I used to be in favour of Lansdowne 2.0. I've changed my mind
Bruce Deachman: I don’t want Lansdowne to fail, but I also don't trust this deal. City council should vote 'no.'
By Bruce Deachman
Published Nov 06, 2025
Two years ago, I wrote a
column in support of the Lansdowne 2.0 development. In it, I waxed nostalgic about my lifelong relationship with the grand old dame of urban parks and all she had given Ottawa: the concerts, fairs, exhibitions, conventions, sporting events and monster truck rallies.
The new plan, I acknowledged, wasn’t perfect. Residents’ concerns about an overly small replacement arena crowding out the Great Lawn were reasonable. The green roof once planned for the event centre was gone. But I felt the 130 or so annual events held there were too important an economic driver to risk losing. Besides, the old Civic Centre, where I’d played pickup hockey and watched mysterious bits of who-knows-what float down from the ceiling, was beyond repair. Lansdowne 2.0 seemed, at the time, a necessary step in the city investing in its own renewal.
Oh, sure, public transit to and from the site was inadequate. An on-site car dealership was a jarring choice, as were (and are) the number of dessert restaurants. And yes, some diehard football fans would miss the roof over the North Side stands. The buildings themselves were uninspiring, the children’s play area felt like an afterthought, and the outdoor market space was confusing.
And, yet, the place was full of people enjoying themselves. Did we really want to imperil what was fast becoming Ottawa’s prime meeting spot?
“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,” I wrote. And I still do.
But, after wearing out a highlighter going through the latest 150-page Lansdowne 2.0 report —
filling the margins with question marks and WTFs and then seeking out explanations — I’ve reached the conclusion that, if the latest plan were on a ballot, I’d vote against it.
My reasons are numerous, but the bottom line is that whether I follow my head or my heart, I end up at the same place: I don’t trust this deal. If I were being asked to invest my own money in it, I wouldn’t. Which, of course, is exactly what’s happening through city council. This isn’t about nostalgia; it’s about responsibility, and, when councillors vote on Nov. 7, I hope at least a few who supported the plan in 2023, as I did, will reconsider.
Here are some reasons they might:
THE FIXED PRICE THAT ISN’T
The report refers to the “fixed price” construction of the new North Side stands and Event Centre, a phrase that might lead regular people to believe the project itself has a fixed cost — like a prix-fixe restaurant menu where you’re not surprised by the bill.
This isn’t that kind of diner.
As city auditor general Nathalie Gougeon noted this week, cost overruns will be paid solely by the city. The built-in 10 per cent contingency, she noted, is “the minimum buffer for a project of this magnitude and duration.” Her office reviewed comparable recent major projects and found that they “have generally shown cost overruns.”
If you believe this one won’t, that there won’t be change orders that the city will have to pay for, I have a square-wheeled LRT train to sell you.
Meanwhile, the AG’s report, as it did a year ago, warns about overly rosy projections, especially regarding the Redblacks. It also warns of the sheer timeline of the deal, which extends to 2075. “Ultimately, should the results fall short from the financial projections over the course of the partnership agreement, distributions from the waterfall will not be available to the city,” her update states.
The report predicts net revenues of $1.27 billion over the life of the partnership, 87 per cent of which is expected to come from retail. Is that reasonable? Do we have any idea what retail will look like in 50 years? It was already struggling before the pandemic. Forecasting that it will anchor almost all of this project well into the 2070s feels like someone shook the Magic 8-ball until they got the answer they wanted.
The reason we’re here is that the rosy projections from Lansdowne 1.0 never materialized. The lesson from that shouldn’t be to double down. To accept the 2.0 projections requires a degree of faith the city hasn’t earned. When Mayor Mark Sutcliffe says the deal is just like buying a $418,000 house for $130,000, I urge him to watch The Money Pit.
And, when he says the naysayers were wrong about 1.0 and wrong again about 2.0, the reverse may be true: The naysayers were right about 1.0, and they may very well be right again.
WILL THE CHARGE LEAD THE CHARGE AWAY FROM LANSDOWNE?
It was disappointing to watch Sutcliffe and some councillors attack PWHL execs Jayna Hefford and Amy Scheer last week for daring to suggest that the proposed arena’s seating capacity — smaller than what the Ottawa Charge already draw — isn’t enough for the team to remain viable at Lansdowne.
In response, the mayor appeared to invite the team to take its pucks and go play elsewhere if it intends to be so successful.
Then, this week, CityFolk executive director Mark Monahan said that construction of the new arena on the Great Lawn might force that already massively popular music festival to find a new home.
At this rate, by the time we get to Lansdowne 3.0 or 4.0, there’ll be no one left to protest.
THE PRICE OF AIR
The $65 million air-rights figure being tossed around as what Mirabella Developments will pay the city to build two residential towers (and possibly a hotel) isn’t nearly as cut-and-dried as it appears. What Mirabella is actually paying now is $1-million for the option to pay the rest later. If the condo market continues to cool or conditions otherwise sour, Mirabella can walk away.
Meanwhile, the Lansdowne 2.0 report lists all three bids the city received for construction of the North Side stands and event centre, but only Mirabella’s winning bid for the air rights — not what any other companies offered. Why? The report doesn’t say. This is yet another example of the troubling lack of transparency on the city’s part.
So, too, was the mayor’s response a week ago when asked about giving councillors more time to read and understand the report: “We obviously have enough time to make the decision,” he said, “because several councillors have already indicated how they’re going to vote. So they clearly don’t need more time.”
PUBLIC ART
I realize this is a soft issue about which many people don’t care a whit, but it’s emblematic of much of what’s wrong with this deal: the neglect of existing assets.
Remember Moving Surfaces, the 10×50-metre LED-lit, steel structure atop the toboggan hill of the Great Lawn? Its lights haven’t worked since March 2024. The new report praises the piece and notes that the much-reduced 2.0 hill can accommodate it — before later recommending that it be “respectfully” decommissioned and removed, citing a $700,000 repair estimate.
But as its creator, artist Jill Anholt, told councillors at last week’s finance committee meeting, the problems with her installation began when “non-specialist contractors” dismantled and later reinstalled the work — to make more seating for the 2017 Grey Cup, without consulting her. Since then, her offers to collaborate on a less expensive fix have been declined. She hasn’t even been shown the estimate the city is using to justify scrapping her piece.
If this is how the city and OSEG care for a single piece of public art, how will they manage a nearly half-billion-dollar redevelopment? If someone from this partnership asks to borrow your car, I’d recommend saying no.
OPPORTUNITIES LOST ELSEWHERE
Seventy-five per cent of the property taxes Lansdowne 2.0 generates on site will help pay for Lansdowne 2.0. Imagine if your own property taxes were mostly used to fund projects only in your neighbourhood.
Meanwhile, the city is increasing the hotel tax from five to six per cent — a 20-per-cent jump — with $2 million of that increase annually earmarked for Lansdowne 2.0. And there will be a ticket surcharge.
But that all makes sense, right? After all, the current arena and stadium were built in 1967 and are falling apart. But so were many neighbourhood arenas, libraries and other civic buildings across the city.
A few days ago, I went to watch my former pickup hockey teammates play at Walkley Arena, where, after suiting up, they were told the ice surface wasn’t safe and their game was cancelled. I suspect they wouldn’t mind a bit of that sweet hotel-tax cash.
Every million dollars spent at Lansdowne is a million dollars not being spent elsewhere. The city likes to (favourably) compare the cost of Lansdowne 2.0 to the cost of doing nothing. What it should compare are the costs of Lansdowne 2.0 against everything else.
THE FINAL OFF-RAMP
I don’t want Lansdowne to fail. I love watching crowds roar along Bank Street before and after concerts. I love the Charge, CityFolk, the farmers’ market, 613 Flea. But we shouldn’t proceed on a handful of hope, a fistful of sunk costs and a 50-year forecast.
Lansdowne Park has given me countless memories over the past half-century. But nostalgia doesn’t pay the rent. If we were building a football stadium or mid-sized arena from scratch today, would we put it in the Glebe, far from LRT? Likely not.
Throughout this whole process, we’ve been told there will be a number of exit ramps. Well, we’re at the last one. If we miss it, there’s no backing up.
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/lansdowne-2-0-changed-my-vote
Prev
Linear Mode
