Lansdowne Park Redevelopment Phase 1 | Completed

[ThaLoveDocta]

Originally Posted by JackBauer24

I live in the Glebe, and have lived in Ottawa my whole life. I support the Lansdowne project 110%. So to answer your question, despite the inconvenience of construction, I'm excited to see these "monoliths" rising, I'm excited for football to be back within walking distance of my door, I'm happy to have more shopping within walking distance, and I'm excited to be able to take my niece and nephews to a pro soccer game. I doubt I'd share the same excitement in taking them to an open green space or farmers market.

Originally Posted by phil235

I also live in the Glebe, and these are my sentiments exactly. Unfortunately our viewpoint, which is shared by lots of my neighbours, was drowned out by the loud whining coming from a certain segment of the population.

However, I think most reasonable people have moved past the whining stage and are now looking for ways to minimize the growing pains that will definitely occur when the project opens.

Count me in as another Glebe-ite totally supportive of this project.

Further, there have been several 'gut and redo' type renovations on Holmwood in the last year which I suspect were, at least in part, spurned by the landsdowne project. These have helped property values as well. Count yourselves fortunate - the rest of us are sitting in pretty stagnant homes right now.

[J.OT13]

I can understand how people can be upset, but there is a fine line between "upset" and "NIMBY". Being pissed about construction at night, fair enough. Fighting tooth and nail to prevent Lansdowne from seeing any development at all is pushing it. A small corner of shops, retail and food markets is a small price to pay for a huge new park replacing a parking lot and butt ugly structures.

Same with the western LRT; I could kind of understand why people would have been upset to see the top of the trains and poles from their backyards, but now it is underground. If anything, the area will be improved from its current state.

Hell (warning, off topic), there was even one guy who was such a NIMBY, he suggested they build the line ON the Byron linear park instead of his backyard. Don't upset me and a few dozen people, go upset thousands a few blocks south instead. Worst of all, he suggested Byron because it use to have a railway anyway so better bring it back to its original purpose. I guess no one told him about the former CPR railway in his backyard.

[umbria27]

Originally Posted by ThaLoveDocta

Count me in as another Glebe-ite totally supportive of this project.

Further, there have been several 'gut and redo' type renovations on Holmwood in the last year which I suspect were, at least in part, spurned by the landsdowne project. These have helped property values as well. Count yourselves fortunate - the rest of us are sitting in pretty stagnant homes right now.

I suppose I'm a Glebite, though I live as far from Lansdowne as I could possibly could and still be considered in the Glebe. What I would say is that the opposition has been much more nuanced than is often portrayed here and in the local media. It is true that there is a small core of nostalgic long term residents who don't want any change or who objected to the redevelopment because it contained a stadium. If my conversations with my neighbours are any indication these true nimbys were a very small minority.

There were legitimate objections to be made about the process, about the financials, the design and the broader effect on the area's development. For Lansdowne supporters, these always seemed like smokescreens hiding a hidden agenda to nix the stadium. It was hard for supporters to accept that there was any motivation to the opposition other than nimbyism. In turn there were some pretty venomous comments directed at the community. I recall a recurring theme in the Citizen comments that if the Glebe managed to kill the stadium they should be punished by redeveloping it as subsidized housing, as if social housing was a curse that should be inflicted on uncooperative urbanites.

All in all, however, the strong public backlash (local and otherwise) has made the project better. OSEG had to work harder, improve the design add the park. (Do you remember the aquarium in the Aberdeen Pavilion and the pavers as greenspace?) The process was adversarial, but it was bound to be given the way the project was initiated.

I would not yet call myself a 100% supporter of this project, but I don't gnash my teeth and start hoarding granola for coming the condo-zombie apocalypse. Aside from the financials, which aren't really the domain of this board, my concern is for the effect on Bank Street as a main street. I want to see Bank Street developed. I want more mixed developments on there. I want more retail. I want more condos. If Lansdowne Live spurs traditional main street development in the Glebe, my support for it will grow.

[alecz_dad]

You're right about one thing, things should be reimagined. However, in the case of Lansdowne, that is what was lacking -- imagination.

Instead of trying to figure out what residents of Ottawa would have liked to see at Lansdowne (including those like your relations that live across the street) through a meaningful consultation process (e.g. the one used in Halifax to envision and plan their new main library: Chronicle-Herald (December 13, 2011), Spacing.ca (November 8, 2010)) instead former mayor (and Lex Luthor impersonator) Larry O'Brien and the OSMUG gang cooked this one up on the 19th hole somewhere, or in the back room of a Monaco restaurant.

The developers wooed support with promises of a Granville Island-like urban village full of of unique and local businesses. But so far all accounts confirm that the result will be just another average suburban mall, with pretensions of urbanity, and insufficient parking.

Doesn't sound like you're happy about the condo crammed in on Breezehill. Seems like more evidence that the developers run the show at City Hall. And on the rare occasions that they don't get their way, and the City opposes their plans, the OMB does their work for them.

I'm sure that your aunt/uncle/cousins would have happily seen a sensitive redevelopment put in at Lansdowne. Nobody that lived next to Lansdowne liked living next door to a parking lot. But neither do they like to have South Keys suddenly plonked down across the street.

Originally Posted by Luker

Can't agree with you guys on this one..

I still think its overstated NIMBYISM. If you live in a thriving metropolis and capital city of an advanced G8 economy; EXPECT CHANGE, and lots of it.

For the record, my uncle/aunt and cousins have lived on Holmwood for two decades and are also quite upset. However, as I tell them, it should be expected. Did they really think that the prime parcel of land would never be reimagined and developed for the better?

Moreover, I have lived on Breezehill Ave N (a tree lined street for over half a century, and one which Claridge just crammed a twenty storey tower on due to discrepancies in plans).....

And a street which will be developed soon enough as the Banknote across has continually had to reduce its operations and has been sold multiple times.
Its inevitable, change comes, life goes on...

http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=122%20breez...&bih=866&um=1&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=il

[alecz_dad]

It's lovely that you will be able to walk to games. However, I still question the wisdom of keeping the stadium at Lansdowne. The Official Plan states that such a major attraction site should be adjacent to mass transit. Which it's not.

The reality is that the majority of the population of Greater Ottawa lives in the suburbs, and so will be unable to walk out their front doors and down the street to the stadium (unless they leave Kanata at the crack of dawn). So it only makes sense to have the stadium adjacent to the Transitway and/or the Queensway. This was the thinking with both (Insert Name Here) Place and (Another Insert Name Here) Baseball Stadium, with sufficient parking nearby.

As for the excitement of your niece or nephews, I suppose it will be convenient for you to have pro soccer nearby that you can take them to on the odd occasion that they come visit. However, I can't afford to take my kids to pro soccer games every week. And frankly, I'd rather have them PLAYING soccer with their friends in the park, than just sitting on their asses watching somebody else play it. Early iterations of the OSMUG plan showed community soccer pitches outside of the stadium. But somehow these were eased out over the course of the refinements of the plan. Guess they took up valuable condo or mall space.

Originally Posted by JackBauer24

I live in the Glebe, and have lived in Ottawa my whole life. I support the Lansdowne project 110%. So to answer your question, despite the inconvenience of construction, I'm excited to see these "monoliths" rising, I'm excited for football to be back within walking distance of my door, I'm happy to have more shopping within walking distance, and I'm excited to be able to take my niece and nephews to a pro soccer game. I doubt I'd share the same excitement in taking them to an open green space or farmers market.

[alecz_dad]

This section of Holmwood was always affected by the negative externality of Lansdowne and the Ex across the street. As a result, there are a number of rental properties that are not lovingly-maintained, as is the case elsewhere. Nonetheless, I would say that houses that are owner-occupied and well-maintained are still more the rule than the exception.

Although the section of Sylvia Holden Park that extended along Holmwood was initially intended as a screen, in my experience it became more than just somewhere for people to walk their dogs. Kids all along Holmwood, and from adjacent streets would play there among the trees. It's shady grass provided a respite for people attending the Farmer's Market. It was a haven and greenway for assorted wildlife.

And although the party line is that there will be many more trees planted at the new Lansdowne than were cut at Sylvia Holden, it is important to remember that the lovely, leafy pictures that OSMUG used to sell its vision for Lansdowne, will not be possible for a generation. That's almost how long the trees that were cut had been there, and they were still just adolescents.

Originally Posted by phil235

To be fair, Holmwood was not a great street to start with. There was a narrow strip of grass that did very little to hide the massive parking lot and decaying building and stadium behind it. My impression was always that the housing stock was not as well maintained as the rest of the neighbourhood (with a few exceptions).

I actually think that the combination of nice townhouses and the new urban park within a 3-minute walk are an improvement for the street. And let's be honest, until the project was announced, that strip of grass was not exactly the natural paradise that it was made out to be. It seemed to be virtually unused, except by a few local dogwalkers.

Where I have more sympathy for the Holmwood residents is on the traffic side. It has always been a cut-through street, but traffic could change significantly with people dropping off and picking up movie-goers etc. I've supported a closure of the street at Bank, which should help maintain the quiet residential nature of the street and act as an extension of the Lansdowne pedestrian precinct. Not sure what the odds of success are there.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

It's lovely that you will be able to walk to games. However, I still question the wisdom of keeping the stadium at Lansdowne. The Official Plan states that such a major attraction site should be adjacent to mass transit. Which it's not.

The reality is that the majority of the population of Greater Ottawa lives in the suburbs, and so will be unable to walk out their front doors and down the street to the stadium (unless they leave Kanata at the crack of dawn). So it only makes sense to have the stadium adjacent to the Transitway and/or the Queensway. This was the thinking with both (Insert Name Here) Place and (Another Insert Name Here) Baseball Stadium, with sufficient parking nearby.

As for the excitement of your niece or nephews, I suppose it will be convenient for you to have pro soccer nearby that you can take them to on the odd occasion that they come visit. However, I can't afford to take my kids to pro soccer games every week. And frankly, I'd rather have them PLAYING soccer with their friends in the park, than just sitting on their asses watching somebody else play it. Early iterations of the OSMUG plan showed community soccer pitches outside of the stadium. But somehow these were eased out over the course of the refinements of the plan. Guess they took up valuable condo or mall space.

First of all, the decision has been made and the new stadium is going up where it has been for over 100 years. From personal experience this a beautiful location to watch a game. For me, it is easy to access this location eventhough I live in the suburbs.

We are never going to have a perfect plan at a perfect location. Placing a major facility such as this along rapid transit would have been ideal. But we already had a major facility at Lansdowne and we were not simply going to level the place and replace it with a community park. That was never going to be in the cards. We would have had to move all of this somewhere else to a neighbourhood that has never experienced the crowds that have always been associated with Lansdowne Park. That would never work and would never be accepted. So, the idea of placing Lansdowne somewhere else where there would be rapid transit would never have taken place, whether at Bayview or Carleton University etc. Both are next to established neighbourhoods that would have made it impossible.

So really the choice would have been Lansdowne Park with no rapid transit or Scotiabank Place with no rapid transit or somewhere else on the periphery of the city with no rapid transit access.

Ottawa will never be a great city if we keep pushing all major facilities to the suburbs or some other dead zone in the city. If you do not like the action, move out the centre of the city.

As far as sports participation or spectator sports, we are all different so we need both. You can have your own opinion and I will have mine. Lansdowne Park already has baseball diamonds that were not historically present. We cannot turn over such a valuable piece of land entirely over to sports fields.

[alecz_dad]

I keep hearing this line about reaping the benefits of increasing home values.

Unfortunately, if you simply intend to live in your house and have no immediate plans to cash out -- as my family does -- rising equity does you absolutely no good. Indeed, it drives people out because the market value assessment system increases taxes up with no accompanying improvement in services.

Yet, OSMUG (which is getting its share of Lansdowne for a measly $1 per year) has managed to wangle a most peculiar arrangement with the City where all of the property taxes generated at Lansdowne will go to servicing the hundreds of millions of dollars of debt the City is taking on for this project.

I wish I could get that arrangement!: that my property taxes went only to servicing and maintaining the infrastructure and services to my house, on my street, in my community.
But no, instead property taxes of residents inside the greenbelt are subsidizing those in the suburbs.
Municipal taxpayers in the Glebe already pay disproportionately higher property taxes, for disproportionately less services than those in many other parts of Ottawa.

Sure wish my house value would go down. Oh, maybe if I'm lucky, once my street becomes a traffic sewer and overflow parking lot for Lansdowne, they will.

Originally Posted by JackBauer24

What kills me is that these same people, who reap the benefits of these new developments and improvements in their neighborhoods (in the form or quickly escalating home equity), are the same people who complain the most about these changes.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

This section of Holmwood was always affected by the negative externality of Lansdowne and the Ex across the street. As a result, there are a number of rental properties that are not lovingly-maintained, as is the case elsewhere. Nonetheless, I would say that houses that are owner-occupied and well-maintained are still more the rule than the exception.

Although the section of Sylvia Holden Park that extended along Holmwood was initially intended as a screen, in my experience it became more than just somewhere for people to walk their dogs. Kids all along Holmwood, and from adjacent streets would play there among the trees. It's shady grass provided a respite for people attending the Farmer's Market. It was a haven and greenway for assorted wildlife.

And although the party line is that there will be many more trees planted at the new Lansdowne than were cut at Sylvia Holden, it is important to remember that the lovely, leafy pictures that OSMUG used to sell its vision for Lansdowne, will not be possible for a generation. That's almost how long the trees that were cut had been there, and they were still just adolescents.

I love trees probably more than most. If you knew me, you would understand. It is too bad that this was necessary but the exhibition grounds had been deteriorating for decades. It wasn't that long ago when that location was where the stables were for the agricultural exhibits. The exhibition grounds changed a lot over the years, mostly for the worse. Yes, those trees are gone and Holmwood will change, but change had to be expected. In the long run, the park will be better and there will be a real park on site, maybe not along Holmwood. Most of us face changes in our neighbourhoods. I certainly have. Major changes. There will be residences along Holmwood, which will change what was there in the past but I can think of much worse. I would think of the beautiful new park that you will have within walking distance. You are already privileged to be within walking distance of the canal. I don't have beautiful locations where I live. Change is difficult but everybody has to adjust. You need to look at the bright side.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

First of all, the decision has been made and the new stadium is going up where it has been for over 100 years. From personal experience this a beautiful location to watch a game. For me, it is easy to access this location eventhough I live in the suburbs.

We are never going to have a perfect plan at a perfect location. Placing a major facility such as this along rapid transit would have been ideal. But we already had a major facility at Lansdowne and we were not simply going to level the place and replace it with a community park. That was never going to be in the cards. We would have had to move all of this somewhere else to a neighbourhood that has never experienced the crowds that have always been associated with Lansdowne Park. That would never work and would never be accepted. So, the idea of placing Lansdowne somewhere else where there would be rapid transit would never have taken place, whether at Bayview or Carleton University etc. Both are next to established neighbourhoods that would have made it impossible.

So really the choice would have been Lansdowne Park with no rapid transit or Scotiabank Place with no rapid transit or somewhere else on the periphery of the city with no rapid transit access.

Ottawa will never be a great city if we keep pushing all major facilities to the suburbs or some other dead zone in the city. If you do not like the action, move out the centre of the city.

As far as sports participation or spectator sports, we are all different so we need both. You can have your own opinion and I will have mine. Lansdowne Park already has baseball diamonds that were not historically present. We cannot turn over such a valuable piece of land entirely over to sports fields.

Very well said.

There is no perfect location for the stadium, and a suburban location would have been decidedly worse. And these hypothetical, "what do the residents want" musings are really more like "what did I want, to the exclusion of what others might want". The dreams of a park also completely ignore the fact that the 67s need to stay where they are, in an existing facility. One person's "sensitive development" doesn't seem quite so sensitive when you look at the fact that it ignores a lot of other people's interests.

What the relentless critics will never acknowledge is that this plan does represents a balance of interests - preservation of existing facilities, intensified use of the land, a better market and a lot more park space. Yes, the retail mix may be disappointing, but unless it is a single-use complex surrounded by acres of surface parking, comparisons with South Keys are disingenuous. Yes, it will take years for the trees to grow, but right from day one there will be much more room for participatory sports than exists right now.

@Alec's Dad, if you are truly concerned about participatory sports, then you should appreciate the great lawn, which is perfect for pick-up sports and a kids soccer organization like the Ottawa Internationals.

[lrt's friend]

I wish I could get that arrangement!: that my property taxes went only to servicing and maintaining the infrastructure and services to my house, on my street, in my community.
But no, instead property taxes of residents inside the greenbelt are subsidizing those in the suburbs.
Municipal taxpayers in the Glebe already pay disproportionately higher property taxes, for disproportionately less services than those in many other parts of Ottawa.

Yes, I don't disagree with you about the unfairness of the property tax system but that is difficult issue that nobody seems to have an answer.

On the other hand, you do get more services. You don't have to drive to do a lot of your shopping. You have better bus service than most. You can get downtown in a short time. You have access to some of the most beautiful locations in the city along the canal without a car. You can watch a hockey game or a football game or a soccer game with a short walk. You will have movie theatres within a short walk. You may not like all of those things but I bet some of this is of great benefit. Most of us do not have such easy access.

[alecz_dad]

Although I clearly don't agree with your characterization of the criticisms of OSMUG's scheme as whining, I do agree that as there is a material reality of the development that is rising up each day, that opportunities for constructive engagement should be taken.

One issue that I have sought to have the City address is the question of the childrens' playground that is proposed for the urban park portion of Lansdowne.

Apparently it is intended to be for an older age group (9-15) than most other play facilities in the area, which I am happy about because my oldest son is nearly nine, I am concerned that -- like everything else to do with Lansdowne -- there has been no opportunity for involvement by the public in the design and planning of the playground.

Looking at the plans it seems that landscape designers, Phillips Farevaag Smallenberg, have pencilled in some "designery" playground equipment, similar to what they installed in their design for Sherbourne Common in Toronto.


The overall design of that park in general, including their choice of playground equipment, recently received quite a strong critique by Fred Kent from the Project for Public Spaces. One might hope the City would take this critique of Phillips Farevaag Smallenberg's previous work seriously; especially given that the City thinks enough of the Project for Public Spaces that it contracted for them to do consultations about the future direction of the Byward Market.

I hope that you will support this initiative to open up the design process for this element of the Lansdowne redevelopment.

Developing appropriate recreational facilities for young people at Lansdowne will require the actual involvement of local young people, their parents, teachers, principals and other concerned community members. There are some useful lessons to be learned from this document by the KaBOOM! organization. It describes a process of very active, bottom-up citizen participation process for the development of new playground designs.

The emphasis here was not on vague consultations with unspecified stakeholders, but rather with active, direct participation by park users, including children, in making the crucial decisions about the design of parks and playgrounds. In addition to positive outcomes as far as a good fit of the community's needs and the amenities provided, the satisfaction with not just the outcome, but the process, was reported to have led to very high levels of citizen engagement.

I can tell you, if there's one thing that a lot of the neighbouring residents to Lansdowne are feeling, it is disengagement; also marginalization and resentment, for the way in which the approvals process and OSMUG/City PR lines seem to have been deliberately designed to antagonize Glebe residents and vilify them to residents in other parts of the City. Again, I would think that this might be some small bone you could throw a community that already fells like its concerns have been disregarded 100%.

It is interesting to note that the KaBOOM! organization was involved in the redevelopment of the playground at Brewer Park, the involvement of KaBOOM! helped to ensure a good level of involvement by residents in designing the playground amenities at Brewer Park, which is now widely acknowledged as one of the best, most accessible playgrounds in Ottawa.

Originally Posted by phil235

I also live in the Glebe, and these are my sentiments exactly. Unfortunately our viewpoint, which is shared by lots of my neighbours, was drowned out by the loud whining coming from a certain segment of the population.

However, I think most reasonable people have moved past the whining stage and are now looking for ways to minimize the growing pains that will definitely occur when the project opens.

[alecz_dad]

I would guess that if you are supportive, without reservation, you don't live very nearby to Lansdowne.

Not sure which renos you mean. Seems like extensive renovations are taking place all over the Glebe, and elsewhere.

I think you mean "spurred." Although perhaps spurned is more appropriate... My impression is that values have stagnated or fallen along Holmwood too.
The one or two places that were for sale, took a very long time to sell. Probably in no small part because of the current disruption, and the uncertainty of what will eventually lie across the street, how much more traffic can be expected, etc.

Originally Posted by ThaLoveDocta

Count me in as another Glebe-ite totally supportive of this project.

Further, there have been several 'gut and redo' type renovations on Holmwood in the last year which I suspect were, at least in part, spurned by the landsdowne project. These have helped property values as well. Count yourselves fortunate - the rest of us are sitting in pretty stagnant homes right now.

[alecz_dad]

People did not fight tooth and nail against Lansdowne because they enjoy taking on the role of David versus the City/OSMUG Goliath, but because they realized that the only way to prevent the whole store from being given away was to kill the deal concocted in the dim light of the back room of a Monaco bistro, in order for something created in the sunshine of transparent consultation to be born.

Calling the retail mall portion of the Lansdowne scheme a "small corner" is disingenuous -- 360,000 sq/ft is closer to Billings Bridge than it is to a corner market.


The big lawn is really the roof of a giant stormwater management tank? And the grassy berms around the stadium? Did a few feet down and you discover that they're actually dumps for soil dug out for the underground parking, and too contaminated to affordably and safely remove from the site.
Make no mistake, OSMUG has grabbed every square inch of the site they thought they could get away with, and the greenery is just so much greenwashing to justify the de facto privatization of this public space.

And it really is not clear in the end how much of City's financing cost will actually be generated by the taxes from the new retail and condos at Lansdowne. Every time you turn around it seems like OSMUG's share of the pie gets bigger, and City taxpayers are going to be expected to bear more and more of the burden.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I can understand how people can be upset, but there is a fine line between "upset" and "NIMBY". Being pissed about construction at night, fair enough. Fighting tooth and nail to prevent Lansdowne from seeing any development at all is pushing it. A small corner of shops, retail and food markets is a small price to pay for a huge new park replacing a parking lot and butt ugly structures.

[phil235]

[QUOTE=alecz_dad;6168400]Although I clearly don't agree with your characterization of the criticisms of OSMUG's scheme as whining, I do agree that as there is a material reality of the development that is rising up each day, that opportunities for constructive engagement should be taken.

One issue that I have sought to have the City address is the question of the childrens' playground that is proposed for the urban park portion of Lansdowne.

Apparently it is intended to be for an older age group (9-15) than most other play facilities in the area, which I am happy about because my oldest son is nearly nine, I am concerned that -- like everything else to do with Lansdowne -- there has been no opportunity for involvement by the public in the design and planning of the playground.

The overall design of that park in general, including their choice of playground equipment, recently received quite a strong critique by Fred Kent from the Project for Public Spaces. One might hope the City would take this critique of Phillips Farevaag Smallenberg's previous work seriously; especially given that the City thinks enough of the Project for Public Spaces that it contracted for them to do consultations about the future direction of the Byward Market.

I hope that you will support this initiative to open up the design process for this element of the Lansdowne redevelopment.
[QUOTE]


I absolutely support that initiative. It sounds like a constructive approach to making the design more responsive to local needs. (Also, my son is 7, and will soon be in the target group).

[Luker]

Exactly... It sounds like the Alecz_dad and the fellow Glebeites are arguing to shuffle their 'problem' child, Landsdowne (if you could call it that)... traffic, not granola selling stores...

Moreover, it is really unforuntate and detrimental that these groups of well off people continually support the ignorant and selfish ideals of the NIMBY movements. We only have to look to the additional collective city building projects to notice this repeated pattern: as found with the case of the Kettle Island Bridge and the LRT Western Leg routing....


Lastly, in regard to the Breezehill Ave N development by Claridge, it was done in questionable faith; however, the property fell under two different plans, as the Somerset CDP called for 6 stories and the Bayview called for high rises. Thus, the result was a building with a mix of those two requirements. Nonetheless, I am not upset, and in fact have come to accept and agree that this corner is a suitable location for such a building, being that it borders the dilapidated and due for redevelopment a) the city center complex; b) Industrial Garages c) A WW2 Military hanger now used by PWGSC, d) an O-train / Transitway trench e) and The Somerset Viaduct.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

First of all, the decision has been made and the new stadium is going up where it has been for over 100 years. From personal experience this a beautiful location to watch a game. For me, it is easy to access this location eventhough I live in the suburbs.

We are never going to have a perfect plan at a perfect location. Placing a major facility such as this along rapid transit would have been ideal. But we already had a major facility at Lansdowne and we were not simply going to level the place and replace it with a community park. That was never going to be in the cards. We would have had to move all of this somewhere else to a neighbourhood that has never experienced the crowds that have always been associated with Lansdowne Park. That would never work and would never be accepted. So, the idea of placing Lansdowne somewhere else where there would be rapid transit would never have taken place, whether at Bayview or Carleton University etc. Both are next to established neighbourhoods that would have made it impossible.

So really the choice would have been Lansdowne Park with no rapid transit or Scotiabank Place with no rapid transit or somewhere else on the periphery of the city with no rapid transit access.

Ottawa will never be a great city if we keep pushing all major facilities to the suburbs or some other dead zone in the city. If you do not like the action, move out the centre of the city.

As far as sports participation or spectator sports, we are all different so we need both. You can have your own opinion and I will have mine. Lansdowne Park already has baseball diamonds that were not historically present. We cannot turn over such a valuable piece of land entirely over to sports fields.

[Luker]

I'm all for as much inclusiveness and bottom up consulatation as possible. However, the continued demonization of projects by deep pocketed NIMBYS on major city building works has become a very obstructionist, problematic and burdening issue.

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

Although I clearly don't agree with your characterization of the criticisms of OSMUG's scheme as whining, I do agree that as there is a material reality of the development that is rising up each day, that opportunities for constructive engagement should be taken.

One issue that I have sought to have the City address is the question of the childrens' playground that is proposed for the urban park portion of Lansdowne.

Apparently it is intended to be for an older age group (9-15) than most other play facilities in the area, which I am happy about because my oldest son is nearly nine, I am concerned that -- like everything else to do with Lansdowne -- there has been no opportunity for involvement by the public in the design and planning of the playground.

Looking at the plans it seems that landscape designers, Phillips Farevaag Smallenberg, have pencilled in some "designery" playground equipment, similar to what they installed in their design for Sherbourne Common in Toronto.


The overall design of that park in general, including their choice of playground equipment, recently received quite a strong critique by Fred Kent from the Project for Public Spaces. One might hope the City would take this critique of Phillips Farevaag Smallenberg's previous work seriously; especially given that the City thinks enough of the Project for Public Spaces that it contracted for them to do consultations about the future direction of the Byward Market.

I hope that you will support this initiative to open up the design process for this element of the Lansdowne redevelopment.

Developing appropriate recreational facilities for young people at Lansdowne will require the actual involvement of local young people, their parents, teachers, principals and other concerned community members. There are some useful lessons to be learned from this document by the KaBOOM! organization. It describes a process of very active, bottom-up citizen participation process for the development of new playground designs.

The emphasis here was not on vague consultations with unspecified stakeholders, but rather with active, direct participation by park users, including children, in making the crucial decisions about the design of parks and playgrounds. In addition to positive outcomes as far as a good fit of the community's needs and the amenities provided, the satisfaction with not just the outcome, but the process, was reported to have led to very high levels of citizen engagement.

I can tell you, if there's one thing that a lot of the neighbouring residents to Lansdowne are feeling, it is disengagement; also marginalization and resentment, for the way in which the approvals process and OSMUG/City PR lines seem to have been deliberately designed to antagonize Glebe residents and vilify them to residents in other parts of the City. Again, I would think that this might be some small bone you could throw a community that already fells like its concerns have been disregarded 100%.

It is interesting to note that the KaBOOM! organization was involved in the redevelopment of the playground at Brewer Park, the involvement of KaBOOM! helped to ensure a good level of involvement by residents in designing the playground amenities at Brewer Park, which is now widely acknowledged as one of the best, most accessible playgrounds in Ottawa.

[alecz_dad]

Umbria,

You have some sensible observations about the NIMBY factor in this matter. To me the blunt portrayal of all Glebeites as mindless NIMBYs, lovers of asphalt, etc., seems to have been a key part of the developers' strategy.

Perhaps I am inclined to think the worst of OSMUG, but I rather think that the stadium and football are the real smokescreens. Greenberg and his pals learned from the past failed attempts to redevelop Lansdowne without the stadium, and realized that not only did the removal of the stadium generate a lot of opposition outside of the immediate surroundings of the Glebe, but by holding out the promise of a return for football at a stadium located at Lansdowne, they could lock up control of the whole site, to allow them to do what they really wanted, de facto privatize it so they could build private condos and retail on public land. And all for a buck a year.

While the efforts of the FoE volunteers resulted in some changes, as per the minutes of settlement that were signed, I'm not sure that the outcome is much of an improvement. I'm sure that OSMUG built in some wiggle room in their original designs; always hoping they could get everything they first proposed, but knowing that they had built in overage that they could afford to bargain away.

It shouldn't have to be be up to local residents to move heaven and earth simply to contest the very well-funded and well-organized developers.

Originally Posted by umbria27

I suppose I'm a Glebite, though I live as far from Lansdowne as I could possibly could and still be considered in the Glebe. What I would say is that the opposition has been much more nuanced than is often portrayed here and in the local media. It is true that there is a small core of nostalgic long term residents who don't want any change or who objected to the redevelopment because it contained a stadium. If my conversations with my neighbours are any indication these true nimbys were a very small minority.

There were legitimate objections to be made about the process, about the financials, the design and the broader effect on the area's development. For Lansdowne supporters, these always seemed like smokescreens hiding a hidden agenda to nix the stadium. It was hard for supporters to accept that there was any motivation to the opposition other than nimbyism. In turn there were some pretty venomous comments directed at the community. I recall a recurring theme in the Citizen comments that if the Glebe managed to kill the stadium they should be punished by redeveloping it as subsidized housing, as if social housing was a curse that should be inflicted on uncooperative urbanites.

All in all, however, the strong public backlash (local and otherwise) has made the project better. OSEG had to work harder, improve the design add the park. (Do you remember the aquarium in the Aberdeen Pavilion and the pavers as greenspace?) The process was adversarial, but it was bound to be given the way the project was initiated.

I would not yet call myself a 100% supporter of this project, but I don't gnash my teeth and start hoarding granola for coming the condo-zombie apocalypse. Aside from the financials, which aren't really the domain of this board, my concern is for the effect on Bank Street as a main street. I want to see Bank Street developed. I want more mixed developments on there. I want more retail. I want more condos. If Lansdowne Live spurs traditional main street development in the Glebe, my support for it will grow.

[alecz_dad]

Once again, the myth of the "deep-pocketed NIMBYs." Boo hoo! The poor developers are terribly put upon to have to justify their grand plans.

Compared to the billionaires and billion-dollar companies (and some mere multi-millionaires) that make up the OSMUG consortium, the folks who opposed the Lansdowne scheme had decidedly shallow lint-lined pockets.

But I guess that's just part of the demonization that was made of anyone who dared to critique the scheme.

Originally Posted by Luker

I'm all for as much inclusiveness and bottom up consulatation as possible. However, the continued demonization of projects by deep pocketed NIMBYS on major city building works has become a very obstructionist, problematic and burdening issue.

[alecz_dad]

In that case, Phil, let me urge you to contact the Mayor and City Manager Kent Kirkpatrick (especially, given his newly-assigned powers to make routine decisions on Lansdowne), to urge them to open up the design and planning of the playground?

Unfortunately, the efforts of members of the community to do so have resulted in naught.But the more people who ask for this, hopefully, the more likely a mechanism will be established by which there can be meaningful consultation of neignbouring residents as to what facilities they would like to see in the proposed new children's playground at Lansdowne. (Although the developments so far do not leave me optimistic.)

Given the extremely hard feelings that many in the communities surrounding Lansdowne still harbour, given what many of us feel was the short shrift our concerns were given so far, I would hope that the City might see giving neighbours a meaningful opportunity for involvement in the design of the playground, as a way to begin the healing process for the communities who will be Lansdowne's neighbours, and (hopefully, for the merchants' sakes) best customers.

Originally Posted by phil235

I absolutely support that initiative. It sounds like a constructive approach to making the design more responsive to local needs. (Also, my son is 7, and will soon be in the target group).