Lansdowne Park Redevelopment Phase 1 | Completed

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by phil235

More befitting is in the eye of the beholder.

I'm quite sure that the mistake is not mine. Do you have any citation for your claim that Lansdowne is somehow exempt from intensification?

Have a look at the downtown intensification plan developed by Urban Strategies
and incorporated into the City of Ottawa Official Plan.

Link here

As you will see, TOD, or Transit Oriented Development.

This is one of the key documents to be used in the OMB appeals.

Lansdowne is never included for the obvious reasons of no rapid transit.

Like I have said the entire developer proposal, tossing out of process at the City,
willful ignorance of the Official Plan has manufactured this entire headache.

That is why you have courts to ensure the Executive of the City, or another
way to look at it, The Board of Directors of the Corporation, have to be accountable
to the public they serve, in this case the taxpayer shareholders. This is entrenched
into jurisprudence from the Supreme Court.

The City must act in good faith and in the best interests of the taxpayer
and follow their own laws.

[umbria27]

Originally Posted by phil235

More befitting is in the eye of the beholder.

I'm quite sure that the mistake is not mine. Do you have any citation for your claim that Lansdowne is somehow exempt from intensification?

Loath as I am to beat this dead dog any more, I wade in here because there's a logical fallacy at work here that says: if you are in favour of intensification in a neighbourhood you cannot object to any particular intensification project.

We have zoning for a reason. Intensification for Bank street was planned by zoning it for main street style development. I believe the original zoning of Lansdowne was "major recreational" This is what ought to have exempted it from intensification. You might equally ask what exempts Major's Hill Park, Mooney's Bay or any other recreation zoned land from intensification.

The towers are there for the air rights revenue and the property tax revenue. The posthoc justification of towers at Lansdowne as appropriate intensification is just rationalization.

[Merganser]

[QUOTE=jemartin;5077059]
With respect to the "privileged few" how would you define private condos?

QUOTE]

You're kidding, right? So in your world only the "privileged few" own condos.

[McC]

[QUOTE=Merganser;5077093]

Originally Posted by jemartin

With respect to the "privileged few" how would you define private condos?

QUOTE]

You're kidding, right? So in your world only the "privileged few" own condos.

never would have thought I would defend a jemartin comment; but yes, in the real world, only a privileged few do own condos. It's neither an argument for or against condo developments, it's just a fact of demographics, income levels and market choices (on both the supply and demand sides).

[Merganser]

[QUOTE=McC;5077098]

Originally Posted by Merganser

never would have thought I would defend a jemartin comment; but yes, in the real world, only a privileged few do own condos.

So someone who works for 30 years, pay's off their mortgage and end's up owning their house/condo is privileged. I had no idea.

[jemartin]

[QUOTE=Merganser;5077093]

Originally Posted by jemartin

With respect to the "privileged few" how would you define private condos?

QUOTE]

You're kidding, right? So in your world only the "privileged few" own condos.

Please try and follow the discussion.

It was with respect to Lansdowne Park.

How is the public served by private condos, that is for the privileged few at a corporatized
and privatized Lansdowne as compared to keeping the park public.

[jemartin]

[QUOTE=Merganser;5077100]

Originally Posted by McC

So someone who works for 30 years, pay's off their mortgage and end's up owning their house/condo is privileged. I had no idea.

Ditto as reply above.

Please try and stay on topic.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Well your ability to be negotiable is your position.

That is fine, not trying to "convert" you, just stating the philosophy of the Conservancy.

Preserve and protect and maintain the park for the enjoyment of present and future generations
and carry on the 150 year, 100% public tradition.

Same as is done is in all great cities of the world.


With respect to the "privileged few" how would you define private condos?

If there is anything to be learned about this debate it is that keeping the park public
serves everyone, corporatizing it most definitely is for the privileged few.

Again, you are entitled to your own belief.

I'd actually very much like to see significant affordable housing incorporated into the plan.

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by phil235

I'd actually very much like to see significant affordable housing incorporated into the plan.

Well guess what, they haven't, not profitable for them. However if they were
to start with a much larger development space *(Bayview)that gives them greater density
and the ability for the developer to integrate affordable housing into the plan becomes
much more doable. And yes I said developer, not the City. It becomes a cost of
doing business with the City. There are finite resources in this City and the current
administration, soon to be changed, needs to negotiate with that in mind. Currently
they are being grossly outplayed when in fact they have all the cards.
Direct the development and you achieve best results.

The current mindset of doing business with just local developers has led to a very
inbred and chaotic culture at City Hall. Time for real RFP and show how to get
best value for money. A little competition will clean things up right quick. Ottawa
is the capital of the most desired and safe real estate market in the world. Time
to realize that and invite in much better offers.

But I respectfully suggest to stop trying to re-invent something that isn't in need
of re-invention.

The park is a major recreation area, as noted above. If you start playing around
with re-zoning in these areas all park space becomes fair game, including Andy Haydon
Park.

Follow the Official Plan, follow proper process of competitive bidding, and adhere
to classic and modern urban design and that includes public space and intensifying
along rapid transit corridors.

Great process begets great results.

To do otherwise creates chaos, as is well exemplified under the current situation.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by umbria27

Loath as I am to beat this dead dog any more, I wade in here because there's a logical fallacy at work here that says: if you are in favour of intensification in a neighbourhood you cannot object to any particular intensification project.

We have zoning for a reason. Intensification for Bank street was planned by zoning it for main street style development. I believe the original zoning of Lansdowne was "major recreational" This is what ought to have exempted it from intensification. You might equally ask what exempts Major's Hill Park, Mooney's Bay or any other recreation zoned land from intensification.

The towers are there for the air rights revenue and the property tax revenue. The posthoc justification of towers at Lansdowne as appropriate intensification is just rationalization.

Sure, but there is nothing that says a zoning can't be changed if warranted. Intensification often entails a zoning change, particularly in the case of land that is underutilized in its current zoning.

The parking lot and crumbling buildings at Lansdowne are a great example of underutilized land. There is no good policy reason not to try to increase the use of that parcel.

I'm certainly not saying that you can't oppose any particular project and still support intensification in general. But this group of people is clearly not in favour of any intensification anywhere in the Glebe. If they were willing to accept significant intensification elsewhere in the neighbourhood, then I would be more receptive to their position.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Well guess what, they haven't, not profitable for them.

But I respectfully suggest to stop trying to re-invent something that isn't in need
of re-invention.

The park is a major recreation area, as noted above. If you start playing around
with re-zoning in these areas all park space becomes fair game, including Andy Haydon
Park.

Follow the Official Plan, follow proper process of competitive bidding, and adhere
to classic and modern urban design and that includes public space and intensifying
along rapid transit corridors.

Great process begets great results.

To do otherwise creates chaos, as is well exemplified under the current situation.

But the thing is that you have not included affordable housing in your plan either. Nor will you, as a matter of principle. And the consequence of that is that only those living near the park will use it on a truly regular basis. And there will never be any more of those people, because the Glebe doesn't need to allow intensification.

I think if our neighbourhood had put less effort into stopping the process, and more effort into encouraging some innovaton in the incorporation of affordable housing in the project, we might have seen something done. But that is not directly in the interest of those opposing the project, and hence it is lost in the shuffle.

[reidjr]

Jemartin
I respect what your trying to do but your missing one very key thing most of those cities you listed don't have many metting places be it parks etc.Ottawa on the other hand is not lacking meeting places you could even say otatwa has to much parks and open spaces as it is now.

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by reidjr

Jemartin
I respect what your trying to do but your missing one very key thing most of those cities you listed don't have many metting places be it parks etc.Ottawa on the other hand is not lacking meeting places you could even say otatwa has to much parks and open spaces as it is now.

Parks are either green spaces or places for people to congregate with a mix of services.

Yes Ottawa may have green space, but the meeting spot has always been Lansdowne.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Have a look at the downtown intensification plan developed by Urban Strategies
and incorporated into the City of Ottawa Official Plan.

Link here

As you will see, TOD, or Transit Oriented Development.

This is one of the key documents to be used in the OMB appeals.

Lansdowne is never included for the obvious reasons of no rapid transit.

Like I have said the entire developer proposal, tossing out of process at the City,
willful ignorance of the Official Plan has manufactured this entire headache.

That is why you have courts to ensure the Executive of the City, or another
way to look at it, The Board of Directors of the Corporation, have to be accountable
to the public they serve, in this case the taxpayer shareholders. This is entrenched
into jurisprudence from the Supreme Court.

The City must act in good faith and in the best interests of the taxpayer
and follow their own laws.

Again, you have been told several times that just because the official plan seeks to encourage transit oriented development, that doesn't mean that development should not occur anywhere else. You are reading something that isn't there.

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by phil235

Sure, but there is nothing that says a zoning can't be changed if warranted. Intensification often entails a zoning change, particularly in the case of land that is underutilized in its current zoning.

The parking lot and crumbling buildings at Lansdowne are a great example of underutilized land. There is no good policy reason not to try to increase the use of that parcel.

see post 1049

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by phil235

But the thing is that you have not included affordable housing in your plan either. Nor will you, as a matter of principle. And the consequence of that is that only those living near the park will use it on a truly regular basis. And there will never be any more of those people, because the Glebe doesn't need to allow intensification.

I think if our neighbourhood had put less effort into stopping the process, and more effort into encouraging some innovaton in the incorporation of affordable housing in the project, we might have seen something done. But that is not directly in the interest of those opposing the project, and hence it is lost in the shuffle.

see post 1049

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by phil235

Again, you have been told several times that just because the official plan seeks to encourage transit oriented development, that doesn't mean that development should not occur anywhere else. You are reading something that isn't there.

Park space is not for intensification.

Can development take place outside of the major rapid transit expansion
zones? Of course but on a much smaller scale.

Follow the official plan and you will have your answer.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Well guess what, they haven't, not profitable for them. However if they were
to start with a much larger development space *(Bayview)that gives them greater density
and the ability for the developer to integrate affordable housing into the plan becomes
much more doable. And yes I said developer, not the City. It becomes a cost of
doing business with the City. There are finite resources in this City and the current
administration, soon to be changed, needs to negotiate with that in mind. Currently
they are being grossly outplayed when in fact they have all the cards.
Direct the development and you achieve best results.

Could you please explain to me how you would get a developer to provide ongoing affordable housing without any ongoing
involvement by the city?

[phil235]

[QUOTE=jemartin;5077152]Park space is not for intensification.

CQUOTE]

I fully agree. But how exactly have you decided that Lansdowne is park space?

If you believe in mixed-use development, it does not make any sense to say that you can put in a stadium and arena, but you can't include any commercial/residential under any circumstances. That kind of separation of land uses is exactly what has gotten us in the mess we are currently in.

[lrt's friend]

I have a lot of sympathy that park space should not be used for intensification, however, Lansdowne is unique in that it has not been green space. It has been a public location with many buildings that have been used for a wide variety of activities generally not associated with 'green' parks. Many of these activities and buildings have been lost in the last few decades and so what we have been seeing in a very urban location is serious de-intensification or more bluntly decay. It is for this reason that the park and the heritage buildings need repurposing. Because of its unique nature, I cannot support plans that encourage and continue the trend towards de-intensification. On the contrary, the location needs revitalization and that can be best achieved with redevelopment including some new buildings (to replace the many that have been torn down over the years) and to create a critical mass on site so that we make sure that the heritage buildings will be made good use of by the public. Lansdowne is not in any way equivalent to Central Park in New York that was designed by a world renowned landscape architect and therefore the use of Lansdowne must be made unique to this city. I think the preservation of heritage at Lansdowne has been completely misused since Lansdowne has changed so much in the last 50 years. We have one great building on site and one other with potential but otherwise there is nothing there really worth preserving as it is. It is sad how the Aberdeen Pavilion sits in the middle of the park with little reason to bring people to it. Putting it as a focus of a new urban landscape is exactly what it needs.

I also think that in an urban environment such as the Glebe, it is progress when surface parking can be eliminated and replaced by underground parking. I am completely supportive of eliminating the suburban aspects of Lansdowne and that means elimination of the acres of surface parking.