Lansdowne Park Redevelopment Phase 1 | Completed

[phil235]

Originally Posted by KHOOLE

Lansdowne Park is still good for amateur and commercial sports of a lower scale than CFL. Perfect for Capital City and Fury and FIFA-W and university football and many many other exhibition sports and gatherings.
Let’s put the stadium back in shape and make full use of it as well as it being a revenue-generating enterprise for the city. Adjelian did the studies years ago. The roof is leaking and the supports have to be reinforced (clay again?)

Although you seem reluctant to address the issue head on, I take it from this statement that you are suggesting a scaled-down stadium at Lansdowne? However, you are citing reports on the history of negotiations, but not a single fact in support of your claims on best use of Lansdowne. If your idea is actually strong, you shouldn't have trouble defending it on all fronts.

I've already pointed out why a 10,000 seat Lansdowne is not "perfect" for the crowds drawn by Fury or Capital City FC, so I won't repeat myself. But I will take issue with your new contention that it would be a revenue-generating proposition for the City. I can't think of a single municipally-owned spectator facility for amateur sports that makes a profit, and that is without even taking capital investment into account. What makes you think this one will be any different?

I also question why we would want a 10,000 seat stadium at Lansdowne AND a 20,000 seat stadium at Bayview. That strikes me as a way to guarantee that neither will be used to its full potential, and that we are out of the running for the 2014 World Cup. It also strikes me as something that would almost certainly fail at the political level, which smacks of a delaying tactic. John Martin suggested the same thing in an early incarnation of his plan, and even he rejected that as unrealistic, which is saying something.

[kevinbottawa]

Here's a new blog post by Robert Claiborne of Cannon Design about the Lansdowne project. He sounds pretty optimistic. There are some new renderings at the link below.

http://cannondesignblog.com/?p=6647

Mid summer 2011, a Lansdowne Park Stadium Update…

In April of this year, Canada was awarded the 2015 FIFA Women’s World Cup. The Lansdowne Park Stadium will be one of five Canadian stadiums to host the games that will be seen around the world. The ownership group, in partnership with the city of Ottawa, is proceeding with the 37-acre redevelopment of historic Lansdowne Park, and the 24,000-seat stadium being designed by Cannon Design will be the central focus of the development. In addition to the previously awarded CFL football team, the ownership group has recently been awarded a new NASL franchise. Both teams will call the stadium home.

The project is moving along on schedule. Schematic design was completed June 30. The project team in Toronto (with SFMO assistance from the Washington DC and Victoria offices) has already started work on the DD package and expects to complete it by the end of September. The $85 million dollar (CDN) project includes a new 11,000-seat south stand featuring new locker rooms for both soccer and football, a generous concourse level with concessions, restrooms and guest services, a suite level with seating for 1,100 and an upper seating bowl and press box. The south stands have a uniquely designed wooden veil that provides both a cover for the stands as well as a new elevation to Rideau Canal and the park. The existing north stands, built in 1967 for the Canadian Centennial, will undergo major renovations and upgrades appropriate for a professional franchise.

Construction is scheduled to begin at the end of this year and when completed the stadium will be the home of the CFL football team, the Ottawa Fury soccer team and the Ottawa 67’s, a minor league hockey team.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by kevinbottawa

Here's a new blog post by Robert Claiborne of Cannon Design about the Lansdowne project. He sounds pretty optimistic. There are some new renderings at the link below.

http://cannondesignblog.com/?p=6647

The more I see of this design, the more I like it. What a massive improvement from what is currently there. I particularly like the open concourses and ends which should work really well with the new urban park, helping to integrate the stadium into its environment.

On the other hand, the render of the inside concourse makes it look a little tight.

[lrt's friend]

Updated: Thu Jul. 28 2011 4:15:20 PM

ctvottawa.ca

An Ontario Superior Court judge has sided with the city in a provincial court case that aimed to stop the redevelopment of Lansdowne Park.

A group called Friends of Lansdowne is behind the court case, arguing the city broke its own rules when it "sole-sourced" the project to the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG).

The judge was asked to decide whether the city acted in bad faith in approving the contract; whether it illegally gave bonuses to OSEG; and whether it violated its own procurement bylaws.

Justice Charles T. Hackland ruled Thursday that the city and city council acted in good faith when they approved the Lansdowne redevelopment project in June 2010.

The judge found that the city did not participate in unlawful bonusing in contravention with the Municipal Act, and the relevant procurement bylaws were not broken.

Friends of Lansdowne had argued council was misled when they approved the project. However, the judge ruled he did not accept that allegation. He added the contract did not "inappropriately favour OSEG's interest."

The legal proceedings have delayed construction on the project. Shovels were supposed to go into the ground last month.

If Friends of Lansdowne appeals the decision, construction could be delayed once again.

http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CT...ansdowne_110728/20110728/?hub=OttawaHome

[citizen j]

Excellent! But, sadly, I suspect this circus of stall-tactics is far from over. Having been told by a judge that the city did not act illegally, the FO(o)Ls will now go in search of another means of reducing Landsowne to a local park (appeal process, anyone?). Because it's not about legal principles or ethics or doing what's right; it's about getting their way. By the way, who's paying for this?

[Admiral Nelson]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CT...ansdowne_110728/20110728/?hub=OttawaHome

Excellent. I wonder if this will have any implications for the new court case.

[LeadingEdgeBoomer]

Does FOL have the money to finance an appeal? Will they be able to go back to the same people and ask for more money for appeals?

Seeing as the judge found that the city acted in good faith and did not break any procurement rules, will the Conservancy have any grounds for a law suit saying they were slighted?

Personally, I am sending an e-mail to my councilor asking that the city petition for legal fees on behalf of the tax payer like me.

[AuxTown]

I am on the FOL mailing list just to keep up to date with their plans. I received this email tonight:

Friends of Lansdowne has just learned that the Ontario Superior Court has dismissed our application to quash the City of Ottawa's approval of the Lansdowne Partnership Plan. We are very disappointed.
We will take the time we need to carefully review Judge Hackland's decision and to meet with our lawyers before making further comments or considering further legal action. We believe our case is important and has already made a significant contribution by making public many details of the plan--particularly the financial costs--that were not previously known to taxpayers.
We would also point out that, contrary to what you may have heard, the legal case is not the only thing preventing the Lansdowne Partnership Plan from proceeding. The project has not received necessary heritage, environmental and site plan approvals. These will take many months and may require significant changes to the current plan. Moreover, City Council has not yet given final approval to the project nor has it rectified the major financial discrepancies in earlier documents that may mean that taxpayers will have to spend tens of millions more on the project.
We remain committed to working towards a revitalized Lansdowne Park that will benefit the public, not private interests.

Sounds pretty defeated to me. I can't imagine them appealing given how thorough this last court case was. Who in the world would rule any differently after all the expert testimony and information-gathering that went on with this one. But there are Glebites who fear property value decreases in the 10's of thousands if this goes ahead and they are willing to drop some serious coin if there is a chance of winning their case.

I would love to wake tomorrow morning to the sounds of explosives bringing down what's left of the South side stands! Let's get on with it!

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey

I am on the FOL mailing list just to keep up to date with their plans. I received this email tonight:



Sounds pretty defeated to me. I can't imagine them appealing given how thorough this last court case was. Who in the world would rule any differently after all the expert testimony and information-gathering that went on with this one. But there are Glebites who fear property value decreases in the 10's of thousands if this goes ahead and they are willing to drop some serious coin if there is a chance of winning their case.

I would love to wake tomorrow morning to the sounds of explosives bringing down what's left of the South side stands! Let's get on with it!

I don't think its a matter of the out come but a group may see it as a way of delaying and hope that oseg walks away.Now with that said i don't know if that will be fol but i can see some group aginst landsdown taking such a stance.

[phil235]

Great news. A definitive ruling is exactly what was needed. I think that this outcome puts the issue to bed - any appeals or further applications would be a waste of time.

[AuxTown]

Originally Posted by phil235

Great news. A definitive ruling is exactly what was needed. I think that this outcome puts the issue to bed - any appeals or further applications would be a waste of time.

And tax dollars!

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by citizen j

Excellent! But, sadly, I suspect this circus of stall-tactics is far from over. Having been told by a judge that the city did not act illegally, the FO(o)Ls will now go in search of another means of reducing Landsowne to a local park (appeal process, anyone?). Because it's not about legal principles or ethics or doing what's right; it's about getting their way. By the way, who's paying for this?

Was FOL not asking the court to have their costs paid by the City? What was the outcome?

[LeadingEdgeBoomer]

YOWetal

Was FOL not asking the court to have their costs paid by the City? What was the outcome?

No. The complainant can not ask for court costs if they lose. The defendant can ask for court costs if thery win. The court may or may not award such costs.

At the very least, the City should now make it clear that if the FOL tries to delay the project by appealing the decision, the city will ask for all court costs.

By the way, appeals are not automaticllay accepted by the courts. The FOL will have to find grounds to do so, such as an apparent error in law that Mr. Justice Hackland made. If the brief FOL presents to the courts asking for an appeal hearing is not convincing, the courts can refuse to hear the appeal.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by LeadingEdgeBoomer

YOWetal



No. The complainant can not ask for court costs if they lose. The defendant can ask for court costs if thery win. The court may or may not award such costs.

At the very least, the City should now make it clear that if the FOL tries to delay the project by appealing the decision, the city will ask for all court costs.

By the way, appeals are not automaticllay accepted by the courts. The FOL will have to find grounds to do so, such as an apparent error in law that Mr. Justice Hackland made. If the brief FOL presents to the courts asking for an appeal hearing is not convincing, the courts can refuse to hear the appeal.

I haven't verified this, but I'm pretty sure that FOL don't need leave to appeal this decision. If they want to delay further, unfortunately I think they will be able to do so if they are willing to commit even more money to this less than idealistic endeavour.

[matty14]

I'm not a law expert by any stretch but...

Judge Hackland rendered a decision saying that the city is NOT in contravention of its purchasing by-laws. And seeing as this is the basis for the Conservancy's imminent legal action, what kind of legal legs (if any) does the conservancy have to stand on? Again, not a legal expert, but based on the definition I read, this seems like a case of "res judicata". Can the courts deny the Conservancy litigation due to the fact that a ruling has already been rendered by the court in what amounts to an almost identical case?

Nonetheless, I hope the City goes after costs from these windbags. I read the entire document of the judges decision and it seems pretty airtight, going over each and every FoL point and dismissing them with legal precedents and opinion. The FoL and the vocal minority have lost. I hope they realize this and allow us to move on.

[kevinbottawa]

CTV just had an interview with Roger Greenberg mainly about the legal challenges. When asked about whether there was a point where OSEG would consider backing out of the deal due to the legal challenges he replied, "Not any time soon" and that this is the nature of the development business. When asked about the Conservancy legal challenge he replied, "Bring it on...we'll see what he can come up with." I think yesterday's victory has given OSEG a renewed sense of confidence.

[Admiral Nelson]

Originally Posted by kevinbottawa

CTV just had an interview with Roger Greenberg mainly about the legal challenges. When asked about whether there was a point where OSEG would consider backing out of the deal due to the legal challenges he replied, "Not any time soon" and that this is the nature of the development business. When asked about the Conservancy legal challenge he replied, "Bring it on...we'll see what he can come up with." I think yesterday's victory has given OSEG a renewed sense of confidence.

[lrt's friend]

We should raffle off the privilege to push the plunger to blow up the south side upper deck.

I spent countless evenings sitting up there including all through the bad years.

I would be eager to blow it up while shedding a tear or two of the many memories.

One of those was when Doug Flutie made his first appearance in Ottawa and the game was delayed because of a torrential downpour, so bad that you couldn't see across the field and the scoreboard was struck by lightning.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by matty14

I'm not a law expert by any stretch but...

Judge Hackland rendered a decision saying that the city is NOT in contravention of its purchasing by-laws. And seeing as this is the basis for the Conservancy's imminent legal action, what kind of legal legs (if any) does the conservancy have to stand on? Again, not a legal expert, but based on the definition I read, this seems like a case of "res judicata". Can the courts deny the Conservancy litigation due to the fact that a ruling has already been rendered by the court in what amounts to an almost identical case?

Nonetheless, I hope the City goes after costs from these windbags. I read the entire document of the judges decision and it seems pretty airtight, going over each and every FoL point and dismissing them with legal precedents and opinion. The FoL and the vocal minority have lost. I hope they realize this and allow us to move on.

There isn't much in the way of grounds for appeal. Much of this case turned on findings of fact, and appeal courts are not able to reconsider those. They can only reverse lower court orders based on inappropriate weight being given to a particular piece of evidence, or an incorrect interpretation of the law. If FOL has any sense (a stretch, I know), they will weigh their chances of success on those grounds against the cost of appeal, and opt against.

However, the Conservancy is actually going to make an appliation on different grounds than the FOL. That is of course confused by the fact that John Martin speaks authoritatively on legal issues, but doesn't have any legal background whatsoever, so his ramblings are misleading. He keeps harping on this issue of standing, which has nothing to do with the substance of his case, and talks of a new open and competitive process being ordered. That can't happen, as the court has already decided that the City had the right to sole source. Thankfully, due to the principle of res judicata, it will not even listen to arguments from the Conservancy on that issue.

What they will try to get before the court is this idea that the City should have considered his proposal under the terms of its procurement policy. Of course it is not clear in the rules that the City had to consider his objection, and even if it did, the City did review the proposal and determined that it was submitted too late in the process. He has no realistic chance of winning, just delaying things. However, conceivably,if he had a better case, he could get some sort of mandatory order whereby the City is forced to backtrack and consider his objection more thoroughly, plus potentially some damages. Even then, that doesn't stop the project. The City clearly prefers the current plan, so it could go back, affirm the current plan and move on.

This is obstructionism, pure and simple, by a guy who couldn't get any significant support for his idea. Fortunately courts don't like to be used as tools for that sort of agenda, and I wouldn't be surprised if he gets dinged for some serious costs.

[AuxTown]

Originally Posted by phil235

This is obstructionism, pure and simple, by a guy who couldn't get any significant support for his idea. Fortunately courts don't like to be used as tools for that sort of agenda, and I wouldn't be surprised if he gets dinged for some serious costs.

And so he should. His chance to get involved was over the last 20 years that Lansdowne has fell into neglect. But wait, Glebites were happy to see it that way and felt the reduction in traffic would and should last forever. Well, the inevidable happened and the people of Ottawa (including Greenberg et al) recognized the potential for this site and have set a plan in action. Any moves by the Conservancy or FOL at this point are pure and simple stall measures and should not be taken seriously.