Lansdowne Park Redevelopment Phase 1 | Completed

[Uhuniau]

Retail bank architecture these days is terrible all around.

Walked into a bank branch the other day that could have been a political campaign headquarters.

[J.OT13]

Pretty crazy how we went from cathedrals of commerce in the 1800s to 1940s, to these utilitarian, soulless buildings over the last half century or so.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Pretty crazy how we went from cathedrals of commerce in the 1800s to 1940s, to these utilitarian, soulless buildings over the last half century or so.

The last four or five years in particular have been awful. The RBC at Bank and Queen might as well be a weed store.

[rocketphish]

Payouts from existing Lansdowne Park deal shaved back yet again
Lansdowne 1.0 now expected to generate $55.4M less for city over 4 decades

Arthur White-Crummey · CBC News
Posted: Oct 26, 2023 4:00 AM EDT | Last Updated: 4 hours ago

The Lansdowne Park partnership has posted yet another year of losses, shaving $55.4 million off the payout expected to the city from the deal over its four-decade term.

Ottawa's city manager said the shortfall helps make the case for replacing the deal with the Lansdowne 2.0 plan councillors will vote on next month, but an opponent of that plan said it should make the city even more cautious to double down on a troubled enterprise.

The new forecast came this week in the 2023 Lansdowne annual report. It updates the best guess for how much money the partnership will pay in total distributions, placing the new number at $270.6 million.

That's less than the $326 million forecast in April, itself a steep drop from the $544.7 million expected a year before that. The latest estimate is also below the forecast from when the partnership began in 2012.

At that point, the city was expecting $93.6 million from the complex "waterfall" arrangement that sees money flow first to Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG) to recognize its investment.

It soon became clear that the city wouldn't get a cent and that remains the case in the latest forecast.

The new estimate takes account of current operating results, higher interest rates, inflationary costs and lower growth rates for business at Lansdowne.

It assumes that the partnership continues as is without the $419 million Lansdowne 2.0 redevelopment.

In pitching a new plan that would reform the partnership and rebuild much of the site, the city has argued that the current deal isn't viable and the city could face high costs if OSEG defaults. City staff said the new numbers back up that case.

"I think this just underpins the report that is going forward for Lansdowne with respect to what the future looks like and making something that is sustainable," city manager Wendy Stephanson said Wednesday.

"It really supports the new model that we're putting in front of council."

Capital Coun. Shawn Menard, who represents the area that includes Lansdowne Park, took exactly the opposite lesson from the report.

"One of the most important things that I'm pulling out from this is that the projections that city staff and OSEG have continuously made for Lansdowne since its inception have been incorrect," Menard said. "That continues to this day."

He said the best predictor of the future is the past and that gives him little optimism that Lansdowne 2.0 can succeed where Lansdowne 1.0 has failed.

"There's more financial risk here as a result of the poor performance we're seeing," he said.

The Lansdowne 2.0 plan has an estimated price tag of $419 million. The city would take on $312.7 million in new debt and pay it back through several revenue streams, including a ticket surcharge, a share of higher tax earning on the development and, importantly, waterfall distributions.

The waterfall hasn't flown over the course of the existing deal because the partnership has posted a loss every single year.

It did so again this past fiscal year, according to the annual report released this week, which found a net loss of $9.1 million.

Under the existing deal, OSEG is on the hook for that loss.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/la...-annual-report-losses-forecast-1.7008003

[J.OT13]

Deachman: Water Taxi! Take me down the Rideau Canal to Lansdowne

Parks Canada is starting a pilot project next year on Ottawa's heritage waterway. Meanwhile, a taxi service on the Ottawa River plans to expand. It's about time.

Bruce Deachman
Published Nov 24, 2023 • Last updated 17 hours ago • 3 minute read[SNIP]

Parks Canada confirmed on Friday that water taxis will operate on the Rideau Canal beginning next spring. The pilot project will be run by Ottawa Boat Lines, which already operates boat tours on the canal and Ottawa River. The service, commencing with the May 10 opening of the Canadian Tulip Festival, will last “several weeks.”

The service, said Parks Canada communications officer Maureen Belej, will “provide a less costly alternative to tourists and locals to both view the City of Ottawa from the water but also to disembark at key landmarks, cultural attractions and destinations along the way.” No other details were provided, and no one at Ottawa Boat Lines replied to requests for comment.

[SNIP]

On the canal, he adds, navigating locks would take too much time, effectively limiting any taxi service to the stretch between the Château Laurier and Dow’s Lake. And if you were hoping to transport lots of people to Lansdowne Park for big events such as Redblacks’ games or concerts, forget it: you’d require more boats than would make sense having during the rest of the year.

[SNIP]

https://ottawasun.com/news/local-news/de...wcm/f3b67eb1-61b2-4b36-b37f-fde096b83f97

[rocketphish]

Lansdowne partnership lost money again last fiscal year
Partnership has posted a loss every year since its launch a decade ago

Arthur White-Crummey · CBC News
Posted: Jan 27, 2025 11:09 AM EST | Last Updated: 25 minutes ago

The Lansdowne partnership has racked up another year of losses and is counting on lower financial distributions in the years to come.

In its annual report, the partnership between the city and Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG) reported a net loss of $9.2 million for the 2023-24 fiscal year. That's almost precisely the same as the previous fiscal year.

The new results, together with next year's budget and updated economic assumptions, prompted the partnership to update its fiscal forecast for the years ahead. It now foresees a reduction in distributions of $4.6 million over the 40-year life of the agreement.

The forecast is based on the current partnership, not the planned Lansdowne 2.0 project.

<more>

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/la...t-money-again-last-fiscal-year-1.7442328

[OTownandDown]

I have a question, sorry if its a dumb question.

The beginning of this project MUST have included some sort of financial outlook to provide a rosy picture for the City to buy in.

What's missing from the original financial estimate/breakdown compared to this year's income? What specific line item has missed the mark? Surely there's got to be some similar line items between estimate and reality that we can get a better look at? Maybe the question's been answered already, but its something that came to mind.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

I have a question, sorry if its a dumb question.

The beginning of this project MUST have included some sort of financial outlook to provide a rosy picture for the City to buy in.

What's missing from the original financial estimate/breakdown compared to this year's income? What specific line item has missed the mark? Surely there's got to be some similar line items between estimate and reality that we can get a better look at? Maybe the question's been answered already, but its something that came to mind.

I think it was a series of things that changed the projections, starting with the unanticipated structural work, and more recently COVID and the impact on retail and office lease rates.

They do specifically mention that the Redblacks' revenue being down this year as a cause (no playoff game for a bunch of seasons), but that is pretty minimal in the big picture, and they must have accounted for that. Either way, it seems like it should have been offset by the fact that the arena etc. are really busy with the PWHL, CEBL and now rugby and women's soccer. Unless the initial projections counted on all of those new teams, but that would have been a bit silly to project.

Also not sure when the revenue from the World Juniors gets booked. Probably in 2025.

[OTownandDown]

So, like, chat GPT tells me there's 80 sports events, and about 20 concerts per year?

So a loss of about 100k per event. Not great numbers.

Originally Posted by phil235

I think it was a series of things that changed the projections, starting with the unanticipated structural work, and more recently COVID and the impact on retail and office lease rates.

They do specifically mention that the Redblacks' revenue being down this year as a cause (no playoff game for a bunch of seasons), but that is pretty minimal in the big picture, and they must have accounted for that. Either way, it seems like it should have been offset by the fact that the arena etc. are really busy with the PWHL, CEBL and now rugby and women's soccer. Unless the initial projections counted on all of those new teams, but that would have been a bit silly to project.

Also not sure when the revenue from the World Juniors gets booked. Probably in 2025.

[Richard Eade]

But having a relatively small loss per event is not OtownandDown’s point, I believe. They are trying to fathom why the original economic projections (that were used to support the proposal’s acceptance) were so far off the mark that, not only is there no ‘Waterfall’ contribution to the City, but Lansdowne incurs an actual $9M loss annually.

I think that phil235 touched on a number of causes for Lansdowne’s lower-than-expected revenue, but I think that they missed one huge factor – that the initial estimates were wildly optimistic. The lack of realism in the estimated figures was pointed out to the City, but ignored, since the proponent’s provided numbers gave the impression that the City would change from subsidizing Lansdowne by up to $4M each year to receiving additional income from it.

Alas, the City simple ignored the old adage that ‘If it sounds too good to be true – it probable is.’

Of course, in the bigger picture, the City has likely come out ahead, even without any ‘Waterfall’ income. The City is no longer on the hook to cover any shortfall between Lansdowne’s generated revenue and it operation costs. (Indeed, I don’t think that the City has any responsibility to cover any of the current annual losses – although I don’t know that for sure.) And, the City is now getting property tax revenue from the new-builds on the Lansdowne property.

[Ottawacurious]

I thought the property tax from new builds was going to fund the deficit?

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

But having a relatively small loss per event is not OtownandDown’s point, I believe. They are trying to fathom why the original economic projections (that were used to support the proposal’s acceptance) were so far off the mark that, not only is there no ‘Waterfall’ contribution to the City, but Lansdowne incurs an actual $9M loss annually.

I think that phil235 touched on a number of causes for Lansdowne’s lower-than-expected revenue, but I think that they missed one huge factor – that the initial estimates were wildly optimistic. The lack of realism in the estimated figures was pointed out to the City, but ignored, since the proponent’s provided numbers gave the impression that the City would change from subsidizing Lansdowne by up to $4M each year to receiving additional income from it.

Alas, the City simple ignored the old adage that ‘If it sounds too good to be true – it probable is.’

Of course, in the bigger picture, the City has likely come out ahead, even without any ‘Waterfall’ income. The City is no longer on the hook to cover any shortfall between Lansdowne’s generated revenue and it operation costs. (Indeed, I don’t think that the City has any responsibility to cover any of the current annual losses – although I don’t know that for sure.) And, the City is now getting property tax revenue from the new-builds on the Lansdowne property.

These projects never ever make money, and cities in general fall for this over and over again. At *only* a 9 million a year subsidy we're actually ahead of the pack compared to some other places. Wait until taxpayers end up on the hook for the Lebreton stadium district at Lebreton.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/05/sports-stadium-subsidies-taxpayer-funding/678319/

[phil235]

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

So, like, chat GPT tells me there's 80 sports events, and about 20 concerts per year?

So a loss of about 100k per event. Not great numbers.

That 80 number sounds way low. Maybe if you just count large spectator events. But the loss is for the whole site, not just the sports facilities.

It isn't particularly surprising that the stadium and arena would lose money - cities would generally have to provide funding for those facilities. The park also "loses" money if that is the metric. It just would have been far more straightforward if they separated that contribution from the real estate portion of the deal which makes everything opaque.

As for whether the initial projections were unrealistic, I couldn't say.

[LeadingEdgeBoomer]

Originally Posted by Ottawacurious

I thought the property tax from new builds was going to fund the deficit?

Do the property taxes get reported as part of the Lansdowne revenues? I do not think so. They just go to the City directly as do all of our property taxes. I suspect they are not part of the operating revenues of Lansdowne and so we see a deficit.

[Ottawacurious]

Originally Posted by LeadingEdgeBoomer

Do the property taxes get reported as part of the Lansdowne revenues? I do not think so. They just go to the City directly as do all of our property taxes. I suspect they are not part of the operating revenues of Lansdowne and so we see a deficit.

I agree about that - my comment was more related to I thought there's a big difference in the funding Lansdowne this round with the tax uplift this time. I'm not educated in that area at all so I stand to be corrected!

[OTownandDown]

Ok let me put it another way.

Who's job is it to identify room for improvement, and who's job is it to implement said improvement? And who is going to track if it's getting done?

Or do we just accept that this business consortium of the most wealthy men in the city will break even or lose money every year for the remainder of the agreement and therefore not owe the city anything at the end? Seems convenient.

I know that's kind of a dastardly thing to say, perhaps the management team is actually losing significant money through no fault of their own. I'm just being devil's advocate.

[c_speed3108]

The funny thing with this.

The partnership seems to lose a bit less than 10m a year.

The rebuild costs at least 400m.

It makes me wonder if it just would not better to to just have what is there now at cost of $10m/year for the next 40 years.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

Or do we just accept that this business consortium of the most wealthy men in the city will break even or lose money every year for the remainder of the agreement and therefore not owe the city anything at the end? Seems convenient.

I know that's kind of a dastardly thing to say, perhaps the management team is actually losing significant money through no fault of their own. I'm just being devil's advocate.

I do think this is the case. The consortium is definitely not making money on the deal. Hard to know if they share some of the blame, but at least on the sports side they have done a great job of maximizing the use of the facilities.

There are some decisions that I question, like the insistence on maintaining cut-through traffic and the focus on parking in the second phase. But the vast majority of the poor decisions (such as cutting the park in two, refusing to incorporate sports fields, limiting the use of Aberdeen Square) have the city's fingerprints all over them. Even the look of the site was the product of an architectural advisory committee and a settlement with the community association. At this stage I would be in favour of letting OSEG try some things to see what can work.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by c_speed3108

The funny thing with this.

The partnership seems to lose a bit less than 10m a year.

The rebuild costs at least 400m.

It makes me wonder if it just would not better to to just have what is there now at cost of $10m/year for the next 40 years.

Not in my opinion. The facilities are very close to obsolescence if they aren't there already, so you are going to see maintenance costs increase and revenues decrease over that period. Life-cycle renewal of city assets is needed. You would also be missing an opportunity for very easy intensification during a housing crisis. Details aside, the core of the proposal makes sense.

[phil235]

Not sure of the reliability of the sources, but a good part of the Glebe is convinced that Chipotle is coming to Lansdowne. If true, that would go a long way towards adding to the animation of the site through the day, so hoping it is going where the BMO was.

From a financial perspective, it's a wash for our household, as it will still cost my kids $40 to uber a $9 burrito from Lansdowne instead of Rideau.