Lansdowne 2.0 (Northside Stands/Arena Redevelopment) | U/C

[J.OT13]

Here was the initial proposal. A hotel and row of townhouses. An outdoor amphitheater. An aquarium. Just like the 2.0 round, the few things that made the park interesting beyond retail were cut-out of the plan early on.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/the-future-of-lansdowne-park-1.801884

[J.OT13]

For what it's worth, some decent urban design review panel recommendations, mostly ignored.

945 Bank Street (Lansdowne 2.0) | Formal Review | Official Plan Amendment & Zoning By-law Amendment Application | City of Ottawa, Hobin Architecture Inc., OSEG, ERA Architects Inc., Fotenn Planning + Design

Key Recommendations

• The Panel recommends designing the site both for event days and the everyday experience of locals.
• The Panel recommends the focus of this next phase of development should be to ensure established qualities are not compromised by the new development.
• The Panel recommends year-round success of the pedestrian realm must be achieved and enhanced.
• The Panel recommends the pedestrian accessibility of the site needs to be maintained for events such as the Farmer’s Market and future large gatherings around the proposed event space.
• The Panel supports opening up Exhibition Way to further pedestrian activity.
• The Panel has concerns with the proposed event centre being too high in the landscape.
• The Panel strongly recommends lowering the event centre further into the ground and providing pedestrian access to the rooftop greenspace as a continuation of the park lawn.
• Consider the overall pedestrian accessibility to the event space, and the potential for large gatherings.
• The Panel strongly recommends the towers follow the City’s guidelines of a 750-sq.m. floorplate.
• The Panel recommends further investigating a single-tower or two-tower concept to allow for the 750-sq.m floorplates to be achieved.
• The Panel suggests doing so will improve the porosity of the site and maintain north-south views across Lansdowne Park, while minimizing wind and shadow impacts on the public realm.
• The Panel has concerns with the orientation and location of Tower ‘C’ and its tight condition with the Aberdeen Pavilion.
• Consider forgoing a three-tower approach.
• The Panel recommends that the future design of the podium consider using masonry to best relate to the Bank Street frontage and neighbourhood character.

Site Design and Public Realm

• The Panel appreciates and understands all the challenges with funding and the complexity of adding users, servicing, access, and new stands, etc.
• The Panel suggests locating the truck entrance in front of the Aberdeen Pavilion is problematic and would create a lot of challenges.
• Consider consolidating servicing to avoid conflicts.
• Consider locating the servicing between the podium and the bleachers, preferably with access from west side closer to Bank Street to mitigate trucks driving further into the site.
• The Panel appreciates the existing amenities of Lansdowne and how it has maintained amenities that are multi-generational, with a good balance of commercial uses and public spaces/events. Consider reinforcing this aspect of the site.
• The Panel appreciates that the site could support additional density to help animate Lansdowne Park. However, the Panel has concerns with Lansdowne Park’s ability to provide space that is pedestrian friendly and pedestrian focused, which are central to Lansdowne Park’s success—and transformative for Ottawa.
• The Panel recommends that this unique characteristic of Lansdowne as a pedestrian space and as a city outdoor public amenity must be protected and enhanced. Any diminishment of that would be a concern.
• The Panel has concerns with the lack of porosity north-south.
• Consider increasing the porosity between the buildings in the north-south direction.
• The Panel has concerns with the relationship between Tower ‘C’ and Aberdeen Pavilion.
• The Panel has concerns with how Tower ‘C’ seems to significantly obstruct the Aberdeen Pavilion and the event centre.
• The Panel suggests that Tower ‘C’ obstructs the connectivity and accessibility of the site and negatively affects the north-south access in front of Aberdeen Pavilion.
• The Panel has questions and concerns with the location and orientation of Tower ‘C’.
• Consider re-orientation to align with the street grid.
• The Panel appreciates that the views from the Rideau Canal have been maintained. However, Tower ‘C’ shifts the views away from the heritage of Aberdeen Pavilion and is much too prominent in the view planes.
• The Panel recommends enhancing the entrance to the event centre and protecting the views of Aberdeen Pavilion by removing Tower ‘C’.
• The Panel recommends at a minimum to incorporate a 23-meter separation between Tower ‘C’ and the Aberdeen Pavilion.
• The Panel has concerns with the proposal’s large impact on the pedestrian realm, and outdoor eating and patio spaces.
• The Panel recommends a single tower and podium approach that minimizes the wind and shadowing effects of the tower on the pedestrian realm.
• The Panel appreciates that there are various elements of the proposal that are being connected through the site by the promenade behind the stands and the ceremonial stairway, however these may not be the priority to preserve in the grand scheme.
• The Panel recommends any redevelopment of Lansdowne ensures that it remains a great destination in the city for Ottawans and visitors.

Sustainability

• The Panel strongly recommends and emphasizes that it is an important task to adhere to the sustainability standards and urban design guidelines that the City has implemented or is planning on implementing.

Built Form and Architecture

• The Panel appreciates the aspirations and objectives of the project and the rejuvenation of the stands and site.
• The Panel understands the economic model of the project and the neutral cost aspect.
• The Panel strongly recommends adhering to the City’s high-rise design guidelines for this City-led project.
• The Panel strongly recommends that the guideline’s 750-sq.m. floorplate should be followed.
• Views from the entrance off Queen Elizabeth Driveway (11), from the Bank Street bridge (13), and from Sunnyside/Bristol (7) are all significantly improved with a smaller floorplate design.
• The Panel strongly recommends the massing be adjusted with slender towers that meet the 750-sq.m. floorplates and separation distances of the guidelines. Doing so would result in much better views of Lansdowne from afar, and reduce the shadow and wind impacts on the pedestrian realm.
• The Panel recommends that more slender towers and protecting important sky views will greatly improve the proposal.
• The Panel recommends staggering the heights of the towers with the goal of making the high-rise portion seem less like a barrier.
• The Panel recommends designing the project with a brick and stone material palette to help create a cohesive sense of a precinct and to strengthen the character of the area.
• The Panel recommends the final product pick up on the prominent use of brick as a character element of Bank Street.
• The Panel appreciates the articulation of the podium, however, recommends the materiality should be more tactile and more residential in nature rather than having a glazed commercial appearance.
• The Panel recommends the final product should be a residential brick and stone palette, especially on the podium, to enhance the character of Bank.
• The Panel has concerns with the event centre in terms of how it blocks and interrupts the pedestrian experience of the site.
• The Panel encourages the applicant to consider alternate sectional studies and provide further analysis to better inform the end result.
• The Panel strongly recommends lowering the event centre into the ground and seamlessly connecting the park with its roof to create a park space for public enjoyment, despite additional cost.
• The Panel has concerns with the residential units facing the back of the north-side bleachers.
• Consider other amenities instead to highlight the ‘highline’ effect. Residential units facing the bleachers should not be an option.
• The Panel appreciates the decision to setback the podium and open up space on the south side of Exhibition Way.
• The Panel recommends further developing the ceremonial stairway. Consideration needs to be given to accessibility standards.
• The Panel recommends pursuing a two-tower approach instead of the three-tower proposal.

https://ottawa.ca/en/planning-developmen...ion-0825f9f4-d37b-4f3b-b94f-245e9ce51f5e

[rocketphish]

Lansdowne Park 2.0 proposal alters the current “waterfall” agreement
“You could count the number of people who understand the complexity of this deal on one hand,” says one economist.

Ken Warren, Ottawa Citizen
Published Oct 18, 2023 • Last updated 5 hours ago • 4 minute read

The complex, revamped $419 million Lansdowne Park 2.0 proposal alters the current “waterfall” agreement where all revenue streams are shared by the city and the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group.

If the controversial project goes ahead — financial experts and community groups want to hit the pause button until the city provides more detailed financial projections — the city will be guaranteed at least $800,000 annually in revenue returns up front.

That would come from the addition of $500,000 in OSEG rent, along with a minimum of $300,000 in new ticket surcharges from sports and entertainment events on site.

When introduced as part of the original Lansdowne 1.0 development plan back in 2012, the waterfall model conjured up images of a heavy cash flow eventually coming back to both the city and OSEG.

Considering that the project has returned nothing to the city — OSEG has lost $165 million in a decade, $100 million more that originally expected — the waterfall has instead acted more like a dry creek bed. OSEG has also incurred $60.2 million of interest on that equity, at eight per cent interest.

In a report to the Finance and Economic Development Committee in May, the city wrote, “the problem with the current model is that it didn’t contemplate OSEG contributing so much additional equity, primarily to cover year over year deficits since inception.”

Isabelle Jasmin, deputy city treasurer of corporate revenue, labelled the move as a “reprioritization of waterfall distributions” based on an analysis of what occurred with Lansdowne 1.0.

“The changes would still see the first distributions in the waterfall go to the lifestyle payments,” said Jasmin.

The lifestyle fund is used for maintenance costs of the facilities during the duration of the deal.

In simplistic terms, a waterfall arrangement describes the order in which creditors get paid in a multi-layered partnership.

The Lansdowne project is a closed system with six layers.

The original concept between the city and OSEG was designed so that both sides would receive revenue from all six levels within the waterfall agreement. Yet given the problems with the first stream — OSEG’s debt — the tap on the faucet has been dry from the outset.

Accordingly, changes are necessary. “The Lansdowne Redevelopment Project will require a significant equity contribution from the city,” says the report.

Under the revised plan, OSEG would receive the guaranteed rent and ticket surcharge revenues in the first step. An update to the second tier would see OSEG’s return on additional equity at five per cent of compounding interest, as opposed to eight per cent non-compounding in the current set-up.

There are also proposed changes to the “return of equity” arrangement in stages three through six.

The portion of the proposal providing rent and ticket surcharge cash is “more advantageous to the city,” says Neil Saravanamuttoo, Deputy Director of CitySHAPES and chief economist at the Global Infrastructure Hub.

Saravanamuttoo, however, also says the multi-layered plan, which includes $5 million annually from Ottawa taxpayers, is full of question marks. The proposal includes two highrise towers, rather than three in the earlier design concept, and would see the city incur $310 million in debt.

Mayor Mark Sutcliffe has passionately described the project as an “investment, not an expense,” but it’s an elaborate deal.

“You could count the number of people who understand the complexity of this deal on one hand,” Saravanamuttoo said.

According to the city’s estimates, “waterfall distributions” from all revenue levels will ultimately total $302.7 million to OSEG and $358.6 million to the city during the life of the project, which would expire in 2066.

That includes retail on site, proceeds from developmental rights to build the towers and property tax “upticks” from the new housing, along with what comes from the sports and entertainment events.

At first, it will only be a drip — $1.8 million in revenues to OSEG and $6.9 million to the city in 2027-32 — rising significantly in the latter stages as the debt is paid off.

In the final five-year timespan from 2062-66, OSEG would pull in $70.5 million and the city $82.1 million.

Saravanamuttoo cautions that the executive summary proposal from the city is a Class C document — Class B and Class A documents are far more detailed — and is short on specifics. He echoes Walter Robinson, former Canadian Taxpayers Association director and chief of staff to one-time mayor Larry O’Brien, in suggesting the cost of the plan could balloon to more than $460 million.

Chief among the queries is the $1.083 billion in projected retail revenues over the life of the project.

EY Canada, which audited the city’s projections, labelled those estimates as “optimistic.”

Kevin Page, president and CEO of the University of Ottawa’s Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy, says the revamped project increases the risk to taxpayers.

“Financial transparency gaps need to be closed,” Page explained. “The city auditor needs to carry out its risk sensitivity analysis with full access to the financial model and the EY (Canada) staff who provided the city with due diligent services.”

Page said city councillors need more detailed information before voting on the proposal.

The plan is scheduled to be presented to a joint meeting of the Financial and Corporate Services Committee and the Housing Committee on Nov. 2, to consider zoning and plan amendments and the start of competition for developmental rights to build the towers.

The Built Heritage Committee will consider the proposal on Nov. 6, before being voted on by full council on Nov. 10.

[email protected]

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-new...l-alters-the-current-waterfall-agreement

[rocketphish]

A case for Lansdowne development — and maybe true love
As Lansdowne continues to evolve, it more and more becomes the kind of meeting place that cities need.

Bruce Deachman, Ottawa Citizen
Published Oct 18, 2023 • Last updated 2 hours ago • 3 minute read

The note I found inside my desk was crisply folded, the cursive handwriting on it neat and orderly; a girl’s, I was convinced. “If you want to meet your secret admirer,” it read, “I’ll be at the main gate at Lansdowne Park this Saturday at noon.”

This is my earliest memory of Lansdowne Park, from 1971, when I was a 10-year-old, Grade 5 student at Broadview Avenue Public School.

I didn’t go. Not because of the travel logistics, although it would have required taking two buses to get there and two to get home. Rather, I didn’t go because the fear I was being set up to be embarrassed was greater than the possibility of finding true pre-pubescent love.

So my oldest memory of Lansdowne Park was actually of not going there.

There were countless other trips, for almost equally countless reasons. I cheered on my favourite wrestler, Édouard “The Flying Frenchman” Carpentier, when I was 11. I took in the odd Riders game, too, although for reasons now forgotten, I was a fan of the Saskatchewan Roughriders. As a teenager, I forged tickets to get into an April Wine concert.

I worked at the Ex, twice, cooking and serving bacon on a bun in the food building when I was in high school. So many customers told me they waited all year for those sandwiches. Many years later, I tended bar in an exhibitors’ lounge used mostly by carnies and casino dealers.

Lansdowne also drew me in as a reporter — a Brier and other curling events; the Rolling Stones; cottage and boat shows — and as an adult-rec hockey player.

I’m not simply being nostalgic as I hear the many valid concerns about the current Lansdowne 2.0 proposal, including parking, public transit access and how little the city is earmarking for affordable housing. The proposed 5,500-seat event centre, which will significantly cut into the Great Lawn, is a bone of contention, and if there’s somewhere else to put it on the site without chewing up grass, I’d love to hear about it. But with roughly 130 events a year there, it’s too important an economic driver for Lansdowne to lose.

City staff have indicated that repairing the 56-year-old Civic Centre is not a viable option. This is not comparable to an NHL owner asking a city to foot the bill for a new arena. It’s a city investing in itself, in a building it will own, on property it owns. At LeBreton Flats, we’re investing close to $200 million on a new public library to replace one that’s about as old as the Civic Centre, with only the expectation of recovering the $28 million spent on parking. This is what cities do. It’s what they should do.

Lansdowne is a venue that Ottawans of all stripes have had an extremely close relationship with, and the current version is evolving to serve that function again for younger generations. Yes, most of the new buildings are uninspiring. I feel the same about many of the site’s public-realm amenities, including the children’s play structure and the confusing area occupied by the outdoor farmers’ and Christmas markets.

But there’s much I love, including the Cineplex, outdoor markets, 613 Flea, LCBO and Beandigen coffeeshop. I enjoy the folk festival and the outdoor food fairs. I often go to the outdoor rink/basketball courts and simply sit and watch people. I share a commonly held love-hate relationship with Whole Foods and, frankly, have no use for a car dealership there, and I don’t bank at TD.

When I recently told someone that I didn’t care for the Winners at Lansdowne, she looked surprised. “I love the Winners,” she said. And that’s really the point. Lansdowne is turning into a place where there’s at least something for everyone, and what I regularly see there are people enjoying themselves at what is turning into, if it isn’t already, the city’s main destination and gathering place.

I live in Old Ottawa South, just a handful of blocks away. I heard the pounding bass of Escapade, and routinely suffer the cars snaking through my neighbourhood in search of parking on event days. But I welcome these “inconveniences” more than I disdain them because I want Lansdowne to thrive and be a place that people look forward to visiting, for whatever reason they go, be it for music, sports, dining, shopping, yoga or simply to people-watch.

And to whoever wrote me that note in Grade 5, look for me at the main entrance this Saturday at noon.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-new...ansdowne-development-and-maybe-true-love

[J.OT13]

I thought I read somewhere rent was going up from $1 to $1 million, not $500k.

[rocketphish]

Critics knock lack of affordable housing for revised Lansdowne 2.0 development plan
The $419-million project, with the city receiving just $3.9 million to fund affordable housing projects, has become one of the “main issues” in city councillor Shawn Menard's ward.

Marlo Glass, Ottawa Citizen
Published Oct 27, 2023 • Last updated 4 hours ago • 5 minute read

With a looming vote to support the City of Ottawa’s latest version of a plan to revitalize Lansdowne Park, a lack of concrete promises for affordable housing has left some councillors questioning the plan entirely.

For Capital ward Coun. Shawn Menard, the initial plan for affordable housing didn’t cut the mustard, “and, given the huge project, now it’s even more inadequate in my view.”

The $419-million project, with the city receiving just $3.9 million to fund affordable housing projects, has become one of the “main issues” in Menard’s ward.

Lansdowne 2.0 reduces the total of housing units to 770 from 1,200 and scraps the initial promise to make 10 per cent of units affordable housing, replacing it with the one-time, $3.9-million payment to city coffers.

“We’re at a point where the plan isn’t good enough for the city,” Menard said in an interview. “I don’t know if it’s fixable.”

Menard also raised concerns about the lack of a transportation plan and loss of greenspace as well as questions surrounding profit projections in retail spaces, along with the city assuming annual financial losses instead of Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group.

“It’s a very difficult plan to get behind,” he said. “There’s a huge risk for us.”

The proposed plan doesn’t comply with the city’s Affordable Housing Land and Funding Policy, which says 25 per cent of proceeds should go into affordable housing coffers whenever the city sells public land for private residential development. The city plans to sell its air and subterranean rights at Lansdowne Park for $39 million, and, using that formula, Menard said, the city should receive $9.75 million for the Lansdowne development, not $3.9 million.

City officials have said that $3.9 million can be used immediately to finance other affordable housing projects, eliminating the decade-long wait for the Lansdowne towers to be constructed.

But “immediately” might be a relative term.

The air and subterranean rights will be put up for sale in 2024, city staff say. Then the money will go to the affordable housing reserve fund for projects with shovels slated to enter the ground before 2026. The city has pledged to fund up to $32.4 million over three years for Ottawa Community Housing’s project at Rochester Heights, among other projects.

Other councillors have said they don’t support the latest version of Lansdowne 2.0, with deputy mayor Theresa Kavanagh noting the city is “in a housing shortage and also an affordability shortage” and the council’s top priority for this term is affordable housing.

“The revised plan removes 500 units of housing,” Kavanagh wrote in a post on her website. “The new proposal also removes the previous commitment to ensure 10% of the units are affordable housing. This is a major loss.”

Ultimately, she wrote, she wouldn’t vote in favour of the project.

Coun. Jeff Leiper, chair of the planning and housing committee, also wrote in an email to constituents that he likely wouldn’t be voting in favour of the project, calling the $3.9-million funding for affordable housing a “drop in the bucket” and “barely worth mentioning.”

Instead, Leiper said, “City-owned land needs to be put at the service of building deeply affordable housing, and that is not the case here, a crown jewel of municipally-owned parcels.”

Lansdowne 2.0 has been unveiled at a time when people with modest incomes are struggling to keep roofs over their heads, said Sam Hersh of the Horizon Ottawa community advocacy organization. “We’ve come back with a plan that is more costly, with less housing, and less affordable housing,” he said in an interview.

“Adding more housing and supply is great, but adding housing nobody can afford won’t solve the housing crisis,” he added.

According to national data gathered by Rentals.ca, average rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Ottawa is slightly more than $2,000, an increase of over 10 per cent from the previous year.

While the $3.9 million would go to building affordable housing in other areas of Ottawa, Hersh said the Glebe should also be a livable neighbourhood for everyone, “not just wealthy folks and people in condos and single-family homes.”

Kaite Burkholder Harris, executive director of the Alliance to End Homelessness Ottawa, said the city might be better off receiving the money directly and funding non-profit housing instead of relying on a developer to keep a small number of units affordable.

“I find that, increasingly, it’s more efficient to have straight money go to non-profit housing,” Burkholder Harris said in an interview.

Private developers’ definition of affordable “isn’t even what we need in the community,” she said, with frequent promises to keep units affordable for 10-15 years only pushing an inevitable affordability crisis down the road.

She added, “If we want truly affordable housing, it needs to be non-profit, non-market. As soon as someone is profiting off of a human right, it’s hard to enforce that human right.”

Developers often want to “do affordable housing, but still make money,” she said, but the math doesn’t add up.

Burkholder Harris cited Montreal’s inclusionary zoning policy, which requires developers to include social housing, family-sized units or affordable units in large-scale projects or pay a fine. As of last summer, all developers had opted to pay the fee.

But, she said, at least 25 per cent of the air and subterranean sale for Lansdowne Park should go to non-profit housing in order to build affordable housing “at scale” to meet Ottawa’s needs.

As it stands, the $3.9 million will amount to approximately 10 new units built.

“It’s like the house is on fire and we forgot to call 911,” Burkholder Harris said. “We don’t have the level of urgency for the crisis we’re in.”

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/critics-k...r-revised-lansdowne-2-0-development-plan

[ponyboycurtis]

Regardless of anything said in the article.. why reduce the housing by 430 units? Viable transit along that corridor wont be built in my working lifetime so you might as well just send it? Who cares about traffic. I sit in traffic all the time. I plan around it if I can and if not I turn up the radio.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by ponyboycurtis

Regardless of anything said in the article.. why reduce the housing by 430 units? Viable transit along that corridor wont be built in my working lifetime so you might as well just send it? Who cares about traffic. I sit in traffic all the time. I plan around it if I can and if not I turn up the radio.

What some advocates like it seems the one in that article, along with those associated with Menard & his proxy group Horizon Ottawa is that Lansdowne is a city asset and the rink needs significant repair or outright replacement.

This deal is about how the city pays for those repairs/replacement, with the plan being using the increased property taxes pool & the sale of the air rights to pay for it. To which its ridiculous to reduce the # of units being buitl/ the air rights being sold.

So yes, the city could ask for any definition of affordable it wants, but it will be the CITY that will need to pay for it, either directly or through a reduced cost in the air right and thus more money going to the repair/replacement of a CITY asset.

P.S: LOL @ Leiper, someone can afford the units and its moronic to state otherwise.

[DTcrawler]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

What some advocates like it seems the one in that article, along with those associated with Menard & his proxy group Horizon Ottawa is that Lansdowne is a city asset and the rink needs significant repair or outright replacement.

This deal is about how the city pays for those repairs/replacement, with the plan being using the increased property taxes pool & the sale of the air rights to pay for it. To which its ridiculous to reduce the # of units being buitl/ the air rights being sold.

So yes, the city could ask for any definition of affordable it wants, but it will be the CITY that will need to pay for it, either directly or through a reduced cost in the air right and thus more money going to the repair/replacement of a CITY asset.

P.S: LOL @ Leiper, someone can afford the units and its moronic to state otherwise.

How come I never see Leiper take issue with the affordability of the detached homes in his ward? Oh right, those are his voters, i.e. the only people he actually cares about satisfying, despite the whole "champion of affordability" front he and his buddy Menard try to put up.

[OTownandDown]

Does any of this cash flow include removing and replacing the roof at the Aberdeen Pavilion, providing better HVAC, and restoring the 150 year old roof truss segments?

The Aberdeen Pavilion should be restored, interior fit up, and protected at the same high level as Parliament, imo.

Otherwise we'll lose the Pavilion, and the entire park space will be dull. This type of destination requires a draw that isn't just shopping and goodlife. Condos with every cladding type under the sun pasted onto the outside does not make draw-style architeccture.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by DTcrawler

How come I never see Leiper take issue with the affordability of the detached homes in his ward? Oh right, those are his voters, i.e. the only people he actually cares about satisfying, despite the whole "champion of affordability" front he and his buddy Menard try to put up.

I mean that is his job. Those SFH owning, car driving NIMBYs who complain about development and think they are better than the real suburbanites because they care about climate change and maybe walk to a restaurant once a week are annoying but he is representing their wishes which is the point of a democratic institution. Same with Sutcliffe. We voted for that. We get what we asked for.

[rocketphish]

The business of buying the sky above Lansdowne: What are air rights all about?
Explaining Ottawa's Lansdowne 2.0 proposal to sell air rights to developers, which is part of a growing trend in municipal projects.

Ken Warren, Ottawa Citizen
Published Oct 30, 2023 • Last updated 5 hours ago • 8 minute read

At first blush, there might not seem to be any connection between a North Carolina chicken farmer in the 1940s, the health of New York’s theatre district and the proposed redevelopment of Lansdowne Park.

Ultimately, though, they all figure prominently in the story of how we’re selling the sky.

Those with a fondness for Ernie and Bert might remember an old Sesame Street skit where a shady operator attempted to sell Ernie a bottle of air. Well, it’s no joke.

The value of air — specifically, the air directly above existing properties — is becoming central to multi-billion dollar development projects designed to increase population density within cities.

In our own backyard, one of the key planks in the city’s partnership with the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group to re-imagine Lansdowne — including demolishing the existing TD Arena and replacing it with a new 5,500-seat arena on the east side of the property, along with building fresh north side stands at TD Place — is selling the “air and subterranean rights” for the revenues to help finance the project.

The proposal calls for a new two-storey base of retail and commercial properties. OSEG would pay for the construction costs of a podium that would serve as a base for the residential towers, with developers purchasing the air rights currently owned by the city. OSEG would then transfer ownership of the podium to the city and then lease it back, the same way all the retail is currently treated under the existing Lansdowne 1.0 project.

The value of the air is determined by designing a 3-D model of the space to be developed and factoring in real estate market values for that area. In its updated Lansdowne 2.0 plan, the city estimated it will receive $39 million in revenues from auctioning off those rights for the construction of 40-storey and 25-storey towers with up to 770 residential units.

Ten per cent of that amount, in turn, would be used towards the construction of affordable housing elsewhere in the city.

It’s not an entirely new approach here. In the original Lansdowne 1.0 project, the city netted $11.3 million in air rights from the construction of the 20-storey Minto condo building on the western edge of the site on Bank Street.

“There are not a lot of scenarios where it’s an appropriate solution,” Kitchissippi Ward Coun. Jeff Leiper said of the prospect of selling the air above city-owned properties. “But in this case, the city would own the podium (the base on which the towers will be constructed). It makes sense in my view to put residential above the retail space to offset the cost of the larger 2.0 proposal. The city doesn’t want to be a developer.”

When did the idea of air rights begin?

The original legal interpretation of air rights — “whoever owns the soil, it is theirs up to Heaven and down to Hell” — theoretically gave property owners control of everything immediately above their heads and below their feet.

Famed New York City engineer William Wilgus came up with a novel plan for the elaborate landmark design of the privately-owned Grand Central Station from 1908-1913. The train tracks, which originally ran at street level, were electrified and buried below the ground.

The space above the tracks in the new station was then leased out to pay for the construction, in what Wilgus described as “taking wealth from the air.” With the rails buried, the Grand Central re-design has since spawned a train of development above the land and a model for urban design elsewhere in the United States.

In many cases, cities have sold off the space above city-owned rail lines to finance mixed-use projects that often include urban parks.

“One of the struggles for cities is having limited funding tools for municipal projects,” said Nathan Bonio, a Vancouver-based urban planner who wrote a research paper on Air Rights Development and Public Assets at Toronto Metropolitan University. “It’s a problem across Canada and cities have to get creative. It’s an interesting and creative way to raise revenues.”

Do airplanes invade personal space?

Yes. And no. With the onset of air travel, courts determined that the skies were a public highway with freedom of access.

That, however, was put to the test in 1946 in Greensboro, N.C., where the United States Navy and Army operated an airstrip. It sat next door to a chicken farm owned by Lee Causby.

Jets routinely flew a mere 70 feet over the farm, scaring Causby’s chickens to the point where they died from fright before their eggs hatched.

Causby lost his farm and successfully sued for damages, scrambling the existing law. An “enveloping atmosphere” rule for landowners was established, providing ownership of all the airspace they could “reasonably use”.

Come the 21st century, the question of whether drones flying overhead constitute an invasion of privacy is unclear, according to Sara Haider, a lawyer at Toronto’s Delzotto, Zorzi firm.

“It’s a fascinating issue, as the law has yet to provide a clear answer,” said Haider, who examined the history of court rulings in an essay covering all aspects of air rights for the Canadian Bar Association.

What’s the value in subterranean rights?

Revenues from parking are significant in the construction of new residential towers, so owning the land below the surface can also be profitable.

That explains the inclusion in the Lansdowne plan. One significant exception to ownership of rights below the ground, however, relates to “pore space”. If precious metals or oil are discovered below the surface of any property, the Canadian government reserves the right to ownership of the resources. But that, too, figures to be subject to future court challenges.

So, I can build an apartment complex on my suburban lot because I own the air rights?

No. Any new developments are subject to zoning by-laws, aimed at protecting the character of existing neighbourhoods. Following community outcry after the construction of an eight-storey retirement home in the heart of the Glebe, for example, the height of new buildings between First Avenue and Holmwood Avenue is now limited to four stories.

Nine-storey buildings are permitted south of Holmwood, across Bank Street from Lansdowne Park and 22-story structures are allowed at the north end of the Glebe at Isabella Street.

When major projects are proposed with higher height and residential density requirements, such as the Lansdowne re-design, city council must approve a zoning exemption allowing it to go ahead. At this point, a maximum of 280 “dwelling units” is allowed on the property. The city’s proposal would include as many as 770 units.

How does all this apply to the New York skyline?

Fans of the theatre have seen this in action in a significant way with private owners. In 1998, New York’s planning department amended zoning laws, allowing landlords of Broadway theatres to sell the air rights above their properties to developers. As part of the arrangement, the builders contribute to a fund to keep the theatre district thriving.

With prime real estate space at a premium in major cities, owners of heritage buildings have also sold off the rights above their structures to developers. While the properties can’t be destroyed due to their historical significance, builders have created unique architectural designs where new towers cantilever atop the original structures.

What’s going on with Toronto’s Rail Deck District?

While the Lansdowne 2.0 project is based on the idea of the city selling air rights to a developer, it could work the other way around in the controversial Rail Deck downtown district in Toronto.

Former Toronto Mayor John Tory once imagined that the construction of a seven-hectare property, built over existing rail lines near Rogers Centre, could become a Central Park-like project. The air rights for the territory, however, were purchased by a group of developers from CN Rail in 2013.

In 2021, an Ontario tribunal ruled the city should have allowed the developers to go ahead with their own previous development plans for the space.

The developers’ latest design concept would see the construction of nine condo towers — what would Toronto be without more of them? — ranging from 20 to 65 storeys, including more than 6,000 residential units. The developers are still open to selling off as much as half of the property to the city, but at what price?

In 2020, those developers offered to sell the air rights back to the city for $340 million and the city’s proposed budget to build the entire park back in 2017 — the construction of rail “decks” doesn’t come cheap — was $1.7 billion.

Do you pay property taxes on air rights?

The ongoing court fights over the development of the Rail Deck project also include a significant ruling from the Ontario Superior Court earlier this year. On appeal from an earlier decision, undeveloped “air rights” property is now subject to property taxes.

Haider says that will have a significant impact on future air rights deals. If there’s no immediate plan to develop, the cost of purchasing the rights could drop.

“Developers must factor these taxes into their budget, which could affect their decision to purchase air rights,” Haider wrote. “These sales could also lower the value of properties when assessing their value for property taxes.”

In some cases, then, the air we breathe becomes taxable.

So what’s next for the air above Lansdowne Park?

On Nov. 2, the proposal will go before the city’s joint finance and corporate services and planning and housing committee for a recommendation on whether the plan should proceed to a full city council vote on Nov. 10.

If city council approves Lansdowne 2.0, the city will embark on a two-stage process to determine interest from builders: an initial request for expressions of interest, followed by a formal request for proposals. According to the city, that is done to “achieve the highest revenue contribution for the city.”

An Ottawa real estate insider, who didn’t want to be identified due to a potential conflict with the Lansdowne project, says the value of air rights on the site “would have to be based on an approved zoning schedule/density.”

That number, he said, would be based on land value on a per-square-foot calculation.

It should be noted here that in the initial Lansdowne 1.0 proposal a decade ago, the city estimated air rights for the construction of the current 20-storey building on site would be $10.2 million. When that deal was completed, the city received $11.3 in revenues.

[email protected]
X: Citizenkwarren

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-new...ng-the-sky-what-are-air-rights-all-about

[rocketphish]

Walk softly, carry big air rights
Rather than simply sell the development air rights at Lansdowne, the city needs to wield them to get the greatest community good.

Bruce Deachman, Ottawa Citizen
Published Oct 30, 2023 • Last updated 6 hours ago • 4 minute read

Integral to the ongoing development at Lansdowne, the term “air rights” is mentioned 80 times in the city’s latest proposal. Yet the idea of Ottawa selling or leasing those, along with subterranean rights, is anathema to those who don’t think the city should deal away its precious assets to developers.

But that’s long been one of the ways that cash-strapped cities, including Ottawa, get funds to acquire the things residents want. It’s not only how Lansdowne 1.0 went ahead but also the process that’s been used to build much of the city.

As Gowling WLG partner and municipal and real property lawyer Michael Polowin explained to me, the office building sitting atop the current main branch of the Ottawa Public Library, at the corner of Laurier and Metcalfe, was an air rights development involving the city in the early 1970s.

“I’m sure that’s a building you’ve looked at many times and never knew there was an air rights transaction involved,” said Polowin.

The pedestrian walkway over Rideau Street, between the Rideau Centre and the Bay department store, required an air rights agreement with the city. And although the city wasn’t a party to it, the recent build at 900 Bank St., beside Kettleman’s Bagels in the Glebe, involved an air rights deal.

The fact is that the city is not in the business of development. It doesn’t have the money, nor the in-house expertise, to erect all the housing it desperately needs. And with intensification being one of its stated priorities, and suitable land increasingly at a premium, air rights deals make it possible to increase density on city property within the Greenbelt.

“This is very much a Canadian tale of how development is getting done in the country,” said University of Toronto Geography and Planning professor Matti Siemiatycki, who is also director of the Infrastructure Institute at the university’s School of Cities. “As we intensify, the air rights above facilities and in places that people didn’t used to think were either buildable or didn’t see as being valuable, especially for residential development, are now becoming prized locations.”

Air rights, Polowin explains, can be divided, sold or leased pretty much in any configuration the owner chooses, limited in this case only by a city’s creativity. (Damn, where’s that night mayor?) Just so long as there’s a developer willing to play ball.

Now the city, so far at least, appears willing to drop the affordable housing ball at Lansdowne, with the report indicating its willingness to take 10 per cent of the anticipated $39 million in air rights revenue from the two proposed largely residential towers to build affordable housing elsewhere, rather than insist on the $10 million that should, by its own policy, go to its affordable housing fund. It’s a bad look, talking the talk without moving your feet. That said, the city needn’t simply give the rest of the farm away, too.

The city and its partner at Lansdowne, the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group, have argued that the 2.0 proposal needs to go ahead to make both the partnership and the site profitable.

But that should not be the city’s only concern. With its bundle of air rights as leverage, the city has the opportunity to ensure that Lansdowne evolves into not simply an important event, entertainment and shopping destination, but one that also fills residents’ needs and provides a hub of other valuable services.

It could, for example, insist that three- and four-bedroom units be built, to help address the dearth of family-size rentals.

Meanwhile, the idea of building a hotel on the site has frequently been bandied about and is included in the proposal as a possible addition. Yet consideration for a daycare or community health and resource centre is only mentioned in a pair of lists noting the 53 approved uses for parcels of land at Lansdowne (including, I’m saddened to report, a golf course, payday loan establishment and drive-through “facility,” whatever that might mean). I don’t think a hotel there is a bad idea, and I’m sure it improves the financial picture, but a daycare or health centre have to be considered better fits for what residents want.

In Toronto, which is far ahead of Ottawa in terms of air rights development, such inclusions are commonplace. “We’re doing it for all sorts of things,” says Siemiatycki. “Recreation centres and YMCAs are increasingly being integrated into housing buildings.

“It scratches a lot of itches.”

If there city wants to scratch enough itches to maximize support for Lansdowne 2.0, it needs to use its air rights to ensure the greatest benefit to the community, and openly show residents throughout the process that it won’t accept less.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/deachman-walk-softly-carry-big-air-rights

[rocketphish]

Retailers so key to Lansdowne Park, GoodLife could temporarily take over heritage building
Retail is Lansdowne 2.0's moneymaker. Can it carry the project?

Elyse Skura · CBC News
Posted: Oct 30, 2023 4:00 AM EDT | Last Updated: 7 hours ago

The redevelopment discussions may focus on the state of its sporting facilities, but there's no doubt that Lansdowne 2.0's financial future hinges on the profitability of its retail arm.

With $419 million on the line for the urban lifestyle park's latest redesign, big-name critics say they need proof the revenue source is sound.

In fact, holding onto major businesses is so important that GoodLife Fitness could take up residence in the Horticulture Building — a heritage asset the City of Ottawa once spent $7 million to move 120 metres — during the potential construction.

"Retail is critical to the affordability of the overall partnership and the business case for redevelopment," city staff wrote in the 218-page report set to be presented to councillors this week, noting that the retail strategy contributes to Lansdowne's "year-round vitality."

Detailed financial projections suggest that retail would bring in $1.08 billion, after expenses, from 2012 to the end of 2066, enough to offset substantial losses from the stadium and the Ottawa 67's hockey franchise.

"We can't know [if that's realistic] because they're hiding a lot of the documentation," said Michael Wernick, the University of Ottawa's Jarislowsky Chair in Public Management and former clerk of the Privy Council.

He, and others, argue the public deserves to know more.

"It's a lot of taxpayer money. It's taxpayers in every corner of Ottawa that are at risk of not getting their money back."

While the initial Lansdowne Park redevelopment undoubtedly revitalized the site, it has so far been a financial failure.

The public-private partnership with Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG) has generated no income, with retail surfacing as the only steady moneymaker.

Under the Lansdowne 2.0 plans, the area of retail space housing the GoodLife Fitness and team stores will need to be torn down so the aging Civic Centre and the stadium's north-side stands can be replaced.

OSEG's original plans had called for the rebuilt structure to add 67,000 square feet of retail, but the city and accounting firm Ernst & Young found it would provide "no financial benefit," citing the added cost of construction and financing.

The revised plan will focus on restoring lost space, adding a scant 8,000 square feet and ensuring a second-floor area suitable to host GoodLife Fitness — a tenant known to "generate traffic".

The financial due diligence report noted "shortcomings in OSEG's model," suggesting it overlooked "real-world leasing complexities like tenant rollovers, vacancy lags, and the variable nature of rental growth."

The latest iteration of the Lansdowne project also aims to address concerns about the complex system of financial returns by simplifying the "waterfall" distribution process and including an "agile" audit carried out by the city's auditor general as the project rolls out, not afterwards.

Prominent figures who've called for added transparency — including Wernick, along with former parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page and former federal cabinet minister Catherine McKenna — don't seem convinced the partnership has gone far enough.

"We need to take these predictions with a grain of salt," said Neil Saravanamuttoo, former chief economist of the G20's Global Infrastructure Hub.

He noted how far they stretch into the future, saying "obviously a lot can happen between now and then."

Saravanamuttoo also suggested that when Ernst & Young described OSEG's retail assumptions as "optimistic," the consultant really meant "unlikely to ever happen."

Wernick was less vocal on the specifics, but said "the onus is on the mayor and councillors who support the project to show that the risks are reasonable."

The city and OSEG are set to share the financial repercussions of the temporary loss of retail space and stadium seating, pegged at $10 million.

The partnership does lay out a plan to maintain its affected "anchor tenant."

The retail partnership aims to honour its lease by relocating that business — not expressly identified in this area of the report, but suggested elsewhere to be GoodLife — into another existing Lansdowne Park retail space.

If that's not possible, the Horticulture Building will be made available for what's expected to be two to three years. The tenant would "continue to pay rent and operating costs," while any community events would be moved to the newly constructed event centre.

Saravanamuttoo said the city should do everything possible to accommodate GoodLife, but access to the Horticulture Building would be "a real problem" since it's such a great community space.

Capital Coun. Shawn Menard, who represents the area, warns that up to 10 years of construction could prove quite disruptive to the overall site.

He also said the best predictor of the future is the past.

"I think businesses should be very concerned here," he said. "Anchor tenants have already left. We saw the PetSmart leave, we see now the Bank of Montreal is leaving … this will have reverberating repercussions for a long period of time if it goes forward."

After the disruptions end, the city and OSEG seem confident that the revitalized site will get people shopping and eating at the park on days the Ottawa Redblacks aren't playing.

Saravamuttoo is less convinced.

"For anyone that's walked the Lansdowne site, it's really hard to understand how we're projecting a billion dollars in retail profits," he said.

"On game day, and at the farmers' market, there's lots of people around. But any other time at Lansdowne, it's quite frankly a bit of a ghost town."

The Lansdowne 2.0 proposal will head to a joint meeting of the planning and finance committees on Thursday before being presented to a special city council meeting on Nov. 10.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/lansdowne-park-ottawa-development-retail-future-1.7011664

[YOWetal]

Lots of good articles. A lot critical. I guess this is normal but is there a tide turning on approving this? Or these things are pre-ordained and we don't have much other choice other than watching OSEG fold up the sports teams? Does OSEG get to keep the retail revenue in that case?

[johnnystims]

Menard was too busy crying about the heights when he should have been fighting for more affordable housing with the 3 towers. Smooth brain activities by him and Leiper of course

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

Does any of this cash flow include removing and replacing the roof at the Aberdeen Pavilion, providing better HVAC, and restoring the 150 year old roof truss segments?

The Aberdeen Pavilion should be restored, interior fit up, and protected at the same high level as Parliament, imo.

Otherwise we'll lose the Pavilion, and the entire park space will be dull. This type of destination requires a draw that isn't just shopping and goodlife. Condos with every cladding type under the sun pasted onto the outside does not make draw-style architeccture.

Haven't heard anything about improving the public realm or necessary work on the Aberdeen Pavilion. The entire project is purely about giving OSEG what they want, new sports facilities and more density. OSEG presented a plan, the City took it, dumbed it down and now hoping to run with it.

In defense of Leiper, he is open to more density. I see nothing wrong with questioning the lack of affordable housing on City property. Those unaffordable houses in his Ward are private property. City has no power over them, other than rezoning, which is coming, and will make them even more unaffordable for families.

On Lansdowne, I'd like to see a third tower added between the proposed arena and QED. Adds density without overcrowding the Aberdeen Pavilion. But I guess that would be too far for people to walk to their cars or something.

[nredding]

Landsdowne isn’t well situated as a retail hub. It’s not convenient to get to by car or public transit, there’s no employment hub nearby to provide walk-in lunchtime traffic, and the surrounding housing is low density.
I often go by there and it seems pretty dead except when an event is happening. When the liquor store opened at Landsdowne, the existing liquor store at Bank & Powell closed. That was my local LCBO and although it was tiny, not much larger than the walk-in beer fridge at the new store, it was much busier!
And, of course, it is absurd to pretend you can forecast retail revenues out to 2066!

[DTcrawler]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I mean that is his job. Those SFH owning, car driving NIMBYs who complain about development and think they are better than the real suburbanites because they care about climate change and maybe walk to a restaurant once a week are annoying but he is representing their wishes which is the point of a democratic institution. Same with Sutcliffe. We voted for that. We get what we asked for.

I'm not denying that, or even taking issue with it necessarily. What I hate is how those two cater to the aforementioned crowd while trying to save face with the activists and Horizon Ottawa-types by acting like champions of affordability on twitter.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by nredding

Landsdowne isn’t well situated as a retail hub. It’s not convenient to get to by car or public transit, there’s no employment hub nearby to provide walk-in lunchtime traffic, and the surrounding housing is low density.
I often go by there and it seems pretty dead except when an event is happening. When the liquor store opened at Landsdowne, the existing liquor store at Bank & Powell closed. That was my local LCBO and although it was tiny, not much larger than the walk-in beer fridge at the new store, it was much busier!
And, of course, it is absurd to pretend you can forecast retail revenues out to 2066!

On the LCBO, the one at Powell was my local one as well. Its closure coincided not just with the Lansdowne LCBO, but also with the new LCBO a few blocks north at McLeod and the opening of the much larger LCBO at Isabella. Much as I cursed the move, the new set up serves the area much better. (Also not sure that Powell was much busier - the people were just packed closer together. Lansdowne is by far my favourite LCBO in the city.)