Quote:
Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey
Dude, you gotta cool it with the "private development on park land" —. I guess you've never been to Lansdowne, but there is nothing and I mean NOTHING appealing to the public at Lansdowne in it's current state. It is a wasteland of gravel and crumbling asphault that is surrounded in large chain link fences and walls. The farmers market is the only useful thing at Lansdowne (outside of the crumbling stadium and the arena) and it would still be good if you held it at the Carp Dump (might as well). Every single aspect of this project is a huge improvement of Lansdowne in it's current form and our city will benefit from it.
If you were serious about your proposal it would have been submitted a long time ago. Submitting it days before this vote goes to council is evidence that you are submitting it as a distraction and not as something that is actually feasible. Ottawa is a great place, but it has way too man NIMBYs with too much time on their hands who make a career out of obstructing progress with thinly-veiled attempts to serve one person, themselves.
See you at the Riders game in 2013; I'll be on the South side and it will not longer —!
|
Agreed that the park cannot stay in its current state. But the landscaping proposed pretty much matches Design B, only you leave Sylvia Holden Park out of the picture, there is nothing wrong with it.
Submitting it at the 11th hour was not intentional, though it clearly allows cooler heads to prevail once the reality of the enormous and complicated current proposal has had a chance to be evaluated and provide them with a more cost effective answer. The overall plan however of two sites has been worked on since 2008. The Conservancy management model only kicked in a short while ago as a viable and proven model and allowed just the Park to be concentrated upon.
A development tied stadium model is good, just better at the Bayview site which meets all the requirements of better return for the City, a brand new stadium for 70% the cost of the current one, on rapid transit, zoning already in place for such a development and within the master plan of the city (including George Dark's intensification model that initiated that master plan of development along the transitway incorporated into the Master Plan in 2004).
I want football to succeed and I believe developing in this manner allows the park not to be sacrificed, and remain self sufficient under new management.
Design B works overall (too bad about the bridge, but there is already one planned at Fifth to Clegg) just that it can be done without taxpayer money on a gradual implementation and allow the park to remain 100% public.
Threaded Mode