Lansdowne Park Redevelopment Phase 1 | Completed

[Boxster]

Originally Posted by JFFournier

Where's the dilemna? Ultimately, the ony difference is that you approve of one form because you agree with the sentiment displayed. But the people who did the first ones had no more (or less) of a right to do it than those who did the second. It's a 1000 foot of ugly bare plywood for the second set of artists too, AD.

What was that you were saying about different rules for different people?

People who graffiti other peoples property without permission should be sent to jail for a few weeks or forced to clean up graffitis left around the city by other inconsiderate low life people.

Time to get tought with these people.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I don't understand the comments about fighting to have transit service cut on Bank Street. What is the justification for this? How does this benefit the Glebe?

Regarding events at Lansdowne attracting car drivers, yes, that is true. It is inevitable that big events and popular destinations attract traffic. But popular locations also make for a more vibrant city as well. Many people will be happy to use transit as an alternative if you make it convenient and efficient. I think back to the last Grey Cup and how well it worked. But, if you are cheap about it and make people wait too long or run to where people don't want to go or make them transfer too often, then it is a different story. The City of Ottawa better seriously have a good transit plan for Lansdowne. Doing this right will move us a little in the direction of making a transit culture. Do it wrong and it will turn more people off transit.

To be fair, the GCA position on transit is quite clear - increased transit frequencies are desirable and required.

The GCA has also recommended that free transit service be instituted on Bank St. from Wellington to Billings Bridge on evenings and weekends. The BIA has also spoken in support of the idea. To my mind, that is one of the best things the City could do, as it greatly expands the walkable area, entices downtown workers to leave their cars in a lot and take the bus, and links the entire main street to Lansdowne. And people love free stuff, so it will definitely get more people out of their cars.

[Boxster]

Originally Posted by phil235

To be fair, the GCA position on transit is quite clear - increased transit frequencies are desirable and required.

The GCA has also recommended that free transit service be instituted on Bank St. from Wellington to Billings Bridge on evenings and weekends. The BIA has also spoken in support of the idea. To my mind, that is one of the best things the City could do, as it greatly expands the walkable area, entices downtown workers to leave their cars in a lot and take the bus, and links the entire main street to Lansdowne. And people love free stuff, so it will definitely get more people out of their cars.

The notion of free stuff is a bit of a misnomer when you think about it.

At the end of the day, we all pay through our taxes whether we use the service or not.

At least let's have some type of user fee.

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by Boxster

The notion of free stuff is a bit of a misnomer when you think about it.

At the end of the day, we all pay through our taxes whether we use the service or not.

At least let's have some type of user fee.

The three BIAs in the area could work together an cover the farebox revenue portion of the cost of running this bus during those times. Easy Peasy.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Boxster

The notion of free stuff is a bit of a misnomer when you think about it.

At the end of the day, we all pay through our taxes whether we use the service or not.

At least let's have some type of user fee.

If we have a user fee, how exactly is that any different from the existing transit service on Bank St.? And how would that help achieve the objective of increasing transit use? I suppose you could have a lower fare for that route, but I don't think that is nearly as likely to succeed.

The point of doing a free service is that it creates a social benefit - more people on transit, less driving, a more successful public project at Lansdowne, all of which which create advantages for the city generally. It may also get more people on transit who will then pay fares to continue their journeys.

This kind of thing would likely need to be supported (at least partially) by the BIAs. But getting angry about your taxes paying for things you don't personally use kind of misses the point.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by phil235

To be fair, the GCA position on transit is quite clear - increased transit frequencies are desirable and required.

The GCA has also recommended that free transit service be instituted on Bank St. from Wellington to Billings Bridge on evenings and weekends. The BIA has also spoken in support of the idea. To my mind, that is one of the best things the City could do, as it greatly expands the walkable area, entices downtown workers to leave their cars in a lot and take the bus, and links the entire main street to Lansdowne. And people love free stuff, so it will definitely get more people out of their cars.

What lot? Get the Rideau Centre involved in the project and run the free bus from the Rideau Centre to Greenboro then you have something really helpful and a parking lot that can be used. You can't park at Billings Bridge without the risk of being towed.

[alecz_dad]

Goodness Boxter, angry much?

I agree that there needs to be more care given to the use of taxpayers' money. That's a big part of why I have opposed the OSMUG Lansdowne scheme: it's a big giveaway to billionaires and millionaires.

I still do not understand why if the fellas in the OSMUG consortium are so keen on football (and shopping malls and condos), they aren't paying for their own stadium? Instead, Ottawa taxpayers will be on the hook for upwards of a $half-billion in debt to renovate the stadium, build the parking garage, etc. for the benefit of private sports andretail businesses.

Originally Posted by Boxster

The notion of free stuff is a bit of a misnomer when you think about it.

At the end of the day, we all pay through our taxes whether we use the service or not.

At least let's have some type of user fee.

[alecz_dad]

Why on earth should the BIAs be expected to pay to operate a shuttle bus?

OSMUG and the City knew coming in that locating this scale of development at Lansdowne would mean major traffic problems. But they always pooh poohed critics, saying "don't worry, there will be sattelite parking lots and shuttle buses."

So let them figure out how to pay for it. It will become just another uncounted expense that will jack up the true cost of the Lansdowne scheme.

QUOTE=gjhall;6173243]The three BIAs in the area could work together an cover the farebox revenue portion of the cost of running this bus during those times. Easy Peasy.[/QUOTE]

[alecz_dad]

The only problem with comparing the Grey Cup with now is that it was like D-Day. Enormous resources were devoted to making it come off. Supporters of the Lansdowne scheme always point to the Grey Cup or the Stones concerts, as if to say "we did those mega events, we can do anything."

But this time you have to take into consideration that a shopping mall and condo compound will be plunked down there. How happy will the stores be when they basically have to shut down on game days for lack of parking? Do you really want to haul your 8 bags of swanky groceries from Whole Foods home to Nepean on the bus? Will condo dwellers really like having to tell their visitors to park in Barrhaven if they want to come visit on a game day?

Too bad lrt's friend, that the stadium won't be along the route of the LRT.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I don't understand the comments about fighting to have transit service cut on Bank Street. What is the justification for this? How does this benefit the Glebe?

Regarding events at Lansdowne attracting car drivers, yes, that is true. It is inevitable that big events and popular destinations attract traffic. But popular locations also make for a more vibrant city as well. Many people will be happy to use transit as an alternative if you make it convenient and efficient. I think back to the last Grey Cup and how well it worked. But, if you are cheap about it and make people wait too long or run to where people don't want to go or make them transfer too often, then it is a different story. The City of Ottawa better seriously have a good transit plan for Lansdowne. Doing this right will move us a little in the direction of making a transit culture. Do it wrong and it will turn more people off transit.

[AuxTown]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

The only problem with comparing the Grey Cup with now is that it was like D-Day. Enormous resources were devoted to making it come off. Supporters of the Lansdowne scheme always point to the Grey Cup or the Stones concerts, as if to say "we did those mega events, we can do anything."

But this time you have to take into consideration that a shopping mall and condo compound will be plunked down there. How happy will the stores be when they basically have to shut down on game days for lack of parking? Do you really want to haul your 8 bags of swanky groceries from Whole Foods home to Nepean on the bus? Will condo dwellers really like having to tell their visitors to park in Barrhaven if they want to come visit on a game day?

Too bad lrt's friend, that the stadium won't be along the route of the LRT.

I agree it's too bad that Lansdowne is not located along rapid transit or, more specifically, that the city was not big enough to justify a Bank Street subway during the years when such projects were more economically viable. But to say that stores will have to shut down on game days is bogus. 25000 people coming to a CFL game and you don't think a few hundred of them will stop by the only Whole Foods in Ottawa to pick up a couple of specialty items before they head home? You think the sports store won't benefit from nine reg season CFL games (+ playoffs), thirty 67's games, and fourteen NASL games? The restaurants will be jammed before and after the games and some patrons might choose to catch a movie following an afternoon game rather than braving the traffic.

Lansdowne has worked in the past and will continue to work for all the reasons that Scotiabank Place (CTC) doesn't: central location (very close to geographic centre of Ottawa), plenty of local things to do before and after games (stores, restaurants, park), more than 100k people who live within easy walk/bike distance to the stadium, and a number of routes for which shuttle buses (or even walkers!) can reach rapid transit (straight North to LRT, straight South to Billings, across to Carleton, or up Queen Elizabeth to Rideau Centre).

Personally, when I attend events, I will drive to my regular parking spot (on Maclaren) and will walk down to Lansdowne. It's a nice walk, I usually grab some food along the way, and it's a great way to avoid the jam up after the game.

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

The only problem with comparing the Grey Cup with now is that it was like D-Day. Enormous resources were devoted to making it come off. Supporters of the Lansdowne scheme always point to the Grey Cup or the Stones concerts, as if to say "we did those mega events, we can do anything."

Get some damn respect, buddy, comparing the Grey Cup traffic to D-Day? Are you kidding?


Why on earth should the BIAs be expected to pay to operate a shuttle bus?

They shouldn't be EXPECTED to, but if they saw a benefit in it to their businesses, it may be a good investment for them.

At malls the businesses subsidize their customers transportation with free parking and no one is bothered, suggest similar businesses subsidize their customers transportation in a different way and you lose your mind.

As a side note, is Lansdowne to become part of and a rate payer in the Glebe BIA? Does anyone know? That would be a game changer.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

Why on earth should the BIAs be expected to pay to operate a shuttle bus?

OSMUG and the City knew coming in that locating this scale of development at Lansdowne would mean major traffic problems. But they always pooh poohed critics, saying "don't worry, there will be sattelite parking lots and shuttle buses."

So let them figure out how to pay for it. It will become just another uncounted expense that will jack up the true cost of the Lansdowne scheme.

QUOTE=gjhall;6173243]The three BIAs in the area could work together an cover the farebox revenue portion of the cost of running this bus during those times. Easy Peasy.

[/QUOTE]

This whole victim mentality is of no use, as it detracts from constructive approaches to these issues.

The BIAs might contribute because they see free transit as a significant investment in their business, that will increase patronage and improve business generally. It's done that way quite frequently in other cities. And based at least on their initial response, they seem quite amenable to the idea.

@lrts friend - The lots I was referring to would be the downtown lots catering to office workers. The idea would be that they park for work, then leave their cars parked and hop on the free shuttle to Lansdowne. But I agree, extending the shuttle to the Rideau Centre is a good idea.

And yes, @gjhall, Lansdowne merchants will be part of the BIA.

[JackBauer24]

Re: the photo of traffic.
First off, as someone else pointed out - it's not that much traffic. Someone jay-walking could have caused a "back up" like that.
Second, that photo could have been taken during the Glebe Garage sale, after a 67's game, during the Canadian Exhibition that used to be held there, or even a regular sunny weekend. The Glebe is a central location with stores and shopped used by many Ottawans - traffic can be bad.

Re: the other potential locations for the stadium
Although I would not want to just shift the problem on to residents of another neighbourhood without consideration of their concerns, it always seemed that Bayview Yards and adjacent parts of Lebreton Flats would have been more appropriate:
If the location was Bayview, you would be more than simply shifting the "problem" on to another neighbourhood - Bayview has never had anything even remotely close to a stadium in their neighbourhood, the Glebe has.

* right on the Transitway (someday to be LRT) - Where exactly? The westerly portion of the LRT runs between a river and a dense neighbourhood, the central portion is underground and the easterly part doesn't offer any options where a stadium would fit.
* right on the O-Train - Where? Is Carleton U supposed to relocate a few buildings? Or maybe we could squeeze a stadium between South Keys and Ariport Parkway?
* right next to the Western Parkway - This is a similar issue to the points I raised in the 'Transitway' point
* right next to 2 bridges to Quebec - One last time, where?

Most of the land around the areas you've suggested is owned by the NCC. Good luck getting them to release any of that land to build a stadium when an equivalently central location, where a stadium once stood, is available.

Very generous of OSMUG to leave the baseball diamonds intact. In fact, it was only through yet more whining and agitating by residents that City Council agreed to keep them and the wading pool park out of the redevelopment. Original plans included them as part of the redevelopment area. And at least one of the plans for the urban park proposed a "tabula rasa" approach that would have wiped them off the map.

The plans presented to the public (like the Tabula Rasa) were "proposed" plans. Some of the "proposed" plans had the diamonds and pool eliminated. Some of them also included a harbour/marina. The idea was to present 5-6 options to the public (not just those that lived in the immedaite vicinity of Lansdowne) and get everyones comments/ideas to create a project that would appeal to all Ottawans, not just to Glebites. Just so I understand correctly, you're upset over a "proposed" idea that never grew any legs?

Of the 3 schools in the Glebe, 2 have not a blade of grass, and few trees in their yards, and only one is actually left unlocked after school hours. There are several parks, which are all very well used. But since it seems that you feel kids shouldn't have space at the new Lansdowne or along the Canal, there is actually comparatively little green playspace in the Glebe for kids.

Well, I didn't say that kids SHOULDN'T have space to play (but thank you for putting words in my mouth), I said that keeping the diamonds and pool in tact was adequate considering the other areas kids have to play in the Glebe. With the size of the Glebe in mind, the neighbourhood actually has a ton of places for kids to play: Glebe C.I., Glebe, C.C., Brown's Inlet, Capital Park, Glebe Memorial Park, Chamberlain Park and Patterson Park. And yes, Muchmore and Fifth Ave schools don't have any grass to play on, but they do have play structures - are those not considered places to play?

[umbria27]

Originally Posted by phil235

If we have a user fee, how exactly is that any different from the existing transit service on Bank St.? And how would that help achieve the objective of increasing transit use? I suppose you could have a lower fare for that route, but I don't think that is nearly as likely to succeed.

The point of doing a free service is that it creates a social benefit - more people on transit, less driving, a more successful public project at Lansdowne, all of which which create advantages for the city generally. It may also get more people on transit who will then pay fares to continue their journeys.

This kind of thing would likely need to be supported (at least partially) by the BIAs. But getting angry about your taxes paying for things you don't personally use kind of misses the point.

A free weekend shuttle up and down Bank St. makes a ton of sense, and while the BIAs should chip in, I don't think we should make it contingent on covering them entire fare shortfall. Transit is a service, like roads and sewers etc. that all businesses depend on. Businesses rarely pay the full cost of the roads that bring cars to their doors, or for the on street parking around them (Take Westboro, couldn't we say that in some way the City is subsidizing Westboro stores by providing free onstreet parking?). I think in some circumstances it makes sense to subsidize transit more than usual. To jumpstart a city sponsored transit oriented development might be one of those circumstances.

[Boxster]

Originally Posted by phil235

If we have a user fee, how exactly is that any different from the existing transit service on Bank St.? And how would that help achieve the objective of increasing transit use? I suppose you could have a lower fare for that route, but I don't think that is nearly as likely to succeed.

The point of doing a free service is that it creates a social benefit - more people on transit, less driving, a more successful public project at Lansdowne, all of which which create advantages for the city generally. It may also get more people on transit who will then pay fares to continue their journeys.

This kind of thing would likely need to be supported (at least partially) by the BIAs. But getting angry about your taxes paying for things you don't personally use kind of misses the point.

You are so right. But you can't discriminate against other business areas/neigbourhoods, as a result we should have free transit for the entire city which would really create social benefit for all!!!. We already directly subsidize public transportation through our municipal taxes (at least in Gatineau), so why not foot the entire bill.

[c_speed3108]

The trouble with a free shuttle is people still have to get to the free shuttle which isn't free.

As mention there is also the problem of favoring one area over another.

What I think would be better is a broader strategy on the part of OC.

OC Transpo has quite a good market share in certain areas at rush hour.

I think what would be good is for them to focus a bit on trying to grow outside of rush hour - particularly i the evening and on weekends. One way I think to do this would be to look at fare structure.

For instance Montreal has unlimited evening (6pm to 5am) for $4. Unlimited weekend (6 pm friday to 5 am monday) for $12.

It would help encourage ridership growth at times of the day that would not require more equipment purchases or new transit infrastructure (lets face it our roads and transit and even much of our bike infrastructure is built for rush hour).

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

The only problem with comparing the Grey Cup with now is that it was like D-Day. Enormous resources were devoted to making it come off. Supporters of the Lansdowne scheme always point to the Grey Cup or the Stones concerts, as if to say "we did those mega events, we can do anything."

But this time you have to take into consideration that a shopping mall and condo compound will be plunked down there. How happy will the stores be when they basically have to shut down on game days for lack of parking? Do you really want to haul your 8 bags of swanky groceries from Whole Foods home to Nepean on the bus? Will condo dwellers really like having to tell their visitors to park in Barrhaven if they want to come visit on a game day?

Too bad lrt's friend, that the stadium won't be along the route of the LRT.

Actually, I am glad it isn't on the Confedation Line, because it goes nowhere near where I live. Lansdowne Park is half the distance to my home as the Confederation Line. And my brother and I plan on supporting the CFL next year.

[umbria27]

Originally Posted by Boxster

You are so right. But you can't discriminate against other business areas/neigbourhoods, as a result we should have free transit for the entire city which would really create social benefit for all!!!. We already directly subsidize public transportation through our municipal taxes (at least in Gatineau), so why not foot the entire bill.

In my example above, Westboro for one has free on street parking where Bank Street does not, so we clearly do discriminate between business areas and communities. And the point has been made that the Lansdowne is not just for the surrounding community but for the whole city. The city has already taken your money to build the place. By the same principle, it should take a little more of it so that people can get there.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Boxster

You are so right. But you can't discriminate against other business areas/neigbourhoods, as a result we should have free transit for the entire city which would really create social benefit for all!!!. We already directly subsidize public transportation through our municipal taxes (at least in Gatineau), so why not foot the entire bill.

I do agree that free transit for all is quite an appealing idea, particularly if higher ridership areas were rewarded with better service. Probably too radical for Ottawa though.

Playing the "this isn't fair to other neighbourhoods" card is a pointless game. If you want to talk about equity, neighbourhoods inside the greenbelt (including all those served by this shuttle) subsidize those outside the greenbelt to the tune of $900-odd per year in the tax/services equation. Not to mention the fact that they provide a disproportionate share of transit ridership and a disproportionate share of fare revenue. Putting a free shuttle on Bank St. isn't going to begin to address that inequity.

There has to be some common sense exercised here. A free shuttle doesn't make sense on Strandherd through Barrhaven. But it makes a lot of sense where it serves one of the city's primary shopping streets and a transit-challenged stadium in which the city just invested $150 million.

Economic development doesn't have to be equal. In fact, if you try to make it so, it's usually really ineffective.

[alecz_dad]

It seems that at one time, even former Mayor and Court Jester, Larry O'Brien thought Bayview was the best location for a stadium.



Bruce Firestone offered some interesting insights into why the (insert name here) Centre was located in Kanata, many of which apply to why Lansdowne is a bad location for a redeveloped stadium:
* "the maximum number of people that OC [Transpo] can run up and down Bank Street would be about 2,500 pph (people per hour). For an arena with a 20,000 capacity, it would take four hours to exit everyone from the building using buses";
* "I can tell you that if we relied on buses, we would have had one sellout – opening night. After that, there would have been a fan revolt. In fact, people coming from Orleans by car could have taken more time to get to Lansdowne Park than to get to SBP, considering the traffic issues around the site."
* "I knew we needed a site we could own, that would have enough room for 7,000 cars and 500-plus buses ";

OSMUG promises they will lure thousands out of their cars, and either onto buses or arriving on foot or by bike. But as Firestone observed, fans in Orleans are not going to be very keen on leaving their cars at home. Instead, the surrounding neighbourhoods will become permanent overflow parking for the gross under-provision of onsite parking for games, the mall and the condos.

You ask where all these different amenities can be found next to a potential development site. Well, what I was describing was Bayview Yards.
The Transitway and LRT are on their southern boundary, the northern terminus of the O-Train is there, the Western Parkway is just to the north of the site(s), and there are two bridges to Quebec (I counted) -- the Chaudiere and Portage -- that are within 2km of the Yards, and the Champlain Bridge is a little more than a 3km straight shot along the Western Parkway.



As for cajoling the NCC, the City has seemed determined in its plans for the LRT and Lansdowne that they could get the NCC on board. Why were they so fraidy about getting them onside at Bayview/Lebreton?

Originally Posted by JackBauer24

Re: the other potential locations for the stadium
Although I would not want to just shift the problem on to residents of another neighbourhood without consideration of their concerns, it always seemed that Bayview Yards and adjacent parts of Lebreton Flats would have been more appropriate:
If the location was Bayview, you would be more than simply shifting the "problem" on to another neighbourhood - Bayview has never had anything even remotely close to a stadium in their neighbourhood, the Glebe has.

* right on the Transitway (someday to be LRT) - Where exactly? The westerly portion of the LRT runs between a river and a dense neighbourhood, the central portion is underground and the easterly part doesn't offer any options where a stadium would fit.
* right on the O-Train - Where? Is Carleton U supposed to relocate a few buildings? Or maybe we could squeeze a stadium between South Keys and Ariport Parkway?
* right next to the Western Parkway - This is a similar issue to the points I raised in the 'Transitway' point
* right next to 2 bridges to Quebec - One last time, where?

Most of the land around the areas you've suggested is owned by the NCC. Good luck getting them to release any of that land to build a stadium when an equivalently central location, where a stadium once stood, is available.