Lansdowne Park Redevelopment Phase 1 | Completed

[JFFournier]

Originally Posted by phil235

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.

And lower support for the residential element is to be expected too, of course. I don't plan on living there so I can't be all that excited for something I'm not going to use.

However, you may remember a Sun (?) article about how excited the people who were buying the condos were when they finally got the opportunity. So it's not like that feature doesn't have its suporters either.

[JFFournier]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

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.

Oh, I know...

I don't care if people hate the plan. Just hate it for what it is, not some fabricated vision of it.

[alecz_dad]

Originally Posted by phil235

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.

I guess I think that the large number of people that fell into the Somewhat Support category is highly relevant, because if I think about the conversations I have had with people not directly affected by the Lansdowne scheme, about the particulars of it (admittedly, from my perspective) that many people who formerly were "well, why not," or "it's better than nothing," etc. soft supporters, became much more skeptical about it.

It just seems that the process of taking the temperature of the public's opinion about what ought to be done, was necessarily biased by the fact that, rather than having an open-ended process of asking "what should there be there?" before any formal proposal was presented, it was always presented as "well, here's this proposal. your choice is this, or do nothing."

Originally Posted by phil235

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.

This is the problematic thing about cities building (or renovating) sports facilities for private sports businesses. They are the sort of thing that tends to capture a disproportionate amount of public support, despite the fact that their claims of economic development are typically overstated. The right-leaning CATO Institute, for example, declared "city officials across the nation should welcome major league sports teams. But only if they are willing to pay their own ticket."

Originally Posted by phil235

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

I must disagree. I think that the comfort question is telling, because it is clear from it that people were not equally comfortable with the retail, movie, office, etc. aspects of the proposal, as they were with the prospect of greenspace and renovation of the stadium and arena.

However, the developers managed to ensnare the renovation of the sports facilities, into a convoluted revenue-sharing arrangement with private developers, to permit their de facto privatization of public lands.

[alecz_dad]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

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.

First, let me clarify that, think what I might of John Martin, I'm not him. (Although I can see that as a compliment, as I happen to think he had some stones just trying to take on the City/OSMUG multi-headed hydra.)

That said, although I may be repetitive, in that I persist in raising questions about the Lansdowne scheme, I hope that this would not result in someone closing down the thread. What would that say about the openness of this forum to all points of view?

Indeed, I see some evidence that my point of view is not entirely unwelcome, as there are still commenters, who, even if they do not wholeheartedly support my statements, at least have used them as springboards for extending the discussion from their perspectives.

As for asking the simplest questions, asking for proof, etc. I think that I do try to do so, either through rhetorical argument, or references to external sources. I would respond also by saying that many, but not all, of those commenters responding to my posts, tend to be far less reflective and detailed than mine.

[JackBauer24]

I guess I think that the large number of people that fell into the Somewhat Support category is highly relevant, because if I think about the conversations I have had with people not directly affected by the Lansdowne scheme

And do you think you even spoke to anywhere near the majority of the population of Ottawa? I hardly doubt that from your "conversations" you could have gotten a true feel for what the city as a whole thought. If you spoke to 10 people every day about this issue for 4 years, you would have only spoken to 14,600 people. There are over 1M in the greater Ottawa area.

It just seems that the process of taking the temperature of the public's opinion about what ought to be done, was necessarily biased by the fact that, rather than having an open-ended process of asking "what should there be there?" before any formal proposal was presented, it was always presented as "well, here's this proposal. your choice is this, or do nothing."

That's how you interpreted it. Anyone that had the means of constructing anything on that property was allowed to submit a proposal, OSEG simply presented theirs. Again, as belaboured as this point is, the majority of Ottawans grew up with Lansdowne being stadium grounds and were happy to keep it as such.

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

I guess I think that the large number of people that fell into the Somewhat Support category is highly relevant, because if I think about the conversations I have had with people not directly affected by the Lansdowne scheme, about the particulars of it (admittedly, from my perspective) that many people who formerly were "well, why not," or "it's better than nothing," etc. soft supporters, became much more skeptical about it.

It just seems that the process of taking the temperature of the public's opinion about what ought to be done, was necessarily biased by the fact that, rather than having an open-ended process of asking "what should there be there?" before any formal proposal was presented, it was always presented as "well, here's this proposal. your choice is this, or do nothing."



This is the problematic thing about cities building (or renovating) sports facilities for private sports businesses. They are the sort of thing that tends to capture a disproportionate amount of public support, despite the fact that their claims of economic development are typically overstated. The right-leaning CATO Institute, for example, declared "city officials across the nation should welcome major league sports teams. But only if they are willing to pay their own ticket."



I must disagree. I think that the comfort question is telling, because it is clear from it that people were not equally comfortable with the retail, movie, office, etc. aspects of the proposal, as they were with the prospect of greenspace and renovation of the stadium and arena.

However, the developers managed to ensnare the renovation of the sports facilities, into a convoluted revenue-sharing arrangement with private developers, to permit their de facto privatization of public lands.

[JackBauer24]

Aside from you, I have seen exactly zero posters on this site refer to OSEG as OSMUG, I have seen zero other posters remotely agree with any post you've made, and I have seen zero contributors to this website hint at the fact that your point of view is well founded.

The conversations that have "spring boarded" from your comments have generally revolved around the fact that your anti-Lansdowne bit is getting very tiresome to all.

I think I speak for all of the other commentors on here when I say that we'd much prefer to discuss the construction of Lansdowne and it's progress, rather than how fair or unfair you thought the approval process was.

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

Indeed, I see some evidence that my point of view is not entirely unwelcome, as there are still commenters, who, even if they do not wholeheartedly support my statements, at least have used them as springboards for extending the discussion from their perspectives.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

First, let me clarify that, think what I might of John Martin, I'm not him. (Although I can see that as a compliment, as I happen to think he had some stones just trying to take on the City/OSMUG multi-headed hydra.)

Uh-huh. Right. Like you and "jemartin" don't have eerily similar conduct and beliefs.

- Childish attempts at making fun of my username, and the OSEG group.
- Claims of conspiracy.
- Unyielding faith and support of the LPC "plan".
- Inability to answer direct and simple questions.
- Inability to provide proof of any wrongdoing on the part of the city.
- Inability to discuss developments in Ottawa other than Lansdowne.
- Delusions of what the park is and who it is/should be for.
- Delusions of grandeur and moral righteousness.
- Superiority complex.
- Willful ignorance of proof brought to bear by other forumers.
- Refusal to accept being wrong.
- Similar writing style and grammar.

That said, although I may be repetitive, in that I persist in raising questions about the Lansdowne scheme, I hope that this would not result in someone closing down the thread. What would that say about the openness of this forum to all points of view?

See, this is what I'm talking about; this is so like you/John Martin to say.

As for asking the simplest questions, asking for proof, etc. I think that I do try to do so, either through rhetorical argument, or references to external sources. I would respond also by saying that many, but not all, of those commenters responding to my posts, tend to be far less reflective and detailed than mine.

Try harder then, because you're not answering people's simple questions and challenges, nor truly addressing their queries. I'm not even saying this on their behalf; a bunch of posts on the last few pages are other forumers trying to get an answer out of you and you are simply not obliging them.

[alecz_dad]

Originally Posted by JackBauer24

And do you think you even spoke to anywhere near the majority of the population of Ottawa? I hardly doubt that from your "conversations" you could have gotten a true feel for what the city as a whole thought. If you spoke to 10 people every day about this issue for 4 years, you would have only spoken to 14,600 people. There are over 1M in the greater Ottawa area.

No, of course I don't think that I would have ever come close to speaking to even a fraction of the residents of Ottawa. However, there were some people that I talked with about it, who lived far from the Glebe, who I would not have expected to oppose the scheme, but surprised me in their opposition -- usually because they saw it as a boondoggle that would end up costing them in the future.

And there were others, again far-removed from Lansdowne, who although they were vaguely supportive of the scheme, once I started to ask them about what they actually knew about it, and to talk about the density of the planned construction and the upfront cost to City taxpayers, cooled to it.

Also, despite your dismissal of my anecdotal results as irrelevant, it often seems that OSMUG-huggers have been quick to use the fact that they spoke to some Glebe resident or another who were not opposed to the scheme, as proof positive that really there was no significant opposition to it in the neighbourhood.
But just as you point out that "If you spoke to 10 people every day about this issue for 4 years, you would have only spoken to 14,600 people," that's somewhere in the vicinity of the population of the Glebe. So, I rather doubt that anyone came close to talking to all of those people either. And so, as evidence of any definitive support among Glebe residents for the scheme, I would say that all of the anecdotes offered here amount to little either.

Originally Posted by JackBauer24

That's how you interpreted it. Anyone that had the means of constructing anything on that property was allowed to submit a proposal, OSEG simply presented theirs.

Again, as belaboured as this point is, the majority of Ottawans grew up with Lansdowne being stadium grounds and were happy to keep it as such.

Of course, anyone was "allowed" to submit a proposal for Lansdowne. However, I think there is a big difference between the theoretical ability to submit a proposal, and the certainty that OSMUG must have had that former Chief Jester (and Mayor) LarryO would support their plan, without any opportunity for other proposals to be solicited.

Indeed, I'm a bit surprised that once John Martin came along with the Conservancy proposal that the City didn't agree to accept it, so that they could legitimize their intention to partner with OSMUG and prove that this was not a sole-source process. Likely, a comparative review of the two proposals would find the Conservancy lacking, if only due to the lack of financial backing for it.
But, was there concern that a line-by-line comparison of the two proposals simply on the merits of how their elements could best meet the requirements set out by Council, might have found OSMUG's plan lacking in areas.

As for Ottawans' desire to keep the stadium at Lansdowne because that is where it always has been, I suppose the same could be said of the SuperEx (which although not largely-loved by Glebe residents, was certainly less disruptive overall than the OSMUG scheme), in that the Exhibition was the original raison d'etre for Lansdowne, and had been present at the location even longer than a football stadium.

Nonetheless, the City and OSMUG-huggers wasted no time in throwing it under the bus. Not only did they evict it from it's historic site -- deeming it an anachronism (despite the fact that many other Canadian cities still have late-summer fairs) they left it swinging in the breeze, without enough resources to help it to re-establish itself at a new location.

So, it seems that the City is only interested in partnering in schemes from private corporations for the de facto privatization of public land will be considered, rather than helping to sustain a not-for-profit organization like the CCEA in a new location.

[migo]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

No, of course I don't think!

It's time to move on or move out Johnny-Boy!

[phil235]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

Indeed, I'm a bit surprised that once John Martin came along with the Conservancy proposal that the City didn't agree to accept it, so that they could legitimize their intention to partner with OSMUG and prove that this was not a sole-source process. Likely, a comparative review of the two proposals would find the Conservancy lacking, if only due to the lack of financial backing for it.
But, was there concern that a line-by-line comparison of the two proposals simply on the merits of how their elements could best meet the requirements set out by Council, might have found OSMUG's plan lacking in areas.

As for Ottawans' desire to keep the stadium at Lansdowne because that is where it always has been, I suppose the same could be said of the SuperEx (which although not largely-loved by Glebe residents, was certainly less disruptive overall than the OSMUG scheme), in that the Exhibition was the original raison d'etre for Lansdowne, and had been present at the location even longer than a football stadium.

Nonetheless, the City and OSMUG-huggers wasted no time in throwing it under the bus. Not only did they evict it from it's historic site -- deeming it an anachronism (despite the fact that many other Canadian cities still have late-summer fairs) they left it swinging in the breeze, without enough resources to help it to re-establish itself at a new location.

So, it seems that the City is only interested in partnering in schemes from private corporations for the de facto privatization of public land will be considered, rather than helping to sustain a not-for-profit organization like the CCEA in a new location.

This is where I find your argument goes off the rails, largely because you play fast and loose with the facts.

- John Martin's proposal was submitted too late in the process to be considered, plain and simple. You want the City to play by the rules - well they certainly did there. If he had submitted earlier, I'm reasonably sure that the City would have looked at it. And dismissed it, as you acknowledge, on the basis of finances, plus expertise, scope and general annoyingness.
- For the last time, OSEG had nothing to do with the move of the CCE. It's dishonest to blame them for something that was planned for 10 years before they ever came on the scene.

As was pointed out earlier - please stop this. These horses are long dead.

[matty14]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

OSMUG-huggers

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

Chief Jester (and Mayor) LarryO

Everytime you throw around childish schoolyard insults like this, you significantly reduce your credibility (not that you had much to begin with). I really just stop reading what you have to say right there, because I know the rest of your argument will amount to nothing more than a child throwing a temper tantrum. It's funny how you want us to seriously consider your arguments and debate them in a constructive manner yet you don't offer us the same courtesy. Immature name-calling, hyperbole, propaganda, and a general smug air of self-righteousness are not catalysts to serious adult discussions. Unfortunately for you debate is a two way street and nobody wants to debate because you won't meet us halfway. You just stand there with your hands over your ears screaming "TRAFFIC! SHOPPING MALL! BIG BAD DEVELOPERS! BACK DOOR SCHEME! NOBODY LISTENS TO US!"

I can only speak for myself but I'm sure I'm not the only one who has pretty much stopped following this thread because of your whiny incoherent fear-mongering babbling.

You lost. Get over it. You didn't get what you want, well, welcome to democracy.

[eemy]

I find alecz_dad as annoying as any of you do, but if we engage him, it just makes this thread all the more unbearable. He's a lot easier to ignore if no one acknowledges him.

[lrt's friend]

Pointless discussion about the past. Let's discuss the present and future.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

I find alecz_dad as annoying as any of you do, but if we engage him, it just makes this thread all the more unbearable. He's a lot easier to ignore if no one acknowledges him.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Pointless discussion about the past. Let's discuss the present and future.

We all know that with jemartin/alecz-dad it's never that simple. He and his other profiles will always try and hijack this thread.

It will only end in one of two ways; banning or the closing of this thread.

[bikegypsy]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

I find alecz_dad as annoying as any of you do, but if we engage him, it just makes this thread all the more unbearable. He's a lot easier to ignore if no one acknowledges him.

Exactly! I focus on positive and intelligent posts which bring wealth and knowledge to the threads. The rest is unimportant.

[JFFournier]

Oct 11th update which I don't think was posted here.

•The south stands reached a major milestone this week. A ceremony to mark the completion of the concrete structure was held on Monday, September 30. Mayor Watson, Roger Greenberg and other partners from the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG), Mark Cohon, CFL Commissioner and Francis Pomerleau, Executive Vice-President Pomerleau Inc, were on hand to finish one of the last pieces of concrete and place a plaque to commemorate the milestone.

•Focus will shift to finishing work inside the building, including installing electrical, plumbing and mechanical systems.

•Construction of the Veil, the iconic wooden surround, is also expected to start in October.

•At the north stands, seat installation continues as the red and grey seats continue to go in.

•Inside the arena, old fireproofing is being removed so repairs can be made to the roof.

•More areas of the new park are now under construction.

•A storm waterline is being installed along the northeast edge of the site.

•Sections of the new seating wall around the Aberdeen Pavilion have been poured, and the sidewalk areas in the Great Porch have been levelled and compacted in preparation for installing the new pavers in the coming weeks.

•Work continues to build the access ramp into the underground parking garage from Bank Street.

•Exterior sheathing is now being put on several of the new buildings.

[kevinbottawa]

Were the sidewalks supposed to be brick? Maybe some will be brick and some will be concrete. Hopefully they didn't change this detail in the plans.

[JackBauer24]

While I love the look of brick and cobblestone, practically speaking with the winters we get that would be HELL for snow plows and every Spring there would be a tonne of replacement and up-keep needed.

Concrete or asphalt are fine (and cost-effective) alternatives. And let's be honest, will excluding the brick and replacing it with concrete slab take away from the final product? I submit that it won't.

Originally Posted by kevinbottawa

Were the sidewalks supposed to be brick? Maybe some will be brick and some will be concrete. Hopefully they didn't change this detail in the plans.

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by JackBauer24

While I love the look of brick and cobblestone, practically speaking with the winters we get that would be HELL for snow plows and every Spring there would be a tonne of replacement and up-keep needed.

Concrete or asphalt are fine (and cost-effective) alternatives. And let's be honest, will excluding the brick and replacing it with concrete slab take away from the final product? I submit that it won't.

Except we're spending money all over the City upgrading our sidewalks on mainstreets to something nicer, winter maintenance be damned. I would have liked to see the streetscaping match that of the Glebe Bank Street to further integrate it into the area.

[kevinbottawa]

Originally Posted by JackBauer24

While I love the look of brick and cobblestone, practically speaking with the winters we get that would be HELL for snow plows and every Spring there would be a tonne of replacement and up-keep needed.

Concrete or asphalt are fine (and cost-effective) alternatives. And let's be honest, will excluding the brick and replacing it with concrete slab take away from the final product? I submit that it won't.

Westboro, Hintonburg, The Glebe, Little Italy, Montreal Road through Vanier, Chinatown and now Rideau Street all have brick sidewalks. Even Kanata Centrum has an all brick walkway. I'm hoping it's just this street that has concrete and the rest is brick. I think it's a nice touch that would really give Lansdowne a high-end feel and silence people that consider it nothing but a glorified big box development.