Lansdowne Park Redevelopment Phase 1 | Completed

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

Unlike Lansdowne's new buildings, which look like yet more uninspired Hobin-style boxes (but he's not working on it anymore, right?) That are ultimately quite ticky-tacky, and will look dated pretty quickly.

Too add to kevinbottawa's comment, that is precisely why they came up with the design; for a seamless integration with the Glebe. Bold designs would have been frowned upon the Glebe's populous and would have taken away from the buildings that are suppose to stand out; the Aberdeen Pavilion, the Horticulture (I guess), the Civic Centre and the Stadium.

Because they have sort of a timeless traditional design, the buildings will never look out of date.

And yes, Hobin has been out for years, I believe replaced with some NYC architect.

[alecz_dad]

Originally Posted by JFFournier

Right. Those new structures are said to be terrible by the same people who just couldn't let go of the Colliseum building.

JFF, the Coliseum was a nice old building, and could very likely have been adaptively reused, just as the Horticulture Bldg is, as a link to the past of the site that OSMUG claims it wishes to evoke. And utterly obliterating it, not even maintaining the facade, was, to my mind, vandalism.

And let's not kid ourselves, though, OSMUG/City would never have gone to all the trouble they have of digging up and moving the Horticulture Bldg, if its heritage designation hadn't (literally) gotten in the way of their construction plans. Without that designation, it would have been "bye bye" to it too. As was nearly the case for the Aberdeen Pavilion 20-odd years ago.

The new buildings are simply, banal. Unworthy of such a high-profile site. The claim was always "trust us, we're going to make Lansdowne something special." But all I see, and all I have ever expected, is Trinity Developments-style mediocrity, but with inadequate parking.

[alecz_dad]

Originally Posted by JFFournier

Remind me again, did you participate in the design competition for the front lawn portion?

Sorry, particpate? How do you mean?

If you mean, did I attend public meetings about the scheme, to demand that the proponents defend their scheme? Yes, I did.
If you mean, did I submit views to the meaningless online consultations (the results of which seem mostly to have mysteriously disappeared from the City's website)? Yes, I did.
If you mean, when it became apparent that the portion of Sylvia Holden Park where the wading pool, dog park and ball diamonds are located was to be included in the redevelopment area, did I participate in the community action that got the City to exclude it? Yes, I did.
If you mean, was I part of one of the design teams. No, I was not.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

Here you go JFF.


Some sort of steel and cement pointy thing. But everyone in the picture looks very impressed by it. I'm sure it will draw visitors from neighbouring counties to gaze in wonder, asking themselves "what the f&#* is that?"

Also, here's my fun, alternative, annotated map of the Lansdowne site:
http://www.thinglink.com/scene/308273774174666753

I always liked the beacon. People will comment "what the f&#* is that" when looking at he Glebe's junkyard art work along Bank. BTW, here are a few quotes from that site you suggested;

Because of environmental controls needed to deal with contaminated soils dumped in urban park, any future construction is out of the question. That means no washrooms, kiosks or other permanent bldgs in the park

Oh, so you would have liked to have seen parts of the park replaced with buildings!?

Reflecting pool around banal Beacon art piece will be an excellent area for fast food wrappers from Minto Corners mall fast-food joints to be disposed of.

Yes, because we always see garbage in Place de Ville's fountain and the Confederation Park fountain and the fountains on the William Street pedestrian mall... oh wait, we don't! So would you have preferred plain grass everywhere? Maybe we should have given the rest of Lansdowne to the developer and you could just go play on your plain grass along the Parkway.

Only 1100 parking spaces available to the public at Lansdowne (1340 underground + 40 surface - 280 for condos).
Guess surrounding residential streets become permanent overflow parking.
Where do residents with street parking permits go?

You forgot to count the parking garage the City is building for you people a few blocks north. That's an extra 140 spots. Anyway, no doubt you would have complained if the City had built too many parking spaces.

[bartlebooth]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

JFF, the Coliseum was a nice old building, and could very likely have been adaptively reused, just as the Horticulture Bldg is, as a link to the past of the site that OSMUG claims it wishes to evoke. And utterly obliterating it, not even maintaining the facade, was, to my mind, vandalism.

And let's not kid ourselves, though, OSMUG/City would never have gone to all the trouble they have of digging up and moving the Horticulture Bldg, if its heritage designation hadn't (literally) gotten in the way of their construction plans. Without that designation, it would have been "bye bye" to it too. As was nearly the case for the Aberdeen Pavilion 20-odd years ago.

The new buildings are simply, banal. Unworthy of such a high-profile site. The claim was always "trust us, we're going to make Lansdowne something special." But all I see, and all I have ever expected, is Trinity Developments-style mediocrity, but with inadequate parking.

I agree with much of what you say here. The old Coliseum building was for the most part worth keeping. The Horticulture Building did not need to be moved. A better design leaving the building where it is could have been achieved. The commercial and condo buildings are very banal but I think that is all Trinity and Minto are capable of. I disagree with you about the parking issue and I think your position contradicts your fears about increased traffic. It has been observed pretty much everywhere that more parking results in more cars and more traffic just like wider roads does not ease congestion.

[jay2018]

The thing i don't like is retail being built into the Civic Centre.

[bartlebooth]

Originally Posted by jay2018

The thing i don't like is retail being built into the Civic Centre.

I haven't seen images of how that is supposed to work. Do you know what kind of retail they are expecting there? In passing by the site and looking around, I agree with you. At least based on what is visible from Bank.

[alecz_dad]

Originally Posted by gjhall

What disgusting classic style 2 storey buildings of the same scale as the existing neighbourhood.

It will be terrible when a former parking lot and empty buildings is integrated into the neighbourhood.

DISGUSTING. I blame the PR team, alecz_dad!

(sic) "2-storey shopping centre," I think you meant.

As for being in scale with the existing neighbourhood, I would disagree. Come look at the back of the (who knows what brand) megaplex cinema along Holmwood, and tell me that's in scale. Consider that this one scheme will be doubling the commercial density in the Glebe in one fell swoop, and tell me in that's in scale.

Once again, the Lansdowne-huggers' ultimate retort when all else fails: that those who object to this scheme "just wanted to keep Lansdowne as empty buildings and bare parking lot."

Maybe we need a variation on Godwin's Law, that stated:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches. [That] given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis...

...The law is sometimes invoked, as a rule, to mark the end of a discussion when a Nazi analogy is made, with the writer who made the analogy being considered to have lost the argument.

A modified version for this discussion thread would stipulate that whenever somebody uses that line, by way of a fundamental explanation or justification why OSMUG's Lansdowne scheme was the right way to proceed, they lose the argument by default.

If you want a prime example of how PR was masterfully employed in this scheme, it is this. That whenever there were difficult questions raised about the proposed scheme, that the proponents couldn't, or didn't want to, answer, they (or their acolytes) eventually fell back on the old "anything is better than the sea of asphalt there now." It was a good line, and it stuck. I bet Bruce Firestone wishes he'd thought of it.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

And let's not kid ourselves, though, OSMUG/City would never have gone to all the trouble they have of digging up and moving the Horticulture Bldg, if its heritage designation hadn't (literally) gotten in the way of their construction plans. Without that designation, it would have been "bye bye" to it too. As was nearly the case for the Aberdeen Pavilion 20-odd years ago.

The new buildings are simply, banal. Unworthy of such a high-profile site. The claim was always "trust us, we're going to make Lansdowne something special." But all I see, and all I have ever expected, is Trinity Developments-style mediocrity, but with inadequate parking.

Ah, why bother yourself with rational discussion when there is more opportunity for conjecture.

If you honestly can't see the difference between the new buildings at Lansdowne and a suburban big box store, I'm beginning to understand why this discussion is so endless.

[JFFournier]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

Obviously, I cannot.

Though it's clear there are others here who still harbour misgivings about this scheme.

Sure. The difference between some of the people expressing misgivings and you is that they do so with objectivity. "I like this but I don't like that".

You're determined to hate everything. You already are putting down a structure for which little is known. Doesn't matter what it might look like down the road, your decision is already made that it's going to suck.

And of course, your behaviour is someone else's fault...

[Fatty McButterpants]

Originally Posted by Luker

Nice 2nd post, Troll.

Don't you have some carbon-neutral, gluten free oatmeal to eat? And a bar of handmade soap to clense you of your hypocritical nimbyism?

P.S.

I'm sure you can go to a Glebe community meeting or something alike and propagate your irrational and senseless comments amongst the deluded proponents.

You mad, bro? Take it down a notch. What part of "I support this project" don't you understand? Damn, you seem to have some pent up aggression that needs to be dealth with. I am the opposite of a NIMBY. In fact, I wish this WAS being built in my back yard. Pro tip: you can support a project AND be disappointed with some of the design elements at the same time.

[phil235]

[QUOTE=alecz_dad;6290557](sic) "2-storey shopping centre," I think you meant.

As for being in scale with the existing neighbourhood, I would disagree. Come look at the back of the (who knows what brand) megaplex cinema along Holmwood, and tell me that's in scale. Consider that this one scheme will be doubling the commercial density in the Glebe in one fell swoop, and tell me in that's in scale. [QUOTE]

In scale with what? The stadium? The buildings that were on the site? I would say yes.

Once again, the Lansdowne-huggers' ultimate retort when all else fails: that those who object to this scheme "just wanted to keep Lansdowne as empty buildings and bare parking lot."

Maybe we need a variation on Godwin's Law, that stated:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches. [That] given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis...

...The law is sometimes invoked, as a rule, to mark the end of a discussion when a Nazi analogy is made, with the writer who made the analogy being considered to have lost the argument.

A modified version for this discussion thread would stipulate that whenever somebody uses that line, by way of a fundamental explanation or justification why OSMUG's Lansdowne scheme was the right way to proceed, they lose the argument by default.

If you want a prime example of how PR was masterfully employed in this scheme, it is this. That whenever there were difficult questions raised about the proposed scheme, that the proponents couldn't, or didn't want to, answer, they (or their acolytes) eventually fell back on the old "anything is better than the sea of asphalt there now." It was a good line, and it stuck. I bet Bruce Firestone wishes he'd thought of it.

The Nazis? You're comparing a line expressing dismay about a decrepit parking lot with a Nazi analogy? Fear not, this discussion will never end with tangents like that.

By the way, no one every actually said that line, and how exactly is that misquote a "prime example" of PR? I'd categorize it as a statement that you have distorted to make it easier to disagree with.

[JFFournier]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

Sorry, particpate? How do you mean?

I mean when they displayed fove options for the front lawn, did you select one and provide comments as to what could improve it.

And by "comments" I mean constructive criticism.

[JFFournier]

Originally Posted by phil235

In scale with what? The stadium? The buildings that were on the site? I would say yes.

Even the taller buildings are not significantly more so than the Lord Lansdowne retirement residence across the street.

[JFFournier]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

JFF, the Coliseum was a nice old building, and could very likely have been adaptively reused, just as the Horticulture Bldg is, as a link to the past of the site that OSMUG claims it wishes to evoke. And utterly obliterating it, not even maintaining the facade, was, to my mind, vandalism.

Ah, there's that dramatic flair again!

I agree that it was old.

I'd also like to remind you that...

http://www.ottawasun.com/2012/11/02/...ove--literally

Friday, Nov. 2, 2012 Ottawa -- Contractors have salvaged several "artifacts" from the now-demolished Coliseum Building at Lansdowne Park.

Of course, that won't be good enough. Nothing ever is, and you'll dismiss as usual, but just for the record, you know...

[JFFournier]

Originally Posted by jay2018

The thing i don't like is retail being built into the Civic Centre.

How come?

[JFFournier]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

I never saw any sign that OSMUG was open to any real compromises. Did you?

I never saw any sign that those opposed to the proposal were capable of expressing their concerns in a calm, rational manner that might have afforded them some credibility. Did you?

[alecz_dad]

Originally Posted by phil235

"In all earnestness"? Ok, I'll take you at your word. Here goes.

First of all, the "residents' side" could have acknowledged that they didn't speak for the whole community. I participated in early consultations, and it was very clear from those sessions and from the poll done by the GCA that there was a wide diversity of opinion: on the stadium, on the residential component, on the retail. The results of those consultations conveniently disappeared from public view, and a small group took on the charge without any real mandate from the people and interests that they claimed to represent. Not only that, they essentially shouted down (literally and figuratively) anyone who voiced a different opinion. The opposition would have been far more effective if it actually had a mandate to speak for the community.

I would counter that so far as I can remember there was also a considerable diversity of opinion among the larger public. None of the public opinion polling, newspaper website polls or the online consultations showed a high degree of support for the scheme. However, as you suggest of the GCA's consultation results, it appears that much of the City's results have disappeared from view too.

I'm not sure how there would have been a clearer mandate established. Like most democratic institutions, the Community Association has a process by which its members are elected, and, like formal politicians, they get to a point where they make what they think are the best decision.

Presumably to have gone into respresentations saying "many residents and business-owners in our community are opposed to this proposed scheme, BUT, there are others that are not so opposed, so really, we can't say anything with any authority," might, as a tactical consideration, have undermined their case.

I certainly didn't see the developers or City officials displaying any doubt, or saying "hey, I've been getting a lot of calls from people who really don't see how the financials on this will work, or they really think that this has been an abusive process, so maybe we should slow down and look at more options." No, it was "ready I ready, Captain, full-speed ahead!" So, SAUCE@GOOSE = SAUCE@GANDER.

BTW, it certainly wasn't only Lansdowne's critics who shouted people down. I personally recall the baying hordes at a meeting in Orleans who would have no truck with anyone who came questioning the scheme. Although, as I have said, they have the fella with the megaphone at the early meeting at Lansdowne (no, not me) to thank for the fact that they actually got to make any public statements at all at those "consultations."

Originally Posted by phil235

Second, the opponents could have shed the forces of good vs. evil developers story and actually engaged in balanced criticism, acknowledging their real interests, even if in many cases that was the removal of the stadium entirely. In reality, most of the people speaking loudest had a very real personal interest at stake and their motives were not any more altruistic than those of the developers. But the real issues got lost in this constant barrage of insinuation, conspiracy theory, and the needless villification of the principles involved (see your Roger Greenberg reference above). All of those are just tactics that detract from the real issues. One can't engage in any meaningful discussion of any issue without first being clear about the real interests at stake. Instead, the FOL tried to out-spin the City, and it turned out that they weren't very good at it.

Personally, I still think the stadium is in the wrong place. If it was a new stadium, it would have to be built next to a major transit hub or major highway. Full stop.

Tactically, I think that once the community got wind of the scope of the scheme and how the developers were using a certain segment of the local public's and media's desire for a return of football as leverage, they should (grudgingly) have embraced the stadium, making the case that it wasn't necessary to enter into some sort of esoteric, trickle-down revenue-sharing model to pay to repair it.

Indeed, Clive Doucet did try to change the channel that way with his rather ham-fisted, walk-down-memory-lane Youtube video.

However, as for the insinuations, etc. I would say that the Lansdowne-huggers have given as good, or better, than they got (and it continues).
As for being clear about the real interests, yes, you're right, a lot of Glebe residents objected to the stadium. That was clear. A lot of people worried how this scale of development would negatively impact their community (and still do, though resignedly). A lot of people were just pissy, old (or middle-aged) folks saying "hey you kids, get off my lawn."

But let's also be clear that the OSMUG partners are not just a bunch of good ol', local boys made good who wanted to bring back football. Rather, they are a cadre of billionaire and mere millionaire property developers who do nothing unless it serves their private commercial interests.
And that if they want to build condos and a shopping centre at Lansdowne, it's not because they "wuv football," but because they know they can make bags of cash getting the City to foot most of the upfront costs, and leasing the land for $1 a year. However, that always seemed to get lost in the static.

You're right that FoL weren't very good at out-spinning OSMUG. That's why they should have hired a (better) PR agency! Like this one in Michigan.

Originally Posted by phil235

Third, the opponents could have held themselves to the same standards that they demanded of those behind the project. While they demanded documentary evidence of every interaction between the City and OSEG, they never saw any needed to support any of their claims. They engaged in personal attacks and allegations of serious wrongdoing without even a shred of evidence. It made them look like hypocrites, and it hurt their credibility. For instance, do you have any evidence that OSEG asked a PR agency to "vilify" opponents? I didn't think so.

I seem to remember some rather nasty personal attacks against John Martin, regarding the details of his personal life and marital problems. I don't know the truth, beyond what is in the public record (helpfully dredged up by someone), but that had nothing to do with the validity of his counter-concept for Lansdowne.
I'm sure that wealthy and powerful men such as Greenberg, Shenkman, Ruddy, Pugh and Hunt (and any other caballeros I may have forgotten) don't get to their positions by playing nice, and all have more than a few skeletons in their closets. But they're either better at covering their tracks than John Martin, or there simply was no desire, or no resources to go rooting around looking for that stuff.
However, in the absence of clear information, and when it seems like you're being railroaded, it's natural to start assuming (and saying) the worst about your opponent.

Of course I don't have any "evidence" of OSMUG getting a PR agency to vilify their opponents. They wouldn't really be a very good PR agency then, would they?
Perhaps it wasn't orchestrated. But there were certainly times where certain phrases and tactics seemed to be repeated far too frequently for them simply to have drifted out spontaneously.
Someday, maybe it will be a footnote in some Hill & Knowlton PR flack's memoirs, reminiscing about how they really did a great number on those stupid, Glebe NIMBYS. Who knows?

Originally Posted by phil235

Lastly, the opponents could have taken the $200,000 that they utterly wasted on legal procedings (and yes, it was very obvious from the outset that they were not going to succeed), and put that into something constructive - professional advice on alterations to the project such as improvements to neighbourhood integration, pedestrian and bike facilities etc. - you know, the stuff that actually makes life better for the people living nearby.

In retrospect, I agree that the $200,000 was wasted on legal process.

It should have been obvious early on that although there were definitely some hincky things that went on in the way that OSMUG and the City stickhandled the proposal, there was probably nothing that they were going to get anybody to make stick.
(Kind of like how Larry O.B. skated away with the 2006 Mayoral election -- joining the same group of embarrassing big-city mayors as Rob {Cough} Ford, and Mel {NOOOOOBODY} Lastman -- when his operatives cajoled Terry Kilrea out of running for Mayor and splitting the right vote. More on that one day in somebody's memoirs.)

From Day 1, it was a political battle, not a legal one. The battle could only be won, or at least stalemated, in the court of public opinion, NOT a court of law. And FoL should have raised money to stage an effective PR offense, rather than mistakenly believing in a legal remedy. But there's a lotta lawyers that live in the Glebe (that's why Bruce Firestone said he wussed out on having the Sens at Lansdowne).

Originally Posted by phil235

In the past couple of years, I've probably volunteered 100 hours of my personal time into assisting with the transportation planning effort, and I am hoping to see some of that bear fruit. With one exception, I don't see any of the loudest opponents of the plan involved in that effort. If they are actually interested in constructive efforts to improve their community, where have they gone?

I'm glad you have found a way to engage constructively. Unfortunately, I still am disillusioned enough with the process, that it is difficult to see how I could engage with it. As Joanne Chianello observed this week, "Critical questions about $400M redevelopment remain unanswered." And I must confess that I think that OSMUG and the City probably need to have their mess come home to roost. It's not my job to try to help them out of their predicament.

Originally Posted by phil235

By the way, I don't expect you to respond to this. You're all about the low-hanging fruit when it comes to discussing these issues.

I appreciate the time and effort you have taken here. Hopefully, this is sufficient response to you. It does take a while to make cogent arguments, so sometimes the commenting is drive-by.

[jay2018]

alecz_dad

You don't think 50-60% is a high level of support?

[alecz_dad]

Originally Posted by jay2018

It would have made no difference as all some wanted is anything but sports.

And all some wanted was NOTHING but sports.

How do we balance those constituencies? Short answer is: We didn't.

We saw this before with the baseball stadium. And now it's a mighty big white elephant. Glad to see Council decided against the $40-million plan to get a double-A team in.

But the thing never should have been built on the public dime in the first place. Another example of a well-connected businessman --Howard Darwin -- convincing the City to put up taxpayers' money to build a sports facility for the benefit of his private sports business, which he either didn't have the capital or the confidence to pay for himself.

I wonder what building the City will rename after Roger Greenberg dies? If Lansdowne turns out to be a turkey, he might end up having some minor arena (or worse) renamed after him, as Darwin did, much to the chagrin of some.