Lansdowne Park Redevelopment Phase 1 | Completed

[jay2018]

Does anyone know how many town houses are part of the project?

[rocketphish]

Tour offers a glimpse into the future at Lansdowne Park

By Laura Armstrong, OTTAWA CITIZEN October 4, 2013 9:58 PM

OTTAWA — Just short of a year after construction at Lansdowne Park began in earnest, a small community is slowly taking shape behind the construction hoarding surrounding the historic 40-acre property.

Come in from the Queen Elizabeth Drive entrance, through the relocated Aberdeen Pavilion, and you find yourself on what is expected to become Aberdeen Way, a tree-lined street separating retailers adjacent to the Civic Centre from anticipated new tenants such as Whole Foods and the LCBO.

The construction site was still just that late this week; a gravel pit muddy from bouts of rain earlier in the day. But, as project director Philippe Goulet and site manager Dino Roy took local architects, architecture students and members of the public on a site tour, it wasn’t hard to imagine what the new Lansdowne will look like once it’s complete, whenever that may be.

About 50 people got behind the fences guarding Lansdowne for more than an hour Friday, as part of two tours offered through Architecture Week Ottawa 2013, a five-day event organized by the Ottawa Regional Society of Architects.

From the soon-to-be Aberdeen Way, groups were guided by “Building C,” the anticipated movie theatre; had the process behind moving the heritage Horticulture Building explained to them; were shown the on-site concrete plant that produces 80 per cent of the concrete on site; and were brought across the flat patch of gravel-covered land that next year will be the home field of the Canadian Football League’s Ottawa REDBLACKS.

The big draw for the architecture-minded majority of the viewers was the south-side stands, said Richard Smith, an architect at Ottawa’s HOK architecture, engineering and planning firm.

“The south-side stands, it’s not just your basic concrete structure,” said an animated Smith after his tour.

To the untrained eye, that’s exactly what the current south-side stands look like, but Goulet and Roy laid out the floor plan, including locker rooms, concession stands, suites and the press box, as the groups climbed four levels to the top of the south-side stands. Along the way, groups also got to check out two player-designated hot tubs waiting to be installed, one of which held a treadmill.

For architects, it’s the scope of the project that dazzles, said Smith, pointing to the fact that although Pomerleau is the lead general contractor on site, there are 15 other general contractors working under the national company.

“That’s almost unheard of,” said Smith. “It’s a testament to the size of the project.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen


Lots of construction photos here:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/ottawa...future+Lansdowne+Park/8999419/story.html

[alecz_dad]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

Yes, let's reuse a building that was deemed to have "little historic value", has been plagued with problems, renovations and repairs throughout its life, and thanks to a lack of progress on anything Lansdowne in the past 20 years, eventually had to be condemned due to safety and health hazards. Yes, that's so criminal.

Actually, the City apparently rated the Coliseum's historic significance as “low to moderate.” Hardly a derelict bus-shelter.

I imagine it had similar health and safety problems as the Horticulture Bldg. Wouldn't have stopped them from at least integrating the front facade into a new building.The difference is it wasn't listed. So need to make the pretense of concern for it's preservation. So, away it went into the dumper.

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

Your proof for this is where, exactly?

Additionally, wanna know why the Aberdeen Pavilion nearly came down 20 years ago? Because nothing was being done with the site, so repairs were continuously put off, at the behest and outcry of Glebe residents because evidently Glebites have sensitive hearing and noise causes them pain equivalent to giving birth.

You're right that Lansdowne was neglected for a long time. Probably from after the war, onwards because the Glebe, like many in-city neighbourhoods, was considered rather outre and sketchy. It was only after a couple of generations of re-urbanizing pioneers had saved the Glebe from being rammed through with expressways and ground down for highrises, and wrought a creative, desirable lifestyle, that the developers have started to really take notice, and decided they wanted to package it up and sell it in little condo-sized bits.

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

Yes, how dare they keep it in the same tone and scale of other Glebe buildings. I wasn't aware Fifth Avenue Court was an architectural marvel, nor the Michelin heritage, nor Booster Juice an icon. And the Mac's and Pizza Hut are just such local architectural treasures. Oh, and heaven forbid I forget to mention that the architecture of The Works, Birdman, Glebe Pet Hospital, and Pet Valu is simply fantastic. And who can't help but marvel at the LCBO, Kunstadt, and Rogers? I suppose it would also be remiss of me to fail to mention the paragons of architecture that are H&R Block, Shoppers Drugmart, RBC, Bank St. Framing, Naji's, Feleena's, Flight Centre, McKeen Metro, Third Avenue Spa, and Davidsons.

No, Fifth Avenue Court is not an architectural marvel. It is a failed public space. The original developer got permission to build a courtyard with an open roof, but then went ahead and covered it without proper zoning permission. Eventually Minto bought it, and although it had always been put forward as a community gathering-place, it has completely turned inwards, with virtually no retail inside, and an atmosphere that says to most who linger there, "better hurry up, do your business, and get outta here." Not sure that bodes well for Lansdowne.

As for the Glebe retail mix, it is nothing sacred, and is increasingly dominated by chain retailers that can afford the exorbitant rents (sound familiar?). Nonetheless, the low profile, street-front orientation (don't forget, like a mullet, much of Lansdowne's party is at the back), and varied property ownership, does facilitate rather more diversity:
* The Works, an outpost of a local chain
* Birdman, a local institution that is at the centre of a mini-district of alternative lifestyle retailers
* Glebe Pet Hospital, good to have a local vet in a walkable location, the late former owner of the clinic used to live on my street
* Kunstadt, another local mini-chain whose owner lives on Third Ave.
* Bank St. Framing, inheritor to another longtime local business
* Feleena's, a last remaining remnant of Mexi's
* Davidsons Jewelers, another longtime fixture on Bank Street
* Rogers, I preferred it when it was the KFC
* Shoppers Drugmart, great place to buy cheap milk; was sad to see Inniss Pharmacy (where Truffle Treasures is now) succumb to it, though happy that Roly Inniss is still serving the neighbourhood at Shoppers
* Naji's, carrying on the tradition of one of the Glebe's earliest ethnic restaurauters, Kamal of his eponymous restaurant
* McKeen Metro, the McKeens are local kingpins, and their stuff is overpriced, but lord knows, my friends in Old Ottawa South would still kill to have a walkable full-service grocery store (sorry Cedar's) like that in their hood

And then there are the various health practitioners who live in the neighbourhood and provide service both to neighbourhood residents as well as to people from further afield: our dentist, who lives across the street from the house I grew up in on Third Avenue, and my physiotherapist who lives just up the block from that, the doctor at one clinic whose kids are in my kid's daycare, and our family doctor, who's sister's kids go to my kids' school.

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

Oh! How careless of me. I also forgot to mention the modern marvels that are Nicastro, Arbour, East Wind, Wine Rack, and Magpie. And who can forget Fourth Avenue's Scotiabank? Oh, that Scotiabank! I weep at its beauty.

Well OSMUG certainly seems to think Nicastro's is great, since many of the pix in their promo brochure are of their colourful street produce displays.

I'll shed no tears for the current bit of uninspired retail modernism, but the original Bank of Nova Scotia branch was rather charming. Too bad it's facade wasn't preserved, as they did with the old BoM at the corner of Somerset and Bank, when Hartman's expanded.

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

How about every day? There's this thing called social media, and I believe you can still mail actual letters to people, like, everywhere.

Also, there were countless public hearings and media coverage. That's why we went from condos in the park, parkades, and the Aberdeen Pavilion being a Pottery Barn to the current plan which is far superior.

Yes, social media did at least provide a venue for dissenting voices to be raised, when the major media organizations and public processes gave little. But it is evidence of the failure of social media to inform this process, that despite the fact that the results of all the online temperature-taking were pretty overwhelmingly negative, that it mattered not one whit to the decision-makers.

There were public meetings, but never any real consultation. By the time the meetings were taking place, the decisions had all been made. It was just pro forma.

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

Because it was, because no other developers came forward chomping at the bit to really try and redevelop Lansdowne.

We do not know if there were developers chomping at the bit. There certainly were a couple of different groups that chomped back in the 1990s. I suspect that if there had been an open process, and a creative way to get developers interested in making proposals for different aspects of the site, instead of just giving the store away to OSMUG, there might have been interest. We'll never know.

[J.OT13]

I'll give you the Coliseum; it should have been saved, more so that the Horticulture.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

Actually, the City apparently rated the Coliseum's historic significance as “low to moderate.” Hardly a derelict bus-shelter.

Ah, yes, because a "low to moderate" heritage rating is so different from "little historic value".

You're arguing semantic here, bud.

You're right that Lansdowne was neglected for a long time. Probably from after the war, onwards because the Glebe, like many in-city neighbourhoods, was considered rather outre and sketchy. It was only after a couple of generations of re-urbanizing pioneers had saved the Glebe from being rammed through with expressways and ground down for highrises, and wrought a creative, desirable lifestyle, that the developers have started to really take notice, and decided they wanted to package it up and sell it in little condo-sized bits.

Okay, there's several glaring mistakes here.

1. The Glebe wasn't really sketchy in the post-war years. If it was, then my journalist grandfather and retail-oriented grandmother would not have raised three kids there, while hosting other hippies in a house on Monk St., while their neighbours were geologists, lawyers, government workers, and scientists. Also, it's rather hard to be "sketchy" when on Bank St. there was farm land at the time. I also wasn't aware that 3-storey, well-maintained homes were characteristic of a sketchy neighbourhood.

2. Re-urbanizing? Is that even a thing? The Glebe has been urbanizing from the start. It was originally Church lands, and then a suburban community arose in the area, and continued to grow and urbanize (not re-urbanize, because no such thing truly exists) until it became the affluent inner-city neighbourhood we know it as today.

3. "being rammed through with expressways and ground down for highrises" Is something that was never at risk of happening for starters, and the current Queensway was basically built in place of already massive railways that cut through that part of the city. Although, knowing Glebe residents, they likely complained when rail went through their area at first. Furthermore, high rises weren't often considered for the Glebe because of A) its smaller population and B) the high rise boom of the 70's was largely confined to downtown and areas near major or soon-to-be major Transitway stops. That's why we didn't see too many high rises (until recently) in places like the Glebe, Old Ottawa South, Hintonburg, Westboro, and large chunks of Vanier; they were further from the employment centres of the city at the time, not close to the Transitway, and not very dense neighbourhoods.

4. "...wrought a creative, desirable lifestyle..." Yes, the Glebe did. By allowing for change. They fought the Loblaws on Isabella, but now it's a community staple. My grandmother got skeptical looks when she opened her store in the Glebe, but guess what? People were a bit more open to things that are different, and her store hit a niche market leading to other stores in Toronto and Montreal.

5. "...that the developers have started to really take notice, and decided they wanted to package it up and sell it in little condo-sized bits." This just doesn't even come close to making a lick of sense. Why/how would developers divide and parcel up a neighbourhood? neighbourhoods don't work like that. Besides, developers have noticed because PEOPLE have noticed. People want to live in the Glebe, but they don't always have families, want a big family, or want/afford a great big house in the Glebe. So naturally, the developers are trying to tap into a market and grow. That's kind of what businesses do.

As for the Glebe retail mix, it is nothing sacred, and is increasingly dominated by chain retailers that can afford the exorbitant rents (sound familiar?). Nonetheless, the low profile, street-front orientation (don't forget, like a mullet, much of Lansdowne's party is at the back), and varied property ownership, does facilitate rather more diversity:
* The Works, an outpost of a local chain
* Birdman, a local institution that is at the centre of a mini-district of alternative lifestyle retailers
* Glebe Pet Hospital, good to have a local vet in a walkable location, the late former owner of the clinic used to live on my street
* Kunstadt, another local mini-chain whose owner lives on Third Ave.
* Bank St. Framing, inheritor to another longtime local business
* Feleena's, a last remaining remnant of Mexi's
* Davidsons Jewelers, another longtime fixture on Bank Street
* Rogers, I preferred it when it was the KFC
* Shoppers Drugmart, great place to buy cheap milk; was sad to see Inniss Pharmacy (where Truffle Treasures is now) succumb to it, though happy that Roly Inniss is still serving the neighbourhood at Shoppers
* Naji's, carrying on the tradition of one of the Glebe's earliest ethnic restaurauters, Kamal of his eponymous restaurant
* McKeen Metro, the McKeens are local kingpins, and their stuff is overpriced, but lord knows, my friends in Old Ottawa South would still kill to have a walkable full-service grocery store (sorry Cedar's) like that in their hood

Aaaaaaaand the point I was trying to make goes completely over your head, and by a significant margin. You called the proposed architecture for Lansdowne banal, but a glance around the Glebe reveals that less than half of it has interesting architecture, and is pretty banal itself.

Also, I find the fact that you mentioned the already exorbitant rents in the Glebe hilarious, as you try and blame the developer for it. How about you blame the free market for making the Glebe a desirable place to live, sending prices soaring, and thus ensuring that only the upper middle class and higher can afford to properly live there? A problem already exists, yet you have the audacity to blame a developer for it.

I also was not aware that the Glebe was like a classless mullet, and that everything is more interesting in the back. I wasn't aware second avenue was a hub of activity and retail, nor the alley behind Fratelli (where I used to work) was so fascinating.

Yes, social media did at least provide a venue for dissenting voices to be raised, when the major media organizations and public processes gave little. But it is evidence of the failure of social media to inform this process, that despite the fact that the results of all the online temperature-taking were pretty overwhelmingly negative, that it mattered not one whit to the decision-makers.

Not just social media; there were also the several open houses held throughout the process. Also, the general vibe from most people (social media or open house) was largely positive to indifferent. They were not "overwhelmingly negative" as you claim.

There were public meetings, but never any real consultation. By the time the meetings were taking place, the decisions had all been made. It was just pro forma.

*sigh*

As I and others have demonstrated countless times prior, there WAS and IS ongoing public consultation. Decisions were never concrete until recently. That's why what started as "condos in the park" turned into the much better proposal we have now, and why construction only started somewhat recently.

We do not know if there were developers chomping at the bit.

Actually, we do. A lot of the proof is even in this thread.

Time and time again, I've mentioned how there was a competition started, and how NO ONE came forward. We know, thanks to information digging and reports by the Sun and the Citizen, that no developers were really chomping at the bit. We absolutely know this.

There certainly were a couple of different groups that chomped back in the 1990s.

Correction, there was ONE group that chomped, and they received lackluster support from locals, and it would've meant moving CFL somewhere else, an expensive proposition at the time.

I suspect that if there had been an open process, and a creative way to get developers interested in making proposals for different aspects of the site, instead of just giving the store away to OSMUG, there might have been interest. We'll never know.

John, this is simply not true, and hopefully, somewhere deep inside, you know that.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

Furthermore, high rises weren't often considered for the Glebe because of A) its smaller population and B) the high rise boom of the 70's was largely confined to downtown and areas near major or soon-to-be major Transitway stops. That's why we didn't see too many high rises (until recently) in places like the Glebe, Old Ottawa South, Hintonburg, Westboro, and large chunks of Vanier; they were further from the employment centres of the city at the time, not close to the Transitway, and not very dense neighbourhoods.

In fairness, the GCA's earliest success was preventing a wall of highrises from lining the canal. Some were actually built - on First and Third- but there isn't any doubt that the GCA played a pivotal role in preventing developers from acting in a way that was detrimental to the public interest.

Likewise, though I don't have the details, at one time there was a proposal to continue Carling straight through the Glebe and across the canal. Again, local residents played a key role in preventing what would have been a big mistake.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

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."



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.



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?



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).



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.



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.

Your detailed reply is appreciated. I'm not sure that we actually differ on a lot of these principles, it's just that we disagree on our interpretation of how things played out in this case.

In terms of mandate, my experience is that for any major position that it takes, the GCA seeks a mandate from its constituents. And where it doesn't get a clear mandate (on bike lanes for instance), it doesn't take a position. In this case, my interpretation is that those in opposition didn't like the mandate that they got (i.e. significant support in favour of the stadium and development), and chose to ignore it, while claiming to speak for the "community". I think that proponents knew that to be the case, and it undermined their message, which got increasingly more one-sided and further from a factual groundig as time went by.

In terms of consultations, for what it's worth, the display board model seems to be the approach that is most in favour across Ontario these days. It's not that the City was trying to avoid real consultation in this particular case, they were just following their usual model. While I think they should also do a larger question and answer in addition to the boards, I kind of doubt that would have been particularly productive with the green-shirt brigade in attendance.

Clive Doucet's video was actually one of the most effective tactics employed against the project. Unfortunately he and others had done so much to rachet up the hysteria by that point that his credibility wasn't what it could have been.

No question there were personal attacks against John Martin. All of the personal attacks on both sides were ugly and added nothing to the debate. However, John was a special case. He certainly took deliberate steps to put himself in the public eye and present himself as a legitimate alternative to OSEG. As such, I think the public had a right to scrutinize his claims - particularly with respect to his expertise (of which he had none) and financial wherewithal (zero), which were very relevant to his argument. Likewise, when he launched his very public court action, the public had a right to know that this was a serial litigant who regularly used the courts to force a position, was never successful, and didn't pay his costs. Once all of that was uncovered, it certainly added clarity to the picture.

While I understand the feeling that the City made its bed, and they should live with the mess, this is still your neighbourhood and your city, and resident engagement is the best (and only) way to keep the Glebe's status as an incredible place to live. The failure of Lansdowne is counterproductive to those goals. That is reason enough to try to help work through the challenges that a major change can bring.

[Buggys]

Originally Posted by phil235

In fairness, the GCA's earliest success was preventing a wall of highrises from lining the canal. Some were actually built - on First and Third- but there isn't any doubt that the GCA played a pivotal role in preventing developers from acting in a way that was detrimental to the public interest.

Likewise, though I don't have the details, at one time there was a proposal to continue Carling straight through the Glebe and across the canal. Again, local residents played a key role in preventing what would have been a big mistake.

Wow, if Carling were continued straight to Industrial Avenue, there wouldn't be as much congestion along that stretch of 417 or on Pretoria Bridge, and West/East Ottawa wouldn't be a segregated. This would've been a good thing!

[TMA-1]

I vote it's better now than it was in 2010. Except for that wanton destruction of the boreal forest on the north side. Hardly any trees left in Ottawa.




better now than it was by southfacing, on Flickr

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by Buggys

Wow, if Carling were continued straight to Industrial Avenue, there wouldn't be as much congestion along that stretch of 417 or on Pretoria Bridge, and West/East Ottawa wouldn't be a segregated. This would've been a good thing!

No kidding!! This would have been absolutely brilliant.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Harley613

No kidding!! This would have been absolutely brilliant.

Either you guys really are kidding, or you have been beamed in from some 1960s school of failed urban planning. The kind that teaches that building more collector roads reduces congestion and makes for stronger urban neighbourhoods. Then again, maybe not, as even in the 60s they figured out what a horrible idea that was.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by TMA-1

I vote it's better now than it was in 2010. Except for that wanton destruction of the boreal forest on the north side. Hardly any trees left in Ottawa.



better now than it was by southfacing, on Flickr

That's pretty incredible! I mean, nothing moves this fast in Ottawa; I used to joke with my family that there was only one guy building LeBreton flats

What's the timeline on the pedestrian bridge?

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by phil235

Either you guys really are kidding, or you have been beamed in from some 1960s school of failed urban planning. The kind that teaches that building more collector roads reduces congestion and makes for stronger urban neighbourhoods. Then again, maybe not, as even in the 60s they figured out what a horrible idea that was.

Very much agreed. 20'000ft urbanism has left gaping holes in cities in the name of "connecting the dots" instead of actually creating liveable places.

[alecz_dad]

Originally Posted by phil235

In fairness, the GCA's earliest success was preventing a wall of highrises from lining the canal. Some were actually built - on First and Third- but there isn't any doubt that the GCA played a pivotal role in preventing developers from acting in a way that was detrimental to the public interest.

Likewise, though I don't have the details, at one time there was a proposal to continue Carling straight through the Glebe and across the canal. Again, local residents played a key role in preventing what would have been a big mistake.

Thank you Phil for coming to the defense of history. Indeed, as you have pointed out, by the early-1970s developers were working towards the wall of apt bldgs along the canal. I recall the last remnants of a dozen houses being demolished for tge apt bldg at the end of Third and Fourth, when my family was moving in across the street.

Like smaller developers today buying up perfectly good houses and leveling them to replace them with mega-houses, they were within their rights. But residents, fearing a wholesale clearance, as took place in the eastermost part of the Golden Triangle, convinced a more enlightened City Council to place new height and density restrictions in the Glebe, to prevent the neighbourhood from being radically altered in short order.

The same was true of the Carling extension, which would have carved through the neighbourhood.

It's in that context that, that history of resistance, that the objections to Lansdowne have to be seen. There is profound mistrust of previous big schemes that were being put forward in the name of the greater civic good, to the detriment of the neighbourhood's existing residents.

Maybe it's just nostalgia for a lot of the gray-heads to want to go to the barricades again on Lansdowne, because many still remember those battles to stop the Carling extension and wall of apt buildings along the Q.E. Driveway.

But the old lions of the Glebe, like Bob Brocklebank or Clive Doucet remember the feeling that the community was not being listened to, and this seemed, and I would certainly say from my perspective, WAS, another example of the worst excesses of a City ggoverment and developers who seemed not to care one bit about how the people most directly affected by the proposed change would feel.

[jay2018]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

Thank you Phil for coming to the defense of history. Indeed, as you have pointed out, by the early-1970s developers were working towards the wall of apt bldgs along the canal. I recall the last remnants of a dozen houses being demolished for tge apt bldg at the end of Third and Fourth, when my family was moving in across the street.

Like smaller developers today buying up perfectly good houses and leveling them to replace them with mega-houses, they were within their rights. But residents, fearing a wholesale clearance, as took place in the eastermost part of the Golden Triangle, convinced a more enlightened City Council to place new height and density restrictions in the Glebe, to prevent the neighbourhood from being radically altered in short order.

The same was true of the Carling extension, which would have carved through the neighbourhood.

It's in that context that, that history of resistance, that the objections to Lansdowne have to be seen. There is profound mistrust of previous big schemes that were being put forward in the name of the greater civic good, to the detriment of the neighbourhood's existing residents.

Maybe it's just nostalgia for a lot of the gray-heads to want to go to the barricades again on Lansdowne, because many still remember those battles to stop the Carling extension and wall of apt buildings along the Q.E. Driveway.

But the old lions of the Glebe, like Bob Brocklebank or Clive Doucet remember the feeling that the community was not being listened to, and this seemed, and I would certainly say from my perspective, WAS, another example of the worst excesses of a City ggoverment and developers who seemed not to care one bit about how the people most directly affected by the proposed change would feel.

The thing people have to keep in mind is there has beena stadium and arena there for 80 plus years so when people act like this something new sorry thats not correct and don't forget there are people in the Glebe that support Landsdown.

[JackBauer24]

That "boreal Forrest" is where I grew up and parents still live - there really has been very little development in that area (mainly renovations and additions to the existing homes), so I think the lake of foliage has more to do with the time of year the pictures were taken - one the Fall when trees are preparing to loose its leaves, and Summer when trees are at their fullest.

Originally Posted by TMA-1

I vote it's better now than it was in 2010. Except for that wanton destruction of the boreal forest on the north side. Hardly any trees left in Ottawa.




better now than it was by southfacing, on Flickr

[JackBauer24]

So your local evidence of developers having their way and ruining the city consists of two examples - the growth of the eastern parts of the Glebe and the Golden Triangle? That's just part of a city growing, Ottawa doesn't have the same population today as it did in the 1970s - more people = more homes needed. And generally when cities grow, they grow from the centre first. I would have to look for a very long time to find a city that didn't have apartment/condo towers in the downtown/central area.

As for developers "working towards the wall of apt blogs along the canal". Firstly, it's pretty common practice for developers to ask for more than they want, knowing that they'll get less than what they ask for. It's kind of like selling your home, you list it at more than you're willing to selling it for to give yourself negotiating room. So the fact that developers may have asked to build towers all along the canal, they ultimately knew they wouldn't have free reign to build a "wall" of condos/apartments.

Secondly, people like looking at water and developers know this. It's not the most common thing to have a beautiful canal run through the middle of your city through some of the nicest neighborhoods in the city, and developers want to take advantage of this. So instead of having a few lucky single family or town homes in the golden triangle or Glebe having a great canal view, the developers have given more people the opportunity to have and enjoy that view. But if living in a high rise isn't your thing, there are still plenty of houses and town homes along the canal that you can buy (if you have the coin). That "wall" you spoke of, never actually happened, so both options a re still very much available.

"City ggoverment and developers who seemed not to care one bit about how the people most directly affected by the proposed change would feel."

Can I ask, or dare I ask, what negative effect has these high rises had on your well being? If you literally lived right next to the construction of one of those towers, I could completely understand your displeasure, but of the number of homes in the Glebe, a very very small minority have had that experience. But for the majority of Glebites, I'm not quite sure how the presence of these apartments and condos is such an awful thing. The residents of these towers are people who have to earn a decent salary to afford the cost of real estate and the cost of living in the Glebe. So what exactly is it about high rises? Could it be you are just anti-change if it affects your life, but pro-change if it's elsewhere? Nahhhh couldn't be.


the

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

Thank you Phil for coming to the defense of history. Indeed, as you have pointed out, by the early-1970s developers were working towards the wall of apt bldgs along the canal. I recall the last remnants of a dozen houses being demolished for tge apt bldg at the end of Third and Fourth, when my family was moving in across the street.

Like smaller developers today buying up perfectly good houses and leveling them to replace them with mega-houses, they were within their rights. But residents, fearing a wholesale clearance, as took place in the eastermost part of the Golden Triangle, convinced a more enlightened City Council to place new height and density restrictions in the Glebe, to prevent the neighbourhood from being radically altered in short order.

The same was true of the Carling extension, which would have carved through the neighbourhood.

It's in that context that, that history of resistance, that the objections to Lansdowne have to be seen. There is profound mistrust of previous big schemes that were being put forward in the name of the greater civic good, to the detriment of the neighbourhood's existing residents.

Maybe it's just nostalgia for a lot of the gray-heads to want to go to the barricades again on Lansdowne, because many still remember those battles to stop the Carling extension and wall of apt buildings along the Q.E. Driveway.

But the old lions of the Glebe, like Bob Brocklebank or Clive Doucet remember the feeling that the community was not being listened to, and this seemed, and I would certainly say from my perspective, WAS, another example of the worst excesses of a City ggoverment and developers who seemed not to care one bit about how the people most directly affected by the proposed change would feel.

[TMA-1]

What I meant was the thin strip of trees on the north side of the Landsdowne property. It's now gone and while some may lament the saw it makes little difference in the overall Ottawa canopy. Part of my purpose in posting aerials is to give the lie to the mantra that Ottawa Needs More Green Space (tm). From my position at 3100 feet one can't usually *see* Ottawa for the trees.

{quote edited}

Originally Posted by JackBauer24

That "boreal forest" is where I grew up and parents still live - there really has been very little development in that area (mainly renovations and additions to the existing homes), so I think the lack of foliage has more to do with the time of year the pictures were taken - one the Fall when trees are preparing to lose their leaves, and Summer when trees are at their fullest.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by JackBauer24

So your local evidence of developers having their way and ruining the city consists of two examples - the growth of the eastern parts of the Glebe and the Golden Triangle? That's just part of a city growing, Ottawa doesn't have the same population today as it did in the 1970s - more people = more homes needed. And generally when cities grow, they grow from the centre first. I would have to look for a very long time to find a city that didn't have apartment/condo towers in the downtown/central area.

As for developers "working towards the wall of apt blogs along the canal". Firstly, it's pretty common practice for developers to ask for more than they want, knowing that they'll get less than what they ask for. It's kind of like selling your home, you list it at more than you're willing to selling it for to give yourself negotiating room. So the fact that developers may have asked to build towers all along the canal, they ultimately knew they wouldn't have free reign to build a "wall" of condos/apartments.

Secondly, people like looking at water and developers know this. It's not the most common thing to have a beautiful canal run through the middle of your city through some of the nicest neighborhoods in the city, and developers want to take advantage of this. So instead of having a few lucky single family or town homes in the golden triangle or Glebe having a great canal view, the developers have given more people the opportunity to have and enjoy that view. But if living in a high rise isn't your thing, there are still plenty of houses and town homes along the canal that you can buy (if you have the coin). That "wall" you spoke of, never actually happened, so both options a re still very much available.

"City ggoverment and developers who seemed not to care one bit about how the people most directly affected by the proposed change would feel."

Can I ask, or dare I ask, what negative effect has these high rises had on your well being? If you literally lived right next to the construction of one of those towers, I could completely understand your displeasure, but of the number of homes in the Glebe, a very very small minority have had that experience. But for the majority of Glebites, I'm not quite sure how the presence of these apartments and condos is such an awful thing. The residents of these towers are people who have to earn a decent salary to afford the cost of real estate and the cost of living in the Glebe. So what exactly is it about high rises? Could it be you are just anti-change if it affects your life, but pro-change if it's elsewhere? Nahhhh couldn't be.


the

Yes intensification is a necessary and desirable thing, but all intensification is not made equal. As you know, I'm very much in favour of intensification of the Glebe, but it does have to be done in a thoughtful way or you start negating what makes a neighbourhood desirable in the first place.

A wall of highrises on the canal is both unnecessary and inappropriate. It would have had the effect of creating a real and symbolic barrier along the water which would have cut the neighbourhood off from the canal, while detracting from the canal at the same time. That is the reason people were so opposed to the idea of highrises on the back portion of Lansdowne. There are plenty of places for intensification without building towers there.

Ottawa is right to limit development right along the canal. Cities that have allowed their waterfronts to be cut off by highrises almost invariably regret it. See Harbourfront in Toronto for an obvious example (granted they did it really right with a highway and a row of towers).

[jay2018]

Phil

I think in most cases tall buildings like far better then little small ones.