Lansdowne Park Redevelopment Phase 1 | Completed

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

I can't speak for FoL, but noise and traffic are certainly among my very legitimate concerns. The proponents have to mind never convincingly demonstrated how the additional baseload of traffic from the shopping centre + condos + offices x major events will be accommodated on existing thoroughfares, and where everyone will park. Projections for higher than normal modal split with more people riding transit, walking and biking are fanciful.

This is my issue some aginst landsdown live so they are aginst it because of traffic etc yet they then turn around and say they want a place for everyone more or less meaning there would be just as much traffic if not more.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

I can't speak for FoL, but noise and traffic are certainly among my very legitimate concerns. The proponents have to mind never convincingly demonstrated how the additional baseload of traffic from the shopping centre + condos + offices x major events will be accommodated on existing thoroughfares, and where everyone will park. Projections for higher than normal modal split with more people riding transit, walking and biking are fanciful.

Noise and traffic many be legitimate concerns, but Lansdowne Park has had a stadium and been a major public gathering place in the heart of Ottawa for about a century, so unless you are 125 years old and bought your house in the 1800s...

As others have said as well - you can't live right in the centre of a city of 1 million people and expect no noise and no traffic.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

I can't speak for FoL, but noise and traffic are certainly among my very legitimate concerns. The proponents have to mind never convincingly demonstrated how the additional baseload of traffic from the shopping centre + condos + offices x major events will be accommodated on existing thoroughfares, and where everyone will park. Projections for higher than normal modal split with more people riding transit, walking and biking are fanciful.

In my view, generic comments about noise and traffic are not particularly instructive in this debate. Any intensification will bring with it noise and traffic. And the Glebe has to accept intensification, just like every other neighbourhood. A few selective negatives are not a reason to oppose a project. One has to look at the big picture and decide whether on balance, the benefits outweigh the negatives.

In this case, the concerns about noise are really hard to accept, given the longstanding use of the site. Traffic, on the other hand, is something that needs to be addressed, but I find that in this case, as in almost any case of a large proposal, the concern is almost always overblown by opponents of a project.

My guess is that the modal splits in the studies are not out of whack for a few reasons. First, there is no doubt that the share of people cycling and walking has increased significantly in recent years, and there is no reason that it won't continue to do so, especially with new infrastructure coming on line. Second, the addition of previously unavailable services in the neighbourhood (theatres, Whole Foods etc.) will take some cars off the road, as local residents who currently need to drive to the suburbs (and generate a significant portion of the dreaded traffic) will now be able to walk to these amenities. Finally, if the doomsday predictions do come true and there is increased congestion, that in and of itself will encourage people to find other modes of transportation, increasing the modal split.

Unless there is real evidence that the consultants are off base on their assumptions, I'd tend to accept their expertise. Rather than complaining about noise and traffic in a general way and using that as a primary basis for opposing the project, I'd much rather see people working pro-actively to address specific concerns, in this case by improving transit and cycling factilities in the neighbourhood.

Anecdotally, I am currently working with the GCA to try to address issues arising from the recent transit cuts. Despite numerous calls for suggestions on required improvements, the neighbourhood response has been a defeaning silence. Active community members are so busy opposing this project that they are missing an opportunity to work towards positive change. No one seems to care, as long as they win their fight. That kind of narrow focus really irritates me as it feels like people aren't really trying to accommodate other viewpoints.

[umbria27]

Originally Posted by reidjr

I find this odd people are up set because they claim there was no open compeition yet at the same time they seem to be aginst any competition comming into the glebe.

I think the point that neighboring businesses and landlords would make is that this deal subjects them to unfair competition. If Minto/Trinity were to buy a plot of land in the Glebe and construct a theatre on that, the Mayfair could grumble, but would have to concede that the competition was operating on a level playing field. In this case Minto/Trinity is getting a subsidy from the city in the form of free land from the city, a subsidy they can pass onto Empire theatres.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by umbria27

I think the point that neighboring businesses and landlords would make is that this deal subjects them to unfair competition. If Minto/Trinity were to buy a plot of land in the Glebe and construct a theatre on that, the Mayfair could grumble, but would have to concede that the competition was operating on a level playing field. In this case Minto/Trinity is getting a subsidy from the city in the form of free land from the city, a subsidy they can pass onto Empire theatres.

The Mayfair may have a point, if Lansdowne rents are actually below market (which I doubt, given the need to finance stadium maintenance out of the proceeds).

For other businesses, that complaint is pretty hollow. In almost every case, they lease their stores. If the deal is so much better at Lansdowne, then they can always move there.

The market will find an equilibrium. If it's lower, they will get lower rents. My guess is that the real worry in not unfair competition. Rather it is that this project will be successful and that all rents in the neighbourhood will go up.

[LeadingEdgeBoomer]

umbria27

I think the point that neighboring businesses and landlords would make is that this deal subjects them to unfair competition.

Concerning the landlords,

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but are not the developers comprising OSEG some of the major landlords along Bank St in the Glebe and OOS, particularly Minto?

I do know that Minto owns the Fifth Avenue Court. one of the largest commercial buildings in the area.

Minto and the other OSEG members do not seem to be concerned about the LPP lowering the value of their properties. They probably expect they will increase in value. If the Minto properties on Bank st. increase in value, so will those of other landlords.

As far as businesses who lease space , as phil235 wrote---the market will eventually sort out what the rents will be, as it always does.

[umbria27]

Originally Posted by LeadingEdgeBoomer

As far as businesses who lease space , as phil235 wrote---the market will eventually sort out what the rents will be, as it always does.

I don't particularly want to argue FOL's point of view, because I don't share them. I only point out that there is no double standard in local landlords and businesses fighting competition in this way. Somebody is being subsidized here, wherever that subsidy goes, into Minto's pockets, the tenants or the sports franchises. It's tough for us to suggest that market will sort it out when the situation was initiated by a market intervention - property was transferred at well below market value. That may serve a greater purpose, but for those who have to compete directly with the beneficiaries of that subsidy, it's probably a bitter pill.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by umbria27

I don't particularly want to argue FOL's point of view, because I don't share them. I only point out that there is no double standard in local landlords and businesses fighting competition in this way. Somebody is being subsidized here, wherever that subsidy goes, into Minto's pockets, the tenants or the sports franchises. It's tough for us to suggest that market will sort it out when the situation was initiated by a market intervention - property was transferred at well below market value. That may serve a greater purpose, but for those who have to compete directly with the beneficiaries of that subsidy, it's probably a bitter pill.

Well, I'm not sure that it is clear that somebody is being subsidized here. The concept of the deal is that the operating expenses and risk assumed by OSEG offset the low rent. That was supported by the judge who heard the application, who found that there was no bonus or subsidy at play.

Regardless, I don't think a market intervention causes that the retail leasing market to stop functioning. Government intervenes in that type of market constantly. They do so every time they use public resources to implement a new transit route in a particular area or reconstruct a street with nicer pedestrian amenities.

In this case, I still think that it is fair to say that the market will sort it out because the Glebe is a single retail market and any advantage given to one landlord ultimately benefits the whole market. Businesses leasing space are relatively mobile. They can always move to the subsidized premises and take advantage of the subsidy if one exists. And if they don't or can't move, the "subsidized" rents in the new retail area will still ultimately benefit them as overall market rents will decrease. That is if a subsidy exists, which I don't think it does.

[ThaLoveDocta]

Originally Posted by phil235

Well, I'm not sure that it is clear that somebody is being subsidized here. The concept of the deal is that the operating expenses and risk assumed by OSEG offset the low rent. That was supported by the judge who heard the application, who found that there was no bonus or subsidy at play.

Regardless, I don't think a market intervention causes that the retail leasing market to stop functioning. Government intervenes in that type of market constantly. They do so every time they use public resources to implement a new transit route in a particular area or reconstruct a street with nicer pedestrian amenities.

In this case, I still think that it is fair to say that the market will sort it out because the Glebe is a single retail market and any advantage given to one landlord ultimately benefits the whole market. Businesses leasing space are relatively mobile. They can always move to the subsidized premises and take advantage of the subsidy if one exists. And if they don't or can't move, the "subsidized" rents in the new retail area will still ultimately benefit them as overall market rents will decrease. That is if a subsidy exists, which I don't think it does.

I have to agree. This is pretty much spot on how I interpret.

And to reiterate... There is NO subsidy as ruled by the courts - rent will meet market values, as this is the payoff for absolving the city of significant risk.

[umbria27]

Originally Posted by phil235

In this case, I still think that it is fair to say that the market will sort it out because the Glebe is a single retail market and any advantage given to one landlord ultimately benefits the whole market. Businesses leasing space are relatively mobile. They can always move to the subsidized premises and take advantage of the subsidy if one exists.

In the case of the Mayfair, they own their own theatre, there is no question of moving. They invested in the location with certain facts on the ground, knowing their catchment and recognizing significant barriers to entry for any competitor. A competitor would have to find a sufficiently large piece of land in a pricy part of town. The city's intervention opened up a piece of land for a theatre that the owners of the Mayfair could not have reasonably expected to be an option, changing the rules of the game. Again, this may indeed be for the greater good, but there's no hypocrisy in the Mayfair joining the FOL appeal to reopen the competition.

[Nepean]

Originally Posted by umbria27

The city's intervention opened up a piece of land for a theatre that the owners of the Mayfair could not have reasonably expected to be an option, changing the rules of the game.

Umbria, your point is valid and well thought-out. My only comment is to focus on the sentence in your post that is quoted above.

We live in a world where the rules of the game are constantly changing. If I opened a business in 1980 based on certain conditions, it would be unrealistic to expect that the exact same conditions would exist in 2011.

Now, I agree with you that it makes perfect sense for the Mayfair to join the FOL. On the other hand, it has become clear to me that the anti-development forces are asking for the impossible: i.e. that the same conditions that existed when they first moved to Ottawa stay the same for the rest of their lives.

[S-Man]

Why did no one in the Glebe vote Conservative in the Ontario election?

Because the PC's platform was called CHANGEbook!

[phil235]

Originally Posted by umbria27

In the case of the Mayfair, they own their own theatre, there is no question of moving. They invested in the location with certain facts on the ground, knowing their catchment and recognizing significant barriers to entry for any competitor. A competitor would have to find a sufficiently large piece of land in a pricy part of town. The city's intervention opened up a piece of land for a theatre that the owners of the Mayfair could not have reasonably expected to be an option, changing the rules of the game. Again, this may indeed be for the greater good, but there's no hypocrisy in the Mayfair joining the FOL appeal to reopen the competition.

Agreed - the Mayfair is a bit of a unique case. I'm still not convinced that they really compete with first-run multiplexes, but there may be some overlap market that they'll lose.

I definitely don't want to see them go anywhere. I just hope they are wrong about the impact of the new development. Businesses will often fight changes tooth and nail (even small projects like bikelanes come to mind) and in the end the result is nowhere near the apocolypse they predict. The new critical mass being created may actually help the Mayfair.

[LeadingEdgeBoomer]

In the case of the Mayfair, they own their own theatre, there is no question of moving.

They already have--or at least expanded. They have leased the three screen theater at Place Centrum in Orleans. A bit of irony is that it was an Empire Theater. The Mayfair Orleans is now open.

The OOS Mayfair has three more years to soldify its market before competition comes--if it is competition because of catering to different markets. --alt movies vs first run.

If the business does fail, the property has probably increased in value. Aided no doubt by the infrastucture improvements along Bank St, a new Shoppers Drug Mart next door, and eventually the rebuilding of LP into a destination for many. Does not look like the owners can really lose financially. If necessry they can sell at a profit and still operate their alt movie business in Orleans and elsewhere.

Local residents may not want the original Mayfair to close. That is another story. If enough of them are alt movie fans , it may not have to.

[Davis137]

I've been to the Mayfair many times with my wife to watch double features, and the staff were really nice to us (like they didn't have working debit one time, we had no cash, but they let us come and watch the first movie, and go to the atm during the intermission and then pay when we came back...for example). I think that it's not going to get squashed by a multiplex because of what it offers...the nostalgia of the venue, and being able to watch older movies on a big screen for a fair price is great for those that don't end up going to see the latest and greatest movie when it first comes out.

[m0nkyman]

I think that the Mayfair will probably benefit from the proximity of another movie venue that is in a different part of the market. People wanting to see a movie can head down that way for dinner, and then decide over dinner what movie to see, checking their iphones to see what's on. It's part of the reason that restaurants tend to coalesce in certain areas... people don't always go to a specific restaurant, they go to a district, and decide at the last minute.

[Admiral Nelson]

When can we expect the court's decision?

[Anson]

Nobody knows for sure but it is expected to be before Christmas.

BTW the FOL people say that, win or lose, they won't go away. They intend to morph into an advocacy group that will keep on keeping tab on how city hall management and planning people as well as elected representatives will respect its bylaws and provincial legislation regarding transparency and financial manoeuvres. They have a wide following throughout the city now and their scope will become city-wide.

[jchamoun79]

Originally Posted by Anson

BTW the FOL people say that, win or lose, they won't go away. They intend to morph into an advocacy group that will keep on keeping tab on how city hall management and planning people as well as elected representatives will respect its bylaws and provincial legislation regarding transparency and financial manoeuvres. They have a wide following throughout the city now and their scope will become city-wide.

God help us all if this delusional band of obstructionists sets its sights beyond its little fiefdom in the Glebe.

[citizen j]

Originally Posted by Anson

Nobody knows for sure but it is expected to be before Christmas.

BTW the FOL people say that, win or lose, they won't go away. They intend to morph into an advocacy group that will keep on keeping tab on how city hall management and planning people as well as elected representatives will respect its bylaws and provincial legislation regarding transparency and financial manoeuvres. They have a wide following throughout the city now and their scope will become city-wide.

Which allows them to continue to position themselves as David to the City's Goliath and claim 'victory' regardless of the outcome of the appeal. Well spun indeed.