Lansdowne Park Redevelopment Phase 1 | Completed

[Ottawan]

I disagree entirely with Khoole on this one. As someone who grew up in the suburban southeast (I would argue the most neglected quadrant of the city), the Glebe was THE destination for us. All regular shopping was done at Saint-Laurent, Heron Gate, and when it was built, South Keyes, but for "making a day of it" it was always the Glebe. There is no doubt that the Glebe retail is (and has been) a destination area for at least this large portion of the city.

[jemartin]

The retail is not to bring people in, it is to service the condos that will eventually take over the site.

The long term strategy is simple. Get the foot in the door. Whatever retail fails will be converted to residential.

Stadium included. Developers are not your friend, they are their own.

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by jemartin

The retail is not to bring people in, it is to service the condos that will eventually take over the site.

The long term strategy is simple. Get the foot in the door. Whatever retail fails will be converted to residential.

Stadium included. Developers are not your friend, they are their own.

Does your bid not include retail.

[jemartin]

Keep the arguments straight.

The developers use retail space as an adjustable lever for future private residential development.

A 100% public park uses modest amounts of retail to enhance the guest experience, adds revenue to the park to keep it self sustaining, encourages local entrepreneurs and promotes local growth with a full sized farmer's market, not a token one that is 1/3 the size.

[AuxTown]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Keep the arguments straight.

The developers use retail space as an adjustable lever for future private residential development.

A 100% public park uses modest amounts of retail to enhance the guest experience, adds revenue to the park to keep it self sustaining, encourages local entrepreneurs and promotes local growth with a full sized farmer's market, not a token one that is 1/3 the size.

Dude, it's over. Lansdowne Live is going through. If you had submitted your proposal 2 years ago when they were accepting bids, then maybe we would have seen a competition. All we're seeing now is people (like your group) reacting to a successful bid including appropriate land uses with scare tactics and paranoia. These developers ARE trying to make money, but no one in their right mind would develop this site without the possibility of a profit. This is, and will always be, the major flaw in your plan. The people of Ottawa will not pay for you to build a public park that, for all intents and purposes, is for the use of local residents and them alone (no matter how much you try to claim otherwise). If the legal challenge against OSEG goes through, mark my words, Lansdowne will sit vacant and disgusting for another 20 years.

[jemartin]

Hate to disappoint your very passionate belief in the philanthropy of the developers, but it is out of the hands of council and now into the hands of the procurement department and the mutually agreed upon Fairness Commissioner.

There are now two bids and it will come down to best value for the City.

The CFL Franchise holders with the Conservancy is the clear winner.

[kevinbottawa]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Developers are not your friend, they are their own.

It's these kinds of comments that keep me from supporting the Friends of Lansdowne. For a brief second I sympathized with the group, but comments like this are a turn off. While there are developers who may have wrong motives, just like in any other industry, to make blanket statements about every developer is wrong. I believe there are developers out there who actually care about their city and profit makes their business sustainable so they can keep doing what they love to do. Profit isn't a bad word; it gives businesses longevity.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Hate to disappoint your very passionate belief in the philanthropy of the developers, but it is out of the hands of council and now into the hands of the procurement department and the mutually agreed upon Fairness Commissioner.

There are now two bids and it will come down to best value for the City.

The CFL Franchise holders with the Conservancy is the clear winner.

This is a strange comment after just listening to the commissioner of the CFL on TV. His comment was that he could not say 100% that Ottawa would be back in the league. If the shovel goes in the ground next summer, the franchise is a certainty. Furthermore, he said that success of the franchise ties directly in with the ownership group's position in the community.

I think it is big leap of faith to tie 'the CFL franchise holders' in with the Conservancy bid. Furthermore, that a sudden change of direction would lead to a shovel in the ground situation next summer. It took 3 years to bring the Lansdowne Live bid to the point where the shovel could go in the ground. How could any other bid not take as long?

[Only The Lonely..]

Ok, I admit this is a stupid question but as a Winnipegger i'm curious...

Why does Ottawa struggle as a CFL market? It's certainly a big affluent city..lots of national pride.

Aside from Frank Clair being a total rats nest of a stadium, you guys support your hockey team whole heartedly.

So why not the CFL?

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by Only The Lonely..

Ok, I admit this is a stupid question but as a Winnipegger i'm curious...

Why does Ottawa struggle as a CFL market? It's certainly a big affluent city..lots of national pride.

Aside from Frank Clair being a total rats nest of a stadium, you guys support your hockey team whole heartedly.

So why not the CFL?

There is a bit of misinformation with the cfl in terms of support.Ottawa has really not had real attendance issues the rens had there franchise rights revoked it had nothing to do with support.The riders folded it had more to do with bad ownership then anything else.

[umbria27]

Originally Posted by KHOOLE

Not much economic development on Bank Street in the Glebe because it isn’t much of a destination area. Apart from some reasonably good bars and a few restaurants, everything shuts down at night. Essentially the area is more like an island with the Queensway in the North and the Canal and Dow’s Lake in the South and East.

I disagree. It is a destination. When I lived in the burbs, I'd come down to the Glebe a dozen weekends a year for art fairs, classical concerts, shopping, skating, soccer. There's a reason that the street has the highest saturation of coffee shops in the city. That's not all local lining up at the Bridgehead/Starbucks/Second Cup and swearing at the green hornets when they find they've misread the parking regulations.
I've got to believe that the problem is land acquisition costs.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Only The Lonely..

Ok, I admit this is a stupid question but as a Winnipegger i'm curious...

Why does Ottawa struggle as a CFL market? It's certainly a big affluent city..lots of national pride.

Aside from Frank Clair being a total rats nest of a stadium, you guys support your hockey team whole heartedly.

So why not the CFL?

First of all, Frank Clair Stadium was not a total rats nest of a stadium. It was far from a Taj Mahal, but it had great sight lines. The stadium had nothing to do with the failure of the team.

The answer to your question is simple. I was a season ticket holder every year from 1979 to the end including the Renegades period. In that time, they had one winning season, 1979. That says it all. In the 1980s, the Rough Riders were considered the worst pro sports franchise in North America for the whole decade, all sports. It was simply lousy ownership (both incompetent and under financed), and lousy football management, with one leading to the other. There were situations when the team was starting to build up and ownership walked in ripped everything apart. That happened with the first round of the Gleibermans in the early 90s and it happened when the Renegade ownership group wanted to bail out but suck the league for the Grey Cup revenue.

It was hard to imagine such awful management of a sports team for so long.

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by kevinbottawa

It's these kinds of comments that keep me from supporting the Friends of Lansdowne. For a brief second I sympathized with the group, but comments like this are a turn off. While there are developers who may have wrong motives, just like in any other industry, to make blanket statements about every developer is wrong. I believe there are developers out there who actually care about their city and profit makes their business sustainable so they can keep doing what they love to do. Profit isn't a bad word; it gives businesses longevity.

If they cared about their city they would direct development along the rapid transit expansion and develop Lansdowne in a heritage fashion.

You are quite right that some developers care about how cities are developed and place care into how they proceed.

Unfortunately the current proposal has nothing to do about respect for the site, it is a pure grab and they and everyone knows it. I will repeat, if the current developer proposal was such a "great and selfless" offer it would have withstood entering into the original competition and tried to win on its merit under a competitive process.

Time to care a little less about "hurt feelings" and care a little more about the long term success of our city, our heritage and public space.

Develop where it is needed and that comes from good leadership at the City to direct development and plan for a stunning city and start with open and competitive process and intensify following the world model of Transit Oriented Development.

Most importantly, respect treasured and public sites and beautify them and keep them 100% public for the next generations.

[AuxTown]

If they cared about their city they would direct development along the rapid transit expansion and develop Lansdowne in a heritage fashion.

I'm not sure what locations you are referring to, but I'm sure development there is not an option. The NCC owns Lebreton and has not and likely will not ever want anything to do with a stadium. Hurdman is the only similar area on rapid transit and the land around it is the old Ottawa dump, making the cost to rehabilitate the land a huge deterrant to development. Anyway, the issue at hand today is not "where are possible sites in the city where we could fit a stadium?", it's "how is the best way to rehabilitate our stadium and make Lansdowne the vibrant place it deserves to be?"

[jemartin]

The location I am referring to is the City owned land at the Bayview/Somerset Development Area, approved by council in 2005 and pre-zoned for commercial, residential, retail and civic development. It also happens to be at the central transit hub for the entire rapid transit expansion: the last report prior to council approval can be seen here A quick overview can be seen here.Cost to fully rehabilitate the soil at Bayview is estimated at $25M, $5M more than the cost to rehabilitate the soil at Lansdowne. The difference at Bayview is that there is 2.4M gf (gross foot) development space, or roughly 7 times the available development density over Lansdowne and as mentioned at a transit hub. More development space means space to expand and greater tax base for the City and fewer roads since you follow TOD or Transit Oriented Development. Should you want the best location for the stadium there is an additional 300,000 sf in addition. None of the development space would affect the public parks in the vicinity.

Example: DCR Phoenix has already planned a 1M gf development on the smallest parcel of that land. They are currently waiting for building permits.

On how to develop Lansdowne, start with keeping it public, and protect the meeting place aspect of the park, beautify it, restore its buildings and promote sports. One viable alternative, and there would be many more, if a competitive process had been followed, is of course the nonprofit management model put forth by the Lansdowne Park Conservancy.

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by jemartin

The location I am referring to is the City owned land at the Bayview/Somerset Development Area, approved by council in 2005 and pre-zoned for commercial, residential, retail and civic development. It also happens to be at the central transit hub for the entire rapid transit expansion: the last report prior to council approval can be seen here A quick overview can be seen here.Cost to fully rehabilitate the soil at Bayview is estimated at $25M, $5M more than the cost to rehabilitate the soil at Lansdowne. The difference at Bayview is that there is 2.4M gf (gross foot) development space, or roughly 7 times the available development density over Lansdowne and as mentioned at a transit hub. More development space means space to expand and greater tax base for the City and fewer roads since you follow TOD or Transit Oriented Development. Should you want the best location for the stadium there is an additional 300,000 sf in addition. None of the development space would affect the public parks in the vicinity.

Example: DCR Phoenix has already planned a 1M gf development on the smallest parcel of that land. They are currently waiting for building permits.

On how to develop Lansdowne, start with keeping it public, and protect the meeting place aspect of the park, beautify it, restore its buildings and promote sports. One viable alternative, and there would be many more, if a competitive process had been followed, is of course the nonprofit management model put forth by the Lansdowne Park Conservancy.

Do you know what phoenix is planning to build with that land.

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

This is a strange comment after just listening to the commissioner of the CFL on TV. His comment was that he could not say 100% that Ottawa would be back in the league. If the shovel goes in the ground next summer, the franchise is a certainty. Furthermore, he said that success of the franchise ties directly in with the ownership group's position in the community.

I think it is big leap of faith to tie 'the CFL franchise holders' in with the Conservancy bid. Furthermore, that a sudden change of direction would lead to a shovel in the ground situation next summer. It took 3 years to bring the Lansdowne Live bid to the point where the shovel could go in the ground. How could any other bid not take as long?

The CFL at Lansdowne has its best chance with the Conservancy. The developer proposal faces years of legal challenges. The Conservancy however faces no such obstacles. The Conservancy is a competitive bid under the rules so meets the procurement test. It is more beneficial to the taxpayer, so in addition meets the overall guiding principal of good faith. It meets all heritage aspects so precludes intervention by the Ministry. The Conservancy bid falls within the Official Plan so no OMB challenges. The Conservancy option requires no rezoning and is available immediately with a 30 month timeline with stadium.

The alternative for the the development partners is to withdraw their bid and to develop their density at Bayview with a new stadium.

In that scenario Lansdowne would be developed in 27 months only with just the North Stands and promote amateur sport and have CFL training allowing front office synergy for Jeff Hunt. Game day would be at Bayview.

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by reidjr

Do you know what phoenix is planning to build with that land.

Link here to OBJ article.

See also newspaper articles in Skyscraper here.

Overall desired plan is to have two 31 story towers and a third smaller tower. This appears to have been slightly modified.

It is believed the holdup at City Hall is a direct result of not wishing to allow credence to the Bayview development area.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by jemartin

The location I am referring to is the City owned land at the Bayview/Somerset Development Area, approved by council in 2005 and pre-zoned for commercial, residential, retail and civic development. It also happens to be at the central transit hub for the entire rapid transit expansion: the last report prior to council approval can be seen here A quick overview can be seen here.

The land you're talking about is already slated for another development many years down the road and as O-Town said, the NCC doesn't and won't ever want a stadium on that land.

Also, do you not realize that it will cost FAR more to develop/re-develop both sites rather than just one? No wonder council has rejected your proposal TWICE.

Cost to fully rehabilitate the soil at Bayview is estimated at $25M, $5M more than the cost to rehabilitate the soil at Lansdowne.

So let's get this straight; you actually WANT us to fork over more money...for a SECOND site that would have to be developed...rather than rebuild over existing infrastructure? Smart, dude. Real. Smart.

The difference at Bayview is that there is 2.4M gf (gross foot) development space, or roughly 7 times the available development density over Lansdowne and as mentioned at a transit hub.

The difference is that there is an existing plan for Bayview and council has progressed slowly on anything near the Ottawa River. Lansdowne however, does not have those shackles.

More development space means space to expand and greater tax base for the City and fewer roads since you follow TOD or Transit Oriented Development. Should you want the best location for the stadium there is an additional 300,000 sf in addition. None of the development space would affect the public parks in the vicinity.

People still drive, J. Again, there is already a plan for Bayview, and the NCC won't let a stadium get built anywhere near the Parkway.

Example: DCR Phoenix has already planned a 1M gf development on the smallest parcel of that land. They are currently waiting for building permits.

Yeah, that's to the south and is already facing challenges and is in its third reincarnation of a bid/proposal.

On how to develop Lansdowne, start with keeping it public, and protect the meeting place aspect of the park, beautify it, restore its buildings and promote sports.

Okay, first, Lansdowne is not a meeting place and doesn't have a "meeting place aspect". As for the rest of that tripe, that is all covered with the OSEG proposal AND it comes with the bonus of providing a return on investment to the city.

I also find it really that you're now promoting sports when at first you were so vehemently against having the CFL at Lansdowne.

One viable alternative, and there would be many more, if a competitive process had been followed, is of course the nonprofit management model put forth by the Lansdowne Park Conservancy.

A model which you have failed time and time again to prove to us actually works.

Originally Posted by jemartin

The CFL at Lansdowne has its best chance with the Conservancy.

How will a new team be better under a group of glebites with their special park that depends on donations to survive, than under an established team of sports leaders and business that will actually know what they're doing?

The developer proposal faces years of legal challenges.

Because people like you and selfish glebites want to stagnate the Glebe.

The Conservancy however faces no such obstacles.

Actually, it does. We've brought up numerous obstacles but you keep ignoring them by either refusing to answer them, saying it won't matter(without providing proof of the contrary I might add) or by giving a completely roundabout and meaningless answer.

The Conservancy is a competitive bid under the rules so meets the procurement test.

Too bad the competition yielded no bids and was cancelled.

It is more beneficial to the taxpayer...

How is it more beneficial to the taxpayer when you're relying on donations from stodgy old glebites and asking taxpayers to develop TWO sites?

...so in addition meets the overall guiding principal of good faith.

And that means what, exactly?

It meets all heritage aspects so precludes intervention by the Ministry. The Conservancy bid falls within the Official Plan so no OMB challenges. The Conservancy option requires no rezoning and is available immediately with a 30 month timeline with stadium.

The alternative for the the development partners is to withdraw their bid and to develop their density at Bayview with a new stadium.

In that scenario Lansdowne would be developed in 27 months only with just the North Stands and promote amateur sport and have CFL training allowing front office synergy for Jeff Hunt. Game day would be at Bayview.

There is so much wrong with the above section, but I gotta get to school so I'm hoping someone else will take you to task on it.

[ThaLoveDocta]

Originally Posted by jemartin

The CFL at Lansdowne has its best chance with the Conservancy. The developer proposal faces years of legal challenges. The Conservancy however faces no such obstacles. The Conservancy is a competitive bid under the rules so meets the procurement test. It is more beneficial to the taxpayer, so in addition meets the overall guiding principal of good faith. It meets all heritage aspects so precludes intervention by the Ministry. The Conservancy bid falls within the Official Plan so no OMB challenges. The Conservancy option requires no rezoning and is available immediately with a 30 month timeline with stadium.

The alternative for the the development partners is to withdraw their bid and to develop their density at Bayview with a new stadium.

In that scenario Lansdowne would be developed in 27 months only with just the North Stands and promote amateur sport and have CFL training allowing front office synergy for Jeff Hunt. Game day would be at Bayview.

On the other hand... y'all could withdraw your appeals and the current proposal would get football back mighty quick!