Lansdowne Park Redevelopment Phase 1 | Completed

[alecz_dad]

Originally Posted by jay2018

alecz_dad

This has been going on and off for about 20 years now we can't keep taliking for years and years.

But there wasn't much "talking". Instead, periodically developers would come up with a -- have to say it -- scheme, to build something BIG at Lansdowne. And while there would be argument in support or opposition to the particular plan, there was never any sustained debate, discussion and thought about the full range of possibilities for Lansdowne.

The failed early-1990s redevelopment scheme ended up with some quite positive results: the heritage designation of the Aberdeen Pavilion and Horticukture Bldg, and thd renovation of the Aberdeen; the concentration of the recreational facilities within one section of Sylvia Holden Park, adjacent to the new wading pool in the northeast part of Lansdowne, and the extension of Sylvia Holden west along Holmwood as a buffer and greenway; the construction of a purpose-built daycare facilty next to the fire station on Fifth Ave.

Unfortunately, after that, tge City rather lost interest, and instead of using that as an opportuinty to launch a real discussion, Lansdowne was left underused and little loved. A lot of OSMUG-huggers seem to think it was up to concerned residents to have come up with the solution in the intervening years, and since they didn't then their views when it came to the current scheme were rightfully discounted. But really, how were they to tell the City what to do with its facility, when therecwas never much indication that they wanted residents' ideas.

[alecz_dad]

Originally Posted by JFFournier

Define "meaningful engagement".

All I know is that at any info session or Q&A I've been to, the "concerned residents" turned the event into a circus.

But of course, they're not at fault. The oppressive city officials force them into it because they're just not being listened to.

Meaningful engagement would have meant inviting residents, from around the city, to give their ideas about what could have been done with Lansdowne, long before there was ever a specific proposal.

As it was, by the time there was an opportuinity for residents to expess their views (and don't forget that originally the Lansdowne "consultations" were meant to be purely show and tell presentations, with no opportuinty for attendees to publicly put questions to the proponents) there was a fleshed-out proposal, with the developers' employees wandering around the meetings with City of Ottawa nametag s, implyimg that the City was already behind the plan not simply considering a partnership.

So to me it's not surprising that people strongly opposed to OSMUG's partucular scheme, or just uneasy about how it seemed to appear out of nowhere, to being at the cusp of Council voting on it , were very emotional, and may have sought to try to wrest back some of the e control over those events from the City, who seemed to have set them up purely as windiw dressing to help justify the decision they had already made.

[jay2018]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

But there wasn't much "talking". Instead, periodically developers would come up with a -- have to say it -- scheme, to build something BIG at Lansdowne. And while there would be argument in support or opposition to the particular plan, there was never any sustained debate, discussion and thought about the full range of possibilities for Lansdowne.

The failed early-1990s redevelopment scheme ended up with some quite positive results: the heritage designation of the Aberdeen Pavilion and Horticukture Bldg, and thd renovation of the Aberdeen; the concentration of the recreational facilities within one section of Sylvia Holden Park, adjacent to the new wading pool in the northeast part of Lansdowne, and the extension of Sylvia Holden west along Holmwood as a buffer and greenway; the construction of a purpose-built daycare facilty next to the fire station on Fifth Ave.

Unfortunately, after that, tge City rather lost interest, and instead of using that as an opportuinty to launch a real discussion, Lansdowne was left underused and little loved. A lot of OSMUG-huggers seem to think it was up to concerned residents to have come up with the solution in the intervening years, and since they didn't then their views when it came to the current scheme were rightfully discounted. But really, how were they to tell the City what to do with its facility, when therecwas never much indication that they wanted residents' ideas.

A real discussion goes both ways that means those in the Glebe would have to be open to the idea of a stadium and arena you can't say we want to have ideas and debate it but we don't want sports/movie thearters/condos/retail.

[JFFournier]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

Meaningful engagement would have meant inviting residents, from around the city, to give their ideas about what could have been done with Lansdowne, long before there was ever a specific proposal.

As it was, by the time there was an opportuinity for residents to expess their views (and don't forget that originally the Lansdowne "consultations" were meant to be purely show and tell presentations, with no opportuinty for attendees to publicly put questions to the proponents) there was a fleshed-out proposal, with the developers' employees wandering around the meetings with City of Ottawa nametag s, implyimg that the City was already behind the plan not simply considering a partnership.

So to me it's not surprising that people strongly opposed to OSMUG's partucular scheme, or just uneasy about how it seemed to appear out of nowhere, to being at the cusp of Council voting on it , were very emotional, and may have sought to try to wrest back some of the e control over those events from the City, who seemed to have set them up purely as windiw dressing to help justify the decision they had already made.

Sorry, but no. That's nothing but justification for the overly dramatic, and often childish, reaction to the proposal.

I (and many others) once asked opponents to the plan where they are when someone ISN'T trying to build at Lansdowne. Why do they not take action then? The response I got was that it wasn't the job of residents to come up with a good plan.

You can't have it both ways. You can't wait around for an idea, then when someone else has one, complain that no one checked with you first. This is where you once again sound as though you refer to the nearby residents as "having a say" when in actual fact, you mean "have complete decision-making authority" or veto power if it's not to your liking.

There has never been anything preventing anyone from the neighborhood (or outside it) from submitting ideas, and the Glebe has never had any difficulty getting organized towards a common goal. I find it hard to believe, in light of the many times that residents have been vocally opposed to a number of issues, that they were shy about doing so.

They only do when someone suggests an addition to the park, and that is why they are perceived as being satisfied with the status quo. Again, no PR campaign required, just about 4 decades of history.

[JackBauer24]

Wait, what??! Are you serious? Developers went around to desirable locations in an attempt to buy land to build on? Next you're going to tell me that they were going to try to sell the project they wanted to build. This is breaking news - have you gone to CBC with this?

If you want a neighbourhood that will experience little to no change during your time of residence, please check out Greely, Osgoode, Carp, etc... Otherwise, accept the fact the desirable neighbourhoods (such as the Glebe and downtown) will change - usually in the way of higher density changes.

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

I can attest to the fact that very likely that would have been the end result if residents hadn't sought protection from the City. I know my parents were approached several times by developers seeking to buy up houses at the end of Third Ave. on the north side, for the purpose of building another end of block hirise. And many of the other houses then were owned by absentee landlords, who had little concern for how another tall building would affect the neighbourhood, and would probably have jumped at the offers.

[JackBauer24]

Maybe, just maybe, the majority of residents (and keep in mind, this facility is being built to serve ALL Ottawa residents, not just Glebites) were fine with a stadium at that location and simply wanted it to be improved. I know, from your perspective of one of the members of the small minority who wanted it to be a big green park or whatever, it's hard to fathom that most residents are satisfied with Lansdowne being stadium lands with added retail, but just look at this forum. Yes, it's a small sample size, but look at the ratio of pro-Lansdowne v anti-Lansdowne.

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

But there wasn't much "talking". Instead, periodically developers would come up with a -- have to say it -- scheme, to build something BIG at Lansdowne. And while there would be argument in support or opposition to the particular plan, there was never any sustained debate, discussion and thought about the full range of possibilities for Lansdowne.

The failed early-1990s redevelopment scheme ended up with some quite positive results: the heritage designation of the Aberdeen Pavilion and Horticukture Bldg, and thd renovation of the Aberdeen; the concentration of the recreational facilities within one section of Sylvia Holden Park, adjacent to the new wading pool in the northeast part of Lansdowne, and the extension of Sylvia Holden west along Holmwood as a buffer and greenway; the construction of a purpose-built daycare facilty next to the fire station on Fifth Ave.

Unfortunately, after that, tge City rather lost interest, and instead of using that as an opportuinty to launch a real discussion, Lansdowne was left underused and little loved. A lot of OSMUG-huggers seem to think it was up to concerned residents to have come up with the solution in the intervening years, and since they didn't then their views when it came to the current scheme were rightfully discounted. But really, how were they to tell the City what to do with its facility, when therecwas never much indication that they wanted residents' ideas.

[ThaLoveDocta]

Originally Posted by JackBauer24

Maybe, just maybe, the majority of residents (and keep in mind, this facility is being built to serve ALL Ottawa residents, not just Glebites) were fine with a stadium at that location and simply wanted it to be improved. I know, from your perspective of one of the members of the small minority who wanted it to be a big green park or whatever, it's hard to fathom that most residents are satisfied with Lansdowne being stadium lands with added retail, but just look at this forum. Yes, it's a small sample size, but look at the ratio of pro-Lansdowne v anti-Lansdowne.

Don't forget the Glebites who count themselves as "stadium in the Glebe" fans.... There are a good number of us. I would wager even the 'silent majority'

[JFFournier]

Originally Posted by ThaLoveDocta

Don't forget the Glebites who count themselves as "stadium in the Glebe" fans.... There are a good number of us. I would wager even the 'silent majority'

This is why this is whole complaint about how the city didn't listen are so weak.

At one point, the letsgetitright.ca website had a function by which you could e-mail all councillors simultaneously. So...I used it to speak in favour of the proposal and make suggsetions. Why not?

There was never a majority opposed to the proposal. At its worst it was a small majority in favour.

I knew a lot of people in favour, but we didn't all gather round and sing protest songs, use megaphones or heckle the city manager during Q&A sessions. Just because opponents chose to make themselves louder doesn't mean they were more numerous or entitled to a greater voice.

[JackBauer24]

So... you could say Lansdowne finally proved that the squeaky wheel doesn't get the grease, or get to implement ridiculous ideas which the majority oppose.

Originally Posted by JFFournier

This is why this is whole complaint about how the city didn't listen are so weak.

At one point, the letsgetitright.ca website had a function by which you could e-mail all councillors simultaneously. So...I used it to speak in favour of the proposal and make suggsetions. Why not?

There was never a majority opposed to the proposal. At its worst it was a small majority in favour.

I knew a lot of people in favour, but we didn't all gather round and sing protest songs, use megaphones or heckle the city manager during Q&A sessions. Just because opponents chose to make themselves louder doesn't mean they were more numerous or entitled to a greater voice.

[JFFournier]

Originally Posted by JackBauer24

So... you could say Lansdowne finally proved that the squeaky wheel doesn't get the grease, or get to implement ridiculous ideas which the majority oppose.

Lol...something like that...

Hey, with the number of possible outcomes for Lansdowne, SOMEBODY was going to end up disappointed. Alecz_dad just wishes it was someone else.

The plan changed numerous times since it first hit media, to when it was known as Lansdowne Live, to now. The "problem" isn't that people didn't get to speak their minds, it's that Alecz_dad doesn't like the result regardless.

Here are the EKOS poll results from December 2008.

=========================================
http://www.ekos.com/admin/article.asp?id=357

Very first line: "The Lansdowne Live proposal elicits very high awareness (86%) and support (79%)".

"There is also some interest in seeing alternatives (43%)".

"Support for the “Lansdowne Live” proposal outweighs opposition by a margin of more than 4 to 1; even among those who want to wait, the vast majority find the proposal to be more than acceptable"

"High attraction to “Lansdowne Live” is rooted in the proposal’s following strengths:
...
⁻ The multidimensionality of the plan; people want a full community, urban centre that features participatory elements (e.g., soccer fields for children), a retail hub with restaurants and nightlife, and professional sports teams (i.e., CFL, OHL)
⁻ The prospect of having a venue that can hold big events (e.g., Commonwealth games, outdoor concerts)"
=========================================


The people have (had) spoken.

[JFFournier]

Here's another reference to research being done in regards to what people wanted from Lansdowne, this time in May 2011.

http://blogs.canoe.ca/cityhall/general/enquiring-minds-want-to-know/comment-page-1/

[McC]

Originally Posted by JFFournier

L
Hey, with the number of possible outcomes for Lansdowne, SOMEBODY was going to end up disappointed.

hey, I'm still disappointed too; they picked my favourite plan, with the extra bridges, then chopped the extra bridges!

[phil235]

Originally Posted by ThaLoveDocta

Don't forget the Glebites who count themselves as "stadium in the Glebe" fans.... There are a good number of us. I would wager even the 'silent majority'

I'm one of them. I always thought that the stadium/arena were part of what makes the neighbourhood unique. I love that I can walk my kids to a 67s game.

[JackBauer24]

I loved the bridges too, but I guess for half of the year, the canal is frozen over and you can walk across.

I was also hoping for more of a water-front presence too, I can't recall which proposal has the marina, but I liked that idea a lot. It took advantage of the canal, which very few cities have.

I guess we're all a little disappointed in one way or another, and I guess we all have different ways of expressing our disappointment.

Originally Posted by McC

hey, I'm still disappointed too; they picked my favourite plan, with the extra bridges, then chopped the extra bridges!

[alecz_dad]

While you may point to the 2008 Ekos poll as evidence that there was unalloyed support for the Lansdowne scheme, looking elsewhere the results are less unambiguously supportive of OSMUG's scheme.

For example, the result of "79% support for Lansdowne Live" needs to be unpacked. For one thing, this included both those who responded "somewhat support" and "strongly support." If you consider only "strongly support" the number goes down to 41%.

Also, I think that it is important to look at the question that was asked:

The City of Ottawa has announced its intention to redevelop the Lansdowne Park area and facility in the Glebe. At the same time, a local group of business and community leaders has been awarded a conditional franchise to bring a CFL football team back to Ottawa. Do you support or oppose a plan to redevelop the area at Lansdowne park in the Glebe with a renovated multi-purpose sports and entertainment stadium, arena and civic event complex, known as “Lansdowne Live”?

Notice anything missing? No mention of retail, condos or offices. I wonder how the result might have been different if the question had included all the aspects of the proposed scheme?

Indeed, elsewhere in the results, in response to the question:

"How important would each of the following features of a redeveloped Lansdowne Park be?";

retail and even football and hockey facilities were rated as less important than facilities for amateur sports:

* Facilities for amateur sports: 66% Very important or Essential
* A variety of shops and restaurants to attract people to the area: 49% Very important or Essential
* Facilities for CFL football and Ottawa 67s hockey: 49% Very important or Essential

yet formal facilities for amateur sports at Lansdowne are not included in the OSMUG scheme.
Indeed, there is a net loss of dedicated facilities for amateur sport, with the demolition of the Coliseum building, where indoor track and soccer was played; as well as the forced move of the winter soccerdome from the playing field at Frank Clair Stadium, which has not been able to find a suitable new home, despite the City's promises that they would find one.


The hierarchy of support for different elements of the proposed redevelopment was further elaborated in the 2009 Nanos poll:

"On a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is not at all comfortable and 10 is very comfortable, how would you describe
your level of comfort with the following elements of the Lansdowne Live Plan?"

The results showed the lowest scores for comfort with the inclusion of residential, retail, office, movie theatre and hotel.

• Having more green space: 7.51
• Having a permanent farmers' market: 7.48
• Having underground parking: 6.91
• Having the City renovate the Civic Centre: 6.66
• Having an open air football/soccer stadium: 6.62
• Having the City renovate Frank Clair Stadium: 5.88
• Having a residential component: 5.01
• Having retail space: 5.21
• Having office space: 4.74
• Having a first run movie theatre: 4.71
• Having a hotel: 4.63

Maybe that's why the earlier Ekos poll didn't make any specific reference to the presence of retail, etc. in the question that generated the result you referenced.

Also, the fact that OSMUG's proposal was unsolicited was not as widely accepted as the City and proponents argued:

Some people think an unsolicited proposal for the Lansdowne Park project is acceptable because if moves the project forward. Others think that accepting an unsolicited proposal is unacceptable because of the importance of the project. Which of these two views, best reflects your personal view?

;
the largest number of respondents (43%) thought it would be unacceptable for the City to move forward on the proposal because it was unsolicited, versus 39% who thought it was acceptable.

And there was far from unanimity on the desire to go forward with the OSMUG scheme:

"Some groups in the City have said that Ottawa should wait and solicit more proposals for redeveloping Lansdowne Park. Others have said that the site has been poorly used and in disrepair for too long, if a viable option is on the table we should pursue that. Which statement is closest to your own point of view?

The gap between those who wanted to go ahead with the OSMUG proposal and those who wanted to see if there might be more proponents that might come forward, was only 6%: 49% "…should pursue options currently on the table", 43% "…solicit more proposals." Which could be reduced to less than 3% when taking into account the margin of error of +/- 3.3.

It's telling too that you say "The plan changed numerous times since it first hit media," because it points to what I have been saying about the lack of meaningful public consultation from the earliest stages. The fact is, the first that most people heard about any particular process towards redeveloping Lansdowne, came when OSMUG started putting forward it's plans in the media.

As Sir Humphrey Appelby demonstrated, you can say anything with statistics. So, your gotcha stat can just as easily be challenged by mine.

Originally Posted by JFFournier

Lol...something like that...

Hey, with the number of possible outcomes for Lansdowne, SOMEBODY was going to end up disappointed. Alecz_dad just wishes it was someone else.

The plan changed numerous times since it first hit media, to when it was known as Lansdowne Live, to now. The "problem" isn't that people didn't get to speak their minds, it's that Alecz_dad doesn't like the result regardless.

Here are the EKOS poll results from December 2008.

=========================================
http://www.ekos.com/admin/article.asp?id=357

Very first line: "The Lansdowne Live proposal elicits very high awareness (86%) and support (79%)".

"There is also some interest in seeing alternatives (43%)".

"Support for the “Lansdowne Live” proposal outweighs opposition by a margin of more than 4 to 1; even among those who want to wait, the vast majority find the proposal to be more than acceptable"

"High attraction to “Lansdowne Live” is rooted in the proposal’s following strengths:
...
⁻ The multidimensionality of the plan; people want a full community, urban centre that features participatory elements (e.g., soccer fields for children), a retail hub with restaurants and nightlife, and professional sports teams (i.e., CFL, OHL)
⁻ The prospect of having a venue that can hold big events (e.g., Commonwealth games, outdoor concerts)"
=========================================


The people have (had) spoken.

[alecz_dad]

Originally Posted by JackBauer24

I loved the bridges too, but I guess for half of the year, the canal is frozen over and you can walk across.

Don't forget global warming. The canal season is shorter and shorter. So, I don't think ice is a very reliable way to get Lansdowne-bound visitors from their cars parked in Old Ottawa East to Lansdowne.

But fear not, there was already a community-based initiative underway for several years to get the City to build a pedestrian bridge over the Canal, from Fifth Avenue to Clegg Street on the east side of the Canal, that has continued to move on.

[JFFournier]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

While you may point to the 2008 Ekos poll as evidence that there was unalloyed support for the Lansdowne scheme, looking elsewhere the results are less unambiguously supportive of OSMUG's scheme.

You said that you werent aware of polls in favour of the proposal. I just showed you one from shortly after it was announced that was very much in favour. But when THAT happens, stats can show anything we want them to.

Even the Nanos poll you refer to ultimately show people being in favour.

...the most cited recommendation was to just do it/too many delays (23%). After that the five recommendations with the most cited are to
reconsider plan/have alternatives (11%)...

Whether you agree with the sentiment, or how people reached it, is irrelevant. There was support for this plan. You hide behind the fact that they didn't ask before instead of after as cause for your outrage but it really doesn't matter. People knew about the residential aspect and still supported it.

So again, the problem isn't that you didn't have a say, it's that you were outvoted.

[JackBauer24]

The canal is 2-3 feet at its deepest in the fall and winter. Plus even when the surface ice is soft, its often frozen all the way through. The canal is fine to walk across a lot longer than it is to skate on.

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

Don't forget global warming. The canal season is shorter and shorter. So, I don't think ice is a very reliable way to get Lansdowne-bound visitors from their cars parked in Old Ottawa East to Lansdowne.

But fear not, there was already a community-based initiative underway for several years to get the City to build a pedestrian bridge over the Canal, from Fifth Avenue to Clegg Street on the east side of the Canal, that has continued to move on.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by JFFournier

You said that you werent aware of polls in favour of the proposal. I just showed you one from shortly after it was announced that was very much in favour. But when THAT happens, stats can show anything we want them to.

Even the Nanos poll you refer to ultimately show people being in favour.

...the most cited recommendation was to just do it/too many delays (23%). After that the five recommendations with the most cited are to
reconsider plan/have alternatives (11%)...

Whether you agree with the sentiment, or how people reached it, is irrelevant. There was support for this plan. You hide behind the fact that they didn't ask before instead of after as cause for your outrage but it really doesn't matter. People knew about the residential aspect and still supported it.

So again, the problem isn't that you didn't have a say, it's that you were outvoted.

I'm just going to warn you that I and several others have been down this road before with John Martin (or "alecz_dad" as he likes to be called now). It goes nowhere fast, and only ends with the locking/closing of a thread. You can ask the simplest questions, ask for proof, and show clear and concise evidence to the contrary of his claims, and he will blissfully ignore it and carry on.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

For example, the result of "79% support for Lansdowne Live" needs to be unpacked. For one thing, this included both those who responded "somewhat support" and "strongly support." If you consider only "strongly support" the number goes down to 41%.

I'm not sure you have demonstrated what you thought you were demonstrating. For a major project/public expense to have almost 80% support, 41% of which is strong, is quite unusual. I read that as remarkably strong public support.

Likewise, for 50% of the population to say that the stadium and arena are "very important or essential" is also very strong support, given that they are expensive projects that are actually used by a minority of the population in any given year (as is basically every civic facility of any kind). If you are waiting for a big majority to support each particular element of the project, you are going to be waiting a long time.

Overall, your analysis tells me that each part of the project has significant support, and that people are very strongly behind the complete package.