Lansdowne Park Redevelopment Phase 1 | Completed

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by adam-machiavelli

So a proposal for a bridge and an island minus the bridge and island. I fail to see the logic here.

Yeah, those seem like the central elements/focal point of the B design... the bridge was my favourite part of the proposal.

[lrt's friend]

Ah yes, throw down some grass, the more the better. The more lawn areas, the more dandelions. And all those lovely gravel parking areas that will turn into mud every time it rains. And the compacted soil in those parking areas that will gradually kill the trees. Love it! Mind you, it is cheap. Why am I going there again?

[lrt's friend]

I hated the bridge in Design B. Too obtrusive. I am glad it is gone.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

jemartin, how many times does it have to be said before it penetrates that thick skull of yours? Pitch your proposal in your own proposal thread.

As for the bridge, I liked the look if it oddly enough. I also hope they keep the island and the public art display thing they mentioned. Those would be great additions to the site.

[jemartin]

The island and bridge are gone from Design B.

Basically you are left with changing Sylvia Holden Park for no reason, adding some pathways, and a whole lot of grass and trees.

At $39M that is one expensive landscaping project.

[umbria27]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I hated the bridge in Design B. Too obtrusive. I am glad it is gone.

I really liked the broad curving bridge. It didn't look like any other Rideau canal bridge. Maybe because it came out so close to race weekend, I immediately imagined it being used as part of the marathon route with thousands of runners streaming across it. I'm sorry it's gone.

To my mind, they really gutted this proposal. What's interesting is that while they've removed the most distinctive elements (the bridge, the screen and the island), they've chosen not to over-ride the decision to move the horticultural building. If you were looking for cost savings that was an obvious opportunity.

[Umpaidh]

What do you mean Parks Canada blocked the stormwater drainage, Jemartin? In the article it notes that cost was already included in the commercial side of the parks costs.

Also, while yes, they are suggesting removing OR delaying the bridge and island, there are a number of things besides grass and trees left in the proposal, including:

the great porch, the new farmers market area, the water park/curling court, the landing, a carousel, the 'beacon' (that large thing in the water park), a festival stage, a fire pit (?), a glebe landing, heirloom orchard, and field house. Not including the public art/screens they intend to erect as well.

It is most certainly not just landscaping.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by jemartin

The island and bridge are gone from Design B.

Basically you are left with changing Sylvia Holden Park for no reason, adding some pathways, and a whole lot of grass and trees.

At $39M that is one expensive landscaping project.

Originally Posted by Umpaidh

What do you mean Parks Canada blocked the stormwater drainage, Jemartin? In the article it notes that cost was already included in the commercial side of the parks costs.

Also, while yes, they are suggesting removing OR delaying the bridge and island, there are a number of things besides grass and trees left in the proposal, including:

the great porch, the new farmers market area, the water park/curling court, the landing, a carousel, the 'beacon' (that large thing in the water park), a festival stage, a fire pit (?), a glebe landing, heirloom orchard, and field house. Not including the public art/screens they intend to erect as well.

It is most certainly not just landscaping.

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

lazy as always

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by Umpaidh

What do you mean Parks Canada blocked the stormwater drainage, Jemartin? In the article it notes that cost was already included in the commercial side of the parks costs.

Also, while yes, they are suggesting removing OR delaying the bridge and island, there are a number of things besides grass and trees left in the proposal, including:

the great porch, the new farmers market area, the water park/curling court, the landing, a carousel, the 'beacon' (that large thing in the water park), a festival stage, a fire pit (?), a glebe landing, heirloom orchard, and field house. Not including the public art/screens they intend to erect as well.

It is most certainly not just landscaping.

Please tell me what curler would want to curl on an unrefrigerated pad with no roof? Its a joke. And in the summer? Shuffle board?

The great porch? Paving stones and steps?

The fire pit = a hole in the ground.

A stage, now thats really expensive and original for a park.

The Children's Orchard = trees on grass

Heirloom Orchard = trees on grass.

The new Farmer's Market area? In the exact same spot with interlocking brick?

A carousel, I mean come on.

About the only interesting element aside from grass and trees is the fountain
and a skateboard bowl for the kids.

Essentially 95% grass and trees and a couple of touches.

There is nothing impressive about the design that a local firm could not do for 1/8th the price. And there is simply no need to try and redefine Sylvia Holden Park, it ain't broke.

What is most telling is the summary statement from the firm:

"It counters the negative perceptions of OSEG’s appropriation of public space by allowing the park to counter-colonize the commercial development"

Even the planners for the park know this is all about slight of hand to try and add some sugar to some very untasty and unnecessary medication

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by jemartin

lazy as always

So instead of wasting my time trying to get through that thick head of yours by echoing the exact sentiments that another poster coincidentally posted before me, can somehow be construed as lazy? Right.

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

So instead of wasting my time trying to get through that thick head of yours by echoing the exact sentiments that another poster coincidentally posted before me, can somehow be construed as lazy? Right.

Thank you for confirming my point.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Please tell me what curler would want to curl on an unrefrigerated pad with no roof? Its a joke. And in the summer? Shuffle board?

The great porch? Paving stones and steps?

The fire pit = a hole in the ground.

A stage, now thats really expensive and original for a park.

The Children's Orchard = trees on grass

Heirloom Orchard = trees on grass.

The new Farmer's Market area? In the exact same spot with interlocking brick?

A carousel, I mean come on.

About the only interesting element aside from grass and trees is the fountain
and a skateboard bowl for the kids.

Essentially 95% grass and trees and a couple of touches.

There is nothing impressive about the design that a local firm could not do for 1/8th the price. And there is simply no need to try and redefine Sylvia Holden Park, it ain't broke.

What is most telling is the summary statement from the firm:

"It counters the negative perceptions of OSEG’s appropriation of public space by allowing the park to counter-colonize the commercial development"

Even the planners for the park know this is all about slight of hand to try and add some sugar to some very untasty and unnecessary medication

We get it. You have no respect for the design put forward by the winning team, and selected by the jury of experts in the relevant fields. You don't value the public art. You think that the work could be done for 1/8 of the cost. Can we now just agree that those points have been officially beaten to death?

I'm a little sorry to see the bridge removed, as I really liked how it stretched out over the great lawn. Hopefully it is a question of phasing, as that was the central element of the plan.

[jemartin]

The bridge is in the works anyhow with a study already commenced by Maria McRae and Clive Doucet. Would be from the base of Fifth to Clegg St.

It is not the design I have a problem with so much as the price, and that it is the main distraction away from the real issue of having public park space
appropriated by private development.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Thank you for confirming my point.

No, you had no point and you simply continue to dodge. Why bother repeating what someone else already said? You're thick.

Seriously, Design B is more than trees and grass, which is what you've been very adamant in saying will be in your proposal. You'd actually know that if you read what was going into the park. Public art displays, water features, gardens, etc.

As for the curling rink, I can't speak for die hard curlers but maybe they enjoy playing a game outside? As for summer uses, perhaps a pond. I don't know.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by jemartin

The bridge is in the works anyhow with a study already commenced by Maria McRae and Clive Doucet. Would be from the base of Fifth to Clegg St.

I would like to see both bridges built, as on an aesthetic level the Fifth Avenue bridge does not serve as a grand entrance to the new park, and on a practical level it does not provide a cycling alternative to the Bank St. Bridge.

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

No, you had no point and you simply continue to dodge. Why bother repeating what someone else already said? You're thick.

Seriously, Design B is more than trees and grass, which is what you've been very adamant in saying will be in your proposal. You'd actually know that if you read what was going into the park. Public art displays, water features, gardens, etc.

As for the curling rink, I can't speak for die hard curlers but maybe they enjoy playing a game outside? As for summer uses, perhaps a pond. I don't know.

Perhaps you are swayed by a little art and a pond and a garden.

And items that can all be added to a basic park.

But if the basic park is paid for using existing site surplus over a 5 year period, and an additional playing field, and retaining all the park as public land, I choose the zero taxpayer cost, zero public land cost option.

Why spend $39M just on part of the park when you can get the whole park at no charge?

[waterloowarrior]

The official announcement will made at Council tomorrow according to the Sun

[canadave]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

As for the curling rink, I can't speak for die hard curlers but maybe they enjoy playing a game outside? As for summer uses, perhaps a pond. I don't know.

There is a long tradition of outdoor curling, and as a curler myself, I'd certainly be interested in giving it a try. And it's certainly still a popular thing to do today; the ice may not be as good, but what's not to like about playing sports outside?

A quick Google search came up with evidence of an outdoor bonspiel in Winnipeg, and an outdoor rink in Waterloo, just to name a couple.

[AuxTown]

Originally Posted by jemartin

It is not the design I have a problem with so much as the price, and that it is the main distraction away from the real issue of having public park space
appropriated by private development.

Dude, you gotta cool it with the "private development on park land" 🞵🞵🞵🞵. I guess you've never been to Lansdowne, but there is nothing and I mean NOTHING appealing to the public at Lansdowne in it's current state. It is a wasteland of gravel and crumbling asphault that is surrounded in large chain link fences and walls. The farmers market is the only useful thing at Lansdowne (outside of the crumbling stadium and the arena) and it would still be good if you held it at the Carp Dump (might as well). Every single aspect of this project is a huge improvement of Lansdowne in it's current form and our city will benefit from it.

If you were serious about your proposal it would have been submitted a long time ago. Submitting it days before this vote goes to council is evidence that you are submitting it as a distraction and not as something that is actually feasible. Ottawa is a great place, but it has way too man NIMBYs with too much time on their hands who make a career out of obstructing progress with thinly-veiled attempts to serve one person, themselves.

See you at the Riders game in 2013; I'll be on the South side and it will not longer 🞵🞵🞵🞵!