Lansdowne Park Redevelopment Phase 1 | Completed

[phil235]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

quick photoshop....

I'm partial to Plan B, but I've got to say, that looks fantastic. It is more what I think of when I hear the term "urban park".

[waterloowarrior]

I love the bridge of B... the island is also quite nice, and the gardens look to be well designed. D takes it for me though because I like the extension of the hard surfaces from the commercial part to the water. A and E don't have that strong connection D has and C is a bit too formal for my tastes (might just be the drawing style). All the plans look great though!

[migo]

Interesting newspaper article about Lansdowne Expansion:

From Ottawa Citizen - 21 May 1965, page 17

http://news.google.ca/newspapers?nid=QBJtjoHflPwC&dat=19650521&printsec=frontpage

[waterloowarrior]

Greater Ottawa blog hirez version of siteplan

PDF of presentation

[eemy]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Taking down half of south stands was $1m. For a nonprofit conservancy companies willingly work for less, closer to $300,000.00.

The north stands is a longer term project and not a rush. The grounds are straightforward and there are plenty of able bodied individuals with heavy equipment, earth and donations of trees.

Beautification is not expensive and what the people will love, in keeping with the true history of the park, and befitting a national capital.

This is the peoples place, and 150 years of 100% public access will be carried forward.

If you believe that a company will voluntarily absorb 70% of the cost of a demolition, you are completely delusional. They might donate their services (which is basically what you are counting on) for a truly good cause (ie. humanitarian reasons like Haiti, or sick children etc), but not for what essentially amounts to a neighbourhood park in an affluent part of an affluent city. If your financial plan is counting on stuff like this, you're not going to command anyone's attention very long.

I thought your plan was terrible from the get go, but now that you've provided some idea of how it might actually implemented, it's so incredibly clueless and poorly thought out that I dread the thought of it actually gaining the support of the City.

Based on what you've described, I'm envisioning a semi-demolished work site in the centre of the Glebe for the next 5-10 years, followed by a weedy, desolate field because the Conservancy can't afford to pay for proper top soil, labour or plants. This would likely continue on for the next 5-10 years. Over this time, the Aberdeen Pavilion and the Horticulture building would likely fall into serious disrepair due to the fact that the Conservancy would not be able to afford building repairs because of the ongoing demolition/incremental landscaping absorbing all their revenue. With the deteriorating site conditions, potential clients such as trade shows would likely avoid the site and move to more desirable facilities, and revenue would drop even further. Maybe I'm exaggerating a little bit, but I actually think it is a fairly reasonable scenario. More likely, your "group" would go crying to the city looking for a bailout before the first year is over.

Either way, I like Lansdowne Live's proposal much better.

[Cre47]

Not sure if I've posted the correct link, but here is a column by Denis Armstrong on the 24 hours titled: Lansdowne plans needs more art, less football

http://eedition.ottawa.24hrs.ca/epaper/viewer.aspx

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

If you believe that a company will voluntarily absorb 70% of the cost of a demolition, you are completely delusional. They might donate their services (which is basically what you are counting on) for a truly good cause (ie. humanitarian reasons like Haiti, or sick children etc), but not for what essentially amounts to a neighbourhood park in an affluent part of an affluent city. If your financial plan is counting on stuff like this, you're not going to command anyone's attention very long.

I thought your plan was terrible from the get go, but now that you've provided some idea of how it might actually implemented, it's so incredibly clueless and poorly thought out that I dread the thought of it actually gaining the support of the City.

Based on what you've described, I'm envisioning a semi-demolished work site in the centre of the Glebe for the next 5-10 years, followed by a weedy, desolate field because the Conservancy can't afford to pay for proper top soil, labour or plants. This would likely continue on for the next 5-10 years. Over this time, the Aberdeen Pavilion and the Horticulture building would likely fall into serious disrepair due to the fact that the Conservancy would not be able to afford building repairs because of the ongoing demolition/incremental landscaping absorbing all their revenue. With the deteriorating site conditions, potential clients such as trade shows would likely avoid the site and move to more desirable facilities, and revenue would drop even further. Maybe I'm exaggerating a little bit, but I actually think it is a fairly reasonable scenario. More likely, your "group" would go crying to the city looking for a bailout before the first year is over.

Either way, I like Lansdowne Live's proposal much better.

Always nice to hear from an armchair critic. I prefer to take action.

[AuxTown]

For those keeping score, here is a list of Ottawa councillor quotes from The Ottawa Citizen:

Mayor Larry O’Brien I’m going to argue on behalf of this vision because I think it’s the right one. I think it’s an outstanding plan, but it’s not my view that counts — it’s the view of the people of Ottawa. … Council’s responsibility is to make sure we’re prudent about those decision. Our hard work starts now.

Rob Jellett I love the stadium. I think the stadium is going to be gorgeous. Some of the retail area and the residential component, I was looking for a little bit more, to be honest. That doesn’t wow me. I’m not into the sleek, modern look in architecture. It’s very modern, the design. I was looking for something more historic-looking. But that said, I think it’s very good.

Alex Cullen These are very good architects. The drawings are very well done. We’re still facing the problem that this site is getting overloaded and doesn’t have the transportation to deal with all the activities that are planned there... Had we connections to rapid transit, this would be a very compelling presentation. But it doesn’t address this fundamental flaw.

Diane Deans The cost of stadium, the cost of possibly moving the Ottawa Art Gallery there, of moving the trade shows, of moving the exhibition, the cost of the proposed front lawn — for me, I think the public has to get engaged that this is not a revenue-neutral plan.

Clive Doucet I thought the stadium was attractive. But I’m not going to be bought off by the fact that I happen to like the stadium. The fundamentals of this have never changed, and they’ve always been wrong. You can’t make those fundamentals right by coming up with some great pictures.

Diane Holmes Could not be reached or had no comment yet

Maria McRae Could not be reached or had no comment yet

Michel Bellemare Could not be reached or had no comment yet

Gord Hunter As far as the stadium goes, it looks pretty darn good. Other than that, I didn’t have a close enough look to really comment today.

Jacques Legendre Could not be reached or had no comment yet

Peggy Feltmate Could not be reached or had no comment yet

Christine Leadman Could not be reached or had no comment yet

Rainer Bloess In the preview I got, I liked where it was going, I liked what they were trying to do. But I think there’s way more to this than you get in a one-day view. The next few weeks, as we dig into it, I suspect we’ll find elements that won’t work and elements that will be surprisingly good.

Peter Hume If we can nail down the Ottawa Art Gallery, if there’s a strong understanding of the retail — what it is and how it works and who it is — I think that it stands a good chance.

Rick Chiarelli It’s absolutely amazing. I think it’s one of the most exciting additions to Ottawa since the Ottawa Senators. And it’s to be the heartbeat of downtown for decades to come.

Steve Desroches The plan is ambitious and we need to make sure it’s anchored with a sound financial plan. I would expect it’s a project we would move forward with in phases. It’s not a project that’s going to be built in one year.

Marianne Wilkinson Could not be reached or had no comment yet

Jan Harder They did a fabulous job. I think there will be a strong vote (on council) for it. We have to start making some city-building decisions. It’s been too much about ‘vote for me because I’m a nice person.’ That’s got to stop.

Bob Monette I thought it was amazing. They dared to dream. Now it’s up to council to dare to make it a reality. It’s our chance to show that we have a vision and we want to see that will carry over for generations to come

Shad Qadri I think it looks very good. The part that I’m happy about is, it opens up Lansdowne Park from a visual point of view, both to the Aberdeen Pavilion, and when you’re coming down the Bank Street bridge, it’s a very welcoming site.

Georges Bédard Could not be reached or had no comment yet

Doug Thompson I’ve been a big supporter of the project from the beginning and after seeing what came forward today I’m not disappointed. We have the foundation, with what we saw today, to move Lansdowne forward into the 21st century.

Eli El-Chantiry The commercial side shows how they’re going to integrate it with Bank Street. Despite what some people say, it’s not a big mall... Just because you’re adding more stores in the area doesn’t mean you’re going to kill the existing businesses. I’m comfortable. I think they recognized the dynamic of Bank Street and they’re trying to bring a blend in.

I'm not sure what that leaves the score at, but looks pretty promising so far from council. My councillor (Holmes) seems to be sitting on the fence, which is obviously a new thing for such an opinionated person. I'll definately be sending her an email to pitch my support for the project and I suggest others on this forum do the same to their councillors (whether you're for or against the project).

[Ottawan]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Always nice to hear from an armchair critic. I prefer to take action.

Action? What action? Proposing whatever ideas float into your head, even getting pretty drawings done of them, and then suing those with actual productive ideas is not action - it's flailing.

I will believe you are a man of 'action' when you show that your flailing has garnered any other 'board members' of your conservancy, when you show any official study or report regarding the feasability of your plan, and when you list the names of financial supporters and backers of your ideas. Until then, you have no right to insult those, like Jeremy, who have (unlike yourself) proven themselves constructive at the very least to debate and discussion, let alone assert personal superiority as a supposed 'man of action'.

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by Ottawan

Action? What action? Proposing whatever ideas float into your head, even getting pretty drawings done of them, and then suing those with actual productive ideas is not action - it's flailing.

I will believe you are a man of 'action' when you show that your flailing has garnered any other 'board members' of your conservancy, when you show any official study or report regarding the feasability of your plan, and when you list the names of financial supporters and backers of your ideas. Until then, you have no right to insult those, like Jeremy, who have (unlike yourself) proven themselves constructive at the very least to debate and discussion, let alone assert personal superiority as a supposed 'man of action'.

You are quite emotional Ottawan.

If you would like to discuss the Conservancy plan there is a thread for that.

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Fun idea Peter.

Oh great. My very own e-stalker.

[jemartin]

..........................................

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by jemartin

I suppose that is one interpretation.

Or, did you perhaps consider that people who follow blogs here may also happen to follow blogs on the Ottawa Citizen on the same subject?

There was one person describing, word for word, the use of a chairlift at Lansdowne under the name DELETED

I really think you should get banned for this.

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I really think you should get banned for this.

Right, my commenting politely on a matter is awful.

In fact had it not been for the nonsense in the reply to my comment it would have gone no further.

What I find offensive is your use of GTFO, absolutely uncalled for.

I suggest that we all refrain from personal commentary and stick to the subject.

[Ottawan]

What is awful is your lack of understanding and lack of respect.

On this forum, we have always respected the wishes of those who want to remain anonymous. It allows us to post our personal opinions here and to have constructive debate without repercussions in the real world.

Posting on an Ottawa Citizen article can be a more public act (in some ways akin to writing a letter to the editor). As such, it is logical that some people who express themselves publicly there would want to remain anonymous here.

It is offensive to some (likely many) of us to see the ordinary courtesy and respect in such matters breached.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re my earlier comment: I believe that I was being quite rational, and very much discussing the Conservancy idea. What is more important to know in order to be able to judge the concept on its merits than whether it has any type of backing?

I am still waiting for an answer to that question, despite numerous requests. The longer you vaccillate and/or ignore this issue, the lower your credibility.

[eemy]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Right, my commenting politely on a matter is awful.

In fact had it not been for the nonsense in the reply to my comment it would have gone no further.

What I find offensive is your use of GTFO, absolutely uncalled for.

I suggest that we all refrain from personal commentary and stick to the subject.

As a matter of courtesy, you could at least remove RTWAP's name from your post. It's inappropriate to publicly identify someone who has chosen to remain anonymous without their consent.

[Aylmer]

We respect people's anonymity, here. We all know who you are, but we don't go ahead posting your full name without any consent.

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

We respect people's anonymity, here. We all know who you are, but we don't go ahead posting your full name without any consent.

Thank you for clarifying. I did not realize it was an issue.

The previous post has been corrected. Apologies to those concerned.

[Temperance]

Originally Posted by rodionx

I'm hoping this is just a rendering issue, but apart from the amazing stadium, it looks like Kanata Centrum without the parking.

Yeah, I have to say it's pretty bad. The architecture itself is ok but it seems they are just making lansdowne into another shopping mall. And the idea of continuing the local grid into the park only magnifies this. So much for Lansdowne "park".

[waterloowarrior]

Denley: Feels like "too much" doesn't like the mix of architecture (too many different styles)

The Lansdowne Four... background about the OSEG partners and how their idea came to be