Lansdowne Park Redevelopment Phase 1 | Completed

[jemartin]

No need to try and improve the unsolicited bid.

The competitive alternative is available immediately.

Clearly there is no need to intensify at Lansdowne to the degree being proposed by the developers.

It is about what is best for the park.

Towers can and will go elsewhere and all of that tax money will go the general pool.

You only need 80,000 sf of retail to pay for the park, the amount being proposed by the Conservancy.

The developers cannot budge on their GFA requirements, there is no room to negotiate. Much better for them to go for 2.4M sf at the Bayview/Somerset Development Area at the transit hub.

Time for the city to direct development where it is needed.

Lansdowne, under nonprofit mangement will do very well as a major destination. Tourists will not flock to a site with towers, and ten story commercial development. They crave space and modest amounts of supporting service.

[Ottawan]

Originally Posted by jemartin

It is about what is best for the park.

This is very telling of the difference between your position and mine (and I believe some others on this forum). It is NOT about what is best for the 'park', it is about what is best FOR THE CITY.

Tourists will not flock to a site with towers, and ten story commercial development. They crave space and modest amounts of supporting service.

Excellent Point! We must hurry to do our duty as Good Samaritans and rush to tell New York City about the impending failure of their tourist industry!!!

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Thank you very much. I never would have found that. Page 35.

I understand the rationale for building the south stands that small, but the design doesn't allow for another tier to be built if demand eventually outstrips supply. They can't add a third upper deck due to the design, and they can't sink the field and build a lower bowl down to the new field grade since they're building the south stands so close to the north stands. What happens if in 20 years, Ottawa needs another 15,000 seats? Putting them all in the end zone isn't an optimal solution.

Ottawa football has historically drawn from 20,000 to 30,000 fans, but that doesn't mean that's where it will be going forward. Ottawa is a bigger city now and continues to grow. When Ottawa hits 1.5 million, demand will likely be considerably higher than it was in the 90s. Starting at 24,000 seats is smart, but employ a design that is conducive to easy capacity expansion. The last thing you want is another Molson Stadium where by your team forgoes significant revenue due to capacity constraints imposed by a small facility.

This has been designed under the premise that Ottawa will never need significantly more than 24,000 permanent non-end zone seats. What if this franchise is a success and Ottawans come back to football en masse? Shouldn't one plan for success, rather than assume it won't ever materialize?

Below are the average attendance figures for Winnipeg, Calgary, Hamilton, and Edmonton for 2008-2010. Edmonton and Calgary have a metropolitan population about the same size as Ottawa's. Ottawa is about 50% larger than both Winnipeg and Hamilton.

Hamilton: 20,785....22,532....23,890
Winnipeg: 27,151....25,720....26,083
Calgary: 32,523....36,502....30,715
Edmonton: 37,383....37,164....35,025

If football ever manages to prosper in Ottawa the way it does in these other similarly sized Canadian cities, Ottawa should plan for about 40,000 seats 20 years down the road.

While I think 40,000 at this point would be really pushing it, 24,000 (or less) for a modern-day CFL stadium seems awfully small. They should be going for at least 28-30,000.

[c_speed3108]

Approved. Integrated site plan passed 16-5 (Doucet did not vote)

The horticulture building move was also approved separately - with a different margin (13 to 7)

Lansdowne site plan gets council OK

By JON WILLING, City Hall Bureau

Last Updated: November 22, 2010 2:17pm

City council on Monday approved the site plan for a new Lansdowne Park.

Council also approved moving the historic Horticulture Building slightly east on the property, even though several public delegations opposed it.

Capital Coun. Clive Doucet asked council to defer the decision until the new council takes over, but his motion was shot down.

“People don’t understand the significance of the finances. It’s sad but true,” Doucet said.

College Coun. Rick Chiarelli said deferring would be “preposterous,” adding that voters elected the current council to make decisions until the four-year term was over.

The city just had “the ultimate referendum” on the Lansdowne plan during the municipal election, Chiarelli said.

Councillors who opposed the Lansdowne redevelopment in June and who lost in the election are Rideau-Vanier Coun. Georges Bedard, Kitchissippi Coun. Christine Leadman, Beacon Hill-Cyrville Coun. Michel Bellemare, Bay Coun. Alex Cullen and Doucet, who lost in the mayoral race.

Opponents who are retiring from council are Rideau-Rockcliffe Coun. Jacques Ledendre and Kanata South Coun. Peggy Feltmate.

That leaves Gloucester-Southgate Coun. Diane Deans and Somerset Coun. Diane Holmes as the only returning councillors who opposed the redevelopment. The new council takes over Dec. 1.

Friends of Lansdowne, a community organization with a judicial challenge against the redevelopment, argues this council can’t make a decision because it’s lame duck.

A lame duck council can’t approve spending or real estate transactions worth $50,000 or more.

City manager Kent Kirkpatrick told council the financial estimates passed in June have not changed.

A legal firm contracted by the city to review the rules also confirmed that council could approve the Lansdowne site plan.

The 16-hectare Lansdowne property will be transformed over the next three years. Frank Clair Stadium and the Civic Centre are being renovated and new retail buildings will be constructed just north of the stadium.

An urban park will be constructed on the east side of the property, while condos, townhomes, offices and a cinema will be built on the northwest side. An office tower, where the Ottawa Art Gallery will be relocated, will be constructed beside the stadium, near the Bank St. bridge.

The city is on the hook for $129 million to renovate the stadium and build related parking, along with the roughly $46 million for the urban park.

The Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group, the city’s partner in the redevelopment, is paying $98 million for the retail cluster. The business conglomerate will also run a Canadian Football League franchise.

The residential and office component is being tendered out.

Unless there are major changes, city staff have been given the authority to approve future versions of the site plan. The chairs of the Lansdowne design review panel, the city’s design review panel and the planning and environment committee, along with incoming Capital councillor David Chernushenko, will be left to decide if anything is significant.

[email protected]

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by c_speed3108

Approved. Integrated site plan passed 16-5 (Doucet did not vote)

The horticulture building move was also approved separately - with a different margin (13 to 7)

I refuse to celebrate until shovels are in the ground. We'll have to see what this lawsuit brings.

[danny the dog]

Agreed. According to a release by the city though, shovels should be in the ground around June, if everything goes ahead as planned.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Acajack

While I think 40,000 at this point would be really pushing it, 24,000 (or less) for a modern-day CFL stadium seems awfully small. They should be going for at least 28-30,000.

40,000 today is unrealistic, but I was arguing that a design should allow for 40,000 permanent seats 10/20/30 years down the road. This stadium will need to last Ottawa for many decades. 30 years from now Ottawa will likely be 50% larger than it is today. If demand for football tickets parallels population growth, Ottawa will need 40,000 permanent seats 30 years from now.

That's assuming football interest remains where it is now. What if there's a football boom? At the very least, any stadium design needs to allow for easy capacity increases down the road. Not doing so is short sighted and fool hardy.

[Umpaidh]

I think, in regards to the sizing and possible expansion of the system, the city and OSEG would prefer to have the problem of not having enough tickets to sell, than having to give away tickets just to fill the stadium. It worked for Montreal, who up until this season, had a home stadium which held 20 000.

Also, Toronto averages 30 000, so if you were to size our stadium by comparing the metro population of each city, this stadium should seat 6 666 (uh oh, that's never a good number). Anyway, just trying to point out that there are two sides to the stadium size issue.

[isaidso]

I'm not arguing for a 40,000 seat stadium though. I'm arguing for a design that won't box you into 24,000 seats forever. This needs to be built at 24,000 seats, but utilizing a design that allows for capacity increases 10, 20, 30 years down the road. If demand doesn't increase, it's fine. If it does increase, you still have options. With this design, if demand stays at 24,000 fans, everything is fine. If demand increases, there's little that can be done beyond adding end zone seats. That's just plain stupid.

Toronto? Toronto might as well be another planet when it comes to football.

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by Umpaidh

I think, in regards to the sizing and possible expansion of the system, the city and OSEG would prefer to have the problem of not having enough tickets to sell, than having to give away tickets just to fill the stadium. It worked for Montreal, who up until this season, had a home stadium which held 20 000.

Also, Toronto averages 30 000, so if you were to size our stadium by comparing the metro population of each city, this stadium should seat 6 666 (uh oh, that's never a good number). Anyway, just trying to point out that there are two sides to the stadium size issue.

I would perfer to model after montreal not toronto with all due respect to the great city of toronto.Montreal started out smaller and as soon as there was enough demand for tickets they expanded now thats the right way to do it.

[Umpaidh]

Originally Posted by isaidso

I'm not arguing for a 40,000 seat stadium though. I'm arguing for a design that won't box you into 24,000 seats forever. This needs to be built at 24,000 seats, but utilizing a design that allows for capacity increases 10, 20, 30 years down the road. If demand doesn't increase, it's fine. If it does increase, you still have options. With this design, if demand stays at 24,000 fans, everything is fine. If demand increases, there's little that can be done beyond adding end zone seats. That's just plain stupid.

Toronto? Toronto might as well be another planet when it comes to football.

With respect to all the cities in Canada, I think Ottawa shares more football sensibilities with Toronto than with Edmonton or Calgary or Saskatchewan (province, obviously...).

While the thought of demand increasing is on your mind, what happens if the team goes through some rough years? Would you shrink the stadium down? Likely not. What the plan appears to be is to keep the supply (hopefully) low for the next 30-40 years, then, when the stadium will get retrofitted/redesigned again, They can look into increasing the capacity (heck, the building will have been around for 90 years by then, maybe do a complete rebuild at that point).

Remember, OSEG is trying to run a business with the goal of making profits, not providing tickets to any and all that want to go to a game as if it were a public service. If tickets sell out, well, too bad, you should have bought them more than 4 hours before the game.

[Umpaidh]

Originally Posted by reidjr

I would perfer to model after montreal not toronto with all due respect to the great city of toronto.Montreal started out smaller and as soon as there was enough demand for tickets they expanded now thats the right way to do it.

Exactly, the only difference is we are starting at 24 000 here in Ottawa, as opposed to waiting to do that.

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by Umpaidh

Exactly, the only difference is we are starting at 24 000 here in Ottawa, as opposed to waiting to do that.

I would have liked to see them start with 20,000 and make it possible to expand to 30,000.No matter the sport its much better to have a waiting list and to turn people away then have empty seats.Even look at the scotia bank place they go a bit greedy and expanded the arena to much now they avg about 18,000 which is good per nhl standards but it looks bad when you have empty seats.

[lrt's friend]

I don't know what the big deal is about the stadium. First of all, the whole stadium will be renovated and the south side will be completely new. This alone will create demand for tickets to see the new stadium. This will last for a year or two. Hopefully, in that time we can build a competitive team and it sounds like the league is going to help make that happen by improving the expansion draft compared to the Renegades startup. I think 24,000 is just about right. And we also have to remember that the stadium has been designed to be expandable, whether with temporary seating for a Grey Cup or I am sure with something more permanent if the team turns out to be more successful.

[Luker]

Originally Posted by reidjr

I would have liked to see them start with 20,000 and make it possible to expand to 30,000.No matter the sport its much better to have a waiting list and to turn people away then have empty seats.Even look at the scotia bank place they go a bit greedy and expanded the arena to much now they avg about 18,000 which is good per nhl standards but it looks bad when you have empty seats.

They float in the ninety perecentile bracket according to capacity, and maintain 18k+ in a 19.5k arena in the middle of suburbs, with no surrounding entertainment, and further without ticket subsidization or giveaways. It's quite amazing actually, the test will come when and if they ever fall into a complete rebuild :S

[McC]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I don't know what the big deal is about the stadium. First of all, the whole stadium will be renovated and the south side will be completely new. This alone will create demand for tickets to see the new stadium. This will last for a year or two. Hopefully, in that time we can build a competitive team and it sounds like the league is going to help make that happen by improving the expansion draft compared to the Renegades startup. I think 24,000 is just about right. And we also have to remember that the stadium has been designed to be expandable, whether with temporary seating for a Grey Cup or I am sure with something more permanent if the team turns out to be more successful.

Temp seating could be brought in for end of season and playoff games too if the demand was strong enough to justify it (similar model to the Als moving to Olympic Stadium at the end of each year)

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Umpaidh

While the thought of demand increasing is on your mind, what happens if the team goes through some rough years? Would you shrink the stadium down? Likely not. What the plan appears to be is to keep the supply (hopefully) low for the next 30-40 years, then, when the stadium will get retrofitted/redesigned again.

But, that's precisely what I'm arguing for: keeping the supply low, but with a design that allows for expansion 30-40 years down the road. Where in 30-40 years would they build these extra seats? The way they've designed it, the only place to put them is in the end zone unless they tear the stadium down and start from scratch. Not good enough.

I'm not asking for more than 24,000 seats. How many different ways do I have to say that?

[AuxTown]

from www.ctvottawa.ca

Residents get taste of retail component at Lansdowne Park


Ottawa residents could soon be shopping at Whole Foods grocery store at Lansdowne Park, according to a site map outlining plans for the retail component of the redevelopment project.

Trinity Development Group posted the plans on its website. The company's president, John Ruddy, is also a key partner in the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group, which is behind the Lansdowne Park redevelopment project.

The site plan for the park's retail component also includes an LCBO and Empire Theatres movie complex.

The Whole Foods grocery store, which specializes in natural and organic products, would share space with the LCBO on the ground floor of a building on Bank Street. The grocery store would also occupy the second floor of the building. Meanwhile, the movie complex would be located on Holmwood Avenue.

Only three businesses were identified in the site plan posted online.

The redevelopment plans for Lansdowne Park call for renovating Frank Clair Stadium, developing an urban park, building about 300,000 square feet of retail space, as well as 220 residential units.

City council approved the stage one site plan for the park on Monday. The plan includes moving the Horticulture Building a short distance from its current location.

Whole Foods is awesome (though pricey), there's not enough LCBO's in central Ottawa, and a movie theatre in the Glebe would be great!

[DarkArconio]

Link to Article



The city has approved a location for the Ottawa Art Gallery at Lansdowne Park as part of the park's redevelopment.

The decision was included in a Monday vote that approved Phase 1 of the Lansdowne Live plans.

Art lovers have long complained that the gallery's current location at Arts Court, a former courthouse located on Daly Avenue, is an "embarrassment" because it is too cramped, has no street presence and little room to properly display the art.

The new location, at the foot of a proposed 16-storey residential building that fronts on Bank Street near the Rideau Canal, is expected to have four times the space.

It will also bring more attention to the art, said Coun. Peter Hume.

"You come into the stadium right by the art gallery," Hume said, referring to the 24,000-seat football stadium that is part of the Landsdowne redevelopment.

"So, it gives it a higher presence for the gallery, which I think is important."

The city has been trying for years to find a new home for the gallery, home to the 1,600-work Firestone Collection of Canadian Art, which includes paintings by Emily Carr and A.Y. Jackson.
Financing still to be approved

Monday's recommendation by city staff to move the gallery to Lansdowne was first discussed in the spring and carried forward without criticism Monday.

Lawson Hunter, chair of the gallery's board of directors, is pleased with the future digs.

"Parking is an issue and just visibility is an issue, so this is just a major, major quantum leap ahead of what we have today," he said.

Hunter said he hopes the Lansdowne location will include a café, gift shop and room for school groups.

The city is not scheduled to discuss the feasibility of the gallery move until next year, but Hume said he's confident the project will succeed, especially because it will be built into a residential building.

"You're sharing common costs, land value costs, so it is the most economic way to create a gallery space," Hume said.

The gallery had previously considered a move to the Canada and the World Pavilion on Sussex Drive.

Construction on the overall Landsdowne development is to begin in June 2011.

[Umpaidh]

Originally Posted by isaidso

But, that's precisely what I'm arguing for: keeping the supply low, but with a design that allows for expansion 30-40 years down the road. Where in 30-40 years would they build these extra seats? The way they've designed it, the only place to put them is in the end zone unless they tear the stadium down and start from scratch. Not good enough.

I'm not asking for more than 24,000 seats. How many different ways do I have to say that?

What I am commenting on is your expansion idea, not the total you are requesting. I don't know how you got that mixed up. Your initial comment was asking what will happen 10, 20, and 30 years down the road.

Anyway, as per my point, in 40 years, they will be looking for a design/refresh. It looks like the only issue we have is that you want that design already proposed now, and I think it should be done down the road.