Lansdowne Park Redevelopment Phase 1 | Completed

[phil235]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

However, it seems as though there is a blinkered view here that is impervious to any sort of questioning or reasonable arguments in opposition to OSEG's Lansdowne scheme, as it has been presented.

Yes, there are reasonable arguments against the OSEG plan. There are also reasonable arguments for the plan. The difference I see is that most of those arguing against the plan have a vested personal interest in the result, and have quickly become urban planning experts to campaign against the plan. On the other hand, many of those for the plan (the ones you cleverly label as "useful idiots") are genuine students of urban planning whose interest in the subject goes far beyond this project.

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

But instead it was plunked down in the cornfields of Kanata, in large part because it opened up the area around it to development by the Firestone Corp., including the building of an exit there, courtesy of the then quisling Mayor, Jim Durrell (who had to resign after trying to be Mayor and President of the Sens franchise. OOPS! Conflict, anyone?)

This claim is incorrect for a number of reasons. For one, the city didn't build the exit - that was largely funded by the Senators.

I agree that the theory does state that congestion forces people to take other modes of transport. How about we start by putting a freeze on the hundreds of millions of dollars of road-widening planned throughout the City in the next few years? Then we could put that towards funding the stadium renovation and park building without going into debt and without having to give away a third of the site to private developers for $1 per year?

I have no problem with a freeze on road-widening, but I'd rather see the money put into transit enhancements and the OSEG deal left the way it is.

I do have a problem with half-truths about the site being given away to private developers. As several judges have pointed out to opponents, you can't cherry-pick one aspect of the deal to argue it is a give-away. People here aren't receptive to those arguments not because they are predisposed to one way of thinking, but rather because they are overly simplistic speaking points and when examined for even a few minutes, they don't hold water.

Looking at the balance of your arguments, almost all of them can be applied to any type of significant intensification in the Glebe. I have a problem with that line of argument. As a resident of the Glebe, I recognize that the Glebe needs to accept its share of intensification, and is ideally suited for it (walkable, well-serviced, close to downtown etc.). Lansdowne provides a great opportunity to achieve that. And that ill you speak of, private development by wealthy individuals, is going to be part of intensification.

I have little time for those who want to build a wall around the neighbourhood to protect it from any kind of development. And these parking and traffic arguments are the bread and butter of those espousing that viewpoint.

[S-Man]

Quote:
Originally Posted by alecz_dad
However, it seems as though there is a blinkered view here that is impervious to any sort of questioning or reasonable arguments in opposition to OSEG's Lansdowne scheme, as it has been presented.

Yes, there are reasonable arguments against the OSEG plan. There are also reasonable arguments for the plan. The difference I see is that most of those arguing against the plan have a vested personal interest in the result, and have quickly become urban planning experts to campaign against the plan. On the other hand, many of those for the plan (the ones you cleverly label as "useful idiots") are genuine students of urban planning whose interest in the subject goes far beyond this project.


Quote:
Originally Posted by alecz_dad
But instead it was plunked down in the cornfields of Kanata, in large part because it opened up the area around it to development by the Firestone Corp., including the building of an exit there, courtesy of the then quisling Mayor, Jim Durrell (who had to resign after trying to be Mayor and President of the Sens franchise. OOPS! Conflict, anyone?)

This claim is incorrect for a number of reasons. For one, the city didn't build the exit - that was largely funded by the Senators.


Quote:
I agree that the theory does state that congestion forces people to take other modes of transport. How about we start by putting a freeze on the hundreds of millions of dollars of road-widening planned throughout the City in the next few years? Then we could put that towards funding the stadium renovation and park building without going into debt and without having to give away a third of the site to private developers for $1 per year?

I have no problem with a freeze on road-widening, but I'd rather see the money put into transit enhancements and the OSEG deal left the way it is.

I do have a problem with half-truths about the site being given away to private developers. As several judges have pointed out to opponents, you can't cherry-pick one aspect of the deal to argue it is a give-away. People here aren't receptive to those arguments not because they are predisposed to one way of thinking, but rather because they are overly simplistic speaking points and when examined for even a few minutes, they don't hold water.

Looking at the balance of your arguments, almost all of them can be applied to any type of significant intensification in the Glebe. I have a problem with that line of argument. As a resident of the Glebe, I recognize that the Glebe needs to accept its share of intensification, and is ideally suited for it (walkable, well-serviced, close to downtown etc.). Lansdowne provides a great opportunity to achieve that. And that ill you speak of, private development by wealthy individuals, is going to be part of intensification.

I have little time for those who want to build a wall around the neighbourhood to protect it from any kind of development. And these parking and traffic arguments are the bread and butter of those espousing that viewpoint.

*Oh snap!*

But seriously, I am in agreement.

[ThaLoveDocta]

Originally Posted by phil235

Yes, there are reasonable arguments against the OSEG plan. There are also reasonable arguments for the plan. The difference I see is that most of those arguing against the plan have a vested personal interest in the result, and have quickly become urban planning experts to campaign against the plan. On the other hand, many of those for the plan (the ones you cleverly label as "useful idiots") are genuine students of urban planning whose interest in the subject goes far beyond this project.



This claim is incorrect for a number of reasons. For one, the city didn't build the exit - that was largely funded by the Senators.



I have no problem with a freeze on road-widening, but I'd rather see the money put into transit enhancements and the OSEG deal left the way it is.

I do have a problem with half-truths about the site being given away to private developers. As several judges have pointed out to opponents, you can't cherry-pick one aspect of the deal to argue it is a give-away. People here aren't receptive to those arguments not because they are predisposed to one way of thinking, but rather because they are overly simplistic speaking points and when examined for even a few minutes, they don't hold water.

Looking at the balance of your arguments, almost all of them can be applied to any type of significant intensification in the Glebe. I have a problem with that line of argument. As a resident of the Glebe, I recognize that the Glebe needs to accept its share of intensification, and is ideally suited for it (walkable, well-serviced, close to downtown etc.). Lansdowne provides a great opportunity to achieve that. And that ill you speak of, private development by wealthy individuals, is going to be part of intensification.

I have little time for those who want to build a wall around the neighbourhood to protect it from any kind of development. And these parking and traffic arguments are the bread and butter of those espousing that viewpoint.

+1 For a supported, formulated dismantling of the weak argument put forth.

And yes, I too am a Glebe resident. AND all for said 'well managed intensification'

[amanfromnowhere]

..... back to the topic:

June 19, 2012

Ottawa Lansdowne Park contracts awarded

OTTAWA

EllisDon Corp. and CDS Builders were recently awarded City of Ottawa contracts for preliminary work on the revitalization of Lansdowne Park, situated beside the Rideau Canal about five kilometers south of Parliament Hill.

EllisDon is expected to start construction shortly on the foundation for the relocation of the Horticulture Building, the city stated in recent press release. EllisDon’s scope of work also includes demolition of the Coliseum Building, tree removal and excavation and remediation of soils.

The city also announced that CDS Building Movers is expected to start removing asbestos from the Horticulture Building. The projects are part of a plan to redevelop Lansdowne Park, including redeveloping the stadium, building a park and constructing a mixed-use area that includes retail, office and residential development.

Last year, Delsan-Aim Demolition Services demolished the south stands of Frank Clair Stadium, former home of the Ottawa Roughriders Canadian Football League Team. Last month, the city announced that EllisDon, PCL Constructors Inc. and Pomerleau Inc. were short-listed for a project to refurbish the stadium and civic centre.

In May, the city was still negotiating with Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group. The total estimated cost of stadium, the public portion of the garage and site-servicing work was $129.3 million.

EllisDon is expected to finish its preliminary work by November.

“Structural works to stabilize the relocated Horticulture Building will be ongoing until March 2013,” according to a city press release.

http://www.dcnonl.com/article/id50660

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

Then we could put that towards funding the stadium renovation and park building without going into debt and without having to give away a third of the site to private developers for $1 per year?

You do realize that you're lying, right?

The developers contribute money, expertise and teams for a share of a partnership.

The city contributes money and land for a share of a partnership plus some benefits, namely site revitalization, the teams, and increased property taxes.

Evaluating the relative value placed on those things is hard. Some look at the complexity and see conspiracy. Others see a deal the covers a lot of bases and tries to meet a lot of differing goals.

[jaydog0212]

alecz_dad
Ottawa would go into debt if they were to build a central park some want it would cost $200-500 million to build plus with no fees to enter your looking yearly costs just to keep it up.

[alecz_dad]

Originally Posted by jaydog0212

alecz_dad
Ottawa would go into debt if they were to build a central park some want it would cost $200-500 million to build plus with no fees to enter your looking yearly costs just to keep it up.

The dubious waterfall disbursement arrangement still presents a considerable chance of the City being left on the hook:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Navigating+choppy+waters+cost/3206917/story.html

By maintaining the fiction that the land would remain "public," OSEG hoped to overcome the opposition likely to come to selling off all or part of Lansdowne to private developers for well below its market value. Had the City sold of perhaps a third of the site outright they could have funded much of the works proposed without incurring massive debt, and entering into a dubious partnership with OSEG.

Although the land remains the property of the City, in practice it is privatized for generations as the developer maintains rights for 30 years, with an option to renew for another 30.

And what of the condos being built atop the commercial buildings? If the developer decides in 30 years they've had enough, and says "Here, City, you can have it all back" the City could never redevelop those areas where the clapped-out commercial buildings were because there will be hundreds of millions worth of privately-owned condo real estate atop them that can't just be picked up and moved.

This is privatization by the back door. And don't you know the backdoor always hurts more? "Ouch!"

[alecz_dad]

Originally Posted by RTWAP

You do realize that you're lying, right?

The developers contribute money, expertise and teams for a share of a partnership.

The city contributes money and land for a share of a partnership plus some benefits, namely site revitalization, the teams, and increased property taxes.

Evaluating the relative value placed on those things is hard. Some look at the complexity and see conspiracy. Others see a deal the covers a lot of bases and tries to meet a lot of differing goals.

Sorry, but from where I sit there's a big difference in paying $1 per year and paying $80-90 million for a prime development site.

No amount of goodwill that OSEG brings to the project can make up for that disparity.

[jaydog0212]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

The dubious waterfall disbursement arrangement still presents a considerable chance of the City being left on the hook:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Navigating+choppy+waters+cost/3206917/story.html

By maintaining the fiction that the land would remain "public," OSEG hoped to overcome the opposition likely to come to selling off all or part of Lansdowne to private developers for well below its market value. Had the City sold of perhaps a third of the site outright they could have funded much of the works proposed without incurring massive debt, and entering into a dubious partnership with OSEG.

Although the land remains the property of the City, in practice it is privatized for generations as the developer maintains rights for 30 years, with an option to renew for another 30.

And what of the condos being built atop the commercial buildings? If the developer decides in 30 years they've had enough, and says "Here, City, you can have it all back" the City could never redevelop those areas where the clapped-out commercial buildings were because there will be hundreds of millions worth of privately-owned condo real estate atop them that can't just be picked up and moved.

This is privatization by the back door. And don't you know the backdoor always hurts more? "Ouch!"

Sure the city could redevelop the area if they wanted to the city would have more flex with this then if it was turned into a park.

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

Sorry, but from where I sit there's a big difference in paying $1 per year and paying $80-90 million for a prime development site.

No amount of goodwill that OSEG brings to the project can make up for that disparity.

Poof, there goes any remaining credibility.

Hey! Did you know I bought my house for only $1.

I just classified all the rest of the cost as goodwill and disregard it because once something is called goodwill it's can just be ignored.

In case you didn't notice, this type of spin pisses me off. There are plenty of things wrong with Lansdowne, the waterfall, the retail mix, the traffic planning, transit planning for additional demand on Bank. I'm of the opinion that in sum the project is still a net positive, but I have a lot more respect for people who criticize the actual deal instead of their fantasy versions of it.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

Sorry, but from where I sit there's a big difference in paying $1 per year and paying $80-90 million for a prime development site.

No amount of goodwill that OSEG brings to the project can make up for that disparity.

I notice that you are quite selective in the arguments you choose to address. Kind of odd for someone so convinced of their position on the moral high ground.

Where is this notion that OSEG's contribution is goodwill alone coming from? You've clearly read the terms of the agreement. You must know that the Lansdowne facilities cost money to manage and maintain. Those very real costs will come from the proceeds of the commercial development that OSEG is constructing. That is the whole point of this deal. Ignoring it doesn't make your argument stronger.

Also, OSEG takes the vast majority of the risk associated with the development. Again, that has a very real value. Yes, there is no absolute guarantee for the City that this will all succeed. That doesn't negate the fact that OSEG assumes the bulk of the risk in any foreseeable scenarios, which is a huge benefit for the City.

To suggest that they paid $1 for $90 million worth of real estate is pure nonsense. Why do you insist on repeating such facile claims?
Who is your target audience?

[concernedottawa]

It seems the financing arrangements are the biggest challenge of the OSEG deal.
The $1 a year lease rate is correct, however the developers will contribute in the neighborhood of $150M to the taxpayers of Ottawa from profits over the course of the term. The problem is that after financing charges of the capital costs and park maintenance charges paid by taxpayers to the private corporation the total costs is about $510M. The developers will make massive profits, some estimate in the range of $1B in the very low end to over $2B in the high end ( developers re-invest at about a 50% ROI on projects ).At the end of the day taxpayers will pay in the range of $500M, and receive about $150M in profit sharing. A very bad ROI. There will be about $120M in taxation revenue directed to pay off debt of the project , but that is tax money, or opportunity cost. Use the money to pay off debt you forgo using that money for roads, parks, infrastructure, etc.... Summed up great deal for the developers, absolute disaster for the taxpayer.

[jaydog0212]

Originally Posted by concernedottawa

It seems the financing arrangements are the biggest challenge of the OSEG deal.
The $1 a year lease rate is correct, however the developers will contribute in the neighborhood of $150M to the taxpayers of Ottawa from profits over the course of the term. The problem is that after financing charges of the capital costs and park maintenance charges paid by taxpayers to the private corporation the total costs is about $510M. The developers will make massive profits, some estimate in the range of $1B in the very low end to over $2B in the high end ( developers re-invest at about a 50% ROI on projects ).At the end of the day taxpayers will pay in the range of $500M, and receive about $150M in profit sharing. A very bad ROI. There will be about $120M in taxation revenue directed to pay off debt of the project , but that is tax money, or opportunity cost. Use the money to pay off debt you forgo using that money for roads, parks, infrastructure, etc.... Summed up great deal for the developers, absolute disaster for the taxpayer.

While i can understand the idea money should be used for core services but things such as parks and arts and culture are not core services so on one hand you can't say we should only be spending money on core items but have parks etc part of that sorry that does not work.

[lrt's friend]

One way or another, if Lansdowne is to remain a public facility there will be substantial costs to renovate and maintain it. There is no magic solution that will do this at no cost to the taxpayer. Even the argument of cost neutrality never said it would cost nothing. It only suggested that costs would not increase. That, of course, went out the window when the front lawn plan was selected.

[LeadingEdgeBoomer]

ConcernedOttawa in his first ever post on this forum trots out the same old tactic of financial disaster for the city that FOL, and other opponents of the LPP have been using for a couple of years. His numbers are pulled out of thin air , makes no reference to supporting documents from a credible source and ,have been posted and refuted before in the 1800 some posts on this thread. They are out of whack with the financial review of the the plan by the Auditor -General.

The Audiitor-Generals report was itself reviewd by the Ontartio Superior Court and the Ontario Court of Appeals, in the FOL case, and the courts found that there was an appropriate balance of risk and benefit to both the City and OSEG.

For instance, here is section 52 and 53 of the Court of Appeals Decison , which went against the FOL challenge.

52] After an exhaustive review of the terms of the Plan, the Auditor General concluded that the waterfall revenue distribution achieved an appropriate balance between the parties based on assumptions he found to be reasonable. He gave the opinion that “there is an appropriate amount of risk for each party.” As well, he concluded that after examining “all of the assumptions for the various structures”, the distribution scheme appeared to be “reasonable and fair to both parties.”

[53] The application judge adopted the opinion of the Auditor General and was “not persuaded that OSEG has received any obvious advantage in the [Plan]”: see para. 84. This step of the process was largely fact-driven, although elements of policy were involved, including recognition of the importance of bringing the sports franchises to the Park.

ConcernedOttawa may feel that he can crunch the numbers better than the Auditor-General can or that he has more wisdom and expertise than the four judges who ruled at the Superior Court and Court of Appeals. However,I think that most of we mere mortals will accept that the rulings of these esteemed persons supercedes the feelings of ConcernedOttawa.

[alecz_dad]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

One way or another, if Lansdowne is to remain a public facility there will be substantial costs to renovate and maintain it. There is no magic solution that will do this at no cost to the taxpayer. Even the argument of cost neutrality never said it would cost nothing. It only suggested that costs would not increase. That, of course, went out the window when the front lawn plan was selected.

Once again, if it will end up costing taxpayers half-a-billion dollars anyway, why do we need a mall there again?

The notion that the land is being kept "public" is a fiction. Will all of those commercial bldgs and condos be levitating an inch off the ground, so that after 30 years they can just be towed off the site?

Soon to be the view of Aberdeen Pavilion at Lansdowne down Adelaide St http://ow.ly/i/J4BT Look now before its gone forever!

[jaydog0212]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

Once again, if it will end up costing taxpayers half-a-billion dollars anyway, why do we need a mall there again?

The notion that the land is being kept "public" is a fiction. Will all of those commercial bldgs and condos be levitating an inch off the ground, so that after 30 years they can just be towed off the site?

Soon to be the view of Aberdeen Pavilion at Lansdowne down Adelaide St http://ow.ly/i/J4BT Look now before its gone forever!

If someone had a idea for a central park and it would cost the city $500 million plus a million a year to keep it up most who don't support Landsdown would support this why because there is this idea there should be a park no matter the cost no matter if most would not use it.

[concernedottawa]

One only needs a basic understanding of house mortgage financing, the numbers provided by the City Manager and the City of Ottawa to confirm the costs. A god tool for calculating mortgage amounts can be found at Brett Whistle online amortization schedulehttp://bretwhissel.net/amortization/
or click here Most banks also have loan calculators online. The City Manager is on the record as stating the cost of the project will be $179M. The City Manager ( see City of Ottawa report )however left out a $2.8M social housing contribution that taxpayers are stuck with for the developers condos. Normally developers pay that fee but taxpayers aka council have taken that expense away as well. The new financing amount becomes $181.8M. The City Manager is also on the record as stating the new financing amount will be a 40 year debenture ( mortgage ) at 4.63%. Plug in the numbers and you can verify for yourself.

The hidden annual maintenance charge ( see City of Ottawa report )may be seen in City Manager report here Look towards the bottom of the report for the balance sheet.

It is not rocket science and taking the word of your city officials while possibly noble is not realistic. Each of them have to rely on reports made by segments from within the same organization. Arguing with political masters is a sure fire way to have a short lived government or municipal career. Dig a little. Figure out the total cost financed, including maintenance, and subtract the amount of cash being given to taxpayers. To calculate developer profits use a liberal figure of $290 cost per sqft of development space on roughly 650,000 sqft, lease it out at roughly $35 per sqft per year of combined tower and retail. Then sell 400,000 sqft of condos at $570 per sqft and subtract a liberal $380 per sqft construction cost. Worked out that is a quick $76M just for the condo sales ( now calculate the ROI for the developer for three years of work - hint 50% on investment ). Annual lease returns are $23M on an initial investment of $188.5M. Short term loans or even use of cash decreases the recovery time, but safe to say they are making money by year 7. Now you have 23 years at 2.5% annual growth on $23M per year. Any developer worth their salt will as demonstrated reinvest the cash in another project at 50% ROI.

As mentioned try and find the upside for the taxpayer. I agree it takes a bit of math but that beats being spoon fed.

The amount OSEG pays back can be seen at City of Ottawa report

So if we are saying that taxpayers are being shafted out of valuable public space then let us look at the alternative of the taxpayer keeping the park and paying for it by open tender. Currently the loss is well over $300M with the developers, and that includes giving away highly valuable public land for private use. One only has to ask can the park be made useful, including fixing up the stadium ( roughly $100M ) for less than $300M ?

Pretty safe to say that for $200M the park could be done by taxpayers alone and the City renting out lease space, or for that matter a different P3 allowing a better private firm to manage the public facility. Keeping the space public and returning rent to the taxpayer is a much better deal for Ottawa and small business and tourism.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

Soon to be the view of Aberdeen Pavilion at Lansdowne down Adelaide St http://ow.ly/i/J4BT Look now before its gone forever!

That is a complete fabrication and you should feel bad for posting that.

First off, there will be housing in the view as you can clearly see in the site plan:



Second, those very same townhomes will be three storeys, no taller than most of the buildings along Holmwood as it stands presently. While the Empire Theatre complex will probably be 2-3 storeys taller, it still will not completely block off the view. In fact, from the top of the hill on Adelaide, the view will remain almost completely unchanged, due to trees that obscure the full view. Furthermore, there is a path between the theatre and the retail space next to it (which is not that tall, I might add), further helping to preserve the view.

[concernedottawa]

I can assure you the image posted above is not current. The current plan has changed substantially. My suggestion to those arguing about site lines would be to actually wait until final perspectives are submitted. I can say safely say however that site lines to the Aberdeen will be significantly altered both from the North, East and West.