Sunnyside and Fifth ave. I remember not being able to cross! I think I walked 5 km to get home. Not exactly convenient.

Kanata needs rapid transit - agree there.

Bayview/City Centre would be on rapid transit - ideal.

Since the stadium is in such bad shape, now is a good time to explore other possibilities for a stadium location.

[phil235]

Um. I was at the last grey cup and they closed Bank St. to traffic except for a long wall of buses between Sunnyside and Fifth ave. I remember not being able to cross! I think I walked 5 km to get home. Not exactly convenient.

Kanata needs rapid transit - agree there.

Bayview/City Centre would be on rapid transit - ideal.

Since the stadium is in such bad shape, now is a good time to explore other possibilities for a stadium location.

It only makes sense to explore stadium possibilities if there is some realistic chance of the budget becoming available to move the existing stadium. The odds of that happening are slim to none. With the "vision" being discussed here, there would be land acquisition costs, remediation costs, the cost of building a new stadium on a small site, the cost of improvements to surrounding infrastructure, etc, the cost of redoing the Civic Centre and the south side stands, the cost of making Lansdowne into a park or whatever, the value of the existing stadium that is squandered etc. Added all up, the cost of this vision would be undoubtedly be hundreds of millions of dollars, to be funded at around the same time the City has to come up with big money for its LRT plan, a current priority. I defy any proponent of Bayview to come up with a clear financial plan to fund the move. No developer has ever proposed to pay for even part of these facilities. And there is absolutely no guarantee that both the federal and provincial governments would be willing to contribute funding to this at some vague point however many years down the line when all of this comes together. Further, even if we assume that upper levels of government do decide to contribute in that era (which will likely be a deficit-slashing era), the City's share of the costs would still be a huge sum of money under any realistic scenario. Oh yeah, and costs go up the longer we take to start building.

Sure it would be great to see a world-class stadium on the banks of the Ottawa River with a view of the skyline, on rapid transit. It is nice to dream, but I guarantee you that if we choose to abandon Frank Clair to pursue that dream, we will be waiting decades to see it come to fruition, if it ever does. Holding a design competition for both sites does not magically change these realities.

[Franky]

It only makes sense to explore stadium possibilities if there is some realistic chance of the budget becoming available to move the existing stadium. The odds of that happening are slim to none. With the "vision" being discussed here, there would be land acquisition costs, remediation costs, the cost of building a new stadium on a small site, the cost of improvements to surrounding infrastructure, etc, the cost of redoing the Civic Centre and the south side stands, the cost of making Lansdowne into a park or whatever, the value of the existing stadium that is squandered etc. Added all up, the cost of this vision would be undoubtedly be hundreds of millions of dollars, to be funded at around the same time the City has to come up with big money for its LRT plan, a current priority. I defy any proponent of Bayview to come up with a clear financial plan to fund the move. No developer has ever proposed to pay for even part of these facilities. And there is absolutely no guarantee that both the federal and provincial governments would be willing to contribute funding to this at some vague point however many years down the line when all of this comes together. Further, even if we assume that upper levels of government do decide to contribute in that era (which will likely be a deficit-slashing era), the City's share of the costs would still be a huge sum of money under any realistic scenario. Oh yeah, and costs go up the longer we take to start building.

Sure it would be great to see a world-class stadium on the banks of the Ottawa River with a view of the skyline, on rapid transit. It is nice to dream, but I guarantee you that if we choose to abandon Frank Clair to pursue that dream, we will be waiting decades to see it come to fruition, if it ever does. Holding a design competition for both sites does not magically change these realities.

I see what you mean, but how do you know what is or isn't possible without a design competition or some way to explore the options? The report on stadium locations put Lansdowne in 6th place and Bayview in 1st.

It may cost more to build a new stadium, but it should last 70 years instead of 40 years.
Putting the stadium in a new location means we would have more than just Lansdowne as a sports venue/public space.
The province has already spoken out on the Lansdowne project - sole sourced means no money. A proper process might get us some money.
Directing property tax revenue to cover an expense is just hokus pokus. But if we're OK with that, there must be development potential at both Lansdowne and the stadium site that can cover their expenses. (and they don't have to be private buildings like condos or office space)

[lrt's friend]

Um. I was at the last grey cup and they closed Bank St. to traffic except for a long wall of buses between Sunnyside and Fifth ave. I remember not being able to cross! I think I walked 5 km to get home. Not exactly convenient.

Well, all I can comment about was my experience, and OC Transpo delivered amazing service at the last Grey Cup. I was out of the park and home even faster than a normal game with around 20,000 fans.

[Franky]

Well, all I can comment about was my experience, and OC Transpo delivered amazing service at the last Grey Cup. I was out of the park and home even faster than a normal game with around 20,000 fans.

The bottom line is it can be done with some work/expense/disruption, but it isn't as simple/efficient as adding a few cars or trains on a rapid transit line.

[k2p]

The bottom line is it can be done with some work/expense/disruption, but it isn't as simple/efficient as adding a few cars or trains on a rapid transit line.

Heaven forbid there be disruption or work or expense. Sweet Jesus, Ottawa thinks like a small town. There's going to be a Grey Cup, what, every ten years or so? Who cares if Bank Street is clogged? Granted, Ottawa is the place that didn't have a Grey Cup parade last time it hosted it because...the Santa Claus parade was a couple of weeks before. Wouldn't want to overdo it.

Meanwhile, every year, hundreds of thousands of people enjoy Canada Day with all the disruption and work it brings. The Great Glebe Garage Sale clogs things up. Streets are closed in Montreal for festivals. Caribana and Pride botch up Toronto traffic. The Macy's Thanksgiving Parade in New York is coming up.

But we wouldn't want eruptions of people being out to disrupt anything, or be a bit chaotic for a couple of hours. No, perish the thought. My God, it's time Ottawa grew up.

[Franky]

Funny.

It's not about big events it's that smaller events require similar measures: restricted parking on Bank St., special buses and parking areas, shuttle buses...

[k2p]

:previous:
The 67s have about 40 smaller events every year and it works fine. Anyway, events aren't bad things.

[Franky]

And I think the Civic Centre could remain (attendance < 10,000). It's the stadium events that cause problems 15..20,000 per game.

[waterloowarrior]

Lansdowne plan may leave trade shows homeless
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2009/10/15/ottawa-lansdowne-plan.html