Lansdowne Park Redevelopment Phase 1 | Completed

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey

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 🞵🞵🞵🞵!

Agreed that the park cannot stay in its current state. But the landscaping proposed pretty much matches Design B, only you leave Sylvia Holden Park out of the picture, there is nothing wrong with it.

Submitting it at the 11th hour was not intentional, though it clearly allows cooler heads to prevail once the reality of the enormous and complicated current proposal has had a chance to be evaluated and provide them with a more cost effective answer. The overall plan however of two sites has been worked on since 2008. The Conservancy management model only kicked in a short while ago as a viable and proven model and allowed just the Park to be concentrated upon.

A development tied stadium model is good, just better at the Bayview site which meets all the requirements of better return for the City, a brand new stadium for 70% the cost of the current one, on rapid transit, zoning already in place for such a development and within the master plan of the city (including George Dark's intensification model that initiated that master plan of development along the transitway incorporated into the Master Plan in 2004).

I want football to succeed and I believe developing in this manner allows the park not to be sacrificed, and remain self sufficient under new management.

Design B works overall (too bad about the bridge, but there is already one planned at Fifth to Clegg) just that it can be done without taxpayer money on a gradual implementation and allow the park to remain 100% public.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by jemartin

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?

I'm swayed at expert opinion behind a solid proposal with serious financial and business backing that gives us a truly urban park experience while turning Lansdowne into something all groups from all over the city can enjoy.

You keep treating this like a basic part, which in Ottawa means "trees and grass". This is evident in your proposal art. I, along with the majority on this board, want a truly urban park, which goes beyond trees and grass.

You keep saying this will be zero cost to the taxpayer, but you've yet to provide us with solid numbers and details regarding demolition and renovation. The numbers you gave us initially were incredibly suspicious and optimistic and I along with many here called you on that. You've still yet to prove that you have a solid financial plan with serious business partners and you keep trying to pass off assumptions as solid fact. That sets a far more dangerous precedent than the OSEG proposal.

Originally Posted by canadave

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.

Huh. Learn something new every day. Thanks for the insight.

Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey

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.

Agreed. A few other things I find opponents to the current Lansdowne proposal overlook are the facts that not only was the design competition structured to keep the stadium as part of the proposal, but the design competition, even in its nascent stage failed to get anyone remotely interested or come forward with even so much as a suggestion. This has become such a frustrating farce and quite frankly, I find it embarrassing to come from a city that is full of so many selfish, alarmist and simply reactionary individuals because it disrupts (either temporarily or permanently) their attempt at a perfect little world.

I suppose a decent analogy would be this; NIMBY-ism is like moving out of your house, but asking the new owners/tenants to keep everything exactly as it was. Not only is it rude, it's nonsensical.

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

I thought it was the North Side that was supposed to 🞵🞵🞵🞵?

[jemartin]

It will all boil down to cost.

The numbers will be shown on the anticipated June 21 release date.

[Ottawan]

Why the wait, since it's clear your numbers are derived from a random-number-generating machine? Maybe it's broken at the moment. Here, I'll help you out using my own:

$200,000
$50
$600,000,000
$0.30
$3,314/acre
7 days per widget installation
45.432% voluntary discount
14/25 of the site used for hogwash
$5.50 voluntary contribution per foot walked through the park per day equalling $5 billion per annum
0.156 visitors/second
$0 city contribution where 0 is variable from 0 to any number that includes a 0
7,039 cubic feet of parking space
$309 per yard of valuable reconstituted asphfalt scrap
42

You're welcome JEM!

[McC]

wow, that's my city, take one of the most expensive options, remove a couple of the expensive bits that made it interesting, and leave us with less for more money (seriously, without the bridge and island it's still more expensive than option D, and what do you get?). I feel like I'm in the LRT thread wondering why we're buying automated trains with drivers so that in thirty years when the trains go out in the suburbs, the third generation of drivers will be able to pilot the trains in traffic. can't wait for November so we can re-elect the same council with a mandate for change!

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by McC

wow, that's my city, take one of the most expensive options, remove a couple of the expensive bits that made it interesting, and leave us with less for more money (seriously, without the bridge and island it's still more expensive than option D, and what do you get?). I feel like I'm in the LRT thread wondering why we're buying automated trains with drivers so that in thirty years when the trains go out in the suburbs, the third generation of drivers will be able to pilot the trains in traffic. can't wait for November so we can re-elect the same council with a mandate for change!

Now you're gonna make me fall asleep in a bad mood. Thanks a lot.

[RTWAP]

The post quoted in pieces below is an excellent example of dismissing an opposing viewpoint instead of debating it.

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?

I would. Not every sports facility needs to be perfect and booked for league play at all times. Casual play is underrated.

Originally Posted by jemartin

The great porch? Paving stones and steps?

OMG! Not stones and steps!

Originally Posted by jemartin

The fire pit = a hole in the ground.

The Mona Lisa = a bunch of pigment and plant fiber. Are we having fun yet?

Originally Posted by jemartin

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

You know what's expensive and original for a park? Paving the whole thing over with asphalt.

Originally Posted by jemartin

The Children's Orchard = trees on grass

Everybody loves trees on grass ...

Originally Posted by jemartin

Heirloom Orchard = trees on grass.

... so let's do it twice.

Originally Posted by jemartin

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

That's a nice upgrade over cracking asphalt.

Originally Posted by jemartin

A carousel, I mean come on.

Yes. All you kids out there. Come on. Have fun. Enjoy.

It's such a good idea that I'm surprised they don't have one in Central Park.

(http://www.centralpark.com/pages/attractions/carousel.html)

Originally Posted by jemartin

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

And you proposing to do much more with 1/8th the budget? Intriguing. Sit back, relax. Tell me more. *pulls out notepad*

Originally Posted by jemartin

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.

Are you under the impression that we're paying the winning firm the estimated price to transform the park? I'm under the impression that they're bidding for the chance to design the park. The actual work goes out for tender. Claiming you could do essentially the same work for 1/8th the price makes you sound delusional.

In my opinion you should be trying to build your credibility instead of destroying it.

[Temperance]

Originally Posted by umbria27

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.

It's pretty simple. They want to move the building to please the private developers - to provide more room for chapters and starbucks and The Gap. There is no good planning reason for moving it.

[Temperance]

Originally Posted by McC

wow, that's my city, take one of the most expensive options, remove a couple of the expensive bits that made it interesting, and leave us with less for more money (seriously, without the bridge and island it's still more expensive than option D, and what do you get?).

Bingo. Not much more to be said than that.

[jemartin]

@RTWAP

You missed the point.

If it were for the whole site I would have no complaint, and the effort would be sincere.

But as the winning design team stated:

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

see ottawa.ca, Urban Park Design, Design B

When a park design team has to use terms such as "counter colonize the commercial development" you know there is a real problem with the project.

If the park project were expanded to the entire site and a sensible plan to take down the south stands were to be included with an extra playing field and the top half of the North Stands were removed and you kept the arena and trade space and the coliseum building was restored, and Sylvia Holden not altered, I would be at the head of the cheering section.

But the bad taste this whole process is leaving in everyone's mouth of a "bait and switch" and "here is your park, be quiet" and "just let us get on with our private development on your land" is hugely distasteful.

The guiding hand of the developers is behind everything, even this current proposal can be shot to hell if it gets in the way of the developers ideas.

The resentment here is not about positive aspects, it is about the blatant attempt of the City/Developers playing us all for fools.

Though the design team for the park noted:

"It counters the negative perceptions of OSEG’s appropriation of public space"

My reply is, No, it clearly does not.


Don't cut Lansdowne in two, the division is dividing our City.


Lansdowne Park for Heritage and Culture, Agricultural/Rural, Trade space, Park, Amateur Sport, outdoor festivals, an arena, and site rentals within existing structures (the arena primarily) and all scaled for the site.


Development tied stadium at Bayview, where the site studies have been completed, it is zoned for such a development and fits the Master Plan on rapid transit taking full advantage of the expansion.



Two sites done well.


www.vo-ao.ca

[aesthetic]

So, wait, they're going with option B but taking away it's two most distinctive features that would have been it's main selling points? Well, that's something of a bait and switch. I'm curious in knowing how many people would have voted for B if this had been the original plan.

Originally Posted by McC

wow, that's my city, take one of the most expensive options, remove a couple of the expensive bits that made it interesting, and leave us with less for more money (seriously, without the bridge and island it's still more expensive than option D, and what do you get?)... can't wait for November so we can re-elect the same council with a mandate for change!

Pretty much this.

[c_speed3108]

The first of the independent peer reviews has come in.

This is the retail one.

They peer reviewed both the study done by OSEG and the one by the Glebe BIA. They mostly accepted the OSEG study and rejected the Glebe BIA as "unreliable"

As reported by the Ottawa Sun

Peer review backs Lansdowne retail plans

By JON WILLING, Ottawa Sun

Last Updated: June 8, 2010 10:48pm


A peer review of the retail studies done for Lansdowne Park confirms the property should be transformed into a “unique urban village” that includes a cinema.

Malone Given Parsons (MGP) completed the peer review and the results are expected to be presented to city council as part of the Lansdowne redevelopment final report.

The Lansdowne Partnership Plan is the name given to the redevelopment proposal by the city and the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG).

City council is expected to receive a report on the partnership during a meeting Wednesday.

The MGP review, which was ordered by council, gives favourable analysis to the most recent retail study commissioned by the public-private partnership.

Council last fall agreed to hire a consultant for $70,000 to study the retail potential for Lansdowne. J.C. Williams Group unveiled the results in March, saying Lansdowne should have food-centric retail, including a grocery and specialty food stores.

J.C. Williams also recommended that the retail development shouldn’t be designed like a traditional shopping mall, but instead have a mixture of mainstream and independent businesses, including the theatre. A farmers' market is also touted as a way to further revitalize Lansdowne.

The MGP peer review agrees that a “themed retail area” would create a shopping destination and at the same time complement and support local businesses.

MGP says proposals to place the retail component on the northwest side of the property are correct, especially to create a gateway to the property along Bank St.

The design and layout of the retail space is critical to the success of the commercial component of Lansdowne, the peer review says.

MGP tells city staff that multi-storey buildings mixed in with smaller units, with ample parking, pedestrian links and a “village concept” would integrate well with Bank St. and the Glebe neighbourhood.

The peer review also looked at the original retail studies done separately by OSEG and the Glebe BIA.

While MGP accepts the OSEG retail analysis done by Tate Economic Research, the peer review passes off the Glebe BIA study, done by Market Research Corp., as unreliable.

The BIA-commissioned study suggested the maximum capacity for commercial space at Lansdowne is 60,000 square feet over five years. The J.C. Williams study recommended 300,000 square feet.

As for the cinema proposal, MGP says a new one at Lansdowne wouldn’t hurt existing cinemas.

A cinema has been included in OSEG’s commercial design.

[email protected]

[jemartin]

Big surprise.

[waterloowarrior]

There's lots going on at City Council right now... the implementation report is being tabled and the project team is presenting the plan... george dark is up right now
http://ottawa.ca/online_services/council_live/english/index.html

[Umpaidh]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Big surprise.

Yeah, I know eh? Anyone who believed the study done on behalf of the BIA is a fool, obviously it is going to be slanted to what they want!

On a side note, Jemartin, I'm curious as to who you have in your group estimating costs for you, and if they have any background in the construction industry in this (or any other) city.

Personally I liked plan B the best, and I thought the bridge seemed a little too overwhelming for the site, so I am happy they are postponing it.

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by Umpaidh

Yeah, I know eh? Anyone who believed the study done on behalf of the BIA is a fool, obviously it is going to be slanted to what they want!

On a side note, Jemartin, I'm curious as to who you have in your group estimating costs for you, and if they have any background in the construction industry in this (or any other) city.

Personally I liked plan B the best, and I thought the bridge seemed a little too overwhelming for the site, so I am happy they are postponing it.

All local and experts in their respective disciplines.

[c_speed3108]

Originally Posted by Umpaidh

Yeah, I know eh? Anyone who believed the study done on behalf of the BIA is a fool, obviously it is going to be slanted to what they want!

On a side note, Jemartin, I'm curious as to who you have in your group estimating costs for you, and if they have any background in the construction industry in this (or any other) city.

Personally I liked plan B the best, and I thought the bridge seemed a little too overwhelming for the site, so I am happy they are postponing it.

Talking to some people, my understand is that the difference between the two retail studies was the scope of the customer catchment area. The BIA sponsored study basically assumed that no one outside of the Glebe would shop there. The OSEG sponsored assumed a wider catchment area. A license plate study had been conducted to back up those assumptions.

I suppose that also goes along with the idea that Lansdowne, whatever is built there, should be a city destination and not just a local neighbourhood thing.



Posting The Ottawa Citizen's similar article for completeness.

Retail plan for Lansdowne 'viable,' review finds


The Ottawa Citizen June 9, 2010 11:04 AM



OTTAWA — Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group's plan to put 360,000 square feet of retail and commercial space on the Lansdowne Park site is "warranted and viable," according to a report tabled at council today.

The consultants Malone Given Parsons were retained by the city to undertake a peer review of the retail strategy for the commercial redevelopment of Lansdowne.

MGP supported an earlier report by J.C. Williams that called for a "unique urban village" to act as a destination for visitors and as a "supportive function" for Glebe and Bank Street businesses.

According to the consultants, the Lansdowne redevelopment would "provide an enhanced gateway to the Glebe and stronger anchor to the Bank Street businesses."

MGP also dismissed an earlier report by Market Research Corp. prepared for the association of existing Glebe businesses — which found that the area can't sustain nearly as much new trade as the Lansdowne plan proposes — claiming that due to its "methodology, assumptions and conclusions," the MRC report's "findings and conclusions cannot be relied upon."

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Re...w+finds/3131541/story.html#ixzz0qMzT8fmR

[Umpaidh]

Originally Posted by jemartin

All local and experts in their respective disciplines.

So no then?

And thanks for the info c_speed3108, I was initially poking fun at some peoples knee-jerk reaction to not believing anything that goes against what they believe, but it seems some good information has come from it. Thanks!

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by c_speed3108

Talking to some people, my understand is that the difference between the two retail studies was the scope of the customer catchment area. The BIA sponsored study basically assumed that no one outside of the Glebe would shop there. The OSEG sponsored assumed a wider catchment area. A license plate study had been conducted to back up those assumptions.

I suppose that also goes along with the idea that Lansdowne, whatever is built there, should be a city destination and not just a local neighbourhood thing.



Posting The Ottawa Citizen's similar article for completeness.

More bait and switch. They know the retail will fail. This is about condos.

As they fail, convert them.

[waterloowarrior]

Lansdowne Partnership Plan Implementation Report
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/occ/2010/06-09/ACS2010-CMR-REP-0034.htm

Supporting documentation not up yet