Lansdowne Park Redevelopment Phase 1 | Completed

[alecz_dad]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I was talking about the included in the ticket price idea that I know is planned. I think that even that is a useless endeavor designed to try and placate people like alecz. The price of the bus for a one time trip is not a key factor for many people who have another choice.

Making the bus on Bank St free all the time would be expensive and I really doubt someone who has a car in west Centretown heading to dinner and a movie is going to say oh now we don't have to pay $2.70 lets take the bus instead. A very small number may take the bus to avoid the $20 + parking charge but even for them the extra $5.40 will not drive their bus decision. Meanwhile the 20 people sitting next to them who have no choice but to take the bus will be crowding the free bus. If we have extra money for this route better to increase the service frequency.

Unfortunately, I think this micro example demonstrates why much of the extraordinary measure transit plans for Lansdowne are likely to come acropper. Unless it is actually difficult and unpleasant for people to drive directly to Lansdowne or the immediate environs (via parking restrictions I have already discussed) people coming in from the far reaches of the region will be most inclined to drive and take their chances.

While the shuttle buses may deal with the larger events, the greatest concerns are about the impact of day-to-day traffic drawn by the shopping centre.

[alecz_dad]

Originally Posted by Radster

Only 7 months to go, I can't wait to park my car in the Glebe, then pop a beer with my buddy, start singing and walk in front of Alecz_Dad's house on Holmwood en route to the Fury games while blowing into my vuvuzuela, and do it again after the game en route to a bar, via Holmwood of course. About time we get professional soccer in Ottawa and downtown to boot!

Good thing I don't live on Holmwood!

Well, with street parking limited to 1 hr, expect a parking ticket. Another one from the cops for open liquor. And a noise bylaw ticket for blowing your horn.

Enjoy.

[alecz_dad]

Originally Posted by Boxster

Watch were you lie down on the grass.....there are quite a few glebite dogs around.

No worries. Most of them (and the other dog folks from all over the City) are pretty responsible about sticking to the fenced-in off-leash area behind the baseball diamonds.

But from the sounds of it you better watch out for the Orleans football fan puke.

[JackBauer24]

I said nothing about tax payers at all.

My point was that the area around the baseball stadium versus the area around Lansdowne are quite different.
Aside from the baseball stadium, which isn't in use anymore, there isn't much of a reason for people would park on the street unless you live there - aka there are no other attractions drawing non-residents to that area. However, even without Lansdowne currently up and running, there are many other attractions (stores, restaurants, shops, festivals, events, etc...) that would draw non-residents to visit, and they would need street parking since the Glebe doesn't offer much in the way of parking lots.

So I can see why an anti-parking petition in the baseball stadiums neighbourhood would easily be accepted compared to one in the Glebe.
Do you think ByWard market residents would be successful in getting a similar petition accepted? I suspect not.

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

So, let me get this straight? Are you really saying that you think that residents of one part of the City should have fewer rights to petition for changes to the parking rules on their street simply by virtue of the fact that they live next door to the City's current cause celebre?

That there should be two classes of taxpayers in this City? Isn't that what you and JFF keep beating on about, that people in the Glebe are so entitled and are demanding rights that residents of other neighbourhoods could not expect? Yet, it seems you would support denying them, from what I understand is supposed to be a pro forma process by which residents can seek to have the parking rules on their street changed by way of a prescribed percentage supporting a City-approved petition, as is the case anywhere else in the City?

Just asking.

[alecz_dad]

Originally Posted by umbria27

I don't think anyone really knows for sure whether there's enough parking or transit connections to support the new retail. I know at least one prospective tenant who is concerned about it. The recent skew towards retailers with a small local catchment (banks, drug stores) seems to reflect that concern.

I think that they better watch out about relying too much on local catchment services, because frankly, there is a lot of animosity inside the local catchment, and I could see a concerted effort to suffocate those tenants that choose to sign on at Lansdowne.

Originally Posted by umbria27

But what can you do at this point? It's an experiment. The retail will either survive or not. Trinity or whoever the landlord is will have to deal with it. They'll either have to continue to find more locally oriented tenants or push to accelerate plans that encourage alternative transport - like the Clegg pedestrian bridge. As long as the risk is theirs, and not the city's I'm prepared to watch the experiment.

Although I agree that in practice it's an experiment, I don't seem to recall OSMUG selling it as an experiment. They were speaking very much in certainties. They were the guys with the plan, and had figured it all out, so let's trust them and not consider any other options.

Yes, doing more to promote alternative transportation to Lansdowne, including the Fifth-Clegg pedestrian bridge, would be wise on OSMUG's part. I just don't think that they or the City really believe their own press releases, or are willing to pony up the funds required to develop the cycle and pedestrian infrastructure required to facilitate the level of modal shift that has been projected. Shenkman, Trinity and Minto are billion-dollar companies. Let them find the $15M for the footbridge.

Unfortunately, the risk is the City's too, because the dubious deal that OSMUG enmeshed City taxpayers into, relies on the success of the shopping centre and other private sector add-ons.

[alecz_dad]

Originally Posted by JackBauer24

I said nothing about tax payers at all.

My point was that the area around the baseball stadium versus the area around Lansdowne are quite different.

Aside from the baseball stadium, which isn't in use anymore, there isn't much of a reason for people would park on the street unless you live there - aka there are no other attractions drawing non-residents to that area.

However, even without Lansdowne currently up and running, there are many other attractions (stores, restaurants, shops, festivals, events, etc...) that would draw non-residents to visit, and they would need street parking since the Glebe doesn't offer much in the way of parking lots.

So I can see why an anti-parking petition in the baseball stadiums neighbourhood would easily be accepted compared to one in the Glebe.
Do you think ByWard market residents would be successful in getting a similar petition accepted? I suspect not.

Presumably most residents pay property taxes directly, and the rest pay them indirectly via their rents. So, I point to the fair and equal treatment of all taxpayers because it seems these days that they are considered the fundamental unit of public discourse.

Supposedly the baseball stadium will be in use again. In addition, the development of the stadium also came along with development of hotels and convention facilities and new retail. It's still considered an important enough destination that the City is building a pedestrian bridge over the Queensway, despite the very dubious future of baseball. So, I would say it's comparable.

However, in the end the comparability of the Glebe to other neighbourhoods shouldn't matter, as it is my understanding that if residents want the changes, the City's process is supposed to be basically automatic.

So, again, would you in fact encourage the treatment of one group of residents differently from another. Unfortunately, I would not be surprised if that was the case, as there are several instances in the process of the development of the Lansdowne scheme that the City has chosen to disregard its usual operating practices.

[alecz_dad]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I was told that Whole Foods owns the spots and they will be directly below their store. I don't think they have revealed how exactly it will work. They may still not be decided. I doubt they will prevent others from parking there. I assume they will have a minimum purchase or they will have lots of people going to the movies and then buying a bottle of water to validate. The Toronto Whole Foods for example has a $25 minimum for validation.

Outside of game days I don't think the parking will be beyond capacity it will more be a question of people willing to pay for parking in order to go to the LCBO when they can park for free at one down the street. Ironically as the only retailer with citywide reach Whole Foods could probably charge for parking and many of their customers would still pay.

I'm very curious to see how the parking for the shopping centre will operate on event days. The plan has said that only box ticketholders will be able to park onsite. But I don't know how hopeful sports fans won't try to winkle their way into the parking.

I do think that while some of the commercial tenants will be rubbing their hands in anticipation of thousands of sports fans being delivered to their thresholds on event days, I also wonder if they might be just as concerned that their actual sales will plummet on event days, as serious buyers stay away, in expectation of traffic and parking havoc.

If that ends up being the case, how long can a retailer or restaurant (who didn't have the foresight of Whole Foods to buy up 200 parking spaces) expect to hold on?

Again, a fundamental problem of planning a development with insufficient parking for the size and number of amenties projected, in an already densely-settled neighbourhood, with access routes already near capacity. There has been a great deal of magical thinking involved in explaining how the Lansdowne scheme can actually work.

[bartlebooth]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

I'm very curious to see how the parking for the shopping centre will operate on event days. The plan has said that only box ticketholders will be able to park onsite. But I don't know how hopeful sports fans won't try to winkle their way into the parking.

I do think that while some of the commercial tenants will be rubbing their hands in anticipation of thousands of sports fans being delivered to their thresholds on event days, I also wonder if they might be just as concerned that their actual sales will plummet on event days, as serious buyers stay away, in expectation of traffic and parking havoc.

If that ends up being the case, how long can a retailer or restaurant (who didn't have the foresight of Whole Foods to buy up 200 parking spaces) expect to hold on?

Again, a fundamental problem of planning a development with insufficient parking for the size and number of amenties projected, in an already densely-settled neighbourhood, with access routes already near capacity. There has been a great deal of magical thinking involved in explaining how the Lansdowne scheme can actually work.

Despite concerns about lack of parking/too much parking, bad transit or whatever, I am guessing things will go well for the first little bit as interest in Lansdowne and the whole novelty of it will be high. I don't think we will get a good sense of how well it is going to do until a ways down the road. You might be right that serious shoppers will stay away on event days but I am sure restaurants and bars will be fine (at least on those days that there is an event). I still think the pedestrian bridge from Old Ottawa East that was part of the winning park scheme is a pretty crucial link that is missing and will hurt tenants/the overall success of Lansdowne in the long run.

[JackBauer24]

Really? The two neighborhoods are comparable because there are a couple of hotels and some shopping nearby the baseball stadium? I dont recall the last time I gathered up the niece and nephew to go for a walk around the beautiful Hampton Inn. Nor do I recall the last convention I went to in the Glebe. The two areas are quite different, even when/if the baseball stadium is ever used again.
The Glebe is one of the more desirable places to live and visit in the city - which is presumably why you and your neighbour have chosen to continue to reside in the 'hood despite your complaints about the new developments. Coventry and Industrial avenues, as one name would suggest, aren't the most pedestrian friendly streets.

But this parking issue, my point is that the Glebe is a popular destination and unfortunately in relation to the amount of visitors and residents, there isn't enough parking. So restricting parking further isn't much of an option for the city. The other alternative would be to build more parking garages, but that's more new development, and we all know how you feel about that.

Between the baseball stadium and hotel parking lots, there was more than enough parking spaces to accommodate the amount of visiting cars. The city did have an option of limiting where/when parking is permitted.

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

Presumably most residents pay property taxes directly, and the rest pay them indirectly via their rents. So, I point to the fair and equal treatment of all taxpayers because it seems these days that they are considered the fundamental unit of public discourse.

Supposedly the baseball stadium will be in use again. In addition, the development of the stadium also came along with development of hotels and convention facilities and new retail. It's still considered an important enough destination that the City is building a pedestrian bridge over the Queensway, despite the very dubious future of baseball. So, I would say it's comparable.

However, in the end the comparability of the Glebe to other neighbourhoods shouldn't matter, as it is my understanding that if residents want the changes, the City's process is supposed to be basically automatic.

So, again, would you in fact encourage the treatment of one group of residents differently from another. Unfortunately, I would not be surprised if that was the case, as there are several instances in the process of the development of the Lansdowne scheme that the City has chosen to disregard its usual operating practices.

[JackBauer24]

And I almost forgot, if you find that the folks by the baseball stadium are treated better, why not move there?
Then maybe all your comments and suggestions will be taken into consideration.

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

Presumably most residents pay property taxes directly, and the rest pay them indirectly via their rents. So, I point to the fair and equal treatment of all taxpayers because it seems these days that they are considered the fundamental unit of public discourse.

Supposedly the baseball stadium will be in use again. In addition, the development of the stadium also came along with development of hotels and convention facilities and new retail. It's still considered an important enough destination that the City is building a pedestrian bridge over the Queensway, despite the very dubious future of baseball. So, I would say it's comparable.

However, in the end the comparability of the Glebe to other neighbourhoods shouldn't matter, as it is my understanding that if residents want the changes, the City's process is supposed to be basically automatic.

So, again, would you in fact encourage the treatment of one group of residents differently from another. Unfortunately, I would not be surprised if that was the case, as there are several instances in the process of the development of the Lansdowne scheme that the City has chosen to disregard its usual operating practices.

[alecz_dad]

I don't think that the folks in Overbrook are being treated better. However, so far as residents being able to seek some measures to mitigate the negative impacts of a facility that draws traffic from outside the neighbourhood to their residential streets, I would prefer to remain where I am, but seek equitable treatment to other neighbourhoods, thank you very much.

Originally Posted by JackBauer24

And I almost forgot, if you find that the folks by the baseball stadium are treated better, why not move there?
Then maybe all your comments and suggestions will be taken into consideration.

[alecz_dad]

Originally Posted by JackBauer24

Really? The two neighborhoods are comparable because there are a couple of hotels and some shopping nearby the baseball stadium? I dont recall the last time I gathered up the niece and nephew to go for a walk around the beautiful Hampton Inn. Nor do I recall the last convention I went to in the Glebe. The two areas are quite different, even when/if the baseball stadium is ever used again.

The Glebe is one of the more desirable places to live and visit in the city - which is presumably why you and your neighbour have chosen to continue to reside in the 'hood despite your complaints about the new developments. Coventry and Industrial avenues, as one name would suggest, aren't the most pedestrian friendly streets.

Whether or not they have the same sort of amenities, the reason for limiting parking on the residential streets in Overbrook is that same as it is in the Glebe: namely, that an external factor was imposed on the area, and recognizing that it would be inappropriate to impose excessive external parking demand on local, residential streets.

Originally Posted by JackBauer24

But this parking issue, my point is that the Glebe is a popular destination and unfortunately in relation to the amount of visitors and residents, there isn't enough parking. So restricting parking further isn't much of an option for the city. The other alternative would be to build more parking garages, but that's more new development, and we all know how you feel about that.

However, the key justification for allowing the Lansdowne scheme to be so intensive -- given the reduction in the number of parking spaces resulting from the shoehorning in of so many different amenities in to a relatively small and confined site -- was that OSMUG and the City would somehow magically be able to get unprecedented numbers of Lansdowne attendees to leave their cars at home (or at least at satellite parking lots), and so the requisite number of onsite spaces would not have to be provided, and it would not be necessary to reduce the size of the shopping centre.

If they can conjure such changes, more power to them. But I am very doubtful. But if they can't, they shouldn't expect to then be able to treat the surrounding neighbourhoods as permanent overflow parking. So, if Lansdowne cannot cope with the amount of parking they have provided onsite, I'm afraid that I would say that is their problem, and the neighbours shouldn't be expected to help them deal cope with their over-reach.

Originally Posted by JackBauer24

Between the baseball stadium and hotel parking lots, there was more than enough parking spaces to accommodate the amount of visiting cars. The city did have an option of limiting where/when parking is permitted.

Except I keep hearing that the reason the baseball teams subsequent to the Lynx had such troubles (apart from the fact that they sucked) was that there wasn't enough parking, particularly after the hotels were subsequently developed in the stadium parking lot. This demonstrates how shortsightedness in not acknowledging that draws like big stadiums and shopping centres need enough parking if they're to succeed. But they can't expect to grow it after the fact by imposing themselves on the surrounding neighbourhoods.

[JFFournier]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

Different guy. Different experience of torture.

But the same point. the notion that he's unable to move is ludicrous. He's making a conscious decision to stay there and complain instead.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

I don't think that the folks in Overbrook are being treated better. However, so far as residents being able to seek some measures to mitigate the negative impacts of a facility that draws traffic from outside the neighbourhood to their residential streets, I would prefer to remain where I am, but seek equitable treatment to other neighbourhoods, thank you very much.

Wouldn't meters with a 1 hour limit and an exemption for residents make the most sense. This would allow residents to find a spot but would also add to the parking available for especially shoppers.

No parking at all is a waste of spaces and you end up like around the hospitals where the surrounding streets are empty but you still have to pay $7 per hour to park.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I was talking about the included in the ticket price idea that I know is planned. I think that even that is a useless endeavor designed to try and placate people like alecz. The price of the bus for a one time trip is not a key factor for many people who have another choice.

Making the bus on Bank St free all the time would be expensive and I really doubt someone who has a car in west Centretown heading to dinner and a movie is going to say oh now we don't have to pay $2.70 lets take the bus instead. A very small number may take the bus to avoid the $20 + parking charge but even for them the extra $5.40 will not drive their bus decision. Meanwhile the 20 people sitting next to them who have no choice but to take the bus will be crowding the free bus. If we have extra money for this route better to increase the service frequency.

I think that you are underestimating the number of people who gravitate to something that is free. Even if the value is nominal, the idea of a free transportation option will be attractive. But yes, I agree that improvement of service frequency is probably more important if we had to rank the two. I just think we could and should do both.

And like I said, a free bus route on Bank has the advantage of helping existing retailers compete with Lansdowne retailers, which should be a key consideration. Lots of cities have free transit zones, and as general rule, they tend to work very well in terms of generating ridership. The longer term impact may be less easy to measure, but in my view, getting people in the habit of riding the bus can't be a bad thing.

[umbria27]

Originally Posted by phil235

I think that you are underestimating the number of people who gravitate to something that is free. Even if the value is nominal, the idea of a free transportation option will be attractive. But yes, I agree that improvement of service frequency is probably more important if we had to rank the two. I just think we could and should do both.

And like I said, a free bus route on Bank has the advantage of helping existing retailers compete with Lansdowne retailers, which should be a key consideration. Lots of cities have free transit zones, and as general rule, they tend to work very well in terms of generating ridership. The longer term impact may be less easy to measure, but in my view, getting people in the habit of riding the bus can't be a bad thing.

If I haven't said before, here's a +1 for your free transit zone area. Even discounted zones would help. Lots of cities have zoned fares.

I look at this way. A Lansdowne customer who is not already a regular OC user will likely pay a cash fare of 3.40. A parent and two teenagers going to Lansdowne is looking at $20 both ways on the bus. That's not insignificant and not much of an incentive.

[umbria27]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

I think that they better watch out about relying too much on local catchment services, because frankly, there is a lot of animosity inside the local catchment, and I could see a concerted effort to suffocate those tenants that choose to sign on at Lansdowne.


<snip>
Unfortunately, the risk is the City's too, because the dubious deal that OSMUG enmeshed City taxpayers into, relies on the success of the shopping centre and other private sector add-ons.

I'll just respond to these two points. Others have piled on elsewhere.

You may be right, there may be some local resentment of Lansdowne retailers, especially if they move from the main street (Banks?) or look to threaten a local stalwart (Whole Foods vs Wild Oat?), but as someone has already pointed out, these sort of backlashes tend to fizzle out. Look how Shoppers killed the local pharmacies.

On the risk question. Is there really any risk left for us? We've already paid our 120 million+ for the stadium and half of the parking. We can question the wisdom of paying the full cost of the stadium, but there doesn't seem to be much financial risk left for the city. The maintenance of the stadium is supposed to be OSEG's responsibility now. The money from that is supposed to come from the first tranche of the waterfall payments. OSEG only gets profits on the second tranche. (The third tranche is supposed to come back to the city, but I don't think anybody really expects it to amount to much.) I suppose the worst case scenario is that OSEG doesn't make enough money on the retail to even make the first tranche that covers their stadium expenses. If that happens, and they come cap in hands for the city to cover the shortfall, then we can say that it is a complete fiasco. You should come back here and gloat if that happens, because you are correct OSEG's attitude has been very much "Don't worry about transportation. Don't worry about retail strategy. We've got this." Really though I don't expect that will happen. You can say what you want about the OSEG partners, but they are sharp business people, and they won't get paid until the stadium costs are covered, so I don't think they'll let that happen. In short we've paid upfront for this deal and we shouldn't expect any significant revenue back the city, but barring a complete disaster there isn't much downside risk going forward.

[gmarshall]

It's great to see that the city is tweeting some of the aerial photos I've been providing for them.

[Boxster]

I had a look at your great pictures of the Chaudieres Falls. WOW very nice shots.

Originally Posted by gmarshall

It's great to see that the city is tweeting some of the aerial photos I've been providing for them.

[EdFromOttawa]

Originally Posted by gmarshall

It's great to see that the city is tweeting some of the aerial photos I've been providing for them.

Would it be okay for you to post them here for us to see more easily??