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

[phil235]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I do wonder what came first; the City shrinking the podium or Live Nation moving on the Chapters space. I'm 100% positive shrinking the podium was a cost cutting measure, essentially making the same mistake as 1.0, that is cheeping out and creating problems for the future.

Aside from everything that was lost over the last 4 years of value engineering, other options would have been moving the Sunnyside branch of the library, due for replacement. Another option would have been to move the Ottawa Sports Hall of Fame to the site and expand it to include the history of Lansdowne. Even just 25% more retail to allow another large restaurant or something. It's clear to me that, just like 1.0, the City is doing the bare minimum outside the two sports venues.

For the event attendance, the City has consistently pointed to the PWHL as representing a small percentage of events at the Civic Centre, but I would love to know how many events total have an attendance of more than 5,500 and 6,600. It's not just the PWHL.

You're right that the library would bring people to Lansdowne, but I really hope they just renovate the current building. It would be a loss to see them move out of that spot. The Sports Hall of Fame would not generate much foot traffic, particularly during the week. I don't think it would make a difference in overall numbers.

As for events over 6600 in the arena, I haven't seen a list, but it's definitely a small minority. The 67s and Blackjacks account for the majority of dates and they never go over that number. Concerts are pretty much have to be lower given the seating configuration, though there may be some exceptions. (For a show like Trevor Noah where they used the terrible seats and put a bunch of seats on the floor, they may have been over 6600, but not sure.) Community use is always far below that number.

You are really just talking the Charge (maybe) and then one-off events like the Brier or the Mem Cup. Even annual things like the Colonel By Classic are in the 3000 range.

[J.OT13]

The current Sports Hall of Fame kind of sucks, but you could make it into something better by adding Ottawa sports and Lansdowne history.

The library, I like the current building (exterior look, never been inside) and at this point hope they keep it and renovate. Hope they do something with the parking lot at the side, like a park of a very small OCH building.

Point remains that they could have added something to the plan to attract more people, even just more retail space.

If we're lucky, a hotel will be included along with a restaurant and event space within the tower portion.

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by elly63

How much protection are you getting on the south side?

None, because South Side Sucks!!!

[phil235]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

If we're lucky, a hotel will be included along with a restaurant and event space within the tower portion.

A hotel has always been a good idea. It sounded like a hotel is back on the table based on the presentation to council.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Harley613

None, because South Side Sucks!!!

Well now both sides will Suck!! Part of Sutcliffe's "fairness" campaign.

[OTownandDown]

Meanwhile, in Albania, they're getting their own 6,600 seat arena, frig.




https://www.dezeen.com/2025/11/11/mv...-arena-tirana/

[Tesladom]

Holy Albania!!! That's so niiiiice!

They've come a long way

[J.OT13]

My God that looks awesome! That would draw more people to Lansdowne! We're too cheap to even keep the arena under the berm with a green roof.

[ponyboycurtis]

Eastern Europe is also nutters for basketball.

South Side Sucks!

When my father and I got our seasons for the first year we elected to sit on the north side just to look at the SS stands. Not sure how smart of an idea that was given the rather poor capacity of washrooms, concession stands etc.

We then had to joke.. so does is it the SS that sucks now? with their fancy new stadium.

As an aside.. The very first game was a nice sunny day. Looking across I could see all these brief flashes of light. Imagine the shutter flashes you would expect to see in the opening sequence of a sports video game as it pans across the crowd introducing the teams. It had me really confused, like.. are there thousands of people doing flash photography in the sunlight?

I realized it was all the season ticket holders.. They gave us these giant plastic lanyards for the big oversized season ticket booklets. About the size of que card but a little longer. All these plastic lanyards flashing in the sun. It was honestly kind of distracting if you focused on it.

Funny story about the season ticket booklets. I for some reason didn't use my lanyard that first game or I forgot it? Anyhow.. I had the full book of tickets with me and they scanned it. I got .. very lubricated and lost my ticket book out of the cargo pockets on my pants somehow. No big deal, the seat is in my name. I get new basic tickets printed not thinking much about the book.

A few days later I get contacted by OSEG and somebody has my ticket book. I get the contact info.. pick them up and yeah.. to this day I still have a full unripped season ticket book from the inaugural season. It's in my dads memorabilia stash. Not sure if I would have thought to keep it in such a way had I not lost it. I just didn't feel like wearing a giant bib around my neck.

I'm going to miss that entirely northside facility from a nostalgia standpoint. The entire thing is an architectural novelty. Walking up and down those ramparts on the ends as a kid was certainly an experience. So much energy.

[rocketphish]

Ottawa businesses hopeful Lansdowne 2.0 will be an economic boon. Critics aren't so sure
Construction set to begin on new 5,850-seat arena in coming weeks

Anchal Sharma · CBC News
Posted: Nov 11, 2025 10:47 AM EST | Last Updated: 4 hours ago

Construction will soon begin on a new 5,850-seat arena and north-side stadium stands at Lansdowne Park, the result of a recently approved $419-million redevelopment project that divided Ottawa city council for weeks.

Roger Greenberg, the executive chairman of the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG) which is the city's partner in the deal, told CBC News that a new arena is long overdue.

“The market has told us that this facility is past its prime. It won't fall down necessarily, but it's inaccessible … it needs to be redone,” he said after the city council vote on Friday.

“I'm very happy that the majority of councillors supported that view.”

Supporters of the plan are calling it an investment in the city — one they hope will pay off in the long term. But critics don't believe that pay off is guaranteed.

<more>

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...next-9.6973944

[rocketphish]

Lansdowne 2.0 vote is a victory for common sense
While any big spending decision has an element of risk, the plan to revamp Lansdowne is as solid as one can get.

By Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen
Published Nov 12, 2025 | Last updated 1 day ago

Ottawa city council’s decision to do the logical thing and back Lansdowne 2.0 is a victory for common sense and for Mayor Mark Sutcliffe’s steady stewardship of the unduly contentious issue.

Some councillors and community critics did their best to cast doubt on the $418.8 million plan to replace the north side stands at TD Place Stadium and the abysmal Civic Centre, but their criticisms don’t withstand a reality check.

The problem starts with the failure to articulate a rational alternative to the city’s plan. Faced with aged-out municipal facilities built in 1967, councillors had limited choices. They could pick the critics’ preferred ostrich option, patching up old buildings and pretending they are OK before replacing them later at a higher cost. Or they could act now, as council has chosen to do, working with partner Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG) to offset the project cost with increased revenues generated by the revamped site.

Alternatively, the city could have foregone any sullying involvement with the private sector, paid for the whole project with tax dollars and increased taxes to do it. That’s hardly attractive.

Opponents of Lansdowne 2.0 argue that the project is too risky, too costly, and the money would be better spent on something else.

While any big spending decision has an element of risk, the plan to build the new rink and stands is as solid as one can get.

The city has a fixed price contract for that work set at $313 million. There were three bidders for the project and they were all within a few million dollars of that number, so it’s fair to say it’s a realistic price. If the cost goes up, the city has a 10 per cent contingency fund, which councillors expanded Friday by adding more money from a hotel room tax.

Estimating revenue from the new version of Lansdowne over the 40-year term of the project debt is much more challenging, but even if projected revenues fall short of expectations, they will still exceed the zero the city would have received by paying for the whole project on its own.

As councillors suggesting alternative spending plans surely know, there is no $418.8 million pot of money without the revenue plan.

But what about professional women’s hockey? The Ottawa Charge says the new rink doesn’t have enough seats to meet their needs, an argument that pleased Lansdowne 2.0 critics. But wait a minute, the Professional Women’s Hockey League is owned by American billionaire Mark Walter. If critics don’t support the Ottawa business people behind OSEG, why would they help Walter?

The city says that adding a couple thousand seats to the arena would require a second tier, which would expand the rink’s footprint and eat up more park space. It would also scrap all the work done up to now, and cost between $80 and $100 million more. What a great idea.

OK, but surely Lansdowne will be another fiasco like the LRT, critics predict. Everyone knows the city can’t do anything right, so it shouldn’t even try. While one can compare any two things, there aren’t a lot of similarities between Lansdowne and the LRT, beyond starting with the letter L. The LRT project costs about $6.8 billion and involves tracks, trains, tunnels, stations and lots of complex engineering. Lansdowne involves a rink and half a football stadium.

While most of the arguments against Lansdowne 2.0 rest somewhere between the comic and the absurd, the most creative one was put forward by Ottawa architect Toon Dreessen. He says that demolishing the existing stands would mean “compounding our landfill problems and sending tons of embodied carbon into the dumpster.” It’s not every day that one sees an architect argue against replacing old buildings with new ones.

Councillors who opposed the new Lansdowne deal surely can’t have been under the illusion that they’d win. Perhaps it was enough to create a big stink in the hope that some would stick to Sutcliffe in next year’s municipal election. Facts were not their friends.


Randall Denley is an Ottawa journalist and author. Contact him at [email protected]

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/la...0-common-sense

[Richard Eade]

Denley has an interesting take on things in his completely biased opinion piece that puts forth no facts to back up his position.

There are many facets to the arguments, and I’m hoping that I am not as biased in saying that it is the process that led to, in my opinion, a poor outcome that was the problem.

Way back in time, there was a large expanse of property near the middle of the city that the City owned. Seeing a development opportunity a group of business-people put forth an idea that they could make it more productive. They suggested that, instead of costing the City about $4M per year, they could redevelop a small portion of the land and manage the rest so that it would generate positive cash-flow for the City.

Part of that deal, required the City to pay to replace the south stand of the stadium, which was at the end of its useful life. But the income from the small, redevelopment, section would easily offset that cost. The offer looked too good to be ignored, so the City accepted. The City would pay to replace the City-owned south-side stand, and the business consortium would add retail and manage the entire property. It was going to be great, and the City would soon be awash with income from a ‘waterfall’ of money.

So the City paid for replacing the City’s south-side stands and some minor repairs to the rest of the facility on the north-side. The consortium paid for the new retail facilities, which they built on part of the City’s land. Income from the new retail was supposed to help the City offset the money that it had paid for renewing its aging facility.

Alas, several years later, the business-people returned to complain to the City that the retail that they had built on the City-owned land wasn’t making any money. And, because the remaining sports facilities on the north-side, which had only gotten minor fixes previously, were so old, the consortium couldn’t manage the property effectively. The only answer, according to the consortium, was for the City to pay to replace all of the remaining infrastructure. The new facilities would cost a lot, but they were the City’s responsibility. Not to worry, though; to simplify the task, the consortium would tell the City exactly what sports facility to build to so that the consortium could maximize the monetary returns.

And to guarantee that there are enough people around to make the new facilities profitable, the City will also need to allow the consortium to build new high-rise buildings on the City’s property. And, the income from the air-rights for those towers would offset some of the cost of the sports facility cost. This was, the City was led to believe, the only way to recoup any of the money that the City was putting into the sports facility that it was building for the consortium. And it would take a much longer time for pay-back, so the consortium would need to manage the entire site for the next 50 years.

OK, when I read through that, it just sounds like the plot of a ‘C’-grade, silly movie. Let’s look at things a little more realistically:

The Civic Centre was almost 60 years old. The design was ‘interesting’ and managed to cram a lot of utility into a small space – leaving a large portion of the City-owned land open for other purposes. In minimizing the footprint, however, compromises were made. This made the old facility feel dated and cramped. It also lacked modern accessibility features.

I think that there is little argument that if Lansdowne was to continue to be used as a mid-sized, public sports venue, money had to be spent on it. It is unclear as to whether an extensive renovation would have been enough to bring the Civic Centre building up to modern standards. At the very least, the arena would likely have had to be moved north to pull the stands out from under the rooms.

The best option was probably to replace the building – just as the best option years ago for the south-side stands was a full replacement. Replacing the Civic Centre building would probably have cost the City $350M-$550M. This is what the City is paying now.

The difference is that the consortium is dictating what the City is to build so that the consortium can maximize its profit from the City’s expense. I believe that this is the fundamental flaw with what is happening at Lansdowne. A group of business-people came in and are telling the City what to spend the City’s tax dollars on so that those business-people can run a new – built for them – facility for profit for the next 50 years.

It is my contention that the City should have done an evaluation of what sport facilities it needed to provide TO THE CITY. That includes the needs of professional teams that use those venues, but also any needs of members of the public. The City is the entity paying for the facility. It should have been designed for the good of the city, not for the wants of a consortium of business-people.

Then there is the point about getting money back to off-set the cost. There was nothing stopping the City from doing its due diligence and designing a facility that primarily benefitted city residents while still allowing a private group to come in and build towers.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Denley has an interesting take on things in his completely biased opinion piece that puts forth no facts to back up his position.

I am no Denley fan, and I don't agree with all of his statements, but he does get to the crux of the rationale for the plan. Not to nitpick, but you have quite a few false assumptions and factual inaccuracies in your rebuttal of the "biased" opinion (don't all opinions betray some bias?)

There are many facets to the arguments, and I’m hoping that I am not as biased in saying that it is the process that led to, in my opinion, a poor outcome that was the problem.

Way back in time, there was a large expanse of property near the middle of the city that the City owned. Seeing a development opportunity a group of business-people put forth an idea that they could make it more productive. They suggested that, instead of costing the City about $4M per year, they could redevelop a small portion of the land and manage the rest so that it would generate positive cash-flow for the City.

Generating positive cash flow was never the actual justification for the plan. Taken at their word, "consortium" wanted to run sports teams out of Lansdowne, which was decaying, and proposed the PPP model to generate the funding to fix the place up and make the teams viable. I believe that most people see the partners as genuinely wanting to revive football and put soccer and hockey on a solid footing (which they did). I would suggest that it is the opponents of the plan who created the narrative of developers who used sports as a ruse to get their hands on public land. Those accusations never really rung true, as the partners have been all in on the sports teams.

Part of that deal, required the City to pay to replace the south stand of the stadium, which was at the end of its useful life. But the income from the small, redevelopment, section would easily offset that cost. The offer looked too good to be ignored, so the City accepted. The City would pay to replace the City-owned south-side stand, and the business consortium would add retail and manage the entire property. It was going to be great, and the City would soon be awash with income from a ‘waterfall’ of money.

Again, not really. The money from the waterfall went primarily towards the operation of the site, then the debt from the renovations, and then the developers and the City. There were definitely optimistic projections regarding revenue, but profit for the City was never the primary motivation for the waterfall. Not to mention that Covid put a damper in the revenue projections for Lansdowne and just about every other business on the planet.

So the City paid for replacing the City’s south-side stands and some minor repairs to the rest of the facility on the north-side. The consortium paid for the new retail facilities, which they built on part of the City’s land. Income from the new retail was supposed to help the City offset the money that it had paid for renewing its aging facility.

Income from the new retail did help the City offset the money it paid to renovate the facility. That is exactly how the waterfall works.

Alas, several years later, the business-people returned to complain to the City that the retail that they had built on the City-owned land wasn’t making any money.

Actually, the retail has been the most profitable part of the project.

And, because the remaining sports facilities on the north-side, which had only gotten minor fixes previously, were so old, the consortium couldn’t manage the property effectively. The only answer, according to the consortium, was for the City to pay to replace all of the remaining infrastructure. The new facilities would cost a lot, but they were the City’s responsibility. Not to worry, though; to simplify the task, the consortium would tell the City exactly what sports facility to build to so that the consortium could maximize the monetary returns.

Well, the consortium does own the teams that play there, so it does make sense that they would tell the city what facilities make sense (which are basically updated versions of what is already there, so not exactly the consortium running wild with demands). Vastly more people have gone to Lansdowne to watch sports since OSEG started managing it than in the prior five decades - why exactly wouldn't we listen to them?

And to guarantee that there are enough people around to make the new facilities profitable, the City will also need to allow the consortium to build new high-rise buildings on the City’s property. And, the income from the air-rights for those towers would offset some of the cost of the sports facility cost. This was, the City was led to believe, the only way to recoup any of the money that the City was putting into the sports facility that it was building for the consortium. And it would take a much longer time for pay-back, so the consortium would need to manage the entire site for the next 50 years.

This isn't correct. The consortium is not building high rise towers. The City auctioned them off to other builders. Also, this was not the only way to recoup the money put into the facilities - it is a relatively small piece of the revenue puzzle. The air rights have nothing to do with the extension of the management contract.

OK, when I read through that, it just sounds like the plot of a ‘C’-grade, silly movie. Let’s look at things a little more realistically:

No comment.

The Civic Centre was almost 60 years old. The design was ‘interesting’ and managed to cram a lot of utility into a small space – leaving a large portion of the City-owned land open for other purposes. In minimizing the footprint, however, compromises were made. This made the old facility feel dated and cramped. It also lacked modern accessibility features.

The Civic Centre actually has a massive footprint. And the facility feels dated because it is dated.

I think that there is little argument that if Lansdowne was to continue to be used as a mid-sized, public sports venue, money had to be spent on it. It is unclear as to whether an extensive renovation would have been enough to bring the Civic Centre building up to modern standards. At the very least, the arena would likely have had to be moved north to pull the stands out from under the rooms.

I think this is true. It would have been interesting to see a more detailed estimate of the cost of renovating the current facilities. But I don't hold any illusions that it would have been a cheap alternative.

The best option was probably to replace the building – just as the best option years ago for the south-side stands was a full replacement. Replacing the Civic Centre building would probably have cost the City $350M-$550M. This is what the City is paying now.

Yep.

The difference is that the consortium is dictating what the City is to build so that the consortium can maximize its profit from the City’s expense. I believe that this is the fundamental flaw with what is happening at Lansdowne. A group of business-people came in and are telling the City what to spend the City’s tax dollars on so that those business-people can run a new – built for them – facility for profit for the next 50 years.

Not sure how this is at the City's expense. This way the City pays $400 million and that cost is offset by the revenues from the site and the teams. The other way, the City just pays in the ballpark of $400 million. And either way, the City wasn't going to operate the sports teams, so you need "businessmen" for that.

Also, you can't have it both ways. Either the teams and retail are losing so much money that Lansdowne is a money pit, or the owners are profiting handsomely from all of the money they are making. It's one or the other, not whichever one suits the narrative. (And for the record, OSEG has not recouped its investment in the project for a variety of reasons.)

It is my contention that the City should have done an evaluation of what sport facilities it needed to provide TO THE CITY. That includes the needs of professional teams that use those venues, but also any needs of members of the public. The City is the entity paying for the facility. It should have been designed for the good of the city, not for the wants of a consortium of business-people

Not sure what this means. I would say that the existence of the sports teams and other events are for the good of the city judging by the number of people attending events at Lansdowne, and that the people making those events happen have a pretty good idea of what they need to keep that going. To have them collaborate with the City to design the project just makes sense.

And no, the City is not paying for the whole project - the revenues from the retail and teams operated by the consortium go into the waterfall which goes towards the debt incurred to build the project. I honestly think that people have completely forgotten the basics of the financial structure of the partnership.

In short, you've told a good story, but you are very loose with the facts. Denley's article isn't perfect, but it's a lot closer to being an accurate representation of the reasons for the project.

[golfguy9]

Lets go phil235!! lol

In all seriousness, without getting political, I find it amusing the most vocal opponents against this are the same ones who think it is government's job fix every problem with unlimited tax dollars (hyperbole).

Along the same line of thinking, the city decides to improve our amenities through a modern central stadium with a nice park, some retail and some residential, and that group cries foul. I can understand having issues with certain design decisions for example but to just straight up disagree with the project scope as a whole strikes me as hypocritical.

[Richard Eade]

Yes, I agree that EVERYBODY has an opinion, and therefore a bias. An example is phil235 implying that what is best for a professional sport team is best for the city as a whole.

People seem to be saying that the City could have spent $400M on the sport facilities and gotten nothing back; or the City could take the deal offered and spend $400M and get money to offset that cost. What makes the two so mutually exclusive?

My point is that there was nothing preventing the City from doing the renovations, based on what was best for the residents of the city AND getting income from other associated sources to offset the cost.

Having OSEG describe what is best for OSEG should be only ONE part of the equation, not the only part. I understand that, since the 67s draw about 3,000 to each game, OSEG doesn’t want a 10,000-seat arena – 5,500 seats would allow for peak 67s games. However, that doesn’t account for other users.

The PWHL, for example says that it offered OSEG input right from the get-go – yet the PWHL feels that its needs were ignored. Maybe their input was ignored; maybe it was not. It is possible that OSEG has the experience of watching team attendance drop after a big bulge; thus OSEG ‘knows’ that the PWHL’s attendance will settle down to only, say 4,000 per game. Did OSEG also consider the Volleyball Nations League? The Canada vs. USA game in June 2024 had 7,042 fans watching Canada beat the USA.

The fact that the OSEG-controlled Ottawa 67s only draw in about 3,000 fans a game should not be the criteria for an arena that is City-owned and provides entertainment for a wide variety of offerings to the public.

The 67s play 34 home games with about 3,000 fans at each game. So, about 102,000 seat sales.
The Charge average about 7,000 for 15 games. So, about 105,000 seat sales.

I am not saying that the facilities should stay as they are. They should be replaced with appropriate new ones. I am asking if the City is really getting what is best for ALL of the city residents – not just a relative handful who attend the games provided by OSEG. Having OSEG determine what is best does not necessarily coincide with an unbiased view of what is best for the City, as a whole.

And, yes, the City could still have done the analysis and rebuilt the facilities based on what the City needs and still gotten revenue from the various OSEG teams and others. The City could still have sold air-rights. In short, everything could have happened pretty much the same – except, the facilities could have been more of what the City needs and less OSEG-specific.

[J.OT13]

Leiper told Robyn Bresnahan on This is Ottawa that, and we already know this, making 2.0 an election issue isn't feasible since construction will be well underway and could expose us to lawsuits. Neil Saravanamuttoo of Better Ottawa (assuming he's leading the protest in those clips), who some speculate could run, wants to make it an election issue, which is of course insane.

https://www.cbc.ca/listen/cbc-podcas...a-go.-now-what

Only thing that could be changed is the podium; it might be possible to work with Mirabella to expand it and add potential draws to Lansdowne. It sound like Leiper was partially against it because it "lacks ambition", so I could see him push for that should he be elected.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Yes, I agree that EVERYBODY has an opinion, and therefore a bias. An example is phil235 implying that what is best for a professional sport team is best for the city as a whole.

Yep, just like I said, everyone has an opinion, and their own bias. Mine is that I like the sports teams at Lansdowne and want them to succeed. But to be clear, nowhere did I imply that what is best for a professional sports team is best for the city as a whole. What I did say is that the city is a better place with all of those sports teams in it, and that OSEG's opinion on what makes them viable in the long term should carry significant weight.

Having OSEG describe what is best for OSEG should be only ONE part of the equation, not the only part. I understand that, since the 67s draw about 3,000 to each game, OSEG doesn’t want a 10,000-seat arena – 5,500 seats would allow for peak 67s games. However, that doesn’t account for other users.

Actually it does account for other users. The Blackjacks are other users, and it is better for them. It's also better for the Colonel By Classic and the vast majority of concerts and shows that will be held there.

The PWHL, for example says that it offered OSEG input right from the get-go – yet the PWHL feels that its needs were ignored. Maybe their input was ignored; maybe it was not. It is possible that OSEG has the experience of watching team attendance drop after a big bulge; thus OSEG ‘knows’ that the PWHL’s attendance will settle down to only, say 4,000 per game. Did OSEG also consider the Volleyball Nations League? The Canada vs. USA game in June 2024 had 7,042 fans watching Canada beat the USA.

I would give the PWHL the benefit of the doubt in knowing what they need. If I was betting on it, I would say that they likely settle in around 5-6000 fans in the long term, but maybe they stay higher than that. The PWHL offered an opinion, but what they didn't offer was money. If you are asking for a multi-million dollar upgrade that is primarily for your benefit, I think you need some skin in the game.

The fact that the OSEG-controlled Ottawa 67s only draw in about 3,000 fans a game should not be the criteria for an arena that is City-owned and provides entertainment for a wide variety of offerings to the public.

The 67s play 34 home games with about 3,000 fans at each game. So, about 102,000 seat sales.
The Charge average about 7,000 for 15 games. So, about 105,000 seat sales.

You are ignoring the fact that the 67s have been tenants for 58 years and are the longest-standing and most stable tenant of the arena. So yes, it does make sense that their needs are a key criteria for the arena size. Followed by the Blackjacks, who have also been here longer and also need a smaller arena. Followed by concerts, which also work great with 5500 seats. The PWHL and odd one-off event are a couple of criteria that should be weighed, but definitely not the primary ones.

Also, your numbers are off. Other than the Covid year, the 67s have never averaged about 3000 fans per game. The past few years have ranged from 3900 per game to 5100 this year. So more like 132,000 to 173,000 seats sold per year- more than the Charge.

I am not saying that the facilities should stay as they are. They should be replaced with appropriate new ones. I am asking if the City is really getting what is best for ALL of the city residents – not just a relative handful who attend the games provided by OSEG. Having OSEG determine what is best does not necessarily coincide with an unbiased view of what is best for the City, as a whole.

What do you mean when you say best for all residents? The "relative handful" (i.e. about half a million) people who attend games and concerts at Lansdowne every year are the primary users of the facilities. Who exactly should have more influence than them? (P.S. - the other community users don't care how many seats the arena has, as a 200-seat arena would be enough for them).

And, yes, the City could still have done the analysis and rebuilt the facilities based on what the City needs and still gotten revenue from the various OSEG teams and others. The City could still have sold air-rights. In short, everything could have happened pretty much the same – except, the facilities could have been more of what the City needs and less OSEG-specific.

Except that it probably wouldn't have happened the same. History suggests that the teams at Lansdowne have struggled, and the blossoming of the local sports scene coincided exactly with the execution of the Lansdowne partnership that provided stability for the teams and a stream of funding to maintain the facilities. To say otherwise is speculation not backed up by any historical experience.

I'm curious, you keep saying that the facilities could have been more what the city needs. What exactly did the city need that it is not getting? All I've heard from you is that the PWHL and an occasional volleyball event (which I attended and was great) need 7000 seats. That isn't enough justification for the additional expense, particularly when both events can be played in the bigger NHL arena.

As with the first go-round, critics are contrasting the proposal against some hypothetical idea of “what the city needs” that is never actually defined. The difference is that one is real and the other is imaginary.

[J.OT13]

SPOILER, Option 1 is out the door. The first chips have fallen from 2.0's financial plan.

Looking At Four Future Options For The Ottawa Charge
Ian Kennedy, Hockey News
November 12, 2025

With arena plans approved that fall short on supporting the future needs of the PWHL's Ottawa Charge, the team and league must now look at all options, both inside and outside of Ottawa and Ontario, for the future of the team.

The Ottawa Charge saw their future in Canada's capital put into question last week with the passage of the Lansdowne 2.0 plan. The plan, which passed in a vote in front of Ottawa's mayor and council by a vote of 15-10, will see a $418.8 million renovation and rebuild of Lansdowne Park, including a new, yet significantly smaller arena for the Ottawa Charge.

The PWHL voiced their displeasure with the plan and reiterated that they were not invited to the table to discuss the arena plans as stakeholders. Rather the belief is the plan was made by and for OSEG's assets, which include a junior hockey team, the OHL's Ottawa 67s who also call the venue home, and who are given primary consideration at the facility for branding and scheduling despite drawing significantly fewer fans.

Plans for Lansdowne 2.0 will see a new arena with a seating capacity of only 5,500, a nearly 3,000 seat reduction over the current facility at TD Place Arena. Given the Ottawa Charge have average more than 7,000 fans across their first two seasons, and have drawn over 8,000 many times, it will result in a significant loss of revenue for the league, which the PWHL estimates will translate to roughly $1 million in additional losses each year. While the league could outgrow any proposed arena by that point, it's equally likely fans will choose not to invest in a team they might soon be unable to watch, and the team's support could plummet over the next half decade.

This is what is known, however, what isn't known is where the Ottawa Charge will actually go from here. There are a variety of options to look at, with pros and cons for each. What will the decision be? Time will tell.

Option 1: Staying With The New OSEG Arena

Neither the PWHL, nor Ottawa Charge want this option. While Mayor Mark Sutcliffe leaned on 1,100 standing room spaces for capacity figures, he also consistently downplayed the success of the Ottawa Charge. The reality of the Charge's capacity concerns are that in two seasons in Ottawa, the team has drawn less than 5,500 fans only four times, with two of those four averaging 5,476 fans. Meanwhile the Ottawa 67s, who were the team this facility was designed to support, last season averaged only 3,522 fans, and have not drawn an average of 5,500 or more since 2012-13. That season was the final of a more than decade long decrease in attendance. In fact, since their peak in 2004-05, the Ottawa Charge have lost more than the total proposed seated capacity for the new venue in average attendance.

Staying at the new arena for Ottawa would ensure a new, safe facility, and new dressing rooms and training potential. Those are the pros. The cons however include significant financial losses, and the near certainty that the Charge's needs will never be considered when it comes branding or scheduling, no matter how successful they are. The new arena at Lansdowne 2.0 will reportedly be complete in 2028 meaning the Charge have at least two more seasons before any move becomes necessary.

Option 2: Move To Canadian Tire Centre

It was interesting to hear this option play out on repeat from supporters in council of Lansdowne 2.0. Canadian Tire Centre has become an arena that does not meet the needs of the city's professional men's hockey team who have been desperately trying to escape the venue for a decade. So why suggest it as a viable option for the city's professional women's team? Located outside Ottawa in Kanata, the Canadian Tire Centre is a 30 minute drive from downtown Ottawa, and 1.5 hours on public transit. The arena would provide an abundance of seating, but the facility itself will turn 30 in 2026, hardly a new or state-of-the-art facility. In fact, the Canadian Tire Centre is now the ninth oldest arena in the NHL. The PWHL has struggled with venues like the Tsgonas Center in Lowell (Boston Fleet), and the New York Sirens' original home in Bridgeport, Connecticut. The PWHL will almost certainly do everything they can to avoid moving further from fans. The team did play one game at the Canadian Tire Centre last year drawing more than 11,000 fans, but this year they do not plan to return to the facility.

Option 3: Relocate

This is the option no Ottawa Charge fan wants to see, but for the single-entity owned PWHL, relocation is less of the failure seen in many pro leagues, and more about a redistribution of assets to where they're better suited. The obvious move for the league would be to keep the Charge regional, or perhaps that is better described as régionale. Quebec City would be an obvious move with an arena sitting ready, and a city council ready and willing to support professional women's sport. It's hard to envision Ottawa becoming a city pro sports leagues and franchises are interested in dealing with in the future, and locations like Quebec City, or perhaps Hamilton, Ontario, and Halifax, who will all welcome the PWHL this season on the Takeover Tour, are obvious solutions. While the league has said that relocation is not their intention, the PWHL is a business, and one that is focused on collective success. That collective success cannot include a team that bleeds millions of dollars annually when other, more viable options, exist. The players worked too long and too hard to allow a team to stay in a market than cannot, or will not, support professional women's sports.

Option 4: Wait And Hope For LeBreton Flats

The Ottawa Charge have not been a player in the discussions for a potential new arena at LeBreton Flats in Ottawa. The Ottawa Senators, who have been trying to leave the Canadian Tire Centre for a new home for several seasons, finally secured an agreement to purchase lands from the National Capital Commission in August. That land, located at LeBreton Flats, a centrally located area of Ottawa, are the intended home for a new arena for the NHL's Ottawa Senators. The arena could also be a good fit for the PWHL's Ottawa Charge, although it would keep the Charge as a secondary tenant with limited ability to brand and schedule. Still, it would also take the Charge's future out of the hands of OSEG and the City of Ottawa, who according to the PWHL have refused to listen to the team or league.

A new arena at LeBreton however, has no firm timeline. Currently, projections put the project with a completion date in 2030 or beyond. It means the Charge would have at least two seasons without a permanent home, and force the team to potentially spend those years losing money in an undersized venue, or couch surfing between venues.

https://thehockeynews.com/womens/pwh...-ottawa-charge

[J.OT13]

The disrespect shown by some members of Council, the Mayor and OSEG might have played in the PWHL refusing to even negotiate. Had OSEG and the City, and Council, been at least sympathetic to their grievances, explained right off the bat that increasing the capacity significantly was not an option and tried to negotiate a better deal to keep them at least until LeBreton is built. It sounds that they were instead into gaslit thinking they could discuss capacity at a later date and completely shut down by everyone involved over the last few weeks.

It's interesting that OSEG and the City pretended that they were shocked to hear capacity was an issue when, if not the league, the entire PWHL fan base has been screaming that the new arena would be too small ever since 2023.

Hoping they can work something out with the Sens. The previous article mentions that they would be a secondary tenant, so they wouldn't have primary consideration for facility branding and scheduling, but we have quite a few arenas that host both the NBA and NHL, and they seem to have figured it out.

PWHL To Ottawa: "We Will Not Play At Lansdowne 2.0"

Ian Kennedy, Hockey News
November 18, 2025

The PWHL put out a clear message addressing media today stating the league will not play at Lansdowne 2.0, and will not take a step backward. The option is no longer on the table for the league and Ottawa Charge.

When the Lansdowne 2.0 plan driven by the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group passed through City of Ottawa council recently, the PWHL said all options were on the table.

Now, one of those options is gone. The PWHL's Ottawa Charge will not play at the new arena slated to be built at Lansdowne 2.0, costing OSEG and Ottawa the biggest hockey draw to the arena. The issue at hand is the planned reduction of seating at the new arena from the current level at TD Place, which sits close to 8,500 fans, down to 5,500 seats at the venue which will soon replace the historic arena.

Accoridng to the PWHL's executive vice president of business operations Amy Scheer, the league will not play at the new venue. It's the one option that is not completely off the table.

"We've certainly been clear with OSEG and the City that we will not go backward, we will not play in a 5,500 seat building," said Scheer. "These women have worked too hard to get to the point today where a 5,500 seat building is well below what we average in Ottawa."

"We will not play at Lansdowne 2.0, that's the one option not on the table, but every other option is on the table," Scheer continued.

What remains for the Ottawa Charge and their fan base is the possibility of the team moving to the Canadian Tire Centre, current home of the NHL's Ottawa Senators in Kanata, Ontario, moving to a proposed future rink at LeBreton Flats, which would be the new home to the Ottawa Senators, or leaving Ottawa altogether.

The last option, relocating the team, is not, according to Scheer, what the league wants, but all options outside of playing at Lansdowne 2.0 remain viable.

"We've been very clear with the city," said Scheer. "The job now is to find out what the best alternative for the Ottawa Charge is and we are working through all those options right now."

"We certainly don't want to leave Ottawa, we chose Ottawa for a reason and the fans have been wonderfully supportive of us there, we'd like to find a solution for us that works to stay in Ottawa. The City hasn't made it easy for us, it's disappointing."

The Ottawa Charge advanced to the PWHL final last season against the Minnesota Frost. Ottawa has averaged more than 7,000 fans per game over the last two seasons combined at TD Place Arena in Ottawa.

OSEG who will manage the new arena and currently manages TD Place Arena owns the OHL's Ottawa 67s, who despite being a junior hockey team are considered the primary tenant at TD Place, and were the primary concern when designing the new, smaller facility.

https://thehockeynews.com/womens/pwh...L-l9o8rbd7I4Gw

[phil235]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The disrespect shown by some members of Council, the Mayor and OSEG might have played in the PWHL refusing to even negotiate. Had OSEG and the City, and Council, been at least sympathetic to their grievances, explained right off the bat that increasing the capacity significantly was not an option and tried to negotiate a better deal to keep them at least until LeBreton is built. It sounds that they were instead into gaslit thinking they could discuss capacity at a later date and completely shut down by everyone involved over the last few weeks.

It's interesting that OSEG and the City pretended that they were shocked to hear capacity was an issue when, if not the league, the entire PWHL fan base has been screaming that the new arena would be too small ever since 2023.

Hoping they can work something out with the Sens. The previous article mentions that they would be a secondary tenant, so they wouldn't have primary consideration for facility branding and scheduling, but we have quite a few arenas that host both the NBA and NHL, and they seem to have figured it out.

It's quite weird to me that they would rule out Lansdowne entirely two years in advance. They are going to be playing there for at least two, if not three more seasons, at which point they will have a better sense of their longer-term attendance, as well as where the Sens Lebreton Flats rink stands. If the rink is well underway, then why on earth would they not stay at Lansdowne for a couple of seasons and then move to Lebreton? (or stay at Lansdowne if their attendance levels out around 6K)

Worst case scenario is them moving to Kanata, seeing their attendance drop and then pulling up stakes. I don't think that is out of the question, particularly when you have someone who doesn't understand the Ottawa market calling the shots.