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

[phil235]

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.

I guess the stadium will be empty if the football team, soccer team, university sports and recreational sports all collapse, and we never get another international sporting event or concert. Otherwise a stadium for a city of a million people seems quite useful to me.

As far as the development goes, not sure why you are assuming that is also going to be a failure. But even if it isn't successful, what do you know of the structure of the leases? Most commercial leases that I have dealt with contain many levels of protection against just that sort of thing. It isn't rocket science to get proper guarantees. As has been made clear, the principle is that all risk in this deal is being borne by OSEG. To say that we will be stuck with empty properties at the end of the lease is just silly.

[lrt's friend]

Unfortunately, this situation is now beyond the control of the city to some extent. Whether we have a design competition or not, there will be limitations on what we can do with Lansdowne. It is already quite apparent that if we reject LL, the provisional CFL franchise will be withdrawn and the current backers will be out of the picture. This creates additional risks for any other design that we choose, as certain aspects of LL may no longer be possible and will the city be in a position to negotiate a similar partnership in order curtail costs to the taxpayer?

It seems that some here are very risk adverse and are so concerned that a CFL franchise will not succeed, yet there are also some serious risks if we do not move forward now as well. It is strange that one risk is considered deal breaker but the other risk is considered not only acceptable but actually desireable.

[Franky]

I guess the stadium will be empty if the football team, soccer team, university sports and recreational sports all collapse, and we never get another international sporting event or concert. Otherwise a stadium for a city of a million people seems quite useful to me.

As far as the development goes, not sure why you are assuming that is also going to be a failure. But even if it isn't successful, what do you know of the structure of the leases? Most commercial leases that I have dealt with contain many levels of protection against just that sort of thing. It isn't rocket science to get proper guarantees. As has been made clear, the principle is that all risk in this deal is being borne by OSEG. To say that we will be stuck with empty properties at the end of the lease is just silly.

I go by the Baseball Stadium every day.

Any corporation can go tits up and leave the mess behind. The share holders/directors get to keep all the money they made up to the end. Since all the investment comes from the city and from banks, that's what will be sold off at pennies to the dollar or sit idle as a monument to bad deals just like the Ottawa Baseball Stadium.

[Franky]

Unfortunately, this situation is now beyond the control of the city to some extent. Whether we have a design competition or not, there will be limitations on what we can do with Lansdowne. It is already quite apparent that if we reject LL, the provisional CFL franchise will be withdrawn and the current backers will be out of the picture. This creates additional risks for any other design that we choose, as certain aspects of LL may no longer be possible and will the city be in a position to negotiate a similar partnership in order curtail costs to the taxpayer?

It seems that some here are very risk adverse and are so concerned that a CFL franchise will not succeed, yet there are also some serious risks if we do not move forward now as well. It is strange that one risk is considered deal breaker but the other risk is considered not only acceptable but actually desireable.

Oh please. If franchises are so hard to come by, then we should not build a stadium at all. Read the post by phil235. If there is a market, there will be a franchise. If there is no good market, we don't want another stadium.

[Rathgrith]

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.

Considering how the country is still in deficit, that's a great idea! Rather we should demolished all the buildings on Parliament Hill and replace them with the squarest concrete and glass building out there. It could be like Tunney's Pasture all over again!

[k2p]

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?:

How about there is no money to pay for it?

Some of you keep pointing at the decrepit state of the park

It is hard to miss.

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.

Let's think that through, franky. Suppose for a moment LL is rejected, and, after a couple of decades of Ottawaesque wrangling and committees the city does something that involves a building. Whether 100% owned by the city, or 50%, the city would be on the hook for the building in 30 years' time.

Franky is echoing arguments used against public-private partnerships for things like bridges or hospitals. And if we were talking about a bridge or a hospital I'd agree. It doesn't make sense for governments to lease an asset to a company, then reassume ownership once the most profitable part of its lifecycle is over and pay for the expensive repairs.

LL is different. The city and developer would share equally in the revenue, and the most valuable asset--revitalization--would be permanent. We also have hospitals with or without private involvement. But without private involvement, we have not had anything going on at Lansdowne.

It's probably true that the stadium would need refurbishing in 30 years. Kind of comes with having a stadium. In the meantime, though, there would be a community benefit from sports and concerts held at the stadium. That some people don't like sports is beside the point. Some people also don't like theatre or paintings or dance or choirs, but that doesn't stop the public supporting those ventures--which also leverage private profit.

[phil235]

I go by the Baseball Stadium every day.

Any corporation can go tits up and leave the mess behind. The share holders/directors get to keep all the money they made up to the end. Since all the investment comes from the city and from banks, that's what will be sold off at pennies to the dollar or sit idle as a monument to bad deals just like the Ottawa Baseball Stadium.

Absolutely, any corporation can go bankrupt. Like I said, that is why the city can protect itself using guarantees, equity requirements and in this case, a fund that will be established by OSEG to maintain and operate all buildings over the course of the lease. That way the shareholders/directors aren't just able to walk away as you fear.

In any event, by your logic there can never be mixed use development at Lansdowne no matter how good the business plan, because there is always a chance it may fail. For that matter, the city shouldn't invest in any facilities, like the Convention Centre, because that might fail too. Don't you think that it's kind of hard to engage in any city-building of any kind if we limit ourselves to entirely risk-free investments.

[matty14]

Don't you think that it's kind of hard to engage in any city-building of any kind if we limit ourselves to entirely risk-free investments.

That explains city council in a nutshell. Study after study, expert consultation, all in the name of ensuring risk-free projects. This project is an opportunity for council to grow a set of cojones and approve what will be a jewel for the entire city.

[jchamoun79]

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.

Very true. And yet, in an article posted today on the Ottawa Sun website, Clive Doucet is quoted as calling the proposal "an abomination" (:rolleyes:), and claiming that "it's a massive shopping centre in the middle of a parking lot."

I don't understand how anyone can take this guy seriously at this point. Has he seen the renderings or the site plan? He is completely out of his mind.

[Franky]

That explains city council in a nutshell. Study after study, expert consultation, all in the name of ensuring risk-free projects. This project is an opportunity for council to grow a set of cojones and approve what will be a jewel for the entire city.

Cojones and jewels - funny.

Let's see, it's failed twice before...
Weather is bad for an open air stadium...
Not enough parking...
No transit...

Exactly how can you guarantee $250M (plus the land and interest) of investment with only $20M on the table?

[k2p]

Randall Denley from today's Citizen. Wish he'd run against Doucet or Holmes...


OTTAWA — What an embarrassing display. Instead of welcoming an outstanding report that resolves this city's longstanding problems at Lansdowne Park, a cabal of Ottawa city councillors did everything they could Wednesday to put the proposal off indefinitely so they could look at other potential plans that don't actually exist.

Councillors Clive Doucet and Diane Holmes are strongly opposed to the plan to rebuild Lansdowne. Good for them. They can vote against it, preferably after they've read the report and spent more than two minutes thinking about it.

Instead, these two sought to block public consultation on the one detailed, realistic plan the city has. If people are so strongly in favour of Doucet's and Holmes's points of view, why are they afraid to have public consultation? What an astounding act of ego to try to deny the public the chance to examine and comment on this proposal because a few of their neighbourhood pals are against it.

Fortunately, council defeated Holmes's motion 17-7, but not before council had succeeded in looking like a bunch of fools.

It seemed to go over most councillors' heads, but redeveloping Lansdowne will be the biggest and most positive accomplishment of their term. The Lansdowne proposal will reshape the most important property the city owns and define it for generations.

Most of what councillors do is small potatoes in comparison.

Perhaps councillors were exhausted after spending most of the day niggling over who's to blame for this summer's flooding in Kanata, but until Holmes's attempt at demolition, they brought so little energy to the issue one wanted to break out the defibrillators.

About the only person with a pulse was Doucet, but the blood didn't seem to be getting to his brain. In his usual perceptive way, the councillor asked why so much housing and commercial development s required, if the plan is so financially advantageous. He didn't realize that he had answered his own question. The plan generates enough tax money to cover the costs of the new stadium because there is commercial development.

Forty per cent of the renewed Lansdowne will be green space. That's a huge improvement over today's parking lot and exactly what Doucet has been requesting for years. The councillor has won a real victory, but he has become obsessed with his opposition to any plan that has significant commercial development.

Doucet was not alone in his failure to grasp the big picture. Councillors wanted to dig deep into the financial details and even the exact bus scheduling the site will require.

Councillor Diane Deans got it off to a bad start by fussing about how the plan has evolved beyond a somewhat unrealistic set of conditions council had imposed on the negotiations. She is worried that there is too much retail, that there is housing and that trade show space won't be on the site. In effect, the people developing the plan didn't colour between the lines she had established.

Others worried about sole sourcing, an argument that was resolved when council decided to evaluate this proposal back in April. Too many failed to grasp the most basic fact about this proposal. This is a 50-50 partnership between the city and the private sector. It isn't a case where the city is procuring something or hiring someone to do work for them. The actual construction of the stadium will be tendered.

Mayor Larry O'Brien was finally compelled to rein in councillors' desire to explore the fine points of a plan most had not yet studied. All that was in front of them Wednesday was a motion to accept the report and put it to the public for consultation. To do that, all they need to do is feel that the report goes in the right general direction.

Part of the problem is that senior staff and the people who have worked on the proposal have been living and breathing it for months. They know every detail and why it all makes sense. Councillors are starting from scratch with a sketchy idea of what the plan really is. Had they read the coverage in the morning newspapers, though, they would have known the answers to many of the questions they asked.

Intelligent people are obviously free to criticize this report. The way some councillors have done it is no model. Facts and logic are more persuasive than anger and shouting.

Councillors should review a recording of this week's meeting and ask themselves how they looked. If they want to save time, here's the answer: ridiculous.

[Mille Sabords]

Oh please. If franchises are so hard to come by, then we should not build a stadium at all. Read the post by phil235. If there is a market, there will be a franchise. If there is no good market, we don't want another stadium.

You answered your own rethorical question. There IS a market. There IS a franchise waiting for us. More than one franchise, probably, now that we know pro soccer will be part of the mix. Otherwise, why would the private sector be so willing to put all this time, effort and money to redevelop Lansdowne? They can go build "malls" anywhere. In fact, building actual malls is much less costly, quicker and less painful than what they've done here, and the very fact that they are proposing a fully urban development with fewer parking spaces than exist today, says to me that Lansdowne is proof that downtown Ottawa is finally mature enough to warrant this level of investment.

[Franky]

You answered your own rethorical question. There IS a market. There IS a franchise waiting for us. More than one franchise, probably, now that we know pro soccer will be part of the mix. Otherwise, why would the private sector be so willing to put all this time, effort and money to redevelop Lansdowne? They can go build "malls" anywhere. In fact, building actual malls is much less costly, quicker and less painful than what they've done here, and the very fact that they are proposing a fully urban development with fewer parking spaces than exist today, says to me that Lansdowne is proof that downtown Ottawa is finally mature enough to warrant this level of investment.

Then let's do it right and put the stadium at Bayview or somewhere there is proper transit access. Let's get a proper design competition. Let's get on with it and do it right. Franchises can wait.

[AuxTown]

Please stop with that whole there is no football market in Ottawa. I will, once again post the Rough Rider/Renegade attendance from 1990 until the team folded in 2005. I wouldn't even consider the 1996 and 2005 numbers since the team was terrible and disillusioned fans stayed away once they knew we would no longer have a franchise the next year :-(.

1990 - 23,647
1991 - 23,479
1992 - 24,345
1993 - 20,026
1994 - 19,409
1995 - 21,101
1996 - 16,847
1997 - no team
1998 - no team
1999 - no team
2000 - no team
2001 - no team
2002 - 23,776
2003 - 23,378
2004 - 23,050
2005 - 18,489

Fan support has never been an issue for Ottawa's CFL franchises and it has been poor-managing, non-local (American), fickle ownership that killed the team both times. Keep in mind that our population has grown significantly in the last 5 years and that the CFL's popularity is at an all-time high (in terms of numbers).

Now, bring soccer into the mix. Soccer is the most popular sport in the world, it is the sport of choice for the majority of Ottawa's immigrant population (~21% of population or ~200000 people), and the tickets to a USL game will be a far cry from the NHL prices and likely even cheaper than CFL. If the team is smart, they will set up connections with all of the minor soccer leagues in the area (tens of thousands of players) for the teams to buy group-rate tickets....there's a couple thousand seats per game right there. I guess I'm really getting ahead of myself here, but I can't wait to see high-level pro soccer in Ottawa!

So please leave your "but what about the Lynx?" comments for the pansy baseball thread that never existed in the Ottawa section. That team failed because this is Canada and baseball sucks :).

Edit: acottawa, please read this post and re-think your comments below

[acottawa]

Ottawa must have some sort of record for failed sports teams (the current decade has seen the demise of the Lynx, Rapidz, Rebels, and Renegades as well as the Senators’ bankruptcy). Before that was the failure of the Rough Riders. I would argue that the poorly thought out locations of Scotiabank Place, Jetform Park and Frank Clair Stadium have played a big role in the troubles of teams in those locations. But if I am wrong and the location of Landsdowne did not play a role in the failure of two previous CFL teams, whatever inate impediments to a cfl franchise in this city (demographics, culture, government ethics rules, etc.) will not be changed by this proposal.

The only thing that will change is that the stadium will be somewhat newer and surrounded by stores and condos. Are thousands of people who didn't want to go to a football game four years ago in exactly the same location suddently going to develop an interest in the CFL because they can sit on new plastic seats and the stadium is close to a Banana Republic? The city is basically betting the farm that that's the case, because they're not changing anything else.

The CFL is not a league of fancy stadiums. The Tiger Cats play in a dump of a stadium and sell out every game. The Alouettes did very well in a tiny (but well-located) university stadium before convincing the city and provincial governments to renovate the McGill stadium.

I suspect the Lansdowne Live people have no intention of running a profitable football or soccer team. They're using the sports teams as a hook to get city council to hand over millions in real estate for nothing. They will either fold the teams in a few years (and keep all the land the city has handed over) or they will use their real estate profits to subsidize a team to save face. The city would be better off selling the real estate on the open market and using some of the proceeds to subsidize a CFL team - at least that would cut out the middlemen.

[AuxTown]

Finally, Clive Doucet has appeared on the SSP forum under the alias acottawa and is now spreading his inane conspiracy theories! We've been waiting a long time for you to join our lively conversation :tup:.

[lrt's friend]

Yes, we have a market for pro sports, yes we have franchise, but more important, do we have an owner? This is the most important question and everybody knows that the lack of a suitable owner caused the failure of football in this city. The answer is that we have a suitable owner NOW, but there is no guarantee that we will have this in 10 years once we finally get past all the wrangling on this issue. History tells us that good pro sports owners only come along so often, particularly in this city with an economy based on bureaucrats instead of entrepreneurs.

Without an owner, we don't have a franchise.

So wrong, franchises do matter, and owners matter even more. There is nothing worse than we can do than debate this to death, then either build nothing, or build a stadium and have no team to play in it or worse to repeat past errors and accept a team with another lousy owner. Can you imagine a third appearance of Lonnie Gleiberman?

Let's not perpetuate our image as the town that fun forgot. Pro sports is one aspect of the fun that a city can offer. Remember the pride the Senators brought to this city in 2007. Nothing else can generate such intense emotions in a city than a pro sports franchise challenging for a championship.

Why is it that so many want to choose options that will inevitably cost the taxpayer a lot more money.

[canadave]

The CFL is not a league of fancy stadiums. The Tiger Cats play in a dump of a stadium and sell out every game. The Alouettes did very well in a tiny (but well-located) university stadium before convincing the city and provincial governments to renovate the McGill stadium.


So why, then, are the Blue Bombers spending millions to build a fancy new stadium? Why are the Alouettes and Roughriders expanding their seating? Why has nearly every pro team in Canada made significant renovations to their stadia in the last 10 years? Because the CFL is popular, that's why.

And the number's certainly show that the CFL has support in Ottawa. Given local owners and a well-built, newly overhauled stadium, then yes, people will come out and support this incarnation of the CFL in Ottawa. I'd willingly bet a lot of money that it will succeed, actually, were I a betting man.

[Franky]

Yes, we have a market for pro sports, yes we have franchise, but more important, do we have an owner? This is the most important question and everybody knows that the lack of a suitable owner caused the failure of football in this city. The answer is that we have a suitable owner NOW, but there is no guarantee that we will have this in 10 years once we finally get past all the wrangling on this issue. History tells us that good pro sports owners only come along so often, particularly in this city with an economy based on bureaucrats instead of entrepreneurs.

Without an owner, we don't have a franchise.

So wrong, franchises do matter, and owners matter even more. There is nothing worse than we can do than debate this to death, then either build nothing, or build a stadium and have no team to play in it or worse to repeat past errors and accept a team with another lousy owner. Can you imagine a third appearance of Lonnie Gleiberman?

Let's not perpetuate our image as the town that fun forgot. Pro sports is one aspect of the fun that a city can offer. Remember the pride the Senators brought to this city in 2007. Nothing else can generate such intense emotions in a city than a pro sports franchise challenging for a championship.

Why is it that so many want to choose options that will inevitably cost the taxpayer a lot more money.

How do you know that it isn't the Hockey franchise and Casino that killed the football and baseball franchises? There's only so much money to go around.

If someone says it's a limited time offer and is pressuring you to act - walk away. If they're really committed to bringing football back to Ottawa they will wait until we find the right spot for the stadium. If not, all this crap about being good local guys is bull$h!t.

This is not a good deal, it's a giveaway.

[lrt's friend]

Location is not a major factor in why sports teams have failed or nearly failed in this city. In the case of the Rough Riders, and Renegades, it was bad ownership that hired bad management that did not field a decent team year after year and a lack of commitment by the last owners to continue after the cash grab from the Grey Cup. In the case of the Senators, it was development restrictions surrounding SBP that was originally to fund the construction of the arena, that left the owners with horrendous debt. In the case of the Lynx, it was simply a reflection of the decline and death of the Montreal Expos and the general decline of interest in baseball in Canada.

The Montreal Alouettes have succeeded because they inherited a very good team, and put together an excellent ownership and management team to make sure the team continued to be competitive year after year. Relocating to 'old' Molson Stadium helped because it was closer to downtown, it has better sight lines for football, and it quickly created a shortage of tickets and thus a buzz. A crowded stadium always provides a better fan experience (a party atmosphere), whereas before you had 20,000 bouncing around the 60,000 seat Olympic Stadium making it look empty to those attending.

[k2p]

Then let's do it right and put the stadium at Bayview or somewhere there is proper transit access. Let's get a proper design competition. Let's get on with it and do it right. Franchises can wait.

How did the CFL average decent crowds as per O-Town's post without transit? The 67s? The well-attended soccer matches?

Still, let's think that through, too. We can't, apparently, have Lansdowne Live because there is allegedly no transit. But we can, evidently, have a snazzy design competition and then pour millions of money a) no-one has and b) no-one is offering into Clive's fantasy...which will have no transit access.

If poor transit scuppers a stadium, it scuppers everything else, too. Lansdowne can't be a city-wide jewel, there for all to enjoy, when folks want no urban life there at all. But inaccessible if, gasp, there is a game on.

The CFL is not a league of fancy stadiums.

OK, Hamilton has a dump. And Montreal's had modest, but charming, beginnings. That's two. Winnipeg has a new stadium, Regina is getting upgraded, Toronto and Vancouver actually do have fancy stadiums, Calgary's opened an Olympics and Edmonton's seats 80,000 people. Still, thanks for your expert analysis. And I don't even like football; I want the soccer.

Anyway, by that token, because Canada isn't a country of fancy libraries, does that mean Ottawa should stick with what it has?

I suspect the Lansdowne Live people have no intention of running a profitable football or soccer team. They're using the sports teams as a hook to get city council to hand over millions in real estate for nothing.

And the decade Jeff Hunt spent making the 67s perhaps the most successful junior hockey team was no doubt just a conniving precursor to this swindle?

[lrt's friend]

How do you know that it isn't the Hockey franchise and Casino that killed the football and baseball franchises? There's only so much money to go around.

If someone says it's a limited time offer and is pressuring you to act - walk away. If they're really committed to bringing football back to Ottawa they will wait until we find the right spot for the stadium. If not, all this crap about being good local guys is bull$h!t.

This is not a good deal, it's a giveaway.

Oh, I guess hockey and the casino could have had an impact, but I was a season ticket holder who heard what other football fans were saying. Look, they hadn't put a winning team on the field since 1979. The Rough Riders were rated as the worst pro sports franchise in the 1980s and it only got worse after that. There were all the antics of the Gleibermans and they made some terrible football and marketing decisions. There was the invisible Horn Chen, and other owners that clearly didn't have the money to make a go of it. The Renegades also appeared to be underfinanced and when they replaced the GM with an accountant looking to cut costs, the writing was on the wall. The last straw was the Gleibermans and their lame Mardi Gras marketing plan that was offensive to many and the decision to fire the coach if he didn't win so many games. At this point, there was revolt amongst season ticket holders.

The failure of the Rough Riders and Renegades was almost entirely caused by bad ownership and bad management decisions. Location and fan support were not major factors.

Oh, I know what you are saying about limited time offers. However, sometimes it is true. There is a bit of difference between selling a car and selling a sports franchise. There is always another car salesman. There is another difference. A car salesman might be able to sell a car in an hour, and if he doesn't make the sale, well, hopefully another customer will be coming in the door. What we are seeing with LL involved probably hundreds of hours of work. To suggest that their interest can be maintained for years is awfully presumptuous. Or worse, take their project and after a competition, rip it up and ask them if they are still interested in working out a deal. Imagine putting your heart and soul in a project and that happened. These people at some point need to move on with other projects if this one does not work out.

[waterloowarrior]

Planners defy council on Lansdowne — again
 
Staff ignore councillors’push for no housing, follow official plan
 
BY PATRICK DARE, THE OTTAWA CITIZENSEPTEMBER 3, 2009 11:01 PM
 
 
OTTAWA-When the Lansdowne Live group proposed housing as part of their project this week, a lot of people assumed it was the developers who were pushing for this potentially lucrative option. In fact, it was the city’s planners, in opposition to their own council’s explicit direction.

It’s the second time on the Lansdowne Park file that city staff have defied the direction of city council. In the first instance, city manager Kent Kirkpatrick cancelled a design competition for Lansdowne Park that had been initiated by council.

He said he did it so the city could seriously look at an unsolicited proposal from four Ottawa businessmen to rebuild Lansdowne and bring a new Canadian Football League franchise to the city. Kirkpatrick later apologized and said he should have asked for council’s approval.

In this latest instance, the issues are more complicated.

In April, council compiled a laundry list of conditions to place on any redevelopment of the 15-hectare city-owned site, including: no big-box stores, no housing;, build greenspace;, include the Ottawa Farmers’ Market and accommodate trade shows.

The trouble is, virtually every planning policy the city, and its predecessor municipalities, have endorsed over the last 20 years requires “mixed-use” development; a blend of commercial and residential building to give neighbourhoods some life.

“We understood council direction. It was very clear: No housing,” said John Smit, the key city planner on the project. But he said staff had to also look at council’s key planning document, the official plan. That document, and many related documents including the 20-20 plan, which was created as a blue print to guide the city to where it wants to be in 20 years, call for an end to single-use development.

In this case, Bank is a traditional main street that’s supposed to have shops and restaurants at street level and offices or residences above and behind.

As well, provincial policies on urban development that guide cities call for such a mix of business and residential building.

If the Lansdowne Live project is appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board — a distinct possibility given some of the vocal opposition to the proposed development — the city would need to show the board that it’s following its own development rules and the guidelines of the province.

The Live plan includes two-storey commercial buildings along Bank Street. Near Bank and Holmwood Avenue, there would be a four-storey and a six-storey condominium building. There would be 20 stacked townhouses along Holmwood Avenue containing 40 units, each 1,000 square feet, to complement the housing on the other side of the street. Near the Bank Street Bridge, in the second stage of the project, an eight-storey, 180-room hotel would be built. An office building of five storeys could also be in the mix.

The overall strategy for the project is to have a transition from commercial and housing development on Bank Street and Holmwood Avenue to greenspace toward the Rideau Canal.

“We felt it made a lot of sense for a lot of planning reasons,” said Smit. “It made sense to introduce that residential component. It’s a good thing to do.”

Smit said the housing component is not essential to the Lansdowne Live project going ahead. He and Kirkpatrick, using a football analogy, say the housing will be a “plug and play,” something that can be done in the second phase of the development of the site.

But building the housing would help the city pay off its debt for the project earlier. The city would take on about $117 million in debt to cover costs in the first phase of the development, which includes refurbishment of the sports stadium and the Civic Centre and turning asphalt parking space into greenspace.

The inclusion of housing, and the lack of trade show space in the plan, raised an immediate red flag for Gloucester-Southgate Councillor Diane Deans on Wednesday.

Deans called the issue “the elephant in the room.”

Development consultant Graham Bird said there simply wasn’t a way to accommodate trade and consumer shows on the site. Those shows will move to a new facility at the Ottawa Airport, built by Shenkman Corporation.

Roger Greenberg, spokesman for the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group that’s behind Lansdowne Live, said housing in the project is just good planning.

“It meets the city’s own 20-20 plan which calls for residential development inside the Greenbelt,” said Greenberg, noting that the city is trying to block developers such as his company, Minto, from building in outlying communities like Manotick.

“It’s the city’s idea.”

Greenberg said that if the Lansdowne issue lands at the Ontario Municipal Board and the project lacks a housing component, the board would want to know why the city wants other landowners to build mixed-use developments but isn’t ready to do the same when it has a large development site of its own. Greenberg said it’s “very, very two-faced” for city council to say that it doesn’t want any housing in the project.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
 

[waterloowarrior]

Glebe group questions rush to develop site
(http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Glebe+group+questions+rush+develop+site/1960214/story.html)

[Dado]

You answered your own rethorical question. There IS a market. There IS a franchise waiting for us. More than one franchise, probably, now that we know pro soccer will be part of the mix.

And it's not like the CFL franchise opportunity is just going to disappear if we don't leap at it today, either, since, as you say, there IS a market for it. The CFL isn't going to say "no" to an Ottawa franchise for too long if there's decent money to be made off it.

The franchise deadline thing has to me seemed like the biggest red herring. If the CFL thinks there's a market in Ottawa for a franchise, then there will be a franchise available for us. Maybe not the one on the current deadline, but certainly one a few years' hence. The CFL is not in a position where it can afford to say "no" to an Ottawa franchise in the way that the NHL is saying "no" to moving the Coyotes to Hamilton. This deadline has been used to whip up a frenzy to push through a stadium plan (for better or worse). It's ridiculous. I bet there are plenty of people who actually believe that this is OUR LAST CHANCE to get a CFL franchise in Ottawa. :rolleyes:

I also don't get the "it must be Lansdowne and nowhere else" line being pushed by OSEG. It's not like if a stadium were to built somewhere else in the city that we suddenly would be ineligible for a CFL franchise or that there wouldn't be some other group willing to get a CFL franchise if OSEG were obstinate about going somewhere other than Lansdowne. If we were being whipped into a frenzy on account of an MLS franchise that we could miss out on I might even believe it, but not a CFL franchise. It lacks credulity when you think about it. The CFL has an incentive to be flexible in awarding a franchise to an Ottawa team. If we needed more time, we'd get more time - it's that simple. This deadline nonsense has just been used as a pressure tactic to push a particular vision - and the tactic has succeeded. I don't see that the Lansdowne Live people have behaved any better than their Glebe-area opponents in all this; they just happened not to be hysterical while doing so.


I'll freely admit that I'm not a fan of a stadium at Lansdowne (as I wrote before, "I remain to be convinced" - Bayview at the City Centre site would be my first choice) because it basically gets in the way of being able to extend Brown's Inlet [1][2] across Bank Street into and through Lansdowne Park, thus denying us the opportunity of creating some canalside urbanity and making Lansdowne a truly great urban place. If a stadium is what people really wanted, then I'd go along with that too - except we never got to find out one way or the other. But hey, thankfully we didn't have that pesky design competition so ideas like this couldn't see the light of day and threaten the existence of a stadium on the site. Whew!


[1]
http://www.ottawa.ca/visitors/about/gallery/images/04A_15_089.jpg
http://www.ottawa.ca/visitors/about/gallery/04A_15_089_en.html
[2]
http://www.ncf.ca/~es568/glebe1879.jpg
http://www.bytown.net/glebe.htm
(Brown's Inlet drains into the Rideau Canal near Bank Street; the advantage of using Brown's Inlet over just building a random inlet is that Brown's Inlet is a former creek that still drains much of the Glebe and therefore provides a water flow into the canal, thus reducing stagnant water issues).

Take these and combine with the images seen elsewhere on these forums of the canalside development in Houston (iirc - I believe either Mille or WW have posted them in the past) or pick your favourite European urban canal scene.

[Franky]

Oh, I guess hockey and the casino could have had an impact, but I was a season ticket holder who heard what other football fans were saying. Look, they hadn't put a winning team on the field since 1979. The Rough Riders were rated as the worst pro sports franchise in the 1980s and it only got worse after that. There were all the antics of the Gleibermans and they made some terrible football and marketing decisions. There was the invisible Horn Chen, and other owners that clearly didn't have the money to make a go of it. The Renegades also appeared to be underfinanced and when they replaced the GM with an accountant looking to cut costs, the writing was on the wall. The last straw was the Gleibermans and their lame Mardi Gras marketing plan that was offensive to many and the decision to fire the coach if he didn't win so many games. At this point, there was revolt amongst season ticket holders.

The failure of the Rough Riders and Renegades was almost entirely caused by bad ownership and bad management decisions. Location and fan support were not major factors.

Oh, I know what you are saying about limited time offers. However, sometimes it is true. There is a bit of difference between selling a car and selling a sports franchise. There is always another car salesman. There is another difference. A car salesman might be able to sell a car in an hour, and if he doesn't make the sale, well, hopefully another customer will be coming in the door. What we are seeing with LL involved probably hundreds of hours of work. To suggest that their interest can be maintained for years is awfully presumptuous. Or worse, take their project and after a competition, rip it up and ask them if they are still interested in working out a deal. Imagine putting your heart and soul in a project and that happened. These people at some point need to move on with other projects if this one does not work out.

Now add the soccer franchise into the mix. Council shut the door on them when they selected this mistake. If the CFL goes away, there's always soccer, but there is no reason, given a stadium in a different location that the franchises won't happen.

Maybe imported cars are just better, maybe we should give the international ideas a look.

[phil235]

Now add the soccer franchise into the mix. Council shut the door on them when they selected this mistake. If the CFL goes away, there's always soccer, but there is no reason, given a stadium in a different location that the franchises won't happen.

Maybe imported cars are just better, maybe we should give the international ideas a look.

I have yet to hear anyone explain how a design competition was going to tell us what uses we want for Lansdowne. If we can't reach consensus on the issue, how would an essentially bureaucratic process run by city staff lead to a more satisfying result? People do realize that the public would not be judging proposals don't they? A fair competition would require that staff assess the proposals against pre-determined criteria, which, in that case of Design Lansdowne were not based on any kind of public input. A design competition is fine if you know what you are designing. That is not the case here.

Based on your series of posts here Franky, it seems pretty clear that you are unconvinced that the city can properly cover off its risks in this or any deal involving public investment, that there is any time sensitivity to a proposal of this nature, or that there is any financial downside to allowing the stadium and arena the city owns at Lansdowne to continue to crumble. I'm really not sure of what I could say that would change your opinion.

[eemy]

And it's not like the CFL franchise opportunity is just going to disappear if we don't leap at it today, either, since, as you say, there IS a market for it. The CFL isn't going to say "no" to an Ottawa franchise for too long if there's decent money to be made off it.

The franchise deadline thing has to me seemed like the biggest red herring. If the CFL thinks there's a market in Ottawa for a franchise, then there will be a franchise available for us. Maybe not the one on the current deadline, but certainly one a few years' hence. The CFL is not in a position where it can afford to say "no" to an Ottawa franchise in the way that the NHL is saying "no" to moving the Coyotes to Hamilton. This deadline has been used to whip up a frenzy to push through a stadium plan (for better or worse). It's ridiculous. I bet there are plenty of people who actually believe that this is OUR LAST CHANCE to get a CFL franchise in Ottawa. :rolleyes:

I also don't get the "it must be Lansdowne and nowhere else" line being pushed by OSEG. It's not like if a stadium were to built somewhere else in the city that we suddenly would be ineligible for a CFL franchise or that there wouldn't be some other group willing to get a CFL franchise if OSEG were obstinate about going somewhere other than Lansdowne. If we were being whipped into a frenzy on account of an MLS franchise that we could miss out on I might even believe it, but not a CFL franchise. It lacks credulity when you think about it. The CFL has an incentive to be flexible in awarding a franchise to an Ottawa team. If we needed more time, we'd get more time - it's that simple. This deadline nonsense has just been used as a pressure tactic to push a particular vision - and the tactic has succeeded. I don't see that the Lansdowne Live people have behaved any better than their Glebe-area opponents in all this; they just happened not to be hysterical while doing so.


I'll freely admit that I'm not a fan of a stadium at Lansdowne (as I wrote before, "I remain to be convinced" - Bayview at the City Centre site would be my first choice) because it basically gets in the way of being able to extend Brown's Inlet [1][2] across Bank Street into and through Lansdowne Park, thus denying us the opportunity of creating some canalside urbanity and making Lansdowne a truly great urban place. If a stadium is what people really wanted, then I'd go along with that too - except we never got to find out one way or the other. But hey, thankfully we didn't have that pesky design competition so ideas like this couldn't see the light of day and threaten the existence of a stadium on the site. Whew!


[1]
http://www.ottawa.ca/visitors/about/gallery/images/04A_15_089.jpg
http://www.ottawa.ca/visitors/about/gallery/04A_15_089_en.html
[2]
http://www.ncf.ca/~es568/glebe1879.jpg
http://www.bytown.net/glebe.htm
(Brown's Inlet drains into the Rideau Canal near Bank Street; the advantage of using Brown's Inlet over just building a random inlet is that Brown's Inlet is a former creek that still drains much of the Glebe and therefore provides a water flow into the canal, thus reducing stagnant water issues).

Take these and combine with the images seen elsewhere on these forums of the canalside development in Houston (iirc - I believe either Mille or WW have posted them in the past) or pick your favourite European urban canal scene.

While a CFL franchise may be available in the future, a promising ownership group like this one likely won't.

With regard to canal side urbanity, I think you can forget about it. The NCC and Parks Canada aren't likely going to do anything to alter the nature of the canal as it is now. Also, in principal, I am actually slightly opposed to the idea. Canal/riverside urban spaces are very successful in other cities; however, I don't feel like such a development would integrate well with the rest of the canal and would feel awkward and contrived. The canal is not an urban artery, it is a natural one (in a certain respect anyway).

Interestingly, despite all the park/garden space around it, I actually think that Dow's Lake would be ripe for urbanization. Ideally, they should remove the link between Prince of Wales and the Parkway, and instead have the Pkwy terminate at Carling/Rochester or Booth and Prince of Wales become Preston and then redevelop the space inbetween.

[Franky]

I have yet to hear anyone explain how a design competition was going to tell us what uses we want for Lansdowne. If we can't reach consensus on the issue, how would an essentially bureaucratic process run by city staff lead to a more satisfying result? People do realize that the public would not be judging proposals don't they? A fair competition would require that staff assess the proposals against pre-determined criteria, which, in that case of Design Lansdowne were not based on any kind of public input. A design competition is fine if you know what you are designing. That is not the case here.

Based on your series of posts here Franky, it seems pretty clear that you are unconvinced that the city can properly cover off its risks in this or any deal involving public investment, that there is any time sensitivity to a proposal of this nature, or that there is any financial downside to allowing the stadium and arena the city owns at Lansdowne to continue to crumble. I'm really not sure of what I could say that would change your opinion.

Lansdowne is the wrong place for the stadium - that's clear. There little parking and no transit access.

Effectively giving away our public land for a shopping centre, residential developments etc... Is wrong.

Entertaining a single possibility when many are available is wrong.

You are of the opinion that we should give away public land to an unsolicited proposal so they can build a shopping mall (and other stuff) with our money. I don't know how you can defend that. It's ridiculous.

[AuxTown]

I will ask you again Franky, when was the last time you honestly set foot on this "public land"? Public land is useless if it's a piece of crap and this group wants to change that. Also, stop calling this a shopping centre! It has been fleshed out in many previous posts that much of the retail portion is restaurants, office space, and a large movie theatre (much needed in this area of town IMO). As seen in the recent diagrams, the main retail strip will be contiguous with Bank Street and will just bring a new variety of stores (not big box). You can't tell me that there isn't a few stores/store types that the Glebe is currently missing?

[umbria27]

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.

I'm not quoting all of your response, which was well thought out and articulate. I'll trust everyone to read the original.

I'm not arguing that there should be no new retail or that the existing retailers of bank street should be protected from competition. What's destructive is the volume of the new retail and the speed at which it is added. You can't do it piecemeal, I agree. You need to add enough to make a difference, to give the neighborhood a shot of adrenaline. Developing the Bank Street strip would do so, giving the existing landlords motivation to improve their retail properties. But the 400,000 square feet of new retail added all at once, will cause such a glut that it won't make economic sense to develop those properties. They will spend 20 years degrading until the neighbourhood can finally support all that new retail. That's not organic if the metaphor is growth. It's more like mass extinction. Sure maybe in 50 to 70 years Banks Street will be set right again, but I'd like it to thrive in my lifetime.

Why not encourage the redevelopment of Bank Street commercial now? Bury the wires and remove the poles that stand in the way of proper height main street development. Putting retail on the current park land caters to developers' love of easy, greenfields development, and it gives them a subsidy by handing over the lands. If a subsidy is required to develop the neighbourhood properly, subsidize the development of the currently zoned commercial.

[AuxTown]

400 000 is such an exageration of what will actually be 'retail' in your sense of the word. We will probably see less than 200 000 of stores and the rest will be office, restaurant, a movie theature, and many of the walkways through the open market space so stop quoting that number unless you are going to include the breakdown.

Putting retail on the current park land caters to developers' love of easy

"Park Land"? You've obviously never been to Lansdowne.

[Dado]

With regard to canal side urbanity, I think you can forget about it. The NCC and Parks Canada aren't likely going to do anything to alter the nature of the canal as it is now. Also, in principal, I am actually slightly opposed to the idea. Canal/riverside urban spaces are very successful in other cities; however, I don't feel like such a development would integrate well with the rest of the canal and would feel awkward and contrived. The canal is not an urban artery, it is a natural one (in a certain respect anyway).

I would largely avoid the "can't touch the Canal" issue by extending Brown's Inlet through Lansdowne. It would enter the site beneath the Bank Street Bridge, pass through where the stadium currently sits (south stands) and then turn out into the Canal somewhere near the Aberdeen Pavilion (all that would be needed is a new outlet on the Canal, and such a thing once existed anyway at Bank Street). The inlet itself would be the focus of canalside urbanity running through the Park on its north side, with some sort of mini marina near the Pavilion as well as canalside docking spots along the inlet's entire length on both sides. I'd want to reroute Queen Elizabeth Drive somewhat to more closely follow the south bank of the inlet canal (and that would free up some land to the south on the other side of the Driveway for the Glebites' much beloved green space). So it would be part of the canal system without being part of the Canal per se. It avoids being contrived by being a contained/limited transition between the Canal and the Glebe (which is why I'd limit any actual development to the north side of the inlet canal). I would tend to agree that slapping down urbanity canalside for a short stretch of the Canal itself would look awkward, but as an inlet that one has to enter first that is avoided, especially with a bridge for the Driveway forming a gateway.

Anyway, Lansdowne Live! and OSEG saved us from thinking about any such crazy ideas.

[phil235]

Lansdowne is the wrong place for the stadium - that's clear. There little parking and no transit access.

Effectively giving away our public land for a shopping centre, residential developments etc... Is wrong.

Entertaining a single possibility when many are available is wrong.

You are of the opinion that we should give away public land to an unsolicited proposal so they can build a shopping mall (and other stuff) with our money. I don't know how you can defend that. It's ridiculous.

There really are no nuances with you, are there? Everything is black and white.

It is absolutely clear that Lansdowne is the wrong place for a stadium? Actually many would suggest that it is a great place for a stadium, which has been proven to work in the past. It is lso the preferred site for a stadium in every poll I've seen, including the Glebe Community Association's own survey.

Effectively "giving away" public land for mixed use development is wrong? So I guess Granville Island and many of the other examples cited time and again by opponents of Lansdowne Live are also wrong? I think there are quite a few thinking individuals who believe that a blend of mixed-use urban development linking the Glebe with Ottawa South is actually the right way to go. Particularly because it will allow the city to open up what is now a sea of asphalt and convert it into public greenspace that will actually serve residents instead of seagulls.

Leveraging private money to get use out of an asset that has been empty for 40 years is wrong just because private money is involved? Tell me how it is right to let public lands sit unused and let the structures continue to fall apart for years and years? Make no mistake, that is what will continue to happen without private investment.

Perhaps instead of making snap moral judgments, you should spend a little more time considering some different perspectives on a complicated issue.

[rakerman]

I think the fundamental conflict here is between:

1) people who see this as raw undeveloped urban space - in which case I would say, absolutely, infill development with mixed residental and retail is what we want, and if there's a ***sustainable*** stadium that doesn't leave the city holding the bag if the owners/league/team go bankrupt, then so much the better

and

2) People who see "Park" in the name and want it to be a real urban park, for which there are dozens of models in cities worldwide, whether it's Central Park or parks in Paris and London. This kind of urban development explicitly excludes housing and retail. It is green areas with some cafes and restaurants, maybe a market, some water features - you can read the numerous things you can do in Central Park, but you'll not find any mention of living there or going to see a major sports team

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/arts/04park.html

Now there are those who say Ottawa has green space everywhere, but this is a bit bogus. An urban park is not a small, blank slate of grass (which is what the very few downtown offerings provide), it is an integrated set of amenities for a lot of people walking around.

This is a park

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jardin_du_Luxembourg

This is a park

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_park

This is a park

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Park,_London

Now, if, fair enough, considering that what we now have is a parking lot and case #1 applies, why do it in this massive, expensive, one-shot planned development? We've already done that, it's called Le Breton Flats. If you believe Le Breton Flats has really become "Ottawa's Urban Village" http://www.claridgehomes.com/lebreton/ then sure, let's do that again. But I don't think many people see it that way.

Otherwise, if what we're doing is parking lot to urban densification, let's just parcel it all off and let the market sort out what makes sense in the space.

If you do it in one big chunk, it's just handing land over to developers for a stadium and a mall, with lots of great promises, in time-honored tradition.

Now we know what developers build. They build Kanata Centrum. Yes, this is an outdoors space with shops where you can walk.

http://www.flemingdevelopments.com/images/centre_images/centrum_images/batonrouge_lg.jpg (http://www.flemingdevelopments.com/retail/centrum.html)

But no one in their right mind mistakes an outdoor mall for an urban park. This is what I think Doucet is saying (and for all his flaws, he is the councillor for the area, after all).

I am for option #2, which is a real urban park. Because I walk around Centretown and the CBD and what you've got is 1960s era glass tower wasteland that's dead at night in the CBD, and slow gentrification of Centretown. There are no big chunks of space likely to come up for greening in Centretown. So let's see, you can walk down an asphalt pathway that has zero amenities beside the canal and try to get a seat at the Canal Ritz. You can walk down to Central Park and sit on a bench and look at a handful of people walking their dogs. That's not a city that has functional greenspace. You want functional greenspace, you need a real, actual urban park with amenities, one that recognizes that you need restaurants and cafes and probably a skating rink, for the half of the year when open greenspace is open freezing whitespace.

[phil235]

I submitted the following letter to the Citizen today. I think it's probably too long to get published, so hopefully this way someone will read it...


Hearing the criticism levelled at the Lansdowne Live proposal, I’m beginning to wonder whether another major project will ever get done in Ottawa. If we can’t accept a proposal for major investment in a site that has been deteriorating and costing us money for nearly 40 years, what are we going to accept?

As a Glebe resident, I want to see this proposal succeed. I feel that the presence of the stadium and arena are a big part of what makes the neighbourhood such a great place to live. Lansdowne Live has come forward with a good proposal to revitalize those facilities and build on them. Not a perfect proposal, but a good proposal, one that is sensitive to time constraints and has the potential to increase the vitality of our neighbourhood in a way that another park would not, on a year-round basis.

Of course there are advantages and disadvantages, as there are with any important project. There is no plan for Lansdowne that does not have drawbacks. Many competing interests are at play, and considerable compromise will be required. Yet some seem to believe that the existence of any disadvantage is justification to scrap the whole idea. That way of thinking virtually guarantees that no big project will ever go forward.

The Lansdowne Live proposal creates a mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented development, consistent with smart growth principles. It contains 40% green space, accessible to the public, replacing a wasteland of asphalt. It makes the farmer’s market a permanent feature of the neighbourhood. It regenerates existing facilities for use by junior hockey, football, soccer, university and recreational sports. It puts the city in a position to once again host major national and international events.

Yes, the public is being asked to invest in the stadium and arena complex. Realistically, I don’t think we have a choice. Either we make significant investments in the very near term, or the complex will literally fall apart and we will lose the asset. With Lansdowne Live we get protection against the risk inherent in that investment.

Questions do remain, such as the transportation issue and the impact of the project on Bank St. businesses. However, history has demonstrated that transportation to Lansdowne has worked in the past, and surely a major investment in the neighbourhood can be beneficial if done properly, connecting the existing strip to Old Ottawa South and establishing a critical mass of retail that will keep local residents from heading to the suburbs on a regular basis to shop.

And yes there are legitimate points of debate relating to the process that was followed, but any process has its pros and cons, and no process can satisfy everyone. Further, a city that continually prioritizes process over results is condemning itself to stagnation. Are we becoming a city of Dany Heatleys, refusing to judge a proposal unless we have other options to consider?

The key here is finding a balance and a way to move forward, not to circle back again. If this proposal is added to the long list of those killed by endless public debate and criticism, time is going to pass Ottawa by while it continues its wait for the perfect project to come along.

[lrt's friend]

Lansdowne is the wrong place for the stadium - that's clear. There little parking and no transit access.

Effectively giving away our public land for a shopping centre, residential developments etc... Is wrong.

Entertaining a single possibility when many are available is wrong.

You are of the opinion that we should give away public land to an unsolicited proposal so they can build a shopping mall (and other stuff) with our money. I don't know how you can defend that. It's ridiculous.

I don't understand this. A stadium, whether new or renovated is going to cost big bucks, and likely more bucks if we build a completely new one. Somehow, we have to fund this project. How should we do this? Enliven Lansdowne Park with mostly public use buildings or pay for it entirely through our property taxes? It seems to me that we want to make better use of Lansdowne. So what choices do we have? We can simply turn it into a park and never make proper use of the heritage buildings on site again. Remember, the Aberdeen Pavilion is an enormous exhibition hall that is terribly underutilized today. The other choice is build entirely public buildings, a new performing arts theatre, a library, an art gallery or museum. This just adds to the price tag of the project. Furthermore, those public buildings will again only attract crowds in certain hours and somewhere we will still need lots of parking. The third choice is to have a mix of uses that includes retail, residential, and commercial while maintaining the property as generally publicly accessible.

Just think about what you say. Even a farmer's market is a retail facility. If you want to continue to have trade shows, that is a private commercial activity. The 67s are a private commercial activity. Most any other event taking place in the Civic Centre is a commercial activity. If we are so dead set against retail or commercial activities at Lansdowne, then we should just demolish everything and turn it into a playground for the Glebe. So then, we have to replace everything somewhere else with all the planning and Nimby fights and this will still cost us a ton of money and years of delays.

[lrt's friend]

I would largely avoid the "can't touch the Canal" issue by extending Brown's Inlet through Lansdowne. It would enter the site beneath the Bank Street Bridge, pass through where the stadium currently sits (south stands) and then turn out into the Canal somewhere near the Aberdeen Pavilion (all that would be needed is a new outlet on the Canal, and such a thing once existed anyway at Bank Street). The inlet itself would be the focus of canalside urbanity running through the Park on its north side, with some sort of mini marina near the Pavilion as well as canalside docking spots along the inlet's entire length on both sides. I'd want to reroute Queen Elizabeth Drive somewhat to more closely follow the south bank of the inlet canal (and that would free up some land to the south on the other side of the Driveway for the Glebites' much beloved green space). So it would be part of the canal system without being part of the Canal per se. It avoids being contrived by being a contained/limited transition between the Canal and the Glebe (which is why I'd limit any actual development to the north side of the inlet canal). I would tend to agree that slapping down urbanity canalside for a short stretch of the Canal itself would look awkward, but as an inlet that one has to enter first that is avoided, especially with a bridge for the Driveway forming a gateway.

Anyway, Lansdowne Live! and OSEG saved us from thinking about any such crazy ideas.

This all sounds so nice but I see so many difficulties redirecting any water from the canal through the park and relocating a federal parkway.

Would there be a proper tie in with the Glebe business district? If they are significantly separated, does this not increase the risk of drawing business away from the Glebe rather than building on it. The current plan directly connects activities around the Aberdeen Pavilion with the Bank Street strip.

[lrt's friend]

I am for option #2, which is a real urban park. Because I walk around Centretown and the CBD and what you've got is 1960s era glass tower wasteland that's dead at night in the CBD, and slow gentrification of Centretown. There are no big chunks of space likely to come up for greening in Centretown. So let's see, you can walk down an asphalt pathway that has zero amenities beside the canal and try to get a seat at the Canal Ritz. You can walk down to Central Park and sit on a bench and look at a handful of people walking their dogs. That's not a city that has functional greenspace. You want functional greenspace, you need a real, actual urban park with amenities, one that recognizes that you need restaurants and cafes and probably a skating rink, for the half of the year when open greenspace is open freezing whitespace.

I appreciate what you say, however, this is a denial of the history of the site. It was never designed to be a urban park in the way that you describe. We have large buildings on site, some of which are terribly underutilized. Turning this into an urban park is not compatible with making proper use of the Aberdeen Pavillion. And furthermore, it does not deal with the fundamental starting point of the current debate, what do we do about the stadium?

You know, and I read it somewhere yesterday, unless we can agree on what Lansdowne is intended to do, we are lost. We will simply can get nowhere with a design competition if we can't agree on the basic uses of the park. There needs to be some parameters.

We are seeing widespread opinions swirling around that have absolutely no hope of being reconciled. This will just lead us to years of arguing.

After listening to Alex Cullen on CFRA just on, and his black and white views on development of this city, I can't imagine voting for him as mayor. His earlier insistance that LRT will only be built if an expensive tunnel is built, has now been extended to the stadium. Regardless of cost, he will only support a stadium located along his rapid transit plan. Now, think about it, if for any reason we don't get funding for the tunnel, not only will our whole LRT plan unravel but also any hope of a new or renovated stadium. Sounds like a house made of cards.

[Franky]

I don't understand this. A stadium, whether new or renovated is going to cost big bucks, and likely more bucks if we build a completely new one. Somehow, we have to fund this project. How should we do this? Enliven Lansdowne Park with mostly public use buildings or pay for it entirely through our property taxes? It seems to me that we want to make better use of Lansdowne. So what choices do we have? We can simply turn it into a park and never make proper use of the heritage buildings on site again. Remember, the Aberdeen Pavilion is an enormous exhibition hall that is terribly underutilized today. The other choice is build entirely public buildings, a new performing arts theatre, a library, an art gallery or museum. This just adds to the price tag of the project. Furthermore, those public buildings will again only attract crowds in certain hours and somewhere we will still need lots of parking. The third choice is to have a mix of uses that includes retail, residential, and commercial while maintaining the property as generally publicly accessible.

Just think about what you say. Even a farmer's market is a retail facility. If you want to continue to have trade shows, that is a private commercial activity. The 67s are a private commercial activity. Most any other event taking place in the Civic Centre is a commercial activity. If we are so dead set against retail or commercial activities at Lansdowne, then we should just demolish everything and turn it into a playground for the Glebe. So then, we have to replace everything somewhere else with all the planning and Nimby fights and this will still cost us a ton of money and years of delays.

Shopping centres, hotels, residential building etc... don't need public money to be built. They work on their own and we have plenty (too many?) of them (some are basically shutting down). Are you suggesting the city start putting it's money in with Walmart or HoJo?

Maybe you're right, a stadium is just a drain of taxpayer money that should be going to fix the flooding and sewage problems instead.

Renting out facilities isn't the same as allowing a developer to build a shopping mall and residential units on public land.

[rakerman]

I appreciate what you say, however, this is a denial of the history of the site. It was never designed to be a urban park in the way that you describe. We have large buildings on site, some of which are terribly underutilized. Turning this into an urban park is not compatible with making proper use of the Aberdeen Pavillion. And furthermore, it does not deal with the fundamental starting point of the current debate, what do we do about the stadium?

I just think as I said, it's two fundamentally different approaches to the space, you can slice them up many different ways. Another way would be to state what question you're trying to answer. I see two questions

1) What do we do about an underutilised stadium?

2) What do we do about underutilised urban land?

If you start with #1, your answer is always going to be "find some ways to use the stadium". If you start with #2, you have a completely different driver, which is finding the right urban land use for the entire space.

And of course, Lansdowne was intended to be an exhibition space, but I don't think we're likely to have a World Exposition in Ottawa any time soon. The days of World's Fairs and Great Expositions are gone. And I disagree completely with "Turning this into an urban park is not compatible with making proper use of the Aberdeen Pavillion." An urban park doesn't mean you dig up the asphalt, knock all the buildings down, and throw around some grass seed. The Jardin du Luxembourg has a great big building right inside its edge

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e3/Luco1.jpg/398px-Luco1.jpg
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Luco1.jpg)

It is also more gravel areas and paths, some shaded by trees, than it is green space (as is the case with many French parks). There are many functions that Aberdeen could play, whether farmer's market, restaurants, ice cream stands, whatever, these are not mysteries, you can just model the use on any one of a number of urban parks. And as you can see, the Jardin du Luxembourg is also packed with people, because this is part of the implicit social contract of a dense urban area (which I think we all agree we want). If people are going to be shelling out $300k plus for 500 square feet of condo, that's because they can live out in the city, in its public and private spaces. If the city doesn't provide those amenities, at some point densification will stall. Densification doesn't mean turning all of downtown into the CBD or into an outdoor Rideau Centre.

[lrt's friend]

Shopping centres, hotels, residential building etc... don't need public money to be built. They work on their own and we have plenty (too many?) of them (some are basically shutting down). Are you suggesting the city start putting it's money in with Walmart or HoJo?

Maybe you're right, a stadium is just a drain of taxpayer money that should be going to fix the flooding and sewage problems instead.

Renting out facilities isn't the same as allowing a developer to build a shopping mall and residential units on public land.

OK Franky, how do we finance anything at Lansdowne? Even demolition costs money.

Tell us your grand vision and how we pay for it.

The beauty of the current proposal is that the additional property taxes and other revenues from the site will end up costing no more than the maintenance of the current park.

Tell us another way that spruces up Lansdowne, gets rid of the surface parking, deals with existing uses, encourages more pedestrian traffic into the park and ends up costing taxpayers the same amount as we pay today.

[lrt's friend]

I just think as I said, it's two fundamentally different approaches to the space, you can slice them up many different ways. Another way would be to state what question you're trying to answer. I see two questions

1) What do we do about an underutilised stadium?

2) What do we do about underutilised urban land?

If you start with #1, your answer is always going to be "find some ways to use the stadium". If you start with #2, you have a completely different driver, which is finding the right urban land use for the entire space.

And of course, Lansdowne was intended to be an exhibition space, but I don't think we're likely to have a World Exposition in Ottawa any time soon. The days of World's Fairs and Great Expositions are gone. And I disagree completely with "Turning this into an urban park is not compatible with making proper use of the Aberdeen Pavillion." An urban park doesn't mean you dig up the asphalt, knock all the buildings down, and throw around some grass seed. The Jardin du Luxembourg has a great big building right inside its edge

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e3/Luco1.jpg/398px-Luco1.jpg
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Luco1.jpg)

It is also more gravel areas and paths, some shaded by trees, than it is green space (as is the case with many French parks). There are many functions that Aberdeen could play, whether farmer's market, restaurants, ice cream stands, whatever, these are not mysteries, you can just model the use on any one of a number of urban parks. And as you can see, the Jardin du Luxembourg is also packed with people, because this is part of the implicit social contract of a dense urban area (which I think we all agree we want). If people are going to be shelling out $300k plus for 500 square feet of condo, that's because they can live out in the city, in its public and private spaces. If the city doesn't provide those amenities, at some point densification will stall. Densification doesn't mean turning all of downtown into the CBD or into an outdoor Rideau Centre.

It isn't that simple. It is not a choice like that, since no matter what we do, we still have to deal with existing uses of the park and we have to consider the cost. If we decide as you say, we still have to decide what to do with trade shows, the Ex, the 67s and a desire to build or rebuild a stadium. You are making a very specific choice at the expense of others who want to see football, or soccer or major concerts or other International tournements in this city. There is no compromise in your choice, whereas the current proposal includes some of what you want, providing 40% of the site for greenspace and pedestrian walkways and plazas as you suggest and even more for the exact uses of the Aberdeen Pavillion that you have mentioned. Furthermore, it ties it into the Glebe retail community and makes sure that there is enough pedestrian traffic towards the Aberdeen Pavillion that any businesses set up there will have a better chance of being viable. Let's remember that the Glebe does not have the density of old European cities and if we want to develop that density (let's hear the nimby's), the Bank Street strip will no longer be able to accomodate the retail needs of the community.

As I said, there are elements in the proposal that will offer you exactly what you want, at no extra cost to the taxpayers, plus it will also satisfy the wishes of others in the city.

Why not fight for those design elements that want around the Aberdeen Pavillion and towards the Canal instead of fighting against the proposal as a whole?

[Franky]

OK Franky, how do we finance anything at Lansdowne? Even demolition costs money.

Tell us your grand vision and how we pay for it.

The beauty of the current proposal is that the additional property taxes and other revenues from the site will end up costing no more than the maintenance of the current park.

Tell us another way that spruces up Lansdowne, gets rid of the surface parking, deals with existing uses, encourages more pedestrian traffic into the park and ends up costing taxpayers the same amount as we pay today.

Isn't this the whole point of the design competition?

I would not consider giving away irreplaceable land "free".

My idea was an indoor water park on the North side stand slope. That could generate tons of revenue, especially during waterlude. It would tie in with festivals, would not put excessive stress on the civic centre or on transit. I might put a string of motel between the park and residents to buffer sound on the premise that these patrons would be attending the events at Lansdowne or at least would be informed they are happening. This may not be the best idea, but without a design competition, how can we know what is the best idea?

[lrt's friend]

Isn't this the whole point of the design competition?

I would not consider giving away irreplaceable land "free".

My idea was an indoor water park on the North side stand slope. That could generate tons of revenue, especially during waterlude. It would tie in with festivals, would not put excessive stress on the civic centre or on transit. I might put a string of motel between the park and residents to buffer sound on the premise that these patrons would be attending the events at Lansdowne or at least would be informed they are happening. This may not be the best idea, but without a design competition, how can we know what is the best idea?

So you really don't have any idea of what you want to do with the park. Don't you think we need to narrow down the possibilities in some way? If we don't have any sort of basic vision whatsoever, we will be arguing about this 50 years from now.

[aesthetic]

My idea was an indoor water park on the North side stand slope. That could generate tons of revenue, especially during waterlude. It would tie in with festivals, would not put excessive stress on the civic centre or on transit. I might put a string of motel between the park and residents to buffer sound on the premise that these patrons would be attending the events at Lansdowne or at least would be informed they are happening. This may not be the best idea, but without a design competition, how can we know what is the best idea?

A water park? Like the two parks already being built on opposite ends of the city - with one being billed as the largest in Canada?

Certainly there are other uses for Lansdowne but the fear, and it's not a completely irrational one, is that it will continue to deteriorate for the next ten years as the city and the rest of the public come up with more implausible uses for the site. If this city could make any kind of decision, I believe this wouldn't be such an issue as we'd have faith that it would be handled appropriately.

[phil235]

Isn't this the whole point of the design competition?

I would not consider giving away irreplaceable land "free".

My idea was an indoor water park on the North side stand slope. That could generate tons of revenue, especially during waterlude. It would tie in with festivals, would not put excessive stress on the civic centre or on transit. I might put a string of motel between the park and residents to buffer sound on the premise that these patrons would be attending the events at Lansdowne or at least would be informed they are happening. This may not be the best idea, but without a design competition, how can we know what is the best idea?

I think there are some basic misconceptions about what a design competition actually meant. A design competition would not tell us the best use for the site. Nor would the public would get to judge the ideas that come in, which would actually have been done by bureaucrats based on criteria that weren't subject to public input. Unless we know what we are designing, a design competition process is not particularly useful.

A competitive process is also more likely to create winners and losers, while a negotiated process provides more opportunity for compromise to accommodate various interests.

[waterloowarrior]

The city isn't "giving away" the land, it will continue to maintain ownership

[Mille Sabords]

And it's not like the CFL franchise opportunity is just going to disappear if we don't leap at it today, either, since, as you say, there IS a market for it. The CFL isn't going to say "no" to an Ottawa franchise for too long if there's decent money to be made off it.

Well, we'd like to think that, but if Ottawa dicks around forever, the CFL will eventually move onto other markets like Halifax and Quebec City and we will end up looking like we're not interested. Which isn't the case: we are interested. We want a CFL team back. Sooner rather than later. It's been way too long since we haven't had CFL ball in Ottawa. I want to take my son to games. I don't have his youth to waste on talking in circles as people grandstand about whether "stadiums are Good or Bad."

The franchise deadline thing has to me seemed like the biggest red herring. If the CFL thinks there's a market in Ottawa for a franchise, then there will be a franchise available for us. Maybe not the one on the current deadline, but certainly one a few years' hence. The CFL is not in a position where it can afford to say "no" to an Ottawa franchise in the way that the NHL is saying "no" to moving the Coyotes to Hamilton. This deadline has been used to whip up a frenzy to push through a stadium plan (for better or worse). It's ridiculous. I bet there are plenty of people who actually believe that this is OUR LAST CHANCE to get a CFL franchise in Ottawa. :rolleyes:

Again, the Renegades stopped operations in 2006 and we've been actively looking to get back into the CFL with the right ownership since then. There's ALREADY BEEN DEADLINES that came and went. The CFL has already given Ottawa a number of extensions. Now, LL is asking effectively for another one - the current conditional franchise was supposed to be for 2011. With LL, they won't start play til 2013.

UNTIL WHEN do we postpone? I'm sorry, but keeping the whole city hostage to hold a debate on whether Lansdowne should have a stadium, when it PRESENTLY DOES, and to say that things are being rushed, is intellectually dishonest. The CFL can't be expected to wait forever. They have treated our city badly, but if we're going to do this right and start all over there has to be mutual respect between the City and the CFL.

I just can't see how we could say to the League, after they award us a conditional franchise and basically stay on hold for us, "OK, we're going to decide if we even want a stadium, then we'll get back to you, OK?" Folks, the CFL run a business. They'd have every right to tell us to go jump in a lake.

I also don't get the "it must be Lansdowne and nowhere else" line being pushed by OSEG.

That's where the stadium has always been. It is grandfathered into Lansdowne. Nobody else's presumed "rights" have precedence over the stadium. The temerity of those who say so is either infantile or grotesque.

It's not like if a stadium were to built somewhere else in the city that we suddenly would be ineligible for a CFL franchise or that there wouldn't be some other group willing to get a CFL franchise if OSEG were obstinate about going somewhere other than Lansdowne.

Obviously. That's not even an argument worth debating. But, for taxpayers as well as for the future franchise owners, Lansdowne is the better option. The CFL isn't the NFL. You can't spend half a billion on a spanking new site and stadium. That's not the most sustainable way to do things either - sending all that concrete to the landfill so that a few people who don't like a stadium at Lansdowne can feel satisfied.

You don't like stadiums? Don't go to Lansdowne! The City has plenty of other public spaces that just may be right for YOU!!

If we were being whipped into a frenzy on account of an MLS franchise that we could miss out on I might even believe it, but not a CFL franchise. It lacks credulity when you think about it. The CFL has an incentive to be flexible in awarding a franchise to an Ottawa team. If we needed more time, we'd get more time - it's that simple. This deadline nonsense has just been used as a pressure tactic to push a particular vision - and the tactic has succeeded. I don't see that the Lansdowne Live people have behaved any better than their Glebe-area opponents in all this; they just happened not to be hysterical while doing so.

Well, that's one way of looking at it. The other way is that, at some point, you fish or cut bait. We don't have all eternity to belabour this to the last comma of every argument. This city is known for this type of fruitless intellectual masturbation.

I'll freely admit that I'm not a fan of a stadium at Lansdowne (as I wrote before, "I remain to be convinced" - Bayview at the City Centre site would be my first choice) because it basically gets in the way of being able to extend Brown's Inlet [1][2] across Bank Street into and through Lansdowne Park, thus denying us the opportunity of creating some canalside urbanity and making Lansdowne a truly great urban place. If a stadium is what people really wanted, then I'd go along with that too - except we never got to find out one way or the other. But hey, thankfully we didn't have that pesky design competition so ideas like this couldn't see the light of day and threaten the existence of a stadium on the site. Whew!

I also want an inlet into Lansdowne, and urbanity around it. It can be done with a stadium at Lansdowne.

[eemy]

My idea was an indoor water park on the North side stand slope. That could generate tons of revenue, especially during waterlude. It would tie in with festivals, would not put excessive stress on the civic centre or on transit. I might put a string of motel between the park and residents to buffer sound on the premise that these patrons would be attending the events at Lansdowne or at least would be informed they are happening. This may not be the best idea, but without a design competition, how can we know what is the best idea?

Okay, you've just convinced me that you are simply a professional troll. Good job on stringing people along for the past year and a half.

[Franky]

Okay, you've just convinced me that you are simply a professional troll. Good job on stringing people along for the past year and a half.

Oh please. What's your great idea? All it shows is we need a design competition.

[k2p]

Oh please. What's your great idea? All it shows is we need a design competition.

At first, you came across as one of Clive's kumbaya crowd, comparing main street shopping a la Lansdowne Live to putting strip malls on Parliament Hill. That was before proposing, wait for it...a waterpark.

I can't tell you how many people, moaning about the city that fun forgot, have said, "You know what Ottawa needs? A waterpark."

And why not. Nothing screams urban, interesting, alive, cultured better than a waterpark.

Why, when we could have a waterpark, would we bother learning from every single major city in the world and have a stadium? They all do. Stadiums have been central to cities since people started building cities. Let's call it an international trend.

So if you want to have a design competition, have one for any number of other unused spaces in Ottawa. As you say, we have them. Invite all those bored global designers itching to enter a competition that has no money to build what they propose, and pick their brains. Then form a committee to do what Ottawa always does, mull it over for a few decades, strip anything lively or interesting out of it, and complain about how we aren't Paris. Which, now I think about it, could use a smashing waterpark.

[Franky]

At first, you came across as one of Clive's kumbaya crowd, comparing main street shopping a la Lansdowne Live to putting strip malls on Parliament Hill. That was before proposing, wait for it...a waterpark.

I can't tell you how many people, moaning about the city that fun forgot, have said, "You know what Ottawa needs? A waterpark."

And why not. Nothing screams urban, interesting, alive, cultured better than a waterpark.

Why, when we could have a waterpark, would we bother learning from every single major city in the world and have a stadium? They all do. Stadiums have been central to cities since people started building cities. Let's call it an international trend.

So if you want to have a design competition, have one for any number of other unused spaces in Ottawa. As you say, we have them. Invite all those bored global designers itching to enter a competition that has no money to build what they propose, and pick their brains. Then form a committee to do what Ottawa always does, mull it over for a few decades, strip anything lively or interesting out of it, and complain about how we aren't Paris. Which, now I think about it, could use a smashing waterpark.

We HAVE stadiums, both open air and covered.

The park doesn't have to be boring. It doesn't have to be stately and stale. It should offer something everyone can enjoy, something that isn't found under every rock (like a shopping centre). Given it's location, it should be a day-long draw without being a drain (on the surrounding area).

Why not build the LL thing at Bayview? Why not put the hotels and shopping malls and all that other kitsch there? Because there is no giveaway? There is transit, there is an area in need of rebuilding, there should be no need to subsidize it given it's location. It's even close to Preston St. could you imagine the party when soccer or football let out there.

[Mille Sabords]

At first, you came across as one of Clive's kumbaya crowd, comparing main street shopping a la Lansdowne Live to putting strip malls on Parliament Hill. That was before proposing, wait for it...a waterpark.

I can't tell you how many people, moaning about the city that fun forgot, have said, "You know what Ottawa needs? A waterpark."

And why not. Nothing screams urban, interesting, alive, cultured better than a waterpark.

Why, when we could have a waterpark, would we bother learning from every single major city in the world and have a stadium? They all do. Stadiums have been central to cities since people started building cities. Let's call it an international trend.

So if you want to have a design competition, have one for any number of other unused spaces in Ottawa. As you say, we have them. Invite all those bored global designers itching to enter a competition that has no money to build what they propose, and pick their brains. Then form a committee to do what Ottawa always does, mull it over for a few decades, strip anything lively or interesting out of it, and complain about how we aren't Paris. Which, now I think about it, could use a smashing waterpark.

:lmao: Right on brother.

Actually Franky, you know, I welcome the debate. Let's all do this now. Franky and everybody else who's against the Lansdowne stadium. It's the right time, since it's been "forced" upon us to go to the wall with our core beliefs. Now is the time to debate whether Lansdowne should, or should not, have a stadium and host pro sports. I'll defend your right to debate and your right to have an opinion. When the public consultations are on, I hope to see you there and I hope you'll make your voice heard. Bring on your best.

It's not too late, it's not too early, it's now. Council could still deep-six this. They killed an LRT plan, so they're capable. Let's all have it our for the good of the city, winner take all. There will be two months of public consultations. Go to them. Speak. Participate. There is a deadline, there is a proposal on the table, and also THERE IS CONSULTATION. So, use it.

[lrt's friend]

The positive thing about all of this, we are seeing some passion from Ottawa residents. The apathy has receded for a while. It is indeed time to participate, debate and suggest and make your feelings known.

Unfortunately, it is inevitable that at the end of all of this, there will be perceived winners and losers. I just hope that we end up with something that is good for the city and tries to make as many people as possible happy and it is something that the residents of the Glebe will learn to love.

It is always easier to say No to a project, but in the end, this may lead us on a process that actually prevents progress. We have a concrete proposal before us that is more than lines on paper. Approval means construction. This is scary for many people, since the time for making choices will end and many will always wonder if we could do better. Design competition or not, it is always possible that another plan will be better.

The 'design competition' has become the catch phrase in this debate as was 'streetcar' in the LRT debate. These are marketing terms designed to drum up support for opponents. Streetcars offered images of ancient rail cars crawling along city streets, blocked by traffic and blocking traffic. The term Design Competition presents the image of the possibility that it will find that perfect design which will provide us with that urban Garden of Eden. It also suggests that we cannot lose by doing it. Whether a design competition would offer such a plan and that is also practical, affordable and adequately deals with existing uses of the park is questionable and even then, you can guarantee that many will be unhappy with the selected design and there will be great pressure to compromise the best features out of the design.

For most people opposing LL, their main underlying motivation is to simply get the stadium out of the Glebe. Whether a stadium gets built anywhere else is not a concern. Everything else being said just provides justification for this primary motivation. There is a better location for a stadium, there no rapid transit, there will be too much traffic congestion, there will be too much retail on site, there was supposed to be no housing, we are selling off public land, we are subsidizing private businesses. All are just veiled arguments to get rid of the stadium. It will truly be sad if a city this size chooses not to have a stadium.

[Franky]

For most people opposing LL, their main underlying motivation is to simply get the stadium out of the Glebe. Whether a stadium gets built anywhere else is not a concern. Everything else being said just provides justification for this primary motivation. There is a better location for a stadium, there no rapid transit, there will be too much traffic congestion, there will be too much retail on site, there was supposed to be no housing, we are selling off public land, we are subsidizing private businesses. All are just veiled arguments to get rid of the stadium. It will truly be sad if a city this size chooses not to have a stadium.

We have 2 stadiums. Ottawa Baseball Stadium and Scotia Bang place.

Lansdowne is the wrong place for a stadium. Nothing veiled about it. All other arguments are also valid.

How about getting a good design from the competition? It may end up being LL after all if it's as good as they say. Why are they scared to compete?

[Franky]

Was the Bayview Stadium idea discussed here or in another thread? This would be close to transit, Preston street (Courso Italia) and accommodate both Soccer and CFL. The winter bubble idea is great given our climate.


Bayview stadium idea pitched to politicians

By mariacook 08-28-2009 COMMENTS(14) Designing Ottawa

Filed under: Lansdowne Live, Lansdowne Park, Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group, Bayview Yards
http://i575.photobucket.com/albums/ss195/mariacookottawa/SketchupBayviewStadiumlookingtoParl.jpg
John Martin, the Ottawa businessman advocating for a stadium at Bayview and a competitive bidding process, has written to various politicians including George Smitherman, Ontario's minister of energy and infrastructure and Mayor Larry O'Brien, as well as Lansdowne Live proponent Roger Greenberg, with details of his vision.

Here's an excerpt:

"The whole concept started with soccer specific at Bayview. The width of 68 metres easily suits the CFL 60 metres and the length of 109 is also easily opened up to the CFL 137 by moveable sections off the ends.

"As confirmed by the CFL, the only major requirement for the franchise holder is that a stadium be built.

"This means that Bayview stadium already has its first tenant, the new CFL team for Ottawa.

"Roger Greenberg can still get his densities at the remaining sites to offset their development.

"Why use one site to cram everything in when you can use two? Why use 44 acres when you can use over 90 and have access to the Ottawa River and Gatineau and be adjacent to a major development on LeBreton Flats?

"The surface can be field turf (the same as the CFL team would train on at Frank Clair field minus the stands and FIFA approved) or any of several surfaces including grass over the field for game days. An added expense but not that bad. Bubble it for winter training.

"With (a new central library) adjacent, after-school programs are a natural. For Eugene Melnyk, there are plenty of densities available at the new transit hub, as well as building condos on the end of the stadium (overlooking NCC land so guaranteed green vistas) as well as on top of the library.

"This allows many ways for the developers to regain their investment. John Leys, from Sherwood Engineering, did the new San Francisco stadium from a brownfield development and they are very profitable and all under a public-private-partnership.

"If we get an open request-for-proposals call for October 1, we would set an end date of Dec. 31...with a decision to be delivered at the end of February 2010.

"Development and construction to be finished within two years after that so a realistic ready for MLS Spring 2013."

•

To Ottawa councillor Georges Bedard, he wrote:

"The football team will stay and train and Frank Clair field, minus the stands (soft grass berms for fans) and the office of the 67's and the CFL team will get required synergy by staying in the Coliseum building.

"This will be a huge fan attraction, to be able to watch the team practice at Lansdowne Park on Frank Clair field and then be able to use the field after the six-hour training sessions.

"Games will be then played at Bayview stadium. This is not unlike what the Montreal Alouettes have done in Montreal with training at Eduourd Montpetit and games played at Molson stadium. Montreal has just added 5,000 seats to the Molson stadium. There is also no parking at Molson, fans arrive by rapid transit. This would be duplicated at Bayview.

"Built the stadium at Bayview, develop Lansdowne as green space with profitable urban park design components, and get your density from the transit-oriented development, with LEED."
http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/designingottawa/archive/2009/08/28/bayview-stadium-idea-pitched-to-politicians.aspx

[waterloowarrior]

How about getting a good design from the competition? It may end up being LL after all if it's as good as they say. Why are they scared to compete?

who would build and pay for whatever a competition comes up with? If the current sole source process is so wrong, why aren't other developers complaining?

[AuxTown]

who would build and pay for whatever a competition comes up with? If the current sole source process is so wrong, why aren't other developers complaining?

Could it be that this will be our only opportunity to make such dramatic changes at Lansdowne? Could this be a great deal for the city and its residents? Do you think that those opposed to this project are only so due to their vested interests that they disguise under a veil of "public property" (whatever that means), "too much retail", and "sole sourcing is bad" (despite the fact that this is the only proposal for Lansdowne)? The unfortunate fact is that these naysayers run the risk of sinking this entire project if the people of the city (and our councillors) don't speak up. So far they've done so (17-7) but a lot can happen over the next 2 months.

[Franky]

who would build and pay for whatever a competition comes up with? If the current sole source process is so wrong, why aren't other developers complaining?

At least one developer has complained and come up with a proposal, John Martin with the Bayview/Lansdowne proposal.

[Proof Sheet]

This city is known for this type of fruitless intellectual masturbation.


Great points Mille and the imagery of that statement is priceless. However, I must say in contrast to your enthusiasm for all things CFL, I have my doubts as to the level of support these days for a CFL franchise. Ottawa is a different place than it was in the 70's/80's when CFL was the only game in town. I may be wrong....I am hoping however that a new stadium could be the catalyst for a USL leading to MLS franchise.

[jchamoun79]

At least one developer has complained and come up with a proposal, John Martin with the Bayview/Lansdowne proposal.

John Martin is not a developer. He's a computer consultant and businessman with an ax to grind and, apparently, too much time on his hands.

[Franky]

Could it be that this will be our only opportunity to make such dramatic changes at Lansdowne? Could this be a great deal for the city and its residents? Do you think that those opposed to this project are only so due to their vested interests that they disguise under a veil of "public property" (whatever that means), "too much retail", and "sole sourcing is bad" (despite the fact that this is the only proposal for Lansdowne)? The unfortunate fact is that these naysayers run the risk of sinking this entire project if the people of the city (and our councillors) don't speak up. So far they've done so (17-7) but a lot can happen over the next 2 months.

Wow. That's a lot of name-calling nonsense.

[Franky]

John Martin is not a developer. He's a computer consultant and businessman with an ax to grind and, apparently, too much time on his hands.

So this guy without any qualifications came up with a plan that rivals the LL proposal. Wonder what the best in/rest of the world could come up with. No wonder the LL is scared of competition.

[waterloowarrior]

At least one developer has complained and come up with a proposal, John Martin with the Bayview/Lansdowne proposal.

My understanding is that John Martin is a computer consultant from the Glebe, not a developer

[jchamoun79]

So this guy without any qualifications came up with a plan that rivals the LL proposal. Wonder what the best in/rest of the world could come up with. No wonder the LL is scared of competition.

Throwing ideas around in the press, or outlining your "vision" at a fancy breakfast meeting or in emails to various politicians, is not the same thing as having a detailed plan or proposal, with financing attached.

[Franky]

Throwing ideas around in the press, or outlining your "vision" at a fancy breakfast meeting or in emails to various politicians, is not the same thing as having a detailed plan or proposal, with financing attached.

I'm sorry, but Bayview is a prime site that everyone will want to develop given a vision. They will shoehorn their shopping malls, hotels and residential plans into the site and along with soccer and football franchise it will be a great success. There is great transit access, central location, close to the Queesnway and to Gatineau. It's close to perfect.

[phil235]

I'm sorry, but Bayview is a prime site that everyone will want to develop given a vision. They will shoehorn their shopping malls, hotels and residential plans into the site and along with soccer and football franchise it will be a great success. There is great transit access, central location, close to the Queesnway and to Gatineau. It's close to perfect.

I'm not sure that Bayview is close to perfect, but there is no doubt that it could be a decent site for a stadium some day.

The problem with Bayview is that it is currently contaminated land that will take years to develop, there is no tenant for the stadium and the local neighbourhood clearly does not want a stadium there either. Oh, and for those caught up on parking, it has no parking either.

I was at the John Martin breakfast meeting. His "proposal" is just an idea that he came up with. It is very clear that it would take years and years to come together and that the cost of building a new stadium plus a new arena would be much greater than renovating Lansdowne. He is under the impression that if we allow a developer to build high density housing adjacent to the stadium (something else surely to go over well with neighbours), the developer will build the stadium. Of course he can't point to anywhere else in the world that has actually happened.

Without a real source of funding, striking out on the Bayview option just means the city does not have an outdoor stadium (one suitable for soccer and football) for years to come. Timing and funding are very important issues in this debate, and Bayview is far from perfect on either count.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

I'm not sure that Bayview is close to perfect, but there is no doubt that it could be a decent site for a stadium some day.

I'd vote for the Sens to have their new arena there once the time and/or need calls for it.

The problem with Bayview is that it is currently contaminated land that will take years to develop, there is no tenant for the stadium and the local neighbourhood clearly does not want a stadium there either. Oh, and for those caught up on parking, it has no parking either.

While I agree with you on all points, tough cookies for the residents. It's close to downtown and is an empty site. Sooner or later, something is going to be developed there. These are also the people who think Bluesfest is/was too loud. We should not allow our city to be taken hostage by a few sour people; the city belongs to all who reside in it and I find it to be the height of selfishness, ignorance and arrogance for them to assume that they have every right to halt something that is good for the city as a whole.

I was at the John Martin breakfast meeting. His "proposal" is just an idea that he came up with. It is very clear that it would take years and years to come together and that the cost of building a new stadium plus a new arena would be much greater than renovating Lansdowne. He is under the impression that if we allow a developer to build high density housing adjacent to the stadium (something else surely to go over well with neighbours), the developer will build the stadium. Of course he can't point to anywhere else in the world that has actually happened.

That's true. Maybe his "proposal" can become viable in the next 20-30 years once that area really starts to pick up with development.

ithout a real source of funding, striking out on the Bayview option just means the city does not have an outdoor stadium (one suitable for soccer and football) for years to come. Timing and funding are very important issues in this debate, and Bayview is far from perfect on either count.

Amen to that.

[phil235]

While I agree with you on all points, tough cookies for the residents. It's close to downtown and is an empty site. Sooner or later, something is going to be developed there. These are also the people who think Bluesfest is/was too loud. We should not allow our city to be taken hostage by a few sour people; the city belongs to all who reside in it and I find it to be the height of selfishness, ignorance and arrogance for them to assume that they have every right to halt something that is good for the city as a whole.



I mention that not because I agree with the neighbourhood opposition, but simply to point out that the answer isn't as simple as dropping a stadium into Bayview and everyone is happy. Arguably neighbourhood concern in Hintonburg would deserve more sympathy, as those people didn't choose to buy houses beside a stadium (as I and others in the Glebe did).

[Aylmer]

I like the idea of a stadium near Bayview; The lands are currently unused and it's a rather central location. It is also near Transit and potential LRT, so getting there wouldn't block the whole bloody 417 from Metcalf to Palladium.

This could be a great opportunity!

:)

[Franky]

I'm not sure that Bayview is close to perfect, but there is no doubt that it could be a decent site for a stadium some day.

The problem with Bayview is that it is currently contaminated land that will take years to develop, there is no tenant for the stadium and the local neighbourhood clearly does not want a stadium there either. Oh, and for those caught up on parking, it has no parking either.

I was at the John Martin breakfast meeting. His "proposal" is just an idea that he came up with. It is very clear that it would take years and years to come together and that the cost of building a new stadium plus a new arena would be much greater than renovating Lansdowne. He is under the impression that if we allow a developer to build high density housing adjacent to the stadium (something else surely to go over well with neighbours), the developer will build the stadium. Of course he can't point to anywhere else in the world that has actually happened.

Without a real source of funding, striking out on the Bayview option just means the city does not have an outdoor stadium (one suitable for soccer and football) for years to come. Timing and funding are very important issues in this debate, and Bayview is far from perfect on either count.

There are 4,000 parking spaces at Tunney's Pasture which would not be in use during games. Plus some underground parking could be built into the site same as the LL proposal.

Decontamination is said not to take that long (1 year) - like anything, it can be done given enough money.

[k2p]

Decontamination is said not to take that long (1 year) - like anything, it can be done given enough money.

This will seem nit-picky. But not only is there no proposal for Bayview, or, indeed, putting a stadium on your home planet, there is no money for it, either.

There is one financed, designed and planned project. Lansdowne Live. You're free to dislike it. But know what rejecting it means: rot at Lansdowne, and no stadium -- no, not even a back-of-the-napkin drawing of one emailed to a politician -- at Bayview.

Sorry to nit-pick. Please continue your orbit.

[Franky]

This will seem nit-picky. But not only is there no proposal for Bayview, or, indeed, putting a stadium on your home planet, there is no money for it, either.

There is one financed, designed and planned project. Lansdowne Live. You're free to dislike it. But know what rejecting it means: rot at Lansdowne, and no stadium -- no, not even a back-of-the-napkin drawing of one emailed to a politician -- at Bayview.

Sorry to nit-pick. Please continue your orbit.

Oh here we go... Attack the person when you run out of arguments to support a bad proposal. LL is a bad idea and a bad deal. Bayview is a better location. If a CFL/soccer franchise can't work there, it certainly won't work at Lansdowne where parking and transit are inadequate.


"John Leys, of Sherwood Engineering, an American firm with experience in developing brownfield sites said it wouldn’t take long to clean contaminated soil.

He pointed to the McGill University Health Centre in Montreal where it took 15 months to remove 700,000 tonnes of soil from a 43-acre site — three times as big as Bayview."
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/entertainment/Proposals+presented+Bayview+Yards+Lansdowne/1936475/story.html

[phil235]

There are 4,000 parking spaces at Tunney's Pasture which would not be in use during games. Plus some underground parking could be built into the site same as the LL proposal.

Decontamination is said not to take that long (1 year) - like anything, it can be done given enough money.

Are you and Mr. Martin related? The spots at Tunney's Pasture might be helpful if the federal government was willing to lease them out (unlikely) and if it wasn't in the process of planning for a mixed-use redevelopment of the site. Of course it isn't on an arterial road either, so traffic concerns would be similar.

Likewise, the comment that Bayview could be cleaned up in a year is pure speculation on the part of Mr. Martin. Contrary to his claims, the MOE did not guarantee him that it would be done in a year. A government department would never guarantee a timeline for an environmental cleanup. They are not responsible for doing the work. In addition, no assessment of the site has been done. The timeline is based only on a random sample of what other projects have taken. The one they cite (McGill) did not involve a former landfill, so it isn't really even a good comparison.

That is the problem with assessing an idea, rather than a detailed plan. All of this random information gets thrown around without any checks on whether it is really accurate or practical.

Yes the Lansdowne plan has drawbacks, but that does not make it a bad plan. You have to look the plan as a whole. There are many competing interests at play, and Lansdowne does a good job of addressing most of those interests and extending the life cycle of existing city facilities, rather than scrapping them. More importantly, it is not possible to honestly claim that any other plan that offers a realistic chance of getting a stadium and arena built in the near future.

[Franky]

Are you and Mr. Martin related? The spots at Tunney's Pasture might be helpful if the federal government was willing to lease them out (unlikely) and if it wasn't in the process of planning for a mixed-use redevelopment of the site. Of course it isn't on an arterial road either, so traffic concerns would be similar.

Likewise, the comment that Bayview could be cleaned up in a year is pure speculation on the part of Mr. Martin. Contrary to his claims, the MOE did not guarantee him that it would be done in a year. A government department would never guarantee a timeline for an environmental cleanup. They are not responsible for doing the work. In addition, no assessment of the site has been done. The timeline is based only on a random sample of what other projects have taken. The one they cite (McGill) did not involve a former landfill, so it isn't really even a good comparison.

That is the problem with assessing an idea, rather than a detailed plan. All of this random information gets thrown around without any checks on whether it is really accurate or practical.

Yes the Lansdowne plan has drawbacks, but that does not make it a bad plan. You have to look the plan as a whole. There are many competing interests at play, and Lansdowne does a good job of addressing most of those interests and extending the life cycle of existing city facilities, rather than scrapping them. More importantly, it is not possible to honestly claim that any other plan that offers a realistic chance of getting a stadium and arena built in the near future.

Isn't Scott St. 4 lanes from Tunney's to Bayview? I don't see why the fed gov't would not "play ball", but there is lots of space for parking to be developed if needed.

It's not Martin's opinion, it's "John Leys, of Sherwood Engineering, an American firm with experience in developing brownfield sites" and it's not the Mc Gill example that gives it weight, it's the company's estimate that does.

That's the problem with blog posts without sources, often inaccurate (maybe even misleading).

It's not about getting CFL at any price, it's about growing the city in the right direction with the resources available. LL is the wrong direction and a waste of resources.

[jchamoun79]

It's not Martin's opinion, it's "John Leys, of Sherwood Engineering, an American firm with experience in developing brownfield sites" and it's not the Mc Gill example that gives it weight, it's the company's estimate that does.

That's the problem with blog posts without sources, often inaccurate (maybe even misleading).

What estimate? Saying that "it wouldn’t take long to clean contaminated soil" is pretty vague - it could mean anything, and doesn't specifically refer to Bayview. And just because it took 15 months to clean the McGill site doesn't mean it would take less time to clean up the smaller Bayview site. As phil235 has already mentioned, it's a bad comparison anyway because the McGill site did not involve a former landfill.

It's not about getting CFL at any price, it's about growing the city in the right direction with the resources available. LL is the wrong direction and a waste of resources.

The LL proposal would see the existing north-side stands rehabilitated. The plan would also see other existing facilities refurbished. Isn't that using resources that are already available?

And you talk about a waste of resources - the city already spends millions of dollars each year in basic maintenance at Lansdowne Park. If the LL proposal is defeated, we would continue to pay just to make sure that facilities at the park don't completely collapse, and we would have no stadium because, let me remind you, there are no concrete alternative proposals either for Lansdowne Park or for Bayview.

[jchamoun79]

It's not Martin's opinion, it's "John Leys, of Sherwood Engineering, an American firm with experience in developing brownfield sites" and it's not the Mc Gill example that gives it weight, it's the company's estimate that does.

That's the problem with blog posts without sources, often inaccurate (maybe even misleading).

What estimate? Saying that "it wouldn’t take long to clean contaminated soil" is pretty vague - it could mean anything, and doesn't specifically refer to Bayview. And just because it took 15 months to clean the McGill site doesn't mean it would take less time to clean up the smaller Bayview site. As phil235 has already mentioned, it's a bad comparison anyway because the McGill site did not involve a former landfill.

It's not about getting CFL at any price, it's about growing the city in the right direction with the resources available. LL is the wrong direction and a waste of resources.

The LL proposal would see the existing north-side stands rehabilitated. The plan would also see other existing facilities refurbished. Isn't that using resources that are already available?

And you talk about a waste of resources - the city already spends millions of dollars each year in basic maintenance at Lansdowne Park. If the LL proposal is defeated, we would continue to pay just to make sure that facilities at the park don't completely collapse, and we would have no stadium because, let me remind you, there are no concrete alternative proposals either for Lansdowne Park or for Bayview.

[umbria27]

400 000 is such an exageration of what will actually be 'retail' in your sense of the word. We will probably see less than 200 000 of stores and the rest will be office, restaurant, a movie theature, and many of the walkways through the open market space so stop quoting that number unless you are going to include the breakdown.



"Park Land"? You've obviously never been to Lansdowne.

I see you've focused on the important part of that sentence. Sadly for your point to work, there needs to be no space between park and land - "the current park land" is not the same as "the current parkland". Feel free to deliberately misconstrue, but it doesn't advance the discussion.

"Putting retail on the current park land caters to developers' love of easy, greenfields development, and it gives them a subsidy by handing over the lands."

The point here is that Bank street has languished as a commercial and retail street for the twenty years I've known it. Handing over parts of Lansdowne Park to Minto and partners is a subsidy that other developers do not have access to. It also floods the market with retail space so that there's no incentive to build other retail and commercial space along Bank. Who is going to build new retail on Bank if you actually have to buy the land and there there's already a glut?

Taking the cinema and restaurants out of the retail/commercial calculations might make the number more palatable, but then you have to compare it to the similar existing space. If you want to confine it to stores, is there 200,000 square feet of store space in the Glebe? I haven't been around with my tape measure lately, but I don't think there are a hundred 2,000 square ft. boutiques. Whether you want to use the 400,000 square ft number for commercial space quoted in the papers our you guestimated 200,000 square feet of stores, it's still likely to be a doubling of the available space. That's what is going to kill Bank street development for another 20 years.

[jchamoun79]

It's not Martin's opinion, it's "John Leys, of Sherwood Engineering, an American firm with experience in developing brownfield sites" and it's not the Mc Gill example that gives it weight, it's the company's estimate that does.

That's the problem with blog posts without sources, often inaccurate (maybe even misleading).

What estimate? Saying that "it wouldn’t take long to clean contaminated soil" is pretty vague - it could mean anything, and doesn't specifically refer to Bayview. And just because it took 15 months to clean the McGill site doesn't mean it would take less time to clean up the smaller Bayview site. As phil235 has already mentioned, it's a bad comparison anyway because the McGill site did not involve a former landfill.

It's not about getting CFL at any price, it's about growing the city in the right direction with the resources available. LL is the wrong direction and a waste of resources.

The LL proposal would see the existing north-side stands rehabilitated. The plan would also see other existing facilities refurbished. Isn't that using resources that are already available?

And you talk about a waste of resources - the city already spends millions of dollars each year in basic maintenance at Lansdowne Park. If the LL proposal is defeated, we would continue to pay just to make sure that facilities at the park don't completely collapse, and we would have no stadium because, let me remind you, there are no concrete alternative proposals either for Lansdowne Park or for Bayview.

[Franky]

What estimate? Saying that "it wouldn’t take long to clean contaminated soil" is pretty vague - it could mean anything, and doesn't specifically refer to Bayview. And just because it took 15 months to clean the McGill site doesn't mean it would take less time to clean up the smaller Bayview site. As phil235 has already mentioned, it's a bad comparison anyway because the McGill site did not involve a former landfill.

Worst case - you dig out the whole site and put the crap onto a barge and deal with the contaminated material elsewhere leaving the site free to be developed. This is not a problem.


The LL proposal would see the existing north-side stands rehabilitated. The plan would also see other existing facilities refurbished. Isn't that using resources that are already available?

It's nice that they will refurbish the stands, they should be completely unusable in 30 years when the city takes possession - that's a liability.

Allowing developers to build a shopping mall and other stuff unrelated to a CFL franchise to subsidize it is just plain silly and a waste of our resource - Lansdowne Park.



And you talk about a waste of resources - the city already spends millions of dollars each year in basic maintenance at Lansdowne Park. If the LL proposal is defeated, we would continue to pay just to make sure that facilities at the park don't completely collapse, and we would have no stadium because, let me remind you, there are no concrete alternative proposals either for Lansdowne Park or for Bayview.

There is no alternative because our council doesn't even allow any! We need a proper process.

[jchamoun79]

.

[phil235]

Isn't Scott St. 4 lanes from Tunney's to Bayview? I don't see why the fed gov't would not "play ball", but there is lots of space for parking to be developed if needed.

It's not Martin's opinion, it's "John Leys, of Sherwood Engineering, an American firm with experience in developing brownfield sites" and it's not the Mc Gill example that gives it weight, it's the company's estimate that does.

That's the problem with blog posts without sources, often inaccurate (maybe even misleading).

It's not about getting CFL at any price, it's about growing the city in the right direction with the resources available. LL is the wrong direction and a waste of resources.


You may not see why the government wouldn't play ball, but I've been in a negotiation with Public Works for an empty lot containing 200 spaces. They wouldn't do it because of liability issues. If liability concerns prevent them from leasing 200 spaces to another federal entity for office parking, I think it is a pretty safe bet they won't lease 4000 spaces to tailgating football fans.

As I said, I was at the presentation by Mr. Martin. Mr. Leys did not give an estimate, nor did his firm. The one year is a ballpark thrown around by Mr. Martin. The MOE told him their guidelines would allow for a one-year clean up, which he has taken as support for his estimate. If you read his material (not that I recommend that use of your time) you would see all of that.

Scott Street is 4 lanes, just like Bank. And where exactly does it go? Not to any highway I am aware of. Bayview is at best comparable to Lansdowne in that regard.

It's clear we won't agree on this. You think your idea will work, I think there are multiple reasons why it will not be workable anytime soon. You have yet to explain where the money for your stadium at Bayview and replacement arena come from or where the tenant comes from. We know it will be more expensive to do it that way, and there is no owner saying he will put a team there. I (and I think many others here) just aren't willing to wait to see if all of these elements come together at the right time to make that dream come true.

[Franky]

You may not see why the government wouldn't play ball, but I've been in a negotiation with Public Works for an empty lot containing 200 spaces. They wouldn't do it because of liability issues. If liability concerns prevent them from leasing 200 spaces to another federal entity for office parking, I think it is a pretty safe bet they won't lease 4000 spaces to tailgating football fans.


I woud think that insuring someone else's lot is less expensive than building, servicing and insuring an equivalent lot. So, if the gov't refuses, that will force an extra expense, or simply force most people to use transit.


As I said, I was at the presentation by Mr. Martin. Mr. Leys did not give an estimate, nor did his firm. The one year is a ballpark thrown around by Mr. Martin. The MOE told him their guidelines would allow for a one-year clean up, which he has taken as support for his estimate. If you read his material (not that I recommend that use of your time) you would see all of that.


I don't buy that it can't be done in a year. I've seen whole subdivisions go up in a year.



Scott Street is 4 lanes, just like Bank. And where exactly does it go? Not to any highway I am aware of. Bayview is at best comparable to Lansdowne in that regard.


You don't need a single large route to the parking lot, the aggregate road capacity is sufficient. Again, it would be better if people took transit down and used the park&ride lots.



It's clear we won't agree on this. You think your idea will work, I think there are multiple reasons why it will not be workable anytime soon. You have yet to explain where the money for your stadium at Bayview and replacement arena come from or where the tenant comes from. We know it will be more expensive to do it that way, and there is no owner saying he will put a team there. I (and I think many others here) just aren't willing to wait to see if all of these elements come together at the right time to make that dream come true.

I think the city needs to open up the process to other possibilities. It's ridiculous to only entertain this one lame proposal. I understand some people want another CFL team dreaming it will be successful and that same hope floats this LL proposal. Let's be realistic. There is no free lunch and the LL proposal props up it's hopes by taxing the Lansdowne site with shopping, hotels and other ventures that are not guaranteed to succeed either. Plus there is NO RAPID TRANSIT to the site. We are about to spend $5B on a transit system that won't serve ANY of our stadiums, but that's what rail is supposed to be good at - emptying stadiums. I keep shaking my head every time I think about it. It's so ridiculous.

[waterloowarrior]

Forgetting something important about Lansdowne competition
http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/designingottawa/archive/2009/09/07/we-re-forgetting-something-important-about-the-lansdowne-competition.aspx
By MARIACOOK 09-07-2009 COMMENTS(0) DESIGNING OTTAWA

Filed under: Lansdowne Live, Lansdowne Park, Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group
The cancelled Design Lansdowne process has been widely called a "design competition" or an "international design competition." Not correct, says Ottawa architect Rick MacEwen.

It was a "rights to development" competition in which developers would have been invited to come forward with ideas and financing.

Losing sight of that has skewed discussion of the merits of the Lansdowne Live proposal, says MacEwen.

"The perception is that the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group unsolicited proposal has merits in that it provides for partial project funding, whereas the design competition process would only have resulted in design ideas with no possible source of funding," he says.

"This is the disturbing misconception that affects an informed debate."

MacEwen explains:

"A design competition for architectural and urban design projects includes the submission of design ideas but excludes the financial component on how to fund the implementation.

"Design competitions are used when the competition sponsor has their own funding in place. The competitors in a design competition are architects and urban designers.

"What was recommended by city staff and approved by the planning and environment committee and council was a 'rights to development' competition.

"This is entirely different than a design competition. A rights-to-development competition includes, in addition to design ideas, a financial component on how the project is to be funded.

"Rights-to-development competitions are used when the competition sponsor does not have full funding and is relying, in whole or in part, on the competitors to fund the project.

"The competitors in a rights-to-development competition are developers. The OSEG proposal is exactly what a rights-to-development competition would yield.

"The process that was terminated by city staff, without the approval of council, was a rights-to-development competition.

"(It) was terminated well in advance of receipt of the OSEG unsolicited proposal. The effect of the termination was to block developers who are business competitors of the OSEG from participating in an open, structured and fair process.

"The issue is more profound than sole-sourcing when there is no practical alternative. Should the city have terminated a rights-to-development competition to favour one group and block all others?

"At least one other developer had expressed in writing to the city the desire to participate in the rights-to-development competition.

"How can the public feel confident that the city conducts their affairs in an open and fair manner?

"How can competitors in future city proposal calls trust the city to be open and fair?"

[canadave]

:previous:

You know, I think they really should have left the competition open. It was a mistake at the time. Just as re-opening it now would be a mistake if we ever want anything to go forwards at Lansdowne. I doubt any competition for development rights is going to give us a better option, and it's likely that all it will do is lead to years more of nothing happening on the site. We've got to work with what's in front of us, at this point.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

So this guy without any qualifications came up with a plan that rivals the LL proposal. Wonder what the best in/rest of the world could come up with. No wonder the LL is scared of competition.

That "plan" does not in any way rival what LL is. On top of that, NO ONE in the months before the LL proposal's first incarnation even came forward with so much as a concept.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

There are 4,000 parking spaces at Tunney's Pasture which would not be in use during games. Plus some underground parking could be built into the site same as the LL proposal.

Decontamination is said not to take that long (1 year) - like anything, it can be done given enough money.

Yeah, but 1) those spaces are for Federal employees and regularly patrolled 2) that is one FAR walk to a bayview stadium 3) Not all games are at night and on weekends 4) Decontamination of a site like Bayview will almost certainly take more than one year. ESPECIALLY here in Ottawa.

[lrt's friend]

The problem with all of this is that the design competition or right to develop competition was coming off the rails when not one, but two, unsolicited proposals were submitted to city council, both offering to build or renovate a stadium and with pro sports franchises included. Inevitably, these proposals were going to have timelines included, and this is what really threw a competition out of whack. Both of these proposals were very serious and credible and delaying them in order to continue a competition would almost certainly lead to having these very credible bidders dropping out of the competition. This could have left the city in a worse position in coming up with a viable alternative plan including the financing element that was so critical. With the possibility of no major tenant for the stadium, it would create additional risks for an alternative plan or a winner of the competition.

I have said it before, it is not easy coming up with a good pro sports owner, and without a pro sports franchise, a renewed or new stadium is of very questionable viability. Frankly, who else with an Ottawa connection would be able to fund a pro sports franchise? If we separate the Lansdowne and stadium issues, the likely result will be a lot higher costs for the city in the long-term and likely no new pro sports franchises in this city for a long, long time. I simply don't buy it, that we have a competition for Lansdowne, and decide on the ideal location for the stadium elsewhere, that somehow the funding will appear for both and someone will pay for the sports franchises. I just don't see it working that way.

I also wish to point out that our transit plan in relation to Bayview has one big flaw. Our planned East-West LRT line has no Park n Ride lots on it. This will be a big turn off to potential fans who will find driving to Bayview difficult and likely discouraged because of the lack of parking, but then also not to have a direct transit ride back to their car. Let's face it, few people will want to use transit at 10 or 11pm after a game all the way back to their homes, especially when so many local routes won't run late enough. Also, I can't imagine a Bayview stadium being connected to the Ottawa River Parkway, leaving just Scott Street to handle all traffic, and a Tunney's Pasture parking lot is so close by with not much better accessibility to clear traffic quickly.

[phil235]

The other thing people forget about the Design Lansdowne process is that one of its key terms required the preservation of the stadium on the site.

[Franky]

The other thing people forget about the Design Lansdowne process is that one of its key terms required the preservation of the stadium on the site.

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

[waterloowarrior]

Here's the site plan again... larger version a bit more readable

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

[waterloowarrior]

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

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


OTTAWA — Fears of a big-box-store invasion of the Glebe are unfounded, says the businessman responsible for the commercial development component of Lansdowne Live.

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

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

Ruddy said the development would be nothing like a suburban shopping centre, but instead follow the Glebe’s current look of two-storey buildings, with stores along Bank Street and office space above.

Ruddy said it was “outrageous” that some opponents of the project are painting it as a suburban big-box approach to development. “It’s nowhere near that. There’s no sea of asphalt. There are no thousands of cars lined up in front of stores. It’s a pedestrian-friendly environment oriented to the street.”

Ruddy is a partner in the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group, which proposes to redevelop Lansdowne Park in partnership with the city. The football stadium would be rebuilt into a facility that would accommodate CFL football, professional soccer and concerts.

The Civic Centre would be given an overhaul and the vast asphalt parking lot would be replaced with greenspace.

The city would still own the property and would split construction costs with the business group.

The plan’s commercial space includes 16,000 square feet in the Horticulture Building, which would be moved farther east on the site and become the permanent home of the Ottawa Farmers’ Market. As well, the commercial total includes 15,600 square feet of rentable space in the historic Aberdeen Pavilion.

The business group describes the pavilion as the gem in the centre of the park, a place where people will be able to choose from a variety of foods and drinks, and where patios will operate outside during good weather. Ruddy said the group wants to create something like Toronto’s St. Lawrence Market, or the ByWard Market without the cars.

He said the largest store would be a 40,000-square-foot food store and there would likely be a bookstore of about 15,000 square feet. There would also be a sports-equipment store, a number of small shops and boutiques, and between eight and 10 food establishments, including a restaurant at field level.

The Lansdowne Live proposal has upset some Glebe businesspeople including the Glebe Business Improvement Association.

Doug McKeen, co-owner of the Glebe Apothecary, said the Live proposal has “some good ideas,” but merchants are worried about its scale and the reduced amount of parking on site. The plan would reduce the existing 2,200 surface parking spaces to 1,855, including an underground garage.

“Where the heck are we going to put all those cars?” said McKeen.

As well, McKeen said if Lansdowne becomes a busy place with multiple pro-sports franchises, concerts and stores, it would need better transit service, which would be difficult to deliver at this location.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[Franky]

I also wish to point out that our transit plan in relation to Bayview has one big flaw. Our planned East-West LRT line has no Park n Ride lots on it. This will be a big turn off to potential fans who will find driving to Bayview difficult and likely discouraged because of the lack of parking, but then also not to have a direct transit ride back to their car. Let's face it, few people will want to use transit at 10 or 11pm after a game all the way back to their homes, especially when so many local routes won't run late enough. Also, I can't imagine a Bayview stadium being connected to the Ottawa River Parkway, leaving just Scott Street to handle all traffic, and a Tunney's Pasture parking lot is so close by with not much better accessibility to clear traffic quickly.

Some transit plan. Hopefully, it's not too late to fix that too. :rolleyes:

[Dado]

who would build and pay for whatever a competition comes up with? If the current sole source process is so wrong, why aren't other developers complaining?

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


Throwing ideas around in the press, or outlining your "vision" at a fancy breakfast meeting or in emails to various politicians, is not the same thing as having a detailed plan or proposal, with financing attached.

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


That "plan" does not in any way rival what LL is. On top of that, NO ONE in the months before the LL proposal's first incarnation even came forward with so much as a concept.

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

:previous: That plan for Lansdowne sucks. Period.

Too much grass and field and a loss of a stadium capable of hosting major world events...

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

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


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

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


I think there are some basic misconceptions about what a design competition actually meant. A design competition would not tell us the best use for the site. Nor would the public would get to judge the ideas that come in, which would actually have been done by bureaucrats based on criteria that weren't subject to public input. Unless we know what we are designing, a design competition process is not particularly useful.

A competitive process is also more likely to create winners and losers, while a negotiated process provides more opportunity for compromise to accommodate various interests.

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

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

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

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


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix
That plan for Lansdowne sucks. Period.

Too much grass and field and a loss of a stadium capable of hosting major world events...

Here's the image and link:
http://communities.canada.com/ottawa...e-concept.aspx


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

Assuming victory too early will lead you to snatch defeat from its jaws. How exactly am I eating my words? The International Design Competition/whateveryouwanttocallit may not have started yet, but there was SIGNIFICANT buzz about it, and no one came forward with a solid concept. I think Broccollini or some business from Montreal said they were interested in the idea and then we have the lovely picture you've provided that is what, a drawing by some joe blow amateur artist designer? My point still stands; no serious proposals were even put forward. The LL team came out of left-field with a solid plan that they said would be changed accordingly and were pitching ideas to the public. That is how we came from big-box store/aquarium/towers-in-the-park with a parking garage building to the current proposal. The only part they are insisting on is the right to develop and have the team there.

[waterloowarrior]

Wow, this thread has received 200 posts over the last week! :cheers:

The Lansdowne Live (http://www.lansdownelive.ca/index.asp)site (OSEG) was updated last week... I found a couple of images that I don't think have been posted

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

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

[k2p]

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

I don't disagree. But a decent end point counts for much more than a silly starting point. That LL altered its proposal and the city followed the official plan and put housing in there along with a decent Bank St side are all upsides.

Getting hung up on process seems self-defeating if, as you say, the current proposal is decent. Canadave is right. It's time to work with what's on the table, perhaps acknowledge some of the Glebe retailers' concerns and replace some retail with more housing (Clive's coronary is added incentive), but look forward, not back.

[Aylmer]

The Live proposal looks very reasonable to me.

:)

[Franky]

I don't disagree. But a decent end point counts for much more than a silly starting point. That LL altered its proposal and the city followed the official plan and put housing in there along with a decent Bank St side are all upsides.

Getting hung up on process seems self-defeating if, as you say, the current proposal is decent. Canadave is right. It's time to work with what's on the table, perhaps acknowledge some of the Glebe retailers' concerns and replace some retail with more housing (Clive's coronary is added incentive), but look forward, not back.

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