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

[k2p]

:previous:
Amen. Any plan that comes forward without a budget isn't a plan.

[phil235]

Ah, yes, that's what I meant... "Phil P", not just "Phil".

I definitely do appreciate seeing your stance popping up. Citizen comments are so infuriatingly... Citizen comments. I really can't think of any better way to describe them. :haha:

I know what you mean. I'm optimistic that the revised plan will live up to billing, with enough attractive elements that it is seen as a real opportunity for the city, one that will be wasted if we spend another 5 years arguing process. And hopefully the financial details of the proposal will be clear enough that the broader public will see the benefit of going with a very good plan rather than holding out in hopes of a perfect plan that probably doesn't exist.

It may be overly dramatic to say so, but I really do have this fear that if this deal doesn't go through, the site will continue to be neglected and two years from now some part of the Civic Centre is going to collapse in while there are 9000 people in there.

[canadave]

:previous:

Yeah, the north side stands are getting seriously rickety. I was up to Frank Clair's press box for Gee-Gees games a few times last season, and it's amazing how that stadium actually manages to look worse once you start to get behind the scenes (though you do get a great view of downtown out of it).

I am also fearful that if LL doesn't go through, then nothing whatsoever will get done at any time in the near (5-10 years) future. We've already seen where this road leads thanks to light rail, so let's not do it again and get it right for a change.

[AuxTown]

Some more positive news from www.cfra.com

Kirkpatrick Calls Lansdowne Live Plan 'Definitive'Josh Pringle with Stephanie Kinsella
Monday, August 31, 2009

City Manager Kent Kirkpatrick says the new proposal for Lansdowne Park is now "definitive."

Just days before Kirkpatrick tables a report to Council on negotiations for the Lansdowne Live plan, Kirkpatrick tells CFRA News it meets and will stand up to the criteria that City Council put in the motion for negotiations.

The list of priorities from City Council included an open air stadium, a Farmers Market and no big box stores on the property.

Kirkpatrick says Council was very clear in April, and staff have been focused on that in negotiations.

The City Manager says other proposals presented in the last couple weeks have not been a priority.

Staff will report to Council on Wednesday.

[lrt's friend]

I chuckled when I read the following comment in the bulldog blog

Ottawa: WHere major projects have two planning phases:

(1) "It's too early to talk about that."

(2) "It's too late to talk about that."

How true this is! This was my impression of the LRT debate.

[waterloowarrior]

Ottawa CFL group bids for soccer team

Hunt and Co. apply for United Soccer League franchise as part of it's Lansdowne Park redevelopment plan


Last updated on Tuesday, Sep. 01, 2009 10:35AM EDT
The Ottawa group hoping to redevelop Lansdowne Park and bring CFL football back to the nation’s capital has formally applied for a United Soccer League Division I franchise.

The USL Division I is an 11-team circuit involving such cities as Vancouver, Austin, Texas, Montreal, Rochester, NY and Portland Ore.

The announcement was made Tuesday morning, one day before Ottawa City council is scheduled to vote on the group’s proposal to redevelop Lansdowne and Frank Clair Stadium. By adding an USL franchise to the mix, it would add roughly another 20 sports dates to the stadium’s schedule to go along with 10 CFL dates and possibly some university football dates as well.

It also addresses the desire of sports fans in Ottawa to see professional soccer. When the Ottawa group surveyed fans this past spring, 43 per cent favoured a return of the CFL but 42 per cent favoured seeing the city add professional soccer.

“Ottawa was very excited abut the possibility of pro soccer,” said Jeff Hunt, a member of the Ottawa group who is also owner of the Ontario Hockey League's Ottawa 67’s. “We think we’ve got a solution that will address the soccer community as well.”

Hunt said his group had hoped to have a condition USL franchise in hand before tonorrow’s vote. However, the USL suspended all major transactions this summer while the league was being sold.

“We have fully applied and they have accepted our application,” said Hunt.

If the proposed redevelopment of Lansdowne Park is approved, Frank Clair Stadium is to be ready for the 2012 CFL and USL seasons.

Tomorrow’s vote, if successful, will be followed by a 45-day public consultation period.

[Radster]

I was advocating this for many months on here, I even wrote an e-mail a few months ago to Mr. Hunt regarding USL, and how it would be a good idea to make a pitch for a franchise etc etc. I am not gonna take credit for this, hehehe, but I am sure my e-mail (along with others he surely received) helped to motivate him and look into this idea.

I will definitely switch my allegiance from the Impact to a future Ottawa USL team, I will be one of the first in line to get season tickets and buy as much team gear as I can afford!

Can't wait for all the juicy details tomorrow.:banana:

Oh, and feel free to read the Ottawa Sun article and to comment on it, some peeps need a reality check!
http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa/2009/09/01/10702701.html

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

I'd gladly support another local team. Let's hope this Lansdowne Live project moves ahead and transforms the Glebe into something the Nimby's hate and that the rest of Ottawa loves. ;) :P

[Ottawan]

Lansdowne Live group confirms soccer plans ahead of city review
By Krystle Chow, Ottawa Business Journal Staff
Tue, Sep 1, 2009 12:00 PM EST


A local group that has big plans for the future of Lansdowne Park is working on having a United Soccer League franchise be part of its redevelopment strategy, according to a Tuesday release.

Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group, which is led by Ottawa 67's owner Jeff Hunt and developer Roger Greenberg, announced that it's applied for a first-division USL franchise that will be based at a proposed new stadium at Lansdowne Park.

As part of the bid, the group is teaming up with John Pugh, the owner and CEO of local soccer team Ottawa Fury.

"Our application for a USL franchise, at this point in time, ensures that soccer-specific elements will be incorporated into the stadium design to optimize the experience for soccer fans and players," said Mr. Hunt in a statement.

Mr. Pugh added: "For the thousands of local soccer fans, the dream of top-class professional soccer in Ottawa is a step closer to reality today ... The club will foster the growth of the game in our region, provide opportunities for players to aspire to play at an elite level and be a significant community asset."

Mr. Hunt and Mr. Greenberg are the proponents of the Lansdowne Live plan, which was this past spring given a higher score by city staff than one fronted by Ottawa Senators owner Eugene Melnyk.

The Lansdowne Live strategy is an ambitious "multi-faceted revitalization" for Lansdowne's aging Frank Clair stadium, that proposes sports and entertainment facilites, open-air venues, shopping and dining, and possibly even an aquarium, amphitheatre and hotel. Mr. Hunt and Mr. Greenberg have also secured a conditional CFL franchise that's contingent on their group winning an agreement with the city.

The group is already planning for as many as 20 dates for soccer, 10 for CFL football and potentially also for games featuring the local varsity football teams, the Carleton Ravens and the University of Ottawa's Gee Gees, according to Mr. Hunt.

"It'll be a busy place and a tremendous environment in which our community can gather," he stated.

Meanwhile, Mr. Melnyk's Ottawa Senators Sports and Entertainment group has put up a plan to develop a 20,000-seat outdoor stadium near Scotiabank Place in Kanata, featuring a Major League Soccer franchise, although the city had earlier said the proposal had revenue projections that were too optimistic.

That plan's now been put on hold while the city evaluates Lansdowne Live, but the recent news that the league is close to picking Montreal for its next franchise and would probably cap its total number of teams at 20 – with a U.S. city likely to take the last spot – indicates Mr. Melnyk's proposal is looking less likely than ever.

However, the USL proposal is not without its risks – the league recently put up its lower-level segments for sale, and media reports indicate MLS is in talks to buy USL.

The city will review Lansdowne Live on Wednesday.

I do like how the folks behind Lansdowne Live have been including the right stakeholders in their discussions - rather than just making up plans under the assumption that others will fall in line (as both the City and the NCC so often do here). So far we know that they have already consulted with the NCC about Queen Elizabeth Drive, Parks Canada about the Canal, and now not only do they actually actively seek a USL franchise rather than merely floating the possibility, but they make sure to include the current owner of the Fury in the discussion.

Whether or not one is frustrated with the process of sole-source negotiation, one has to admit that the Lansdowne Live group seems refreshingly competant.

I certainly look forward to tomorrow's unveiling of their proposal.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

I do like how the folks behind Lansdowne Live have been including the right stakeholders in their discussions - rather than just making up plans under the assumption that others will fall in line (as both the City and the NCC so often do here). So far we know that they have already consulted with the NCC about Queen Elizabeth Drive, Parks Canada about the Canal, and now not only do they actually actively seek a USL franchise rather than merely floating the possibility, but they make sure to include the current owner of the Fury in the discussion.

Whether or not one is frustrated with the process of sole-source negotiation, one has to admit that the Lansdowne Live group seems refreshingly competant.

I certainly look forward to tomorrow's unveiling of their proposal.

Agreed. If only it happened in Ottawa more often! :haha:

[AuxTown]

Some details from www.cbc.ca:

5-storey condo in new Lansdowne plan
Last Updated: Tuesday, September 1, 2009 | 5:18 PM ET
CBC News

There will be no big-box stores at Lansdowne Park under a revised redevelopment plan from an Ottawa business group but there will be a five-storey condominium, CBC News has learned.

The condo will make up for retail revenue lost due to the removal of the unpopular big-box stores that were in the original plan, according to sources who have seen the new Lansdowne Live plan, which will go to city council on Wednesday. Lansdowne Park is on Bank Street on the north side of the Rideau Canal in Ottawa's Glebe neighbourhood, a little south of the downtown area.

The first version of the plan was brought forward last October by Jeff Hunt, owner of the Ottawa 67's Ontario Hockey League Team, and local developers Roger Greenberg, John Ruddy and Bill Shenkman. The new plan retains some original elements, such as a boutique hotel in the northwest corner of the park near Bank Street and Holmwood Avenue, and a row of townhouses along Holmwood.

In the new plan:

-The big-box stores are replaced by a row of boutique-style shops along Bank Street.
-The 19th-century Aberdeen Pavilion will house restaurants.
-Frank Sulllivan's Horticulture building will become an indoor market that one city councillor is comparing to Faneuil Hall in Boston.
-The Ottawa Farmer's Market will have a permanent home in front of the Aberdeen Pavilion.
-The north side stand of Frank Clair Stadium and the Civic Centre beneath it will be renovated, while what remains of the south side stand will be demolished, making way for new stands.
-Proponents of the plan believe the plan overall will be revenue neutral for the City of Ottawa, as the new residential space will generate extra property taxes.

The Ottawa Airport Authority is currently considering a partnership to develop new trade-show space near the airport to make up for such space that would not longer be available at Lansdowne under the proposal.

NCC involved in greenspace plan

The National Capital Commission, the federal agency in charge of Crown lands and buildings, is working with the City of Ottawa to integrate federal and municipal public lands involved in the project, it confirmed in a statement Tuesday. The statement clarified that the NCC will not be involved in the commercial portion of the project.

Sources said the NCC will lease from the city 5.6 hectares of property adjacent to Queen Elizabeth Driveway and turn it into parkland that could include features such as a reflecting pool or an outdoor theatre. The park will make use of porous paving technology that lets grass grow through, so the greenspace could be converted to parking for large events.

The NCC will also allow the city to use Queen Elizabeth Driveway for buses and other traffic during major events.

The City of Ottawa is expected to help the Central Canada Exhibition or SuperEx, which has been held at Lansdowne Park since 1888, move to its new permanent home on Albion Road.

The group behind Lansdowne Live announced Tuesday that they are applying for a United Soccer Leagues First Division (USL-1) franchise, and that the team would play at revamped stadium at Lansdowne Park.

The most recent push to redevelop Lansdowne Park began after cracks were found in 2007 in the lower southside stands of Frank Clair Stadium, which had supported thousands of fans during the sold-out FIFA U-20 World Cup soccer games just months before. The stands were later demolished.


If we get something that is half as good as Faneuil Hall then sign me up!

https://intranet.landmark.edu/student_life/images/Faneuil-Hall.jpg
http://imgpe.trivago.com/uploadimages/49/83/4983812_l.jpeg

[Davis137]

Let's get this damned thing decided on, and get construction going!

[waterloowarrior]

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Revamped+Lansdowne+would+include+soccer+250M+first+phase/1952045/story.html

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.ottawacitizen.com/gallery+revised+lansdowne+live+proposal/1951740/1951773.bin?size=620x400

Revamped Lansdowne would include CFL, pro-soccer in $250M first phase
 
Ex, trade shows would be ousted for stadium, shops and greenspace
 
BY PATRICK DARE , THE OTTAWA CITIZENSEPTEMBER 2, 2009 7:55 AMCOMMENTS (4)
 


http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.ottawacitizen.com/gallery+revised+lansdowne+live+proposal/1951740/1951776.bin?size=620x400

OTTAWA — The long-awaited and much-refined plan to redevelop Lansdowne Park turns greenspace along the Rideau Canal into a huge “front yard” and connects the site to the canal with two docks for boaters.

The proposal from Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group being unveiled today would be a major development, with the first phase alone costing $250 million to build. That phase would include a $110-million refurbishment of Frank Clair Stadium, turning it into a larger facility that would be home to a Canadian Football League franchise, a professional soccer team (likely with the United Soccer Leagues), and concerts. Phase One would also include building an underground parking garage to get rid of asphalt surface parking space at Lansdowne, building the greenspace and 408,000 square feet of retail space.

Phase Two, after 2013, would include a small hotel, residential development and office space.

The plan — developed over several months of intense negotiation between the business partnership and the city — sees Lansdowne redeveloped with a greenspace theme on the southeastern side, including large ponds that serve as stormwater facilities, a lot of trees and pedestrian connections to

the canal.

The historic Horticulture Building would be moved farther east to become the permanent home of the Ottawa Farmers’ Market. The Aberdeen Pavilion, another historic building, would become the site of restaurants, cafés and shops. Along Holmwood Avenue and Bank Street there would be residential development and stores, as well as the hotel and office building. The entrance to Lansdowne from Bank Street — where the view is now dominated by structural arches for the Civic Centre — would be changed into a pedestrian plaza. New trees and lights would be installed along Bank Street and sidewalks would be widened.

The proposed deal solves two problems by moving them. Trade-show companies that use Lansdowne’s buildings would move to a new facility at the Ottawa airport. The Central Canada Exhibition, for many years on the verge of eviction, would get its final walking papers, along with a pledge from the city to cover the cost of extending municipal services to its new site on Albion Road. That servicing agreement could cost the city about $6 million or $7 million, but would include financial protection for the city in case the exhibition organization sells the land for development.

The Lansdowne redevelopment would see the city set up a Municipal Services Corporation that would own the property and oversee its development and operation. Independent businesspeople would run the corporation, similar to the way the city’s airport authority is run. The city would retain ownership of the lands and would lease them to the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group, which would manage the operations and financing of Lansdowne.

Costs of the project would be divided between the city — taking out a debenture to rebuild the stadium and the Civic Centre — and the business group, which is a partnership of businessmen Roger Greenberg, William Shenkman, John Ruddy (all of them in real-estate development) and Ottawa 67’s owner Jeff Hunt. Revenues from commercial operations would be shared between the two parties.

If the public likes the project and council approves it in November, the construction period for Phase One would take 32 to 34 months and the stadium would be ready for football and soccer by the spring of 2013. The stadium project would see a new 10,000-seat south grandstand built and new seating installed in the north stands, new dressing rooms, media rooms and private suites.

Mayor Larry O’Brien said he is impressed with the project because something must be done about Lansdowne Park’s failing structures and its sea of asphalt parking.

“I think we need this as part of a city-building exercise,” said O’Brien. He said the deal, negotiated on the city’s side by city manager Kent Kirkpatrick and development consultant Graham Bird (a former city councillor who has worked on the Royal Ottawa Hospital’s redevelopment and the Ottawa Convention Centre project), would be “a true P3,” protecting the long-term financial interests of the city.

The Lansdowne project would be started with a $125-million contribution from both the city and the business partnership.

O’Brien says the city would put about $4.5 million a year into Lansdowne Park regardless, to deal with the neglected asset. The city has pegged the annual cost of maintaining Lansdowne’s facilities at

$3.8 million. O’Brien says the proposed overhaul of Lansdowne, however, makes it into a more attractive place that is less dependent on the automobile, much greener, and a much livelier place to visit.

The plan for transportation and parking involves building an underground garage with 1,100 spaces, 135 spaces on the surface near Bank Street and 360 temporary spaces on a bricked area near the canal when major events require it. In the second phase of the development, an additional 210 underground spaces would be built under residential buildings and 50 would be installed under the hotel.

That’s 1,855 spots in all. There are about 2,200 surface spaces at Lansdowne, meaning there will be several hundred fewer spaces in the new Lansdowne Park. The idea is to have increased use of OC Transpo and shuttle buses running not only along Bank Street — which gets terribly congested on event days — but also along Queen Elizabeth Driveway, where there would be two major entrances that could be used during events.

Today, council simply receives information about the proposal and begins the public debate.

For the businesspeople involved and those at City Hall who support the project, a feature they hope to emphasize is the greenspace, which accounts for close to 40 per cent of the property. As well, for the first time in many years, Lansdowne would connect to the Rideau Canal. Project planners believe that Lansdowne could be an important new venue for music festivals and Winterlude. The $5-million development of the park-like area near the canal would be a joint cost of the city and the business partnership.

But a spirited opposition is assured.

Capital Councillor Clive Doucet, who represents the Glebe, said Tuesday he will raise questions about how the city is operating in this matter.

The city suspended a design competition on the future development of Lansdowne Park to seriously explore the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group proposal, which was unsolicited.

The councillor said he wasn’t impressed with the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group design he was shown by the mayor.

“Tart it up any way you want. It’s still a mall,” Doucet said.

The city is planning to hold town hall meetings across Ottawa to hear from the public and answer questions, beginning in mid-October.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[waterloowarrior]

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.ottawacitizen.com/business/revamped+lansdowne+would+include+soccer+250m+first+phase/1952045/1951772.bin?size=620x400

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.ottawacitizen.com/business/revamped+lansdowne+would+include+soccer+250m+first+phase/1952045/1951776.bin?size=620x400

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.ottawacitizen.com/business/revamped+lansdowne+would+include+soccer+250m+first+phase/1952045/1951779.bin?size=620x400

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.ottawacitizen.com/business/revamped+lansdowne+would+include+soccer+250m+first+phase/1952045/1951777.bin?size=620x400

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.ottawacitizen.com/business/revamped+lansdowne+would+include+soccer+250m+first+phase/1952045/1951775.bin?size=620x400

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.ottawacitizen.com/business/revamped+lansdowne+would+include+soccer+250m+first+phase/1952045/1951774.bin?size=620x400

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.ottawacitizen.com/business/revamped+lansdowne+would+include+soccer+250m+first+phase/1952045/1951778.bin?size=620x400

[Mille Sabords]

Things are starting to come together nicely in this city.

This is a very agile plan. It is intensely urban and intensely green. It is intensely busy at the right places, and intensely passive at the right places. It makes no compromise on the sports and urban identity of the place, but acknowledges the pervasive "need for green" in an interesting and useful, mixed-use way. The green sits on top of a parking garage, so it's win-win: cars and vegetation have their place. Basically, it gives enough green to address the "park" folks and by proposing such an urban type of redevelopment near Bank Street, it addresses the future direction the City wants to take on Traditional Mainstreets. It really marginalizes any opposition to the strictly anti-stadium people.

On the details: It has narrow, intimate passageways for pedestrians and grand open vistas with water features. It mixes uses the right way, going from pro sports to retail to residential in a logical sequence. It has interesting view protection angles toward the Aberdeen Pavilion, including a new angled view from a pedestrian passageway from Bank Street which is I think pretty fantastic. It makes what appears to be a smart use of money both public and private to get the most out of a piece of land whose location is right for this.

Plus, bring on pro soccer! I'm right there with season tickets and merchandise for me and my son as soon as we get a team. Plus, bring back the Riders.

The only drawback is... I'll miss the SuperEx. Had a blast there with my 4-year-old last week. It dawned on me that it might've been my last SuperEx at Lansdowne. The end of an era!

[Radster]

“Tart it up any way you want. It’s still a mall,” Doucet said.




WHAT A DOUCHEBAG!

[matty14]

Things are starting to come together nicely in this city.

This is a very agile plan. It is intensely urban and intensely green. It is intensely busy at the right places, and intensely passive at the right places. It has narrow, intimate passageways for pedestrians and grand open vistas with water features. It mixes uses the right way, going from pro sports to retail to residential in a logical sequence. It makes what appears to be a smart use of money both public and private to get the most out of a piece of land whose location is right for this.

Plus, bring on pro soccer! I'm right there with season tickets and merchandise for me and my son as soon as we get a team. Plus, bring back the Riders.

The only drawback is... I'll miss the SuperEx. Had a blast there with my 4-year-old last week. It dawned on me that it might've been my last SuperEx at Lansdowne. The end of an era!

Amen this is a fantastic plan for the city that will provide an economic boost at what appears to have no burden on the taxpayer in the long term, and with the enormous amount of greenspace and integration with the canal, the glebe nimbys have no reason to oppose this plan other than the fact they simply don't want a stadium in their perfect little community.

Everybody on this board, please plan to be at the public consultations so there can be rational points made from the view of the whole city instead of the glebites who think this project is just for them.

Let's not let cranky doucet have his way when it is clear from his Citizen comment that he doesn't want pro sports in this city and wants a community park strictly for his stuck up residents rather than what's best for the whole city.

Down with nimbys!

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

So far so good. I'm liking that plan.

But have any of you guys seen some of the comments at the bottom of the article? Jeez... it's gonna be a long and FRUSTRATING way to Lansdowne Live. >_<

[AuxTown]

I don't attend many public consultations, but this is one that I won't miss. The city needs to hear from urbanists such as us on this forum whether it be through online forums, emails, or in person. This looks like a great plan and it appears that the South side will definately no longer "suck".

[Proof Sheet]

Things are starting to come together nicely in this city.

This is a very agile plan. It is intensely urban and intensely green. It is intensely busy at the right places, and intensely passive at the right places.



Plus, bring on pro soccer! I'm right there with season tickets and merchandise for me and my son as soon as we get a team. Plus, bring back the Riders.

The only drawback is... I'll miss the SuperEx. Had a blast there with my 4-year-old last week. It dawned on me that it might've been my last SuperEx at Lansdowne. The end of an era!

Well put Mille...you did a great summary. Hopefully a USL team will be a stepping stone to a full blown MLS team or european teams will play pre-season friendlies here...or even the Canadian national team will play here...is the field going to be real or genuine imitation?

Glad you enjoyed SuperEx in all its trashiness.

[Proof Sheet]

“Tart it up any way you want. It’s still a mall,” Doucet said.




WHAT A DOUCHEBAG!

Don't confuse Doucet with facts...his mind is made up.

[AuxTown]

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.ottawacitizen.com/business/revamped+lansdowne+would+include+soccer+250m+first+phase/1952045/1951772.bin?size=620x400

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.ottawacitizen.com/business/revamped+lansdowne+would+include+soccer+250m+first+phase/1952045/1951776.bin?size=620x400

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.ottawacitizen.com/business/revamped+lansdowne+would+include+soccer+250m+first+phase/1952045/1951779.bin?size=620x400

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.ottawacitizen.com/business/revamped+lansdowne+would+include+soccer+250m+first+phase/1952045/1951777.bin?size=620x400

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.ottawacitizen.com/business/revamped+lansdowne+would+include+soccer+250m+first+phase/1952045/1951775.bin?size=620x400

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.ottawacitizen.com/business/revamped+lansdowne+would+include+soccer+250m+first+phase/1952045/1951774.bin?size=620x400

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.ottawacitizen.com/business/revamped+lansdowne+would+include+soccer+250m+first+phase/1952045/1951778.bin?size=620x400

A bump for the Ottawa Citizen photos just so people don't miss them!

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.ottawacitizen.com/gallery+revised+lansdowne+live+proposal/1951740/1951773.bin?size=620x400

[YOWetal]

A bump for the Ottawa Citizen photos just so people don't miss them!

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.ottawacitizen.com/gallery+revised+lansdowne+live+proposal/1951740/1951773.bin?size=620x400

Has anybody seen a siteplan? Is that that condo building in the bottom left corner of the last photo?

[DubberDom]

I don't get the $250M price tag - that's my problem.

It cost $42Million to build the John Labatt Centre in London, add another $50-75 Million to build a basic 25000 seat outdoor stadium, you could sell off parts of the land to make some money and build one or both facilities at Bayview.

I'm not trying to be negative, but the Civic Centre sucks, there is no way to fix it - it is built under a stadium grandstand for Pete's sake!!. We need a nice 8000 seat arena (like JLC in London).

I bet for the same $125Million, we could build those two facilities and renovate Lansdowne ourselves.

Something smells fishy

[Mille Sabords]

Glad you enjoyed SuperEx in all its trashiness.

To a 4-year-old little girl, staying up past bedtime with dad to go on rides, and seeing night fall with all the blinking neon, flashing lights, music, noise, crowds, smells, plus the thrill of zero-gravity, is a pretty good memory - she still talks about it every day. Hell, we bottle-fed a baby lion and rode on the back of a camel too! None of it is trash despite the trashiness!! :D

[Mille Sabords]

Has anybody seen a siteplan? Is that that condo building in the bottom left corner of the last photo?

If I read the article correctly, that's a hote and it will come in phase II. I'd also like to see a site plan.

[Proof Sheet]

To a 4-year-old little girl, staying up past bedtime with dad to go on rides, and seeing night fall with all the blinking neon, flashing lights, music, noise, crowds, smells, plus the thrill of zero-gravity, is a pretty good memory - she still talks about it every day. Hell, we bottle-fed a baby lion and rode on the back of a camel too! None of it is trash despite the trashiness!! :D

Since you put it that way, I can see your point....in a 4 year olds mind it is the ultimate...sort of like the reaction my kids had when we went up Clifton Hill in Niagara Falls...now that is tacky.

If you are in search of tacky, may I point you towards the midway area at the Gatineau Balloon Festival....

[lrt's friend]

I don't get the $250M price tag - that's my problem.

It cost $42Million to build the John Labatt Centre in London, add another $50-75 Million to build a basic 25000 seat outdoor stadium, you could sell off parts of the land to make some money and build one or both facilities at Bayview.

I'm not trying to be negative, but the Civic Centre sucks, there is no way to fix it - it is built under a stadium grandstand for Pete's sake!!. We need a nice 8000 seat arena (like JLC in London).

I bet for the same $125Million, we could build those two facilities and renovate Lansdowne ourselves.

Something smells fishy

I think you kid yourself. How much did it cost to build Scotiabank Place 15 years ago? $170M ! And you expect to build an 8,000 seat arena and a 25,000 seat outdoor stadium and fix up everything at Lansdowne Park for less? Let's be reasonable.

I do like what I see, by making Lansdowne even more a people place. We must remember that it remains public property and it never served as a park in the traditional sense of the word. This is good progress and something that looks like it is attainable. Do we have any other proposal that is realistically attainable?

I do want to see more of the details about the plans for the Ex and trade shows. With both to be located in the south end, this further justifies getting the LRT line built. There are only two lane roads going out there. I think the Ex will never be the same, but a new location does offer opportunities and hopefully they can work with Rideau Carleton Raceway and bring back the agricultural component in a big way. It would be nice to see some permanent rides built. Investors? The trade show facilities at the airport may help us get the airport LRT line built as well. I hope they don't expect people to pay expensive parking there.

[Acajack]

If you are in search of tacky, may I point you towards the midway area at the Gatineau Balloon Festival....

If there is one thing we do well in Gatineau, it's "tacky"! ;)

Haven't been to the EX in ages, but I my kids won't let early September go by without going to the balloon festival, so I will be there at least a few times this weekend.

I kinda miss the "Alabama chain gang/ex-con" feel of the guys working the rides at Super Ex. You don't get the same "edge" in Gatineau.

[harls]

A fun game to play at the Balloon festival - count the people with gold chains and plastic beer cups.

[matty14]

I don't get the $250M price tag - that's my problem.

It cost $42Million to build the John Labatt Centre in London, add another $50-75 Million to build a basic 25000 seat outdoor stadium, you could sell off parts of the land to make some money and build one or both facilities at Bayview.

I'm not trying to be negative, but the Civic Centre sucks, there is no way to fix it - it is built under a stadium grandstand for Pete's sake!!. We need a nice 8000 seat arena (like JLC in London).

I bet for the same $125Million, we could build those two facilities and renovate Lansdowne ourselves.

Something smells fishy

If you read the article, you would see that the $250M price tag is for the stadium, arena, greenspace and retail. The cost of the stadium is $110M.

[archie-tect]

Conceptually, I think the plan could be quite good.

The Civic Centre, although a bit of an odd ball, is a good place to watch a hockey game with amenities beyond or equal to those found in other buildings. Having been to 9 or so other OHL buildings of varying ages and sizing. My favourites being K-Rock in Kingston and its postage stamp site, the Mem Centre in Peterborough and the Aud in Kitchener.

The square footage is a bit of a concern, 408K numbers wise it would dwarf what it available in the area. Obviously you can't just look at the number as execution would be the most important when considering its impact on the surrounding area.

The costs sound reasonable for the stadium, although its not clear what upgrades beyond seating will be done, beyond replacing the seats; including the elimination of the upper rows for structural reasons and upgrading the concourses. This is important so there is a level playing field between North and South sides and the battles that I hope will recommence :)

Using the parkways, about time.

Bank Street frontage, could be taller and more continuous to combat the monster accross the street (if it didn't completely kill that part of Bank Street already).

Trade show space eliminated: This issue seems glossed over, but adds significantly to the overall cost of the project, but is likely not included in the Lansdowne cost since it will be built out by the airport. Any guesses as the price tag on this? Maybe somewhere in the $100M range or so. Plus what do you do with the remaining convention space? Although I am not sure what would be left in the Civic Centre exhibition spaces.

Connection to the Canal appears promising, although the stadium itself still does little with the site and it is not overly insulated from its context, if you were to take the layout in the opposite direction.

Bottom line execution will be key, and sports in Ottawa is where it should be. Just tell me who covers the cost overruns.

FYI, correct me if I am wrong, but since the building including residential are on land leased from the City there is no property taxes?

[matty14]

So I already posted this as a comment on the Citizen article, but I also thought I would post it here. I need to let off some steam about NIMBYs and I thought sensible people like you would understand.

Wow, the arguments from the nimbys are so flawed and it reeks of not wanting a stadium. Let’s break it down:

1) “No parking or public transportation”: The public transportation issue will be addressed by allowing buses on Queen Elizabeth, therefore allowing transit to go in all four directions (N/S on Bank, E/W on QE). And plus, let’s face it, if you go to a sporting event with a large crowd and expect to be whisked back home in the blink of an eye, you’re living in a dream world. Traffic can also be reduced by having entertainment nearby so some fans, I dunno, maybe stick around for a bit after the game? Maybe take a walk through Lansdowne or down Bank Street, grab a few beers or a bite to eat, and then make their way home? God forbid there’s something to do after the game. That’s the problem with the SBP and building a stadium out in Kanata. There’s nothing to do but go home after the game, and everybody is heading in the same direction. You think trying to get 18000 people out of the SBP is bad? What happens when you add another 7000 spectators to the mix?

2) “The investors are just trying to make money off the backs of taxpayers”: did you even read the article? Or did you just look at the pretty drawings and think ‘Oh my god, retail and residential, it’s a bad plan”? The revenues generated by the commercial side will be split between the investors and the City. This revenue sharing, coupled with lease payments for the stadium will help offset the cost of the stadium to taxpayers. We are going to have to chip in for the bill for anything that happens at Lansdowne, and these developers are footing half the bill. Quit your whining.

3) “We want an open design competition”: okay, so you want to spend another few years and millions of dollars for both funding of the competition and keeping Frank Clair from collapsing (all at the expense of… guess who? The taxpayer!) trying to find another proposal that will either not offer as diverse and mixed-used an entertainment destination as LL, or it will be a better proposal, but it will be completely at the cost of the taxpayer (cf. Melnyk’s soccer stadium). Makes sense.

4) “Build a stadium at Bayview”: ok let’s see the advantages to building at Bayview. Well, there’s a better transit connection…. And… well, nothing else really. There is no sort of entertainment nearby where people can go before and after games, it is no closer to the 417 than Lansdowne is (what’s the difference between having to go down Preston/Parkdale to get to the highway and having to go down Bank Street?). Also, this will cost the taxpayer millions while we tear down Frank Clair, decontaminate Bayview Yards, build a brand new stadium, and upkeep that stadium that will also have no tenants, with no financial backing from any sort of investors. That also makes sense.

5) “Let’s build a city park with access to the canal”: first of all, nearly half the site of Lansdowne will be converted to greenspace with LL, with easy access to and beautiful sightlines of the canal. Second of all, we will have to keep spending dollars maintaining Frank Clair while we sit on our hands trying to figure out this park thing, just to tear it down. Third, “city park”? Such a park will be for Glebe residents and Glebe residents only. Lansdowne has never been a “park” (despite its name), it has housed Aberdeen and the exhibition since the 1880s, and there has been a stadium there since 1908. There’s no reason to change that, and all you Glebe residents bought your houses knowing full well there is a stadium there. Also, if you want the Civic Centre to remain, it will cost you millions. It's basically built into the structural support of Frank Clair, so you're kidding yourselves if you don't think it will need a MAJOR overhaul at the least, or a complete teardown and rebuild at the most.

6) “CFL and pro soccer will never work”: again, a clear cut example of nimbys trying to find excuses to tear down a stadium. Both Ottawa stints in the CFL were ended due to poor management of the team, never due to lack of fan support. Montreal has also failed in the CFL twice, and now, with proper management, they are one of the most successful franchises in the league. Jeff Hunt knows how to market a sports product. Have you seen what he has done with the 67’s? They have one of the highest attendances in the league, when they were at the bottom years ago. Soccer will also not fail. Our last incarnation did because their stadium was way out in Carp, and it was not marketed at all. USL will be fine, if there’s no television, you’ll just have to go see the game yourself won’t you? You’re dreaming if you think we’re getting an MLS franchise over the likes of Montreal, St. Louis, Miami, Atlanta, etc. and without a soccer-only stadium. And does anybody remember the 2007 FIFA U-20 World Cup? Yeah, every game in Ottawa was sold out. There is tons of support for soccer in this city, and even though it’s a lower league, if it’s marketed properly, it will thrive.

Long story short, I encourage anybody who is for this proposal and what a boon it will be for the city to get out to the public consultations and not have these whiny, pretentious Glebe nimbys kick and scream like children till they get their way. This is a project for the whole city, not just for the Glebe. And to the Glebe nimbys, quit whining, get off your high horse, and do something that’s right for the whole city for a change. Your lousy attitude is worn out, and you are the bane of any sort of exciting urban development.

(Sorry about the length)

[DubberDom]

I think you kid yourself. How much did it cost to build Scotiabank Place 15 years ago? $170M ! And you expect to build an 8,000 seat arena and a 25,000 seat outdoor stadium and fix up everything at Lansdowne Park for less? Let's be reasonable.

OK there Mr Smart Guy - recent examples of Arenas

Save-On Foods Centre in Victoria BC - 7400 capacity - 2005 - cost $30Million
John Labatt Centre in London ON - 9100 capacity - 2002 - cost $42Million
K-Rock Centre in Kingston - 6800 Capacity once complete - 2008 - cost $46Million

Stadiums:
BMO Field Toronto - 2007 - $62Million

You can build both and sell off parts of Lansdowne and turn the rest into greenspace and the total cost to the city would be about $100Million.

I smell a scam here, I doubt that Greenberg/Shenkman group will invest $125Million real dollars into this project

PS: I'm not a a NIMBY either - I live in Cumberland

[lrt's friend]

OK there Mr Smart Guy - recent examples of Arenas

Save-On Foods Centre in Victoria BC - 7400 capacity - 2005 - cost $30Million
John Labatt Centre in London ON - 9100 capacity - 2002 - cost $42Million
K-Rock Centre in Kingston - 6800 Capacity once complete - 2008 - cost $46Million

Stadiums:
BMO Field Toronto - 2007 - $62Million

You can build both and sell off parts of Lansdowne and turn the rest into greenspace and the total cost to the city would be about $100Million.

I smell a scam here, I doubt that Greenberg/Shenkman group will invest $125Million real dollars into this project

PS: I'm not a a NIMBY either - I live in Cumberland

How much will it cost to clean up Bayview?

How much will it cost to demolish the existing buildings?

What do we do with Horticulture Building and the Aberdeen Pavillion?

How is selling land off going to make for a better plan? The sold portion is now private property.

The total price tag includes all the retail and commercial buildings. The taxpayers are not paying for that. If we sell the land, those buildings still will go up at a similar price tag, just that we will end up with less control over the design of the whole property.

Somewhere it was mentioned that the cost of renovating the stadium and arena is around $110M. Not so much different from what you have quoted. So, why are you so concerned?

[DubberDom]

Somewhere it was mentioned that the cost of renovating the stadium and arena is around $110M. Not so much different from what you have quoted. So, why are you so concerned?

The Civic Centre is a piece of crap, it's not worth "renovating"
The South Side Stands need to be demolished and rebuilt from scratch - that's 1/2 a stadium there alone, add the cost of renovating the North side, you might as well start over. for the $110Million to renovate, we can get all new stadium and arena

Let's do it right - that's my point

[lrt's friend]

The Civic Centre is a piece of crap, it's not worth "renovating"
The South Side Stands need to be demolished and rebuilt from scratch - that's 1/2 a stadium there alone, add the cost of renovating the North side, you might as well start over. for the $110Million to renovate, we can get all new stadium and arena

Let's do it right - that's my point

Where?

Who is going to build it?

How long do we have to wait for an alternate plan to reach this point?

Who else is interested in becoming a sports franchise owner? Melnyck? Soccer only? Are you prepared to drive to Kanata from Cumberland?

Let's be careful when comparing BMO field. Capacity: 20,000, we need 25,000 for CFL. Location: Exhibition Place with 7,000 parking spaces Transit: Streetcars, Go Trains, no rapid transit in the true sense of the word.

[Acajack]

A fun game to play at the Balloon festival - count the people with gold chains and plastic beer cups.

Watch it! I'll be walking around there with a plastic beer cup this weekend for sure.

But alas I am not rich enough to afford gold chains.

[Mille Sabords]

So I already posted this as a comment on the Citizen article, but I also thought I would post it here. I need to let off some steam about NIMBYs and I thought sensible people like you would understand.

Wow, the arguments from the nimbys are so flawed and it reeks of not wanting a stadium. Let’s break it down: (...)

Well ranted. :righton:

[Harley613]

Lansdown Live looks alright...one thing missing though!

Am I the only one who thinks Ottawa needs an international symbol of recognition besides the Peace Tower? What a perfect spot for a tourist/telecom tower that can really bring Ottawa onto the world stage. Love this design being built in Guangzhou:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_BFXwZoCVGbQ/RtYDrRNl4TI/AAAAAAAAAoo/Eksx8MHyheY/s1600/guangzhou%2Btv%2Btower%2B11.jpg

[waterloowarrior]

CBC article http://iphone.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2009/09/01/ottawa-lansdowne-condo-building.html

There will be no big-box stores at Lansdowne Park under a revised redevelopment plan from an Ottawa business group but there will be two five-storey condominium towers, CBC News has learned.

The towers will make up for retail revenue lost because of the removal of the unpopular big-box stores that were in the original plan, according to sources who have seen the new Lansdowne Live plan, which will go to city council on Wednesday. Lansdowne Park is on Bank Street on the north side of the Rideau Canal in Ottawa's Glebe neighbourhood, a little south of the downtown area.

Since when is five storeys considered a "tower" ;)

[phil235]

OK there Mr Smart Guy - recent examples of Arenas

Save-On Foods Centre in Victoria BC - 7400 capacity - 2005 - cost $30Million
John Labatt Centre in London ON - 9100 capacity - 2002 - cost $42Million
K-Rock Centre in Kingston - 6800 Capacity once complete - 2008 - cost $46Million

Stadiums:
BMO Field Toronto - 2007 - $62Million

You can build both and sell off parts of Lansdowne and turn the rest into greenspace and the total cost to the city would be about $100Million.

I smell a scam here, I doubt that Greenberg/Shenkman group will invest $125Million real dollars into this project

PS: I'm not a a NIMBY either - I live in Cumberland


I agree that the Civic Centre isn't the best layout for junior hockey, but it has been clearly shown that it works. And I think you need to look a little more closely at your figures. JLC is the comparable arena at 46 million in 2002. If you bring that to today's figures based on inflation and increase in construction material/labour costs, you are talking about $60 million or more.

BMO field is not a comparable structure to a renovated Frank Clair. First, it is 5000 seats smaller. Second, if you have been to that stadium you will notice that it is a very bare bones facility without the quality of amenities proposed by Lansdowne Live. Look at other MLS Stadiums and you will see costs in the $80 million to 150 million range.

Even taking the $80 million for a lower end stadium and $60 million for an arena, you are at $140 million before you talk about demolition and remediation costs and land purchase. At $110 million, Lansdowne Live is clearly cheaper.

[Dado]

Things are starting to come together nicely in this city.

I wouldn't quite go that far, but the plan they've now presented is a drastic improvement over the original aquarium-in-the-Aberdeen-Pavilion plan that they started out with.

But that's sort of the point behind much of the opposition as well - we had a design competition that was halted just as it was about to get going for the benefit of a last-minute shoddily-put-together plan from people who clearly didn't give a damn about anything other than getting a CFL franchise and making some money off the property. The aquatic Aberdeen Pavilion idea was a clear demonstration that they were preoccupied with things other than creating a great civic place - it was put in as tokenism without any thought to the needs of either the aquarium or the pavilion. But the plan as a whole along with ballyhooing about a CFL franchise was good enough to put a halt to the design competition and then they were able to buy enough time to create something decent. It's not a particularly inspiring example of how to go about designing civic spaces, though it might be inspiring enough for would-be developers in the future.

I remain to be convinced that a CFL franchise will be viable, or that it's even a good idea to put it at Lansdowne, but at least the plan doesn't look like it will lead to the urban design nightmare of its predecessor (I still can't figure out its finances, but in a city that thinks that sinking $200M into a bus tunnel at Baseline is acceptable then frankly it doesn't really matter since whatever the amount spent at Lansdowne will be immeasurably more useful than the goings-on at Baseline). That said, while it's nice to see there's an attempt to make use of the nearby Canal, I still think they're missing a real opportunity to bring some urbanity closer to the Canal near the docks that they're proposing (retaining the stadium pretty much cuts out the possibility of bringing in an arm of the Canal onto the site as others have proposed). I'd have put in a nice large square between the Driveway/docks and the Aberdeen Pavilion with retail and restaurants along the two sides - for visitors arriving by boat or on skates (or even for that matter by car/bike along the Driveway) there's nothing much that will apparently draw one into the site itself (unlike from Bank Street, which I will admit has been much improved). From the Canal, it's just a scene with lots of trees and fountain features - not a place that one feels any need to visit:

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.ottawacitizen.com/business/revamped+lansdowne+would+include+soccer+250m+first+phase/1952045/1951772.bin?size=620x400


I'd give this plan a 'B'. The lack of making a real use of the unique opportunity presented by the Canal (almost nowhere else in the city is there a real opportunity to bring a little urbanity near to the Canal) as well as the sour way this was all done prevent it from scoring any higher.

[phil235]

Overall I like the plan, as I think it does a great job of bringing additional uses to Lansdowne and accommodating the diverse interests at play.

I do have some questions about it. For one, the 408,000 square feet of commercial space does seem big, particularly because I thought the inclusion of condos was to enable the commercial component to be reduced. Also, where have the recreational fields gone from the proposal? New fields are desperately needed downtown, but it seems we will get more passive greenspace to satisfy the park crowd. Finally, are we losing all trade shows to some new facility out by the airport? That doesn't seem to be a progressive move to me.

All in all, I still support the proposal because when all factors are considered (including financing, timing etc.), it is a very good result and is the only way we see Lansdowne come together in the foreseeable future. I will make sure I'm at the consultations for that reason.

[Harley613]

That does seem excessive. 408,000 square feet is about the size of Bayshore minus the Bay and Zellers. That's 120-200 normal size retail shops, which is what we are expecting since big-box has been vetoed.

The city seems so eager to put bank street's business's out of commission...I'm sure this will be the final nail in their coffins.

[Dado]

CBC article http://iphone.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2009/09/01/ottawa-lansdowne-condo-building.html

Since when is five storeys considered a "tower" ;)

If I had to define it, I'd say a structure whose sides are taller than they are long. It's easy, it makes sense in that the emphasis is on verticality and it means that things like 2-storey rural TV reception towers are still "towers".

[phil235]

That does seem excessive. 408,000 square feet is about the size of Bayshore minus the Bay and Zellers. That's 120-200 normal size retail shops, which is what we are expecting since big-box has been vetoed.

The city seems so eager to put bank street's business's out of commission...I'm sure this will be the final nail in their coffins.

Based on the news reports, I think a lot of that space would be for a theatre, which is an excellent idea. I also wonder if the proponents have left themselves room to scale down in response to public comment. That would have been the smart thing to do.

Not sure about the impact on Bank St business. If the retail is complimentary, ties the strip to Old Ottawa South and draws more people into the neighbourhood, it may be a boon. The stadium, market etc. will almost certainly be a boon for bars and restaurants on Bank St, and there are 30 or so of those. To my knowledge the BIA has been relatively quiet, so I'm guessing there is no consensus there.

[Ryersonian]

[QUOTE=matty14;4437120]So I already posted this as a comment on the Citizen article, but I also thought I would post it here. I need to let off some steam about NIMBYs and I thought sensible people .......

[QUOTE]

Amen brother...Amen

It is often difficult for those in SUPPORT to be heard...Does anybody have any ideas of the proper channels to voice SUPPORT for this? Petitions can go both ways and I for one would be happy to support.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

So I already posted this as a comment on the Citizen article, but I also thought I would post it here. I need to let off some steam about NIMBYs and I thought sensible people like you would understand.

Wow, the arguments from the nimbys are so flawed and it reeks of not wanting a stadium. Let’s break it down:

1) “No parking or public transportation”: The public transportation issue will be addressed by allowing buses on Queen Elizabeth, therefore allowing transit to go in all four directions (N/S on Bank, E/W on QE). And plus, let’s face it, if you go to a sporting event with a large crowd and expect to be whisked back home in the blink of an eye, you’re living in a dream world. Traffic can also be reduced by having entertainment nearby so some fans, I dunno, maybe stick around for a bit after the game? Maybe take a walk through Lansdowne or down Bank Street, grab a few beers or a bite to eat, and then make their way home? God forbid there’s something to do after the game. That’s the problem with the SBP and building a stadium out in Kanata. There’s nothing to do but go home after the game, and everybody is heading in the same direction. You think trying to get 18000 people out of the SBP is bad? What happens when you add another 7000 spectators to the mix?

2) “The investors are just trying to make money off the backs of taxpayers”: did you even read the article? Or did you just look at the pretty drawings and think ‘Oh my god, retail and residential, it’s a bad plan”? The revenues generated by the commercial side will be split between the investors and the City. This revenue sharing, coupled with lease payments for the stadium will help offset the cost of the stadium to taxpayers. We are going to have to chip in for the bill for anything that happens at Lansdowne, and these developers are footing half the bill. Quit your whining.

3) “We want an open design competition”: okay, so you want to spend another few years and millions of dollars for both funding of the competition and keeping Frank Clair from collapsing (all at the expense of… guess who? The taxpayer!) trying to find another proposal that will either not offer as diverse and mixed-used an entertainment destination as LL, or it will be a better proposal, but it will be completely at the cost of the taxpayer (cf. Melnyk’s soccer stadium). Makes sense.

4) “Build a stadium at Bayview”: ok let’s see the advantages to building at Bayview. Well, there’s a better transit connection…. And… well, nothing else really. There is no sort of entertainment nearby where people can go before and after games, it is no closer to the 417 than Lansdowne is (what’s the difference between having to go down Preston/Parkdale to get to the highway and having to go down Bank Street?). Also, this will cost the taxpayer millions while we tear down Frank Clair, decontaminate Bayview Yards, build a brand new stadium, and upkeep that stadium that will also have no tenants, with no financial backing from any sort of investors. That also makes sense.

5) “Let’s build a city park with access to the canal”: first of all, nearly half the site of Lansdowne will be converted to greenspace with LL, with easy access to and beautiful sightlines of the canal. Second of all, we will have to keep spending dollars maintaining Frank Clair while we sit on our hands trying to figure out this park thing, just to tear it down. Third, “city park”? Such a park will be for Glebe residents and Glebe residents only. Lansdowne has never been a “park” (despite its name), it has housed Aberdeen and the exhibition since the 1880s, and there has been a stadium there since 1908. There’s no reason to change that, and all you Glebe residents bought your houses knowing full well there is a stadium there. Also, if you want the Civic Centre to remain, it will cost you millions. It's basically built into the structural support of Frank Clair, so you're kidding yourselves if you don't think it will need a MAJOR overhaul at the least, or a complete teardown and rebuild at the most.

6) “CFL and pro soccer will never work”: again, a clear cut example of nimbys trying to find excuses to tear down a stadium. Both Ottawa stints in the CFL were ended due to poor management of the team, never due to lack of fan support. Montreal has also failed in the CFL twice, and now, with proper management, they are one of the most successful franchises in the league. Jeff Hunt knows how to market a sports product. Have you seen what he has done with the 67’s? They have one of the highest attendances in the league, when they were at the bottom years ago. Soccer will also not fail. Our last incarnation did because their stadium was way out in Carp, and it was not marketed at all. USL will be fine, if there’s no television, you’ll just have to go see the game yourself won’t you? You’re dreaming if you think we’re getting an MLS franchise over the likes of Montreal, St. Louis, Miami, Atlanta, etc. and without a soccer-only stadium. And does anybody remember the 2007 FIFA U-20 World Cup? Yeah, every game in Ottawa was sold out. There is tons of support for soccer in this city, and even though it’s a lower league, if it’s marketed properly, it will thrive.

Long story short, I encourage anybody who is for this proposal and what a boon it will be for the city to get out to the public consultations and not have these whiny, pretentious Glebe nimbys kick and scream like children till they get their way. This is a project for the whole city, not just for the Glebe. And to the Glebe nimbys, quit whining, get off your high horse, and do something that’s right for the whole city for a change. Your lousy attitude is worn out, and you are the bane of any sort of exciting urban development.

(Sorry about the length)

Bumped for awesome.

[Franky]

They want to put over 9 acres of retail space in the park, residential and hotels to pay for a franchise that cannot sustain itself. That's a non-starter.

[waterloowarrior]

Re: urbanity and canal integration , Denley's column talks a bit about this, apparently has to do with Parks canada not wanting to affect world heritage site
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/columnists/solid+credible+plan+make+eyesore+asset/1952832/story.html

[umbria27]

“Tart it up any way you want. It’s still a mall,” Doucet said.


WHAT A DOUCHEBAG!

I know Doucet bashing is de rigeur here, but is he wrong on this point? I don't think so.

408,000 sq ft is a ton of retail. It's a shopping mall, however you want to cut it. The benefit of adding retail along Bank was supposed to be to bridge that dead spot between Glebe's shops and Ottawa South's. Retail on this scale isn't going to help either of them.

Really hard to judge this version of Landsdowne Live without seeing a site plan, but already you can tell that the scale of the retail is excessive.

Interesting details suggested on CBC radio yesterday - market stalls were to go in the Horticulture building and restaurants in the Aberdeen pavilion. I would have thought the opposite would have been better. No?
They were also talking about moving the Horticulture building. Did I hear that right?

[matty14]

Hm an interesting thought I saw on one of the Citizen comments... How feasible do you think it would be for OC Transpo to offer a "shuttle boat" from Lansdowne along the Canal right downtown to Wellington. From there, the market can be accessed for partying and pub-crawls, or one can walk a few metres to the Rideau Centre to catch a bus home if the stress of catching a shuttle right from Lansdowne is too much. Would that be allowed because the Canal is a world heritage site?

Anyways, I don't really expect anything of the sort to happen but it's still an interesting idea.

[Dado]

Re: urbanity and canal integration , Denley's column talks a bit about this, apparently has to do with Parks canada not wanting to affect world heritage site
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/columnists/solid+credible+plan+make+eyesore+asset/1952832/story.html

Clarification: that's in respect to bringing the Canal into the site itself, not about putting more urbanity in the site where it is nearest the Canal:

"This Lansdowne plan will transform the dysfunctional into the functional, but it's a little lacking in excitement. The biggest disappointment is the failure to bring the Rideau Canal right into the site. The problem is apparently reluctance on the part of Parks Canada to change anything to do with the canal because it has been designated a World Heritage Site. That notwithstanding the fact that the canal used to connect directly to Lansdowne before it was cut off by Queen Elizabeth Drive. The plan compensates to some extent by adding water features on the canal side of the park and adding docks along the canal itself."

So long as any improvements/changes don't touch the Canal and its driveway buffer, there would not seem to be anything to prevent the construction of a large urban square as opposed to water fountains and winding tree paths on that part of the site.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

They want to put over 9 acres of retail space in the park, residential and hotels to pay for a franchise that cannot sustain itself. That's a non-starter.

Clean out your ears, Franky. Evidently you ahven't been hearing waht msot of us ahve been saying and backing up on this site; all of this can work.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

I know Doucet bashing is de rigeur here, but is he wrong on this point? I don't think so.

408,000 sq ft is a ton of retail. It's a shopping mall, however you want to cut it. The benefit of adding retail along Bank was supposed to be to bridge that dead spot between Glebe's shops and Ottawa South's. Retail on this scale isn't going to help either of them.

Really hard to judge this version of Landsdowne Live without seeing a site plan, but already you can tell that the scale of the retail is excessive.

Interesting details suggested on CBC radio yesterday - market stalls were to go in the Horticulture building and restaurants in the Aberdeen pavilion. I would have thought the opposite would have been better. No?
They were also talking about moving the Horticulture building. Did I hear that right?

just out of curiosity, how much retail space does the Byward Market cover? I ask because the site plan seems to be more akin the Byward Market than a shopping mall and I know none of us here would call the Byward Market a mall in any sense.

[kwoldtimer]

Hm an interesting thought I saw on one of the Citizen comments... How feasible do you think it would be for OC Transpo to offer a "shuttle boat" from Lansdowne along the Canal right downtown to Wellington. From there, the market can be accessed for partying and pub-crawls, or one can walk a few metres to the Rideau Centre to catch a bus home if the stress of catching a shuttle right from Lansdowne is too much. Would that be allowed because the Canal is a world heritage site?

Anyways, I don't really expect anything of the sort to happen but it's still an interesting idea.

If this proposal succeeds, there would probably be no need to go to the Market at all - this could be a new hub for nightlife.

Since the arguments will reach a crescendo in coming weeks and months, how about a marketing slogan -- "Landsdowne Live - sometimes the best is the enemy of the good!" Catchy, n'est-ce pas? :tup:

[ikerrin]

If this proposal succeeds, there would probably be no need to go to the Market at all - this could be a new hub for nightlife.

Since the arguments will reach a crescendo in coming weeks and months, how about a marketing slogan -- "Landsdowne Live - sometimes the best is the enemy of the good!" Catchy, n'est-ce pas? :tup:

Ok, I'm going to dream in technicolour here, but what about getting through road traffic off Bank street with this project, at least North of Billings Bridge. There could still be some local traffic, but wouldn't it be great to run a street car and extended bike and pedestrian lanes all along Bank Street. Plus, you could up the density of Bank at the Queensway so that there would be additional demand for the streetcar.

If we learned anything these last few summers, it that the traffic adjusts when you don't have Bank Street and maybe the time has come to just make it a transit corridor. Besides, Bank is basically a parking lot on Saturday and not much better during the week.

I know, I know, it would never fly, but it would be great.

[phil235]

They want to put over 9 acres of retail space in the park, residential and hotels to pay for a franchise that cannot sustain itself. That's a non-starter.

Lansdowne is not, nor has it ever been a park. Clearly it's not as simple as you are making it out to be. This proposal provides all sorts of benefits in exchange for the development, and mixed-use development is the only way that you are going to cater to the numerous interests involved. Otherwise you are picking winners and losers. So there is some balancing to be done if you want to truly assess whether this project is good for the city. That seems to be missing from your categoric statement.

It is also puzzling that you would assume that the football franchise can't sustain itself. I think there is a pretty good business case that suggests it will succeed. But aside from that, there are all of the other users of the stadium (concerts, soccer, university sports) that benefit from the renovations, so football is only part of a much bigger story that appeals to quite a broad segment of the population.

Of course we could continue to let the facilities fall apart. That in my view is the only real non-starter here. And make no mistake, if this plan is killed, that is exactly what will happen at least in the short term.

[rocketphish]

I'm liking what I'm seeing so far, despite it being a sole-sourced project. Let's get on with it.

What astounds me, however, is that the NCC is going to permit the contruction of 2 docking facilities on the Canal. Holy Cow! They actually want to do something to bring people to the waterfront, and bring boaters to a land-side attraction!

My gosh, what's next? A restaurant or two along the Ottawa River Parkway to allow non-commuters to enjoy the river too? Public docking facilities below the Mint to facilitate boaters to access the City from the waterfront and enliven the City for everybody? Say it ain't so!

[waterloowarrior]

Staff report

http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/occ/2009/09-02/for%20printing%20-%20Lansdowne%20Report%20English%20%20Final2.htm

[waterloowarrior]

Lansdowne Partnership Plan Website
http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/lansdowne_partnership/index_en.html

[waterloowarrior]

Full PDF report on plan
http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/lansdowne_partnership/sept02_report_en.pdf

[Ottawan]

I wouldn't quite go that far, but the plan they've now presented is a drastic improvement over the original aquarium-in-the-Aberdeen-Pavilion plan that they started out with.

But that's sort of the point behind much of the opposition as well - we had a design competition that was halted just as it was about to get going for the benefit of a last-minute shoddily-put-together plan from people who clearly didn't give a damn about anything other than getting a CFL franchise and making some money off the property. The aquatic Aberdeen Pavilion idea was a clear demonstration that they were preoccupied with things other than creating a great civic place - it was put in as tokenism without any thought to the needs of either the aquarium or the pavilion. But the plan as a whole along with ballyhooing about a CFL franchise was good enough to put a halt to the design competition and then they were able to buy enough time to create something decent. It's not a particularly inspiring example of how to go about designing civic spaces, though it might be inspiring enough for would-be developers in the future.

...

That said, while it's nice to see there's an attempt to make use of the nearby Canal, I still think they're missing a real opportunity to bring some urbanity closer to the Canal near the docks that they're proposing (retaining the stadium pretty much cuts out the possibility of bringing in an arm of the Canal onto the site as others have proposed). I'd have put in a nice large square between the Driveway/docks and the Aberdeen Pavilion with retail and restaurants along the two sides - for visitors arriving by boat or on skates (or even for that matter by car/bike along the Driveway) there's nothing much that will apparently draw one into the site itself (unlike from Bank Street, which I will admit has been much improved). From the Canal, it's just a scene with lots of trees and fountain features - not a place that one feels any need to visit:

I'd give this plan a 'B'. The lack of making a real use of the unique opportunity presented by the Canal (almost nowhere else in the city is there a real opportunity to bring a little urbanity near to the Canal) as well as the sour way this was all done prevent it from scoring any higher.

Overall, I really like the plan that was presented... I'd probably give it more of an A-, but Dado's well-expressed points about a bit of a wasted opportunity regarding the Canal-side development is part of the reason why it lost a few marks. I like the fact that there is parkland, and the Canal is the right location; however, there could be something inviting, be it a wide pedestrian boulevard heading from the docks to the centre of the park, as well as some cafes neaer the dock area along the canal. Additionally, I was a little disappointed after the leaks about the NCC being involved with the process that Queen Elizabeth Drive was not rerouted deeper into the park, removing this cut-off between the Canal and the "Canal-side parkland"

CBC article http://iphone.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2009/09/01/ottawa-lansdowne-condo-building.html

Since when is five storeys considered a "tower" ;)

This is the other reason it lost a few marks - I feel there could have been at least a bit more residential. Maybe two or three 7 or 8 story 'towers'?

These negative points out of the way, I want to express my support for the plan. While I'm a very occasional sports fan, the idea of CFL and of USL excite me: I'd be good for two or three games a season of each. I very much agree with Mille's comments at the start of today's debate regarding the clever design of the development from an aescetic point of view (beautiful sightlines of Aberdeen).

Considering the fact that Parks Canada would not allow the Canal itself to be altered, I enjoy the water features. I am also intrigued by the concept of an "indoor garden" in Aberdeen. While this will be nice in the summer (probably primarily for the restaurants), if done well this could be a great draw in the winter! Imagine skating off the canal, and warming up not with hot chocolate and Beaver Tail, but a beer on a patio in a garden. (not that I've got anything against Beaver Tails!)

A few more responses:

Hm an interesting thought I saw on one of the Citizen comments... How feasible do you think it would be for OC Transpo to offer a "shuttle boat" from Lansdowne along the Canal right downtown to Wellington. From there, the market can be accessed for partying and pub-crawls, or one can walk a few metres to the Rideau Centre to catch a bus home if the stress of catching a shuttle right from Lansdowne is too much. Would that be allowed because the Canal is a world heritage site?

Anyways, I don't really expect anything of the sort to happen but it's still an interesting idea.

Private boat rentals & tours (think Paul's Boatline) are already permitted on the Canal, so it would be shocking for them not to permit public uses.

I think this is a great idea, especially if it could be done (or subsidized such that) regular bus fare could be used (passes, tickets, etc). If I were trying to get to the Transitway after a game, I'd much rather take a leasurely boat ride up the Canal to Mackenzie King than a number 1 to Billings or Downtown (or even an express along Queen Elizabeth). I imagine I'm not the only one who would feel that way, and this could be a popular service.

If this proposal succeeds, there would probably be no need to go to the Market at all - this could be a new hub for nightlife.


While I sincerely hope that Lansdowne will be a lively place and a hub for nightlife, I neither hope nor think it will displace the ByWard Market. The Market has existed for over 180 years (it was designed by Colonel By himself in 1826, and laid out in 1827), and has been both a farmer's market (in fact the oldest one to still operate in Canada) and a hub for nightlife (Clarence and Murray streets were popular with lumbermen) ever since.

[kwoldtimer]

:previous: I did not mean to suggest that LL might displace the Market, rather that it might become an alternative. If I can go watch a game or a movie, enjoy dinner and have drinks/people watch and listen to some live music in one lively area, I would consider that a good night out.

[Ottawan]

:previous: *Feeling Sheepish*

Certainly Ottawa should have more than one place to have a good time.

[Mille Sabords]

Since the arguments will reach a crescendo in coming weeks and months, how about a marketing slogan -- "Landsdowne Live - sometimes the best is the enemy of the good!" Catchy, n'est-ce pas? :tup:

I like it! And it perfectly applies here. :tup:

[Mille Sabords]

That does seem excessive. 408,000 square feet is about the size of Bayshore minus the Bay and Zellers. That's 120-200 normal size retail shops, which is what we are expecting since big-box has been vetoed.

The city seems so eager to put bank street's business's out of commission...I'm sure this will be the final nail in their coffins.

From the Council presentation today, 408,000 sf is not all retail. Some of that is the Aberdeen pavilion and the Horticultural building (the future farmer's market). Some of it is the office space in the upper storeys of the buildings that will have retail. There is also a 10-screen cinema which is good for a chunk.

A "mall" is an enclosed building with only interior access to stores. This is more like a new series of streets (some pedestrianized) with retail stores opening onto them. Big difference.

As for whether the market will "kill", or more reasonably, affect the Byward Market: it won't kill it. It will affect it only to the extent that it will offer a market with fresh food stalls in a different neighbourhood and environment, with underground parking, something Byward doesn't have. The Byward Market is "pure street". The Lansdowne Market will be "pure street minus much of the car traffic in the middle of it, plus climate-protected parking." There is a difference. People will have a new option.

In the end, I think every urban neighbourhood should have a market. Little Italy should have one. Vanier is trying one out on a seasonal basis. Old Ottawa South is too. Byward will always have its place in Ottawa's collective soul. The whole city has an affection for it that will never be stolen by any other market or neighbourhood - it is unique. But in the progress and organic evolution of every city, new neighbourhoods fill out and start offering new choice - in the end everyone wins from having more to choose from.

[waterloowarrior]

see updated article below

[lrt's friend]

I think the plan is careful not to locate buildings to the south and east of the Aberdeen Pavillion. It is a spectacular building that must not be hidden from those travelling along the canal corridor. Let's hope that we create a pedestrian environment that invites people in from the canal. At present, the sea of asphalt is very unattractive to a pedestrian.

Although the idea of building restaurants along the canal front is intriguing, this does not tie in so well with the other retail on the site or along Bank Street. As soon as we attempt to do this, we will need to add separate parking lots, just like the Canal Ritz has its own parking lot.

[Dado]

Interesting details suggested on CBC radio yesterday - market stalls were to go in the Horticulture building and restaurants in the Aberdeen pavilion. I would have thought the opposite would have been better. No?

This got me too... gardens in the Aberdeen Pavilion (aka the Cattle Castle) and a farmers' market in the Horticulture Building. It's not as bad as an aquarium in the pavilion, but sheesh - it's as if no one paid attention to the buildings' respective names, histories and designs -surely to goodness it would be easier to add natural lighting for gardens to a building with a flat roof (i.e. the Horticulture Building) than to try to figure out some way of getting more light into the Aberdeen Pavilion.


They were also talking about moving the Horticulture building. Did I hear that right?

Yes. I'm not too bothered about that if it's necessary to make the rest of it work.

More residential might be beneficial, but there are also plenty of opportunities nearby on Bank Street for the market to add more residential (eco-cité anyone?) on its own if LL is as good as its promoters say it is. They've put in residential where they needed to along Holmwood to make a transition and quasi-residential (the hotel) on Bank while not taking away too much space from other uses.

It's a decent plan, and a vast improvement over the first LL offering with its residual parking acreages, but I wouldn't call it a great one. This isn't going to be a "world class" place that other cities will be tempted to emulate in their own bids for greatness - which is why I gave it a 'B'. At the same time, I'm well aware that perfection can be the enemy of good so we should get on with it. The minuses (like those airbrushed-in non-existent trees instead of a square/plaza) could all be changed in the future or they could even be changed as a result of the public feedback phase (I know, I'm dreaming).

[waterloowarrior]

Clarification: that's in respect to bringing the Canal into the site itself, not about putting more urbanity in the site where it is nearest the Canal:

That notwithstanding the fact that the canal used to connect directly to Lansdowne before it was cut off by Queen Elizabeth Drive. The plan compensates to some extent by adding water features on the canal side of the park and adding docks along the canal itself."

So long as any improvements/changes don't touch the Canal and its driveway buffer, there would not seem to be anything to prevent the construction of a large urban square as opposed to water fountains and winding tree paths on that part of the site.

good catch... I guess part of the reason for the greenery would be From the first two principles for lansdowne that were based on council's motion, although I'm not sure if the 'front lawn' language was in the original motion.

 
These key principles are:
 
1.  The primary focus of the transformation of Lansdowne must be the implementation of a new “Front Lawn”. To become a “Pearl of the Capital’s World Heritage Site” the front lawn should not be a chain link and asphalt parking lot. Furthermore, the creation of a significant public open green space abutting Queen Elizabeth Drive (QED) and integrated with the canal must be a primary driver of the plan and can only be fully realized though the partnership and the collaboration with the NCC and Parks Canada. 
 
2.  The development of this new unique open green space along the canal would be undertaken with the intent that it allow for various activities and events to be staged there, such as Winterlude, the Tulip Festival, outdoor art shows, and concerts. It would also be developed to accommodate various community events, such as opening and closing ceremonies for local or national sporting competitions.
 

[rocketphish]

This is another image that accompanied today's article in the Ottawa Citizen. It answers some questions about the positioning of the various buildings on the proposed site. Sorry for the scan quality.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2472/3883419594_841e840c3e_o_d.jpg

[umbria27]

A "mall" is an enclosed building with only interior access to stores. This is more like a new series of streets (some pedestrianized) with retail stores opening onto them. Big difference.

Fair enough, a distinction that can be made here in a design and architecture forum, but laypeople usually don't qualify a mall as being enclosed - hence the terms strip mall or outlet mall. In the end it's not about the word it's about the volume of retail under a single corporate landlord. I highlight corporate landlord, not because of some anti-capitalist agenda, but because large retail operations tend not to take risks on the unique stores - the kind of stores that make a shopping district unique. They'd prefer to trust proven retail chains that have worked in their other locations.

In the end, I think every urban neighbourhood should have a market. Little Italy should have one. Vanier is trying one out on a seasonal basis. Old Ottawa South is too.

Absolutely, historically such markets in European cities grew to serve a specific neighbourhood, took on the character of the neighbourhood and gradually developed specialties, so that for example in Rome you go to Campo dei Fiori for vegetables and Porta Portese for clothes & pirated CDs. But a retail centre of this size is not an organic growth of the neighbourhood. You look at how Westboro has grown over the last couple of decades, adding new retail slowly. It now has clusters of furniture stores and outdoor sporting stores that aren't found anywhere else in Ottawa. That sort of specialization isn't going to happen when you double the retail space in one fell swoop.

A smaller retail component along Bank could have really enhanced the existing shopping district, making those connections between Glebe and Ottawa South. This big shopping centre perpendicular to Bank isn't going to enhance the existing retail. It could easily hollow out the street in the way the Rideau Centre hollowed out Rideau. The culprit on Rideau was the bus mall, but the danger at Lansdowne will be that Bank simply becomes an access road for the underground parking and shopping at Lansdowne.

I know the money for the stadium has to come from somewhere, but this shopping centre is a sell off too far. I only hope that this is a bargaining chip and that they'll finally settle on something a third the size.

[william91]

I really like this proposal. A few comments based on the sketches:

1. The pathways leading towards Aberdeen Pavillion remind me of Main Street, USA. Kinda cool :P
2. I wonder how long the planning/approval process for the docks on the Canal will take? I ask because I remember reading about some kind of issue with any new development near/on the Canal (in the Congress Centre thread), as it may jeopardize the Heritage site status.
3. The colour of the Canal in those sketches is hilarious! :haha: Much more appealing than bluish-brown, I guess.

Also, I think the EX should move to Jetform Park or whatever they're calling it now. That place is always empty.

And what kind of shops would you all like to see at Landsdowne? For starters, how about another Apple Store, a Disney store, Burberry?

[DubberDom]

And what kind of shops would you all like to see at Landsdowne? For starters, how about another Apple Store, a Disney store, Burberry?

Pottery Barn, Simon's

[eemy]

The mall criticism would be apt if considered from the management perspective. I imagine that the retail will be managed very similarly to a mall in terms of the lease arrangements etc. I hope this doesn't end up like Sparks Street and that the management has the foresight to allow the site to evolve in a more natural manner.

[waterloowarrior]

Stadium meeting a ‘circus’

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Stadium+meeting+circus/1956033/story.html
Mountain of motions leave Lansdowne Live in limbo



By Patrick Dare, The Ottawa CitizenSeptember 3, 2009 7:12 AMComments (53) (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:jumpToAnchor%28%27#Comments%27%29)

OTTAWA-A major project to redevelop Lansdowne Park was unveiled at a meeting Wednesday that soon degenerated into a raucous session in which some councillors tried to shelve the deal.

Councillors bitterly split over a motion from Somerset Councillor Diane Holmes introduced shortly after the Lansdowne Live plan was unveiled.

Holmes used an arcane municipal procedure to try to have the project “laid on the table” of the city clerk, which would effectively mean the project would be filed away without any action from council.

Mayor Larry O’Brien, clearly embarrassed by the motion after council itself voted to start the project in April, said the motion would kill the project.

The motion failed 17-7, but the debate leading up to the vote exposed the deep divisions on council that could spell a rocky road for the proposed $250-million project. By 9 p.m., there were 23 motions before council.

Innes Councillor Rainer Bloess said the council meeting had become a “circus” and pleaded with councillors not to shut down public debate about the project even before it started.

Orléans Councillor Bob Monette said he found the whole process “disgusting.”

College Councillor Rick Chiarelli, a strong supporter of the project, said the day should have been a happy moment about “an exciting step forward.”

The project, called Lansdowne Live, is a proposal from a partnership of four Ottawa businessmen — Roger Greenberg, John Ruddy, William Shenkman and Jeff Hunt — to refurbish the football stadium into a football, soccer and concert venue. Their partnership would own a Canadian Football League franchise and a professional soccer squad.

The development would also include stores, replacing asphalt parking with greenspace, an office building and housing.

City council was supposed to just receive the detailed project proposal and approve a $200,000 public consultation process.

However, councillors immediately started posing questions about the details and how the deal was set up.

When O’Brien ruled that detailed questions could not be asked — because councillors had just received thick documents on the project — Holmes accused the mayor of attempting to muzzle council.

One thing that has a minority of councillors fuming about the Lansdowne Live proposal is that the deal is progressing despite the fact that it is an unsolicited proposal and would be a sole-sourced contract.

Councillor Clive Doucet, whose Capital ward includes Lansdowne, has promised political war against the mayor on the issue.

Earlier in the day, councillors were told by city manager Kent Kirkpatrick that the deal with Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group was good for the city because it protected the property as a city asset, but shifted management and risk to the private partnership.

Kirkpatrick said Lansdowne would cost the city between $3 million and $4 million per year just to keep its current deteriorating buildings operating.

Under the Lansdowne Live deal, the city and the partnership would each contribute $125 million for the first phase of the project, which includes the stadium refurbishment, an overhaul of the Civic Centre and installation of greenspace. The city would issue about $117 million in debt and pay it back over a 40-year period. The business group would spend $30 million of its cash on the pro sports franchises and take out loans for the remainder of its share.

Graham Bird, the consultant hired by the city to lead the project, said Lansdowne Park had become “a mess,” 20 acres of asphalt parking areas and buildings in decline.

The proposed deal splits the cost of the development between the city and the business group, and the city then shares revenues with the group.

Councillor Diane Deans said the deal flew in the face of some conditions city council set out in April: No housing, no really large retail operations and a requirement of accommodation for trade and consumer shows.

Deans said the proposed 408,000 square feet of commercial development would double the amount of commercial development in the Glebe, amounting to a new regional shopping centre, overwhelming the neighbourhood.

Cumberland Councillor Rob Jellett said the project has exciting elements, but he is concerned about the sole-sourcing of the project with the business partnership.

Jellett asked what would happen if the city now stopped the project and asked what the public wanted, perhaps starting a whole request for approval process.

Kirkpatrick said that would doom the deal. He said the broad question of what the public wanted should have been addressed in the spring, if council wanted to have that debate.

“It would kill this. It would fall apart,” said Kirkpatrick, who has been personally overseeing the negotiations since the spring.

Greenberg, the spokesman for the business group, was gracious in his reaction to the quick scrutiny the project received. He said the business group and the city’s negotiators had been working on the project for four months, but councillors knew almost nothing about it.

“They’re grasping and trying to understand it,” Greenberg said. “I don’t think they have cold feet. It’s a complex plan and they’re trying to understand it.”

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[waterloowarrior]

From the Council presentation today, 408,000 sf is not all retail. Some of that is the Aberdeen pavilion and the Horticultural building (the future farmer's market). Some of it is the office space in the upper storeys of the buildings that will have retail. There is also a 10-screen cinema which is good for a chunk

here's the breakdown from the memoradum of understanding

Retail
(a) The site will contain a Component for retail uses (the “Retail
Component”).

(b) The Retail Component will be focused on providing
destination-specifi c stores which will be distinctive and
unique in the Ottawa retail market. It is anticipated that the
Retail Component will contain the Aberdeen Pavilion and
approximately 295,000 square feet, consisting of:
(i) a retail area;
(ii) a food store;
(iii) a cinema; and
(iv) Aberdeen Pavilion.

The Retail Component will also contain two separate
second fl oor spaces for offi ce or retail use of approximately
20,500 square feet and 21,500 square feet, respectively.

(c) The use of Aberdeen Pavilion shall be modifi ed and adapted
in a manner to be mutually agreed by City Corp. and OSEG
to include a use or uses appropriate to the character of the
Aberdeen Pavilion and to be consistent with the distinctive
and unique nature of the Retail Component.

(d) The Coliseum will be demolished at OSEG’s expense.

(e) The Project Agreement shall be conditional on the City Corp.
being satisfi ed that the Retail Component has or will attract
and retain distinctive and unique businesses and occupants.

3.9 Offi ce
The site will contain a Component for offi ce space (the “Offi ce
Component”) of approximately 158,000 square feet, comprised of a
six-storey offi ce complex of approximately 116,000 square feet.

3.10 Hotel
The site will contain a Component for a hotel (the “Hotel
Component”) containing up to 180 rooms and ancillary uses, which
hotel will be approximately 100,000 square feet in size.



The document estimates the square footage of the grocery store at 40,000 and the movie theatre at 45,000 (pdf p 17)

[jcollins]

This is another image that accompanied today's article in the Ottawa Citizen. It answers some questions about the positioning of the various buildings on the proposed site. Sorry for the scan quality.



Thanks for posting this rocketphish! Gives you a much better idea of what will be where on the site.

I like the townhouses on Holmwood a lot!

[Mille Sabords]

Fair enough, a distinction that can be made here in a design and architecture forum, but laypeople usually don't qualify a mall as being enclosed - hence the terms strip mall or outlet mall. In the end it's not about the word it's about the volume of retail under a single corporate landlord. I highlight corporate landlord, not because of some anti-capitalist agenda, but because large retail operations tend not to take risks on the unique stores - the kind of stores that make a shopping district unique. They'd prefer to trust proven retail chains that have worked in their other locations.

You're probably right. And that being the case, it might actually help the Glebe climb up a notch in the retail food chain of Ottawa. I mean, we bemoan the departure of "retail" to the suburbs and we pine for a return to the days of mom-and-pop stores. I think we have to be realistic and coherent. The mom-and-pop stores are still there but they are only viable in areas like the Glebe where the Jane Jacobs conditions are more or less present. Now, if we also want to "bring retail back to the city", shouldn't this include the chains that go to the suburbs? Shouldn't downtowners have access to the same (if not) better stores? And if so, how do you do that? Do you separate them from a thriving mom-and-pop retail strip (and perpetuate the separation of uses, etc., forcing people to drive) - OR - do you marry the two in an urban form common to the mom-and-pop format to let both thrive?

A smaller retail component along Bank could have really enhanced the existing shopping district, making those connections between Glebe and Ottawa South. This big shopping centre perpendicular to Bank isn't going to enhance the existing retail. It could easily hollow out the street in the way the Rideau Centre hollowed out Rideau. The culprit on Rideau was the bus mall, but the danger at Lansdowne will be that Bank simply becomes an access road for the underground parking and shopping at Lansdowne.

I know the money for the stadium has to come from somewhere, but this shopping centre is a sell off too far. I only hope that this is a bargaining chip and that they'll finally settle on something a third the size.

With all due respect I would point out that the big difference with Rideau Street was the urban form of the new retail. It is the single most significant difference bvetween the two, actually - and still, the ByWard Market has not only survived, it has skyrocketed to the top of the list of most desirable neighbourhoods in Ottawa. Rideau Street has been killed by (1) the enclosed bus mall, (2) the no-car prohibition that lasted a decade, (3) the north-south movement axis through the mall replacing the traditional east-west axis of the streetcars, and flowing from that (4) the demolition or boarding up of much of the urban fabric surrounding the mall. Well, under those circumstances, of course you'll kill a street.

What did Toronto do to the Eaton Centre to revive Yonge in its area? It opened up the mall. In other words, it retrofitted a suburban form to make it function in a more urban way. And it doesn't even succeed all that well, but we can see the difference. The whole 2 blocks feels completely different.

Absolutely, historically such markets in European cities grew to serve a specific neighbourhood, took on the character of the neighbourhood and gradually developed specialties, so that for example in Rome you go to Campo dei Fiori for vegetables and Porta Portese for clothes & pirated CDs. But a retail centre of this size is not an organic growth of the neighbourhood. You look at how Westboro has grown over the last couple of decades, adding new retail slowly. It now has clusters of furniture stores and outdoor sporting stores that aren't found anywhere else in Ottawa. That sort of specialization isn't going to happen when you double the retail space in one fell swoop.

No, it won't. But the Glebe has been static for 25 years. My wife commented this morning that "the Glebe is seen as a place where people go to die. It hasn't had anything new since anyone can remember." She's right, in a blunt kind of way. Everyone got so wrapped up in how well the Glebe functions, that they have mummified it. That's not organic growth either.

By adding retail space in the right urban form, you may get (initially) some chains and some types of stores that we'd call bland, yes probably. But the space will still be there in 50 and 75 years, and it will be the right kind of space. That's the long-term organic growth we're talking about. Let's not kid ourselves, you can't instantly re-generate a piece of city. You have to start with making sure the new bones are the right ones, and let the passage of time do its work.

[waterloowarrior]

the quality is a little poor, but here is the site plan

http://wwuploads.googlepages.com/lansdownesiteplan.jpg

[k2p]

Well said, Mille.

I particularly liked how you demolished the silliness that more retail will kill existing retail. Not if a people place is created, it won't. And especially not if residential density continues to grow in south Centretown, or in Sandy Hill/Ottawa East with attractive pedestrian and bike links.

And umbria...if you think Lansdowne Live resembles in any way a "strip mall", you urgently need to visit Nepean more.

Mille, you're also bang-on about the need to transport suburban shopping from the burbs to the core. If people want a city that doesn't revolve around cars, as Doucet laughably claims he does, there will need to be spaces for currently suburban retail. Ideally, with people living in close proximity. (I still don't get why council would request no housing. This from the same council, with the laughably hypocritical support of that twit Doucet, that fixes urban boundaries precisely because it pretends to want more people living in current city limits.)

I dunno, like, say, current asphalt wastelands in city centres that could be so much more more.

[Franky]

Well said, Mille.

I particularly liked how you demolished the silliness that more retail will kill existing retail. Not if a people place is created, it won't. And especially not if residential density continues to grow in south Centretown, or in Sandy Hill/Ottawa East with attractive pedestrian and bike links.

And umbria...if you think Lansdowne Live resembles in any way a "strip mall", you urgently need to visit Nepean more.

Mille, you're also bang-on about the need to transport suburban shopping from the burbs to the core. If people want a city that doesn't revolve around cars, as Doucet laughably claims he does, there will need to be spaces for currently suburban retail. Ideally, with people living in close proximity. (I still don't get why council would request no housing. This from the same council, with the laughably hypocritical support of that twit Doucet, that fixes urban boundaries precisely because it pretends to want more people living in current city limits.)

I dunno, like, say, current asphalt wastelands in city centres that could be so much more more.

Doucet is a twit?

What a great idea. We should carve up the front lawn of the parliament buildings and put hotels, shopping and restaurants there, then we could have somebody run the thing and we would get half of the profits. Oh, and we'll invest half of the money to develop the site. Oh and when the buildings need to be demolished or require heavy maintenance, we'll take over the liability. Oh, and if the thing fails, we'll be left holding the bag.

This is a Great Deal for the developer. It sucks for the city. Lansdowne is the wrong place for the stadium. It's the wrong place for a shopping mall, office space and residential buildings. Effectively giving away our public spaces is the most STUPID thing to do. We have our developer funded politicians to thank for entertaining this ridiculous plan. I'm glad Doucet (who only accepts personal contributions) is there to speak for the citizens of Ottawa and to be a voice of reason.

And before you start bashing Glebe residents, I don't live in the Glebe.

[AuxTown]

Effectively giving away our public spaces is the most STUPID thing to do.

When was the last time you used these "public spaces"? Many in Ottawa, and a disproportionate number on council, have this retarded notion that a decrepid parking lot wasteland and crumbling infrastructure in public hands is better than something beautiful and functional in private hands :shrug:. Not only that, but the land will still be public and will be leased by OSEG (see multiple articles and posts above).

I don't see how Lansdowne is "the wrong place for a stadium" when it has been there for 100 years and functioned quite well in that location. Yes, many in the Glebe moved there after the fall of our CFL franchise, but most did not. Most remember how efficiently traffic dispersed following games (compared to, say, SBP) and almost all would remember the Stones concert in 2005. 43000 paid attendees and thousands more watching the big screens from the street (including myself). People walked, biked (like me), and bladed over from Centretown, Old Ottawa South and East, Sandy Hill, Alta Vista, and maybe a few from the Glebe too (the ones whose ears don't bleed when in close proximity to fun); it was great! The traffic wasn't even all that bad because many chose to go for a stroll along the canal or grab some eats at nearby establishments after the show. This is a truly urban location and the geographic (and population) centre of Ottawa. The vote was 17-7 in favour of public consultation yesterday and I'm gonna make sure that my voice is heard on September 21st!

[Ottawan]

What a great idea. We should carve up the front lawn of the parliament buildings and put hotels, shopping and restaurants there, then we could have somebody run the thing and we would get half of the profits. Oh, and we'll invest half of the money to develop the site. Oh and when the buildings need to be demolished or require heavy maintenance, we'll take over the liability. Oh, and if the thing fails, we'll be left holding the bag.


While I see what you're getting at, I would like to point out that this is a very false metaphor and/or misused metaphor. Lansdowne Park is municipal civic space, Parliament Hill is Federal Civic Space. The hypocrasy of Council pointed out by k2p is relevant to municipal, not federal spaces.

Assuming that City planning priorities applied to Parliament, and (however absolutely unrealistically) there was a desire to redevelop Parliament along the Lansdowne Live model, the Front Lawn would not be carved up for development (note the Lansdowne Live "Front Lawn" greenspace that they in fact added). Instead,they would redevelop the parking lots behind and around the Parliament buildings. Additionally, the developers would help us to refurbish the Parliament Buildings such that they don't 'fall down' (note the fact that Lansdowne Live refurbishes heritage buildings such as Aberdeen and the Horticultural Building). Additionally, the City investing half the money to ensure the site is developed and maintained properly is a steal compared to the 100% they could be left with.


This is a Great Deal for the developer. It sucks for the city. Lansdowne is the wrong place for the stadium. It's the wrong place for a shopping mall, office space and residential buildings. Effectively giving away our public spaces is the most STUPID thing to do. We have our developer funded politicians to thank for entertaining this ridiculous plan. I'm glad Doucet (who only accepts personal contributions) is there to speak for the citizens of Ottawa and to be a voice of reason.

And before you start bashing Glebe residents, I don't live in the Glebe.

The shopping mall argument has been dealt with adequately by others: the actual square footage of true retail and layout of the plan make this argument moot.

Wrong place for office buildings? I disagree - this is a central location, and the city boasts a desire for live-work-play communities. Having employment close to residential lowers transportation costs and helps to animate the site during weekdays, even when there are no events.

Wrong place for residential buildings? This is like saying we should tear up the rest of the Glebe and turn it into a park, because the sites are contiguous.

Giving away our public spaces is indeed a stupid thing to do (although it's not fair to take issue with people calling other people twits, and then to name-call yourself). Fortunately, that is not occuring here.

The size of developer contributions has been regulated in recent years, and in fact no longer represents a large percentage of what councillors receive (even those not named Doucet). This issue is merely a case of political posturing.

Finally, whether a person lives in the Glebe or not, their views are equally valid on such a city-building exercise as Lansdowne redevelopment. I don't understand the reasoning for including that statement.

[Ottawan]

the quality is a little poor, but here is the site plan

http://wwuploads.googlepages.com/lansdownesiteplan.jpg

I'm not sure whether it's all that visible on this proposal, but if you zoom in near the top of this site plan on the PDF document you can see "Bank Street Improvements".

Just thought I'd point out this detail, which is another nice part of this plan. That part of Bank is quite wide (and with the wide sidewalks shown in the plan, will remain so). It has the potential to make a beautiful stretch of boulevard (somewhat the way King Edward north of Rideau would be in a truly ideal world), and I'm glad to see that this is part of the proposal.

[k2p]

And before you start bashing Glebe residents, I don't live in the Glebe.

Don't bash Glebe residents. Only twits who think the city core can't handle more people.

[eemy]

You know what I like about this, perhaps most of all? I don't see a single parking lot in the whole plan other than a few small parking areas. Although there is a road running through the site, this is unabashedly a pedestrian space.

With regard to canal linkages, there are the docks which have been proposed on the canal at the location. Not a physical connection, but it does encourage a certain amount of interaction between the two spaces, particularly if the linkage is enhanced through special paving etc. to bridge the gap formed by the Pkwy.

[Dado]

Stadium meeting a ‘circus’

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Stadium+meeting+circus/1956033/story.html
Mountain of motions leave Lansdowne Live in limbo

By Patrick Dare, The Ottawa CitizenSeptember 3, 2009 7:12 AM

...

Cumberland Councillor Rob Jellett said the project has exciting elements, but he is concerned about the sole-sourcing of the project with the business partnership.

Jellett asked what would happen if the city now stopped the project and asked what the public wanted, perhaps starting a whole request for approval process.

Kirkpatrick said that would doom the deal. He said the broad question of what the public wanted should have been addressed in the spring, if council wanted to have that debate.

“It would kill this. It would fall apart,” said Kirkpatrick, who has been personally overseeing the negotiations since the spring.



Oh, so now he tells us. But wait... my recollection of events was that the City was just going to negotiate (for 60 days - not 120) to see what it could get, and then decide whether to go for it. But now... well we're too far along for that. We now have no choice but to go for it, apparently. What was that comment about the two phases of planning in Ottawa? It's either too early or too late to do anything.

But back in the spring, articles like the one below were making the rounds, making it abundantly clear that Council didn't have time to find out what the public wanted then either.

The way this has been done is very sour. I hope it works out in the end, because if it doesn't there are going to be recriminations for years for the way City has acted fast-and-loose and the way we've (through Council) been badgered into accepting OSEG's desire for a CFL franchise complete with a revamped stadium at Lansdowne and nowhere else.

Take our Lansdowne proposal now or we walk: developer

BY MOHAMMED ADAM , THE OTTAWA CITIZEN APRIL 17, 2009 3:37 PM

OTTAWA — Minto Group chief executive Roger Greenberg told the Citizen editorial board on Friday that his patience with the city of Ottawa is running thin. He threw down the gauntlet to council, saying his group's Lansdowne Live proposal to redevelop Lansdowne Park for football is best for the city and council has to take it or leave it.

He said council has to make a "decision in principle" to support his group's proposal when it meets next week. He said if council postpones a decision and asks for more studies as city staff recommended, his group will walk.

"We want a decision now from council. If council approves another study for six months we are out," Greenberg said.

"What is a deal breaker is if our proposal is rejected."

Greenberg, who has teamed up with a group of Ottawa businessmen to redevelop Lansdowne Park for a Canadian Football League franchise, said he is not interested in playing football at the proposed soccer stadium in Kanata, which is being promoted by Ottawa Senators owner Eugene Melnyk. He said the Kanata site is wrong for an open-air stadium,and putting one there would be bad planning.

"It is not the right location for a stadium and we don't want to be part of that," Greenberg said.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen'

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Take+Lansdowne+proposal+walk+developer/1507541/story.html

[Franky]

You know what I like about this, perhaps most of all? I don't see a single parking lot in the whole plan other than a few small parking areas. Although there is a road running through the site, this is unabashedly a pedestrian space.

With regard to canal linkages, there are the docks which have been proposed on the canal at the location. Not a physical connection, but it does encourage a certain amount of interaction between the two spaces, particularly if the linkage is enhanced through special paving etc. to bridge the gap formed by the Pkwy.

I agree, that is a nice feature, but do we have to sell the farm to do it? What's wrong with having a proper design competition and seeing what other designs might bring?

Some of you keep pointing at the decrepit state of the park but fail to realize it is an end of cycle mess for the city to clean up and we are setting ourselves up to have to clean up the mess of this LL proposal 30 years from now. It's like we never learn.

[matty14]

I'd like to point out that both the resumption of the design competition and the consideration of placing the stadium at Bayview were both voted down DEMOCRATICALLY BY COUNCIL. Refer to the minutes of City Council Meeting on 22 April 2009, specifically Motions 47/18 and 65/8 - 65/11.

http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/occ/2009/04-22/minutes65.htm

We have decided democratically that the Lansdowne Live group can provide the best solution for Lansdowne.

All of this discussion is fairly superficial, as none of us (not even council) have read the full report on the plan. I can guarantee you that any questions anybody has will be answered in that report. After months of consultations and meetings with countless organizations (OC Transpo, NCC, Parks Canada, Airport Authority, Glebe BIA, etc. etc.) You think after all this discussion and research these people have not done extensive research and documentation and just sat in a room and thought:
"Hey, there's going to be up to 25,000 people entering this site on a fairly regular basis, but lets just remove 1000 parking spots for fun."
"Let's put a giant 'shopping mall' and destroy the character of Glebe just to make a few bucks"

Like Mille said, this plan is a perfect example of the live-work-play community we are striving for. Another thing people fail to realize is that all these investors are LOCAL, and they LIVE HERE! They understand what the character of the Glebe community is like, and what sports and business trends are in this city. Yet you want to open this up to an INTERNATIONAL design competition, where we will get proposals from people in their office in Toronto, or New York, or Munich, who may never even actually see the site.
The retail, on the surface, looks like a lot of space. But I do believe that the kind of retail planned for these areas are to be like the Byward Market with small shops and bistros. I doubt you will see a Tim Hortons, a Gap, McDonalds, Guess, Starbucks, or any big name sort of retail there.

This is the best plan for the city and its time for council to finally get off their butts and do something instead of sitting around sending any sort of exciting development to study after study. They made a good start by allowing this to go to public consultation, where the public can help work out the kinks of the plan. That's what it's for. Get out there, voice your opinion, and make sure this plan gets off the ground because if the minority of kickers and screamers get their way, this council will leave a legacy of passivity and a whole lot of nothing, and Frank Clair and the decrepit wasteland that is Lansdowne will continue to rot and be an eyesore for years to come.

[lrt's friend]

This city acts at glacial speeds on most issues of true significance. Just look at the foot bridge that took 25 years to approve and there were still city councillors kicking and screaming about it even after it was approved. Look at the result. Something truly useful to citizens.

I don't think it is such a bad thing to have an issue forced, in order to get something accomplished. Let's face it, this would have never happened if the stadium had remained in useable condition. We could have taken our time (likely several years) but a tenant for stadium has been found, so something needs to be done. The question remains, do we want a tenant for the stadium or not? This is a golden opportunity from this perspective as this is the first time in a generation that a good quality potential owner has been found for a football team. Will this opportunity come again? Just like the Senators, that was likely a once in a lifetime opportunity to get a pro hockey franchise. It was the right time and the right people and right plan. Did we get the perfect location for SBP? No, but we did get the Senators. I believe this is now the situation for football (and hopefully Soccer) although of course, only time will tell.

On lifecycles, no matter what we build, it will be necessary to renovate or replace after so many years. Going on about replacement costs is just an excuse for doing nothing. If we do things correctly, we should recognize these costs in our long-term budgetary plans. The fact of the matter is that we are already past the end of the lifecycle for the stadium and soon the arena. A responsible government would have renewed these facilities BEFORE the end of their lifecycle. It is like your roof is caving in and you still are still looking at the books for that dream kitchen that you can't make up your mind about. Meanwhile the rain is pouring in.

We need to make up our minds and realize that there will be serious reprocussions whether we say yes or no. If we say no, we will likely be back to Melnyk's Kanata proposal and the focus will be directed away from Lansdowne.

[Mille Sabords]

This city acts at glacial speeds on most issues of true significance. Just look at the foot bridge that took 25 years to approve and there were still city councillors kicking and screaming about it even after it was approved. Look at the result. Something truly useful to citizens.

I don't think it is such a bad thing to have an issue forced, in order to get something accomplished. Let's face it, this would have never happened if the stadium had remained in useable condition. We could have taken our time (likely several years) but a tenant for stadium has been found, so something needs to be done. The question remains, do we want a tenant for the stadium or not? This is a golden opportunity from this perspective as this is the first time in a generation that a good quality potential owner has been found for a football team. Will this opportunity come again? Just like the Senators, that was likely a once in a lifetime opportunity to get a pro hockey franchise. It was the right time and the right people and right plan. Did we get the perfect location for SBP? No, but we did get the Senators. I believe this is now the situation for football (and hopefully Soccer) although of course, only time will tell.

On lifecycles, no matter what we build, it will be necessary to renovate or replace after so many years. Going on about replacement costs is just an excuse for doing nothing. If we do things correctly, we should recognize these costs in our long-term budgetary plans. The fact of the matter is that we are already past the end of the lifecycle for the stadium and soon the arena. A responsible government would have renewed these facilities BEFORE the end of their lifecycle. It is like your roof is caving in and you still are still looking at the books for that dream kitchen that you can't make up your mind about. Meanwhile the rain is pouring in.

We need to make up our minds and realize that there will be serious reprocussions whether we say yes or no. If we say no, we will likely be back to Melnyk's Kanata proposal and the focus will be directed away from Lansdowne.

LRT's friend, this is one post of yours that I find myself in 100% agreement with (you and I have differed before). You're bang on - there is a conditional CFL team waiting for us to make up our minds. You nailed the heart of the question when you said The question remains, do we want a tenant for the stadium or not?

For whatever reason there are still people out there who don't want a stadium at Lansdowne any more and see this as a chance to get rid of it. That is the real "opposition", so to speak.

Because, really, what they propose as an alternative is weak:

- Public space: What exactly do you plan to do on 25 acres of grass? Don't we have enough grass in this city? Don't most people have back yards, even in the Glebe? What else? Art exhibits? LL has it. Concerts? LL has it. Ceremonies? LL has it. What else? What am I missing? Because if it's a distaste of having buildings, or people, or density or whatever, well I got news for you - Lansdowne has them already. LL makes it all look much better, AND adds green space. Real green space.

- "Better" location: Costs more, takes too long, and simply not on the table.

- Sole source deal: No. Council made the choice of Lansdowne over Melnyk's Kanata stadium. There was, in that sense, a competitive process - it wasn't international and it wasn't on design, but it was on the relevant issues (stadium? where? for who?) that had to be dealt with given the CFL, MLS and OHL situations. And it was totally legitimate for Council to opt for that direct route, for a change, instead of dragging this out to a halt.

[lrt's friend]

Good grief, the discussion has descended to a new low.

A suggestion in the Citizen blog to create a Vimy memorial that would consist of planting a tree for each life lost.

Now, I know the intentions are good (or maybe not, just another absurd way to dispose of the stadium) but what an ineffective way to create a memorial and what an inappropriate location for planting a forest. It would become a perfect location for disposing that pile of old shingles or that old washing machine. And we thought Lansdowne is derelict now?

It would be desireable to include some artwork and statuary in the new Lansdowne Park. Something else to draw people in to look and learn. Since Lansdowne was used as barracks during the wars, an 'appropriate' memorial might be considered.

[Proof Sheet]

What exactly do you plan to do on 25 acres of grass? Don't we have enough grass in this city? Don't most people have back yards, even in the Glebe?

This issue of grass and parkland comes up all the time and not just in Ottawa. Often times whenever somebody wants to build something, residents want the City to buy up the land and turn it into a park and provide a place where the residents can walk their dogs etc. This is despite the fact that many of the City's parks are woefully underutilized...depending on the age of the neighbourhood, many new subdivisions with young children have play structures that are busy but after a few years and general aging of the neighbourhood, the utilization of the park diminishes.

Yes, in many ways, Ottawa has too much green space which has contributed to the vast distances within Ottawa........

Now if only more people could see differently on all of this.

[Acajack]

Good grief, the discussion has descended to a new low.

A suggestion in the Citizen blog to create a Vimy memorial that would consist of planting a tree for each life lost.

Now, I know the intentions are good (or maybe not, just another absurd way to dispose of the stadium) but what an ineffective way to create a memorial and what an inappropriate location for planting a forest.

It's only a matter of time before "think of the children!" shows up as an argument on there...

[phil235]

I agree, that is a nice feature, but do we have to sell the farm to do it? What's wrong with having a proper design competition and seeing what other designs might bring?

Some of you keep pointing at the decrepit state of the park but fail to realize it is an end of cycle mess for the city to clean up and we are setting ourselves up to have to clean up the mess of this LL proposal 30 years from now. It's like we never learn.

Comments about "selling the farm" or this being a giveaway to developers are bordering on rhetoric. You may think that the deal could be better, but objectively speaking there is a good amount of give and take on both sides in this deal. The developer is assuming essentially all of the risk (which is a huge concession on a stadium construction project), is responsible for all maintenance and operating costs, and the city benefits by sharing equally in any profits. I think there is a pretty good argument that is a reasonable business deal for both sides. Hyperbole doesn't really assist in the analysis.

As others have pointed out, a design competition isn't exactly the panacea it is made out to be. It has many drawbacks including being a rigid and bureaucratic decision making-process, and limiting the opportunity for negotiation based on stakeholder and public input. It does not address the consequential impacts of a change in use of the site, and is not very responsive to current users of the facility. In addition, it would do nothing to achieve consensus on the best use for Lansdowne. The particular Design Lansdowne competition had its own set of drawbacks - as a "right to develop" process, you can be sure that every idea received would include a commercial component that looks a lot like Lansdowne Live.

There are some pretty good reasons not to revisit a valid council decision to return to a time-consuming, expensive and potentially divisive competitive process that surely won't solve as many issues as people claim it will.

[Dado]

Another thing people fail to realize is that all these investors are LOCAL, and they LIVE HERE! They understand what the character of the Glebe community is like, and what sports and business trends are in this city. Yet you want to open this up to an INTERNATIONAL design competition, where we will get proposals from people in their office in Toronto, or New York, or Munich, who may never even actually see the site.

And that would be a fair point were it not for the fact that this same group first came up with a towers-in-the-park scheme pre-LL [1] and then their initial LL plan [2] had plenty of surface parking, nothing much on Bank Street and included an aquarium in the Aberdeen Pavilion, complete with 80s promotional images [3] scrounged up from Lord-knows-where. They've twice proved they don't understand things outside the narrow confines of sports and development. Look at it this way: it has taken a year during which there has been debate of varying quality, alternate proposals (for both Lansdowne and stadiums and/or franchises elsewhere), community objections (some reasonable, many not), a stadium study, Council-dictated negotiations that went on longer than Council directed, etc. for them to FINALLY come up with some decent - not great, just decent, and I bet that's a result of getting outside help (including from City staff). Not really inspiring stuff for a group that supposedly understands the local situation. Their early lack of interest in soccer also has me wondering if they even understand sports trends given changing demographics and tastes. Fwiw I've never gone to a CFL game anywhere and have only been to a few Homecoming football games at Queen's, where, frankly, I found the cheerleading and band playing to be more entertaining than anything happening on the field (which seemed to be infrequent). I'll never go to a football game if we get a CFL franchise but I did go to a few U-20 games and I know I'm far from the only person in that camp.

Beats me if an outsider could come up with a better design, but even if they couldn't a design competition would also have let loose all the other local talent we have. It wasn't like it was going to be only non-Ottawans being involved. What the LL group feared was that the design competition would have put on the table a whole bunch of ideas for Lansdowne, some of which may have involved removing the stadium and they absolutely did not want that so they used the cover of the CFL franchise deadline to push out a plan that was just enough to halt the design competition before it got going.

I'll support what's before us because it is decent enough to do the job and we've now blown any realistic chance of getting a better design through an open competition (who'd want to participate now?), but how we got here and the tactics that were employed were the planning equivalent of sausage-making. I hope we never see another example of the development of a civic property decided upon in this way again.

[1]
hopefully [Lansdowne Live! is] better than their earlier tower-in-the-park design

http://media.canada.com/45773afa-7225-4885-a26c-930db6f5c81d/template.jpg

[2]
http://www.lansdownelive.ca/images/gallery/siteplan_large.jpg

[3]
http://www.lansdownelive.ca/images/gallery/aquarium3_large.jpg

[Franky]

Comments about "selling the farm" or this being a giveaway to developers are bordering on rhetoric. You may think that the deal could be better, but objectively speaking there is a good amount of give and take on both sides in this deal. The developer is assuming essentially all of the risk (which is a huge concession on a stadium construction project), is responsible for all maintenance and operating costs, and the city benefits by sharing equally in any profits. I think there is a pretty good argument that is a reasonable business deal for both sides. Hyperbole doesn't really assist in the analysis.

As others have pointed out, a design competition isn't exactly the panacea it is made out to be. It has many drawbacks including being a rigid and bureaucratic decision making-process, and limiting the opportunity for negotiation based on stakeholder and public input. It does not address the consequential impacts of a change in use of the site, and is not very responsive to current users of the facility. In addition, it would do nothing to achieve consensus on the best use for Lansdowne. The particular Design Lansdowne competition had its own set of drawbacks - as a "right to develop" process, you can be sure that every idea received would include a commercial component that looks a lot like Lansdowne Live.

There are some pretty good reasons not to revisit a valid council decision to return to a time-consuming, expensive and potentially divisive competitive process that surely won't solve as many issues as people claim it will.

So the thing will make money the first few years and the developers will make their money, then the thing will collapse and the city will be left with a big empty stadium, properties they can't lease, hotels they can't fill and people living in OUR public land we can't evict.