Lansdowne Park Redevelopment Phase 1 | Completed

[S-Man]

Did the whiners in the Glebe drink tapwater that ran in possibly porous 19th century pipes through this contaminated soil for years? very probably?

Did they let their kids/pets roam across the contaminated soil, because it was covered in that impervious material...grass? Why didn't they move - you know, for the sake of their health? AND THE CHILDREN THINK OF THE CHILDREN.Trees can grow lush and beautiful in Chernobyl, too, you know.

They're making a fuss because they want to be seen and heard making a fuss. Just like the childish nonsense they came up with week after week before the millionth judge's ruling. i seriously believe every person on holmwood teaches or has been taught at Ottawa U, where identify studies (ie - "ME, ME, ME Analysis") are the programs of choice.

I think they get up of bed in the morning and immediately gauge their personal outrage/victimhood levels, before moving on to a local activism workout, then breakfast, some self-absoprbed soapbox grandstanding in some form of public venue, lunch, letter writing to news organizations with the words "developers" and "pocket" being the key items, dinner, another check of personal well being, a gauge of victimhood, write a cheque to the NDP, then bedtime, where they dream of riding a rainbow unicorn with David Suzuki.

[alecz_dad]

Perhaps there was no outcry about soil contamination at Lansdowne before because there was no real information about what contamination was there, and no interest on the City's part of remedying it. Shouldn't one of the benefits of redevelopment be a net improvement of the local environmental conditions - by moving the soil to a location intended for such disposal, instead of amidst an established neighbourhood and a proposed new urban area - not just a rearranging of the deckchairs on the Titanic?

And the contamination will be no better as a result of the changes made. Indeed, by concentrating all the contamination in one part of the site, would this not have been a good time to properly manage the leachate? You wouldn't get away with setting up a new landfill without putting in a liner and setting up pumps to manage leachate. And siting the new concentration of contaminated soil almost as as close as possible to the Canal seems to be asking to increase the amount of leachate that reaches the Canal, that then goes on to the Ottawa River ecosystem.

Ah, "sea of crumbling asphalt" (and amber waves of grain?), will you ever tire of parroting back OSEG's PR lines?

Friends of Lansdowne's interpretation of the Ministry of the Environment's draft Certificate of Public Use is that "no new buildings of any size in the park area—ever. There can be no public washroom buildings, no outdoor cafes and no kayak/bicycle rental pavilions. There can be tents and porta-potties, but no structures connected to the city's sewage system. So even though the park is intended to serve hundreds of thousands of visitors, and is part of a project costing taxpayers over $400 million, new amenities will be restricted to whatever is inside the Aberdeen Pavilion and the Horiticulture Building...(B)ecause of the environmental controls needed to deal with contaminated soils in the designated parkland zone, any future construction is out of the question."

I have not read this 500-page tome, but I think it is an important question for everyone to ask their elected representatives and City officials: Does this concentration of the contaminated soil in the urban park in fact mean that no additional buildings can be connected to the sewer in the park area, ever?

The measures of credibility, or lack thereof, you cite regarding those making objections really are of no relevance, as it has been clear from the very outset that OSEG and the City had absolutely no interest in any critiques that might be made of the Lansdowne scheme.

It's interesting that critics of Lansdowne are on the one hand pilloried for being deep-pocketed, professional protesters, but on the other, derided for their amateurism. The simple fact is that, yes, for most of the people involved, they are not professionally qualified to assess the many technical issues involved with the Lansdowne scheme. But does that mean that there is no place for them to intervene, to express concern, to question the received version that the proponents are putting forward?

Unfortunately, as is usually the case, the proponents hold most of the information, have most of the expertise, and have far more resources at their fingertips than the critics ever will. So, to your mind, does that mean that members of the public should just shut up and go home if they are not experts in various technical areas? Seems to be the City's approach. The "consultation" was not an open one in which the City empowered those with questions about the plan to have access to the information and resources that would have allowed them to be meaningfully involved in the decision-making process. Instead, because of the buddy-buddy relationship of the former (and highly embarrassing) Mayor O'Brien and the City's subsequent partnership with OSEG, the City has been in a conflict of interest from day-one, concerned only with helping OSEG to sell the scheme to the public and marginalize the critics.

I notice that you didn't touch the question of Bayview. I recall that the unknown cost of remediation there was one of the main reasons given for rejecting it as a potential site - even though it rated higher in the siting evaluation than Lansdowne - but now it seems that soil contamination was a not insignificant issue at Lansdowne too.

Originally Posted by phil235

Two additional problems with these comments. First, the suggestion that this soil should be removed to "an appropriate disposal site" really means that you just want it to be somewhere else. Foisting local problems on someone else by sending your contamination to some remote area is a typical NIMBY sentiment and is not good policy.

Second, the contaminated soil, complete with leaching issues, has been there for years, just like the sea of crumbling asphalt. There was no public outcry until the Lansdowne project began. Why is that? And why is this outcry coming from the exact same group of people that has opposed the project as a whole?

The problem is that these complaints lack credibility. (Mind you, not as much as the complaints about the loss of parkland as the City plans construction of a massive urban park.) The approach taken by this group - complain about every aspect of the project and hope something sticks - means that none of the complaints are being taken seriously anymore.

I really believe that the interests of the community would have been much better served if a constructive approach had been taken from the beginning. People posting pages from the Lorax on fences have to recognize that they are not going to be seen as people with genuine, balanced arguments to make.

[Brocklebank]

In a posting dated Sept. 12, there was a comment that work was underway inside Frank Clair Stadium. There may be something happening in the Stadium but it is not part of the renewal project. Contracts have not yet been signed for that stage of the project (although the City is examining proposals from bidders).

[JFFournier]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

The measures of credibility, or lack thereof, you cite regarding those making objections really are of no relevance, as it has been clear from the very outset that OSEG and the City had absolutely no interest in any critiques that might be made of the Lansdowne scheme.

Other way around.

The city would not have bothered with a design competition for the park if it had not heard the complaints about how we didn't have one for all of Lansdowne. But all opponents of the plan did was complain that it wasn't enough, then use the cost of the resulting design as ammo against the overall plan.

This where credibility comes in. You end up giving every indication that there's no interest in meeting halfway, so people stop trying.

So Phil is right, much more could have been accomplished with a mindset of cooperation rather than a determination that things had to be done the FoL way or they wouldn't get done at all.

[JFFournier]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

I have not read this 500-page tome, but I think it is an important question for everyone to ask their elected representatives and City officials: Does this concentration of the contaminated soil in the urban park in fact mean that no additional buildings can be connected to the sewer in the park area, ever?

The simple fact is that, yes, for most of the people involved, they are not professionally qualified to assess the many technical issues involved with the Lansdowne scheme. But does that mean that there is no place for them to intervene, to express concern, to question the received version that the proponents are putting forward?

So, to your mind, does that mean that members of the public should just shut up and go home if they are not experts in various technical areas?

No one tries to take away your right to an opinion or to ask the question. The problem is that too often guilt is immediately decided as the question is being asked. And other stuff is simply made up.

Remember when a clause was found in the contract which stated that another stadium could not be built within a certain distance? Outrage! Obviously OSEG was guilty of trying to create a monopoly and the city was incompetent in not noticing it.

It's actually a common business practice to avoid creating a conflict of interest in the future. OSEG had no problem having removed the same day. But all that is ignored; the second there is an opportunity, the panic button gets hit. Maybe non-experts should get the other side of the story instead of immediately accusing anyone pro LPP of wrong-doing.

On Twitter a few weeks ago, the person managing that account suggested that Watson's "musings" might mean that a casino is bound for Lansdowne. There was absolutely no evidence to suggest this, but it still gets thrown out there for no other reason than fear-mongering.

You've all cried wolf so often that you end up being ignored. Again, credibility.

[umbria27]

Originally Posted by JFFournier

Other way around.

The city would not have bothered with a design competition for the park if it had not heard the complaints about how we didn't have one for all of Lansdowne. But all opponents of the plan did was complain that it wasn't enough, then use the cost of the resulting design as ammo against the overall plan.

This where credibility comes in. You end up giving every indication that there's no interest in meeting halfway, so people stop trying.

So Phil is right, much more could have been accomplished with a mindset of cooperation rather than a determination that things had to be done the FoL way or they wouldn't get done at all.

There's plenty of blame to go around on the Lansdowne file. Opponents can rightly claim that the public consultations (which put retail and residential way down the list of desired uses) were largely ignored. Proponents are also right that the organized opposition seized on every opportunity to delay and oppose and thereby diluted their message.

By and large, the people that opposed the plan still oppose it despite the addition of the urban park and the removal of some of the goofier elements (aquarium in the Aberdeen Pavilion). Similarly those who supported at the start, supported it through all its incarnations, whether there was an aquarium or restaurants in Aberdeen, whether it had boutique retail, a hotel, condos etc.

Despite the confrontational tactics from both sides, I think the plan has largely gotten better. We have a park element. We have room for the farmer's market. We had input from urban specialists like George Dark. I doubt any of these would have happened without the criticism from opposing groups.

What these groups need to do now is focus on areas of improvement.
-The retail plan seems very shaky at the moment. The BIA and Friends groups should be thinking about what complementary uses they do want in Lansdowne and working with OSEG to get them in there.
-The public portion of the site is, as noted by Alex's Dad somewhat vague. What uses will Aberdeen and the Horticultural building have. What ameneties do we need in there? Changing rooms, bathrooms, community meeting rooms?
-The environmental issues aren't red herrings. We really didn't know what was under that soil. Now we do, should I be concerned about running past the uncovered berm on a windy day?

Chernushenko, while never a fan of the plan, has focused on trying to improve it. That's admirable. The Friends say they've turned that corner too, but they are going to have to tone down the sour grapes. On the other side, proponents have to stop screaming nimby every time a criticism is made.

[JFFournier]

Originally Posted by umbria27

There's plenty of blame to go around on the Lansdowne file. Opponents can rightly claim that the public consultations (which put retail and residential way down the list of desired uses) were largely ignored. Proponents are also right that the organized opposition seized on every opportunity to delay and oppose and thereby diluted their message.

All that is quite fair, and I doubt I'm teaching you anything by stating this, but there has to be an understanding that just because you didn't get your way doesn't mean you weren't heard.

No one gets excited at the prospect of retail, especially prior to knowing the exact tenants. But the places that Lansdowne has been compared to, like the Train Yards and Billings Bridge ARE busy places. Someone is enjoying them, whether for entertainment or practicality. Logically, there had to be an expectation that it would be very unlikely for the retail to disappear entirely just because it didn't score well when it's such a large part of the financial.

Working to determine an appropriate set of tenants (which I believe the Glebe BIA eventually did) and architectural style would probably have gone further than what they did achieve, which appears to me to be essentially nothing.

[waterloowarrior]

LANSDOWNE PARTNERSHIP PLAN - AUTHORIZATION TO
PROCEED WITH LEGAL CLOSE AND IMPLEMENTATION
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycou...20-%20LANSDOWNE%20PARTNERSHIP%20PLAN.pdf

LANSDOWNE PARTNERSHIP PLAN IMPLEMENTATION – FINAL
REPORT ON LEGAL AGREEMENTS
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycou...l%20Report%20on%20Legal%20Agreements.pdf

[S-Man]

Hey look - the Friends of Lansdowne's delay tactics cost $8.2 million:

http://www.ottawasun.com/2012/09/25/lansdowne-12m-over-budget

This comes on the same day that it is revealed the NIMBY voters in Oakville and Mississauga traded their slimy McGuinty votes for having natural gas power plants hauled half-finished out of their backyards, costing the taxpayers $230 million, plus future hookup expenses.

Is there anything community activists won't saddle other people with to get their way? Sorry about the power plant diversion, but it's applicable and all over the news as I write this.

My previous comment about selfish, self-obsessed navel-gazers stands. God helpme if I find myself in these burb's in an emergency. They'll wear me as a coat for warmth and feel good doing it.

[kevinbottawa]

From the new Lansdowne report:

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by umbria27

On the other side, proponents have to stop screaming nimby every time a criticism is made.

To me, it all depends on the way the criticism is presented. If it's still about fighting the last war "See, we never should have agree to the LPP because of this new information" then I go ahead and ignore the post. If it's "There's a problem with the Lansdowne plan, I think they should change it by doing X" then I'm happy to read and respond.

TL;DR Constructive criticism is good. Whining is bad.

[S-Man]

Interesting renderings. The top shorter building is a little busy (what does the tan/brown finish look like when it's not sunset?)

[phil235]

[QUOTE=alecz_dad;5843669]Perhaps there was no outcry about soil contamination at Lansdowne before because there was no real information about what contamination was there, and no interest on the City's part of remedying it.

Perhaps, but it didn't take an expert report to understand that a massive parking lot brought with it significant environmental issues, from oil accumulation to stormwater run-off problems to the fact that there was a massive parking lot in an urban neighbourhood. Those environmental concerns weren't a priority for anyone until it appeared as a basis for opposing this project

Shouldn't one of the benefits of redevelopment be a net improvement of the local environmental conditions - by moving the soil to a location intended for such disposal, instead of amidst an established neighbourhood and a proposed new urban area - not just a rearranging of the deckchairs on the Titanic?

Absolutely, but as has been pointed out, on-site remediation is an accepted and often preferred remediation approach. If you haul it off to some far-away "location intended for such disposal", you are transferring your problem to someone else and pushing it down the road.

The conversion of parking lot to urban park alone will bring significant local environmental benefits. I just don't understand how critics can bring forward arguments with that massive blind spot.

And for someone who doesn't seem to like rhetoric, the "Titanic" reference would seem a tad strong.

And the contamination will be no better as a result of the changes made. Indeed, by concentrating all the contamination in one part of the site, would this not have been a good time to properly manage the leachate? You wouldn't get away with setting up a new landfill without putting in a liner and setting up pumps to manage leachate. And siting the new concentration of contaminated soil almost as as close as possible to the Canal seems to be asking to increase the amount of leachate that reaches the Canal, that then goes on to the Ottawa River ecosystem.

I don't know, not my area of expertise. But there are independent experts supporting the plan, so at best it is debatable.

Ah, "sea of crumbling asphalt" (and amber waves of grain?), will you ever tire of parroting back OSEG's PR lines?

Do you actually take issue with the description, or just the fact that OSEG said it?

Friends of Lansdowne's interpretation of the Ministry of the Environment's draft Certificate of Public Use is that "no new buildings of any size in the park area—ever. There can be no public washroom buildings, no outdoor cafes and no kayak/bicycle rental pavilions.

So put the washrooms and cafes and kayak rental shops in the existing (and massively underused) buildings. Where exactly is the problem there?

I have not read this 500-page tome, but I think it is an important question for everyone to ask their elected representatives and City officials: Does this concentration of the contaminated soil in the urban park in fact mean that no additional buildings can be connected to the sewer in the park area, ever?

Fair point and fair question.

The measures of credibility, or lack thereof, you cite regarding those making objections really are of no relevance, as it has been clear from the very outset that OSEG and the City had absolutely no interest in any critiques that might be made of the Lansdowne scheme.

Well, that was clear to opponents, who had absolutely no interest in seeing this project succeed under any circumstances.

It's interesting that critics of Lansdowne are on the one hand pilloried for being deep-pocketed, professional protesters, but on the other, derided for their amateurism. The simple fact is that, yes, for most of the people involved, they are not professionally qualified to assess the many technical issues involved with the Lansdowne scheme. But does that mean that there is no place for them to intervene, to express concern, to question the received version that the proponents are putting forward?

My issue isn't with their competence to comment, but with their tactics. I saw those first hand as I attempted to participate in neighbourhood consultations and the city consultations. The most militant opponents dominated the process, and left no room for the considerable proportion of the local population who saw benefits in the plan.

...

The "consultation" was not an open one in which the City empowered those with questions about the plan to have access to the information and resources that would have allowed them to be meaningfully involved in the decision-making process.

The "consultation" that I attended was highjacked by a bunch of bullies who had no interest in learning about the plan. I don't think "meaningful involvment" was their goal, unless it meant shouting down anyone who expressed positive sentiments about the plan.

Instead, because of the buddy-buddy relationship of the former (and highly embarrassing) Mayor O'Brien and the City's subsequent partnership with OSEG, the City has been in a conflict of interest from day-one, concerned only with helping OSEG to sell the scheme to the public and marginalize the critics.

I don't think this actually meets the definition of conflict of interest, an even the most ardent opponents on council never claimed that there was a conflict (at least formally) but yes, O'Brien was really embarrassing.

I notice that you didn't touch the question of Bayview. I recall that the unknown cost of remediation there was one of the main reasons given for rejecting it as a potential site - even though it rated higher in the siting evaluation than Lansdowne - but now it seems that soil contamination was a not insignificant issue at Lansdowne too.

I didn't think that warranted comment. The cost and timing of remediation (as well as the requisite communty consultations) was a reason Lansdowne was preferred, but I never heard it described as the key reason. That was the fact that there was already a stadium and arena on the site, and the redevelopment plan addressed a pressing issue of how to deal with a diminishing city asset.


As was pointed out, not too many people switched sides during the course of this debate. I do hope that the finished product will convert some naysayers.

By all means, ask your questions about remediation, just don't stand at the fence yelling shame! at the workers doing the clean-up and don't bring up the Lorax who speaks for the trees. That is where the credibility issues arise.

For the most part, I like the plans, but have concerns about the retail mix. If we get stuck with a row of Jack Astors and other parking lot restaurants, I'll be out there shouting "shame" with you.

[KHOOLE]

I have uploaded more pictures of Lansdowne Park's construction site, taken Sept 25, 2012

https://picasaweb.google.com/jcdube2001/LansdowneParkConstructionSiteStartingAugust2012

[isaidso]

Looks good Ottawa! Can't wait to have you back in the Canadian Football League.

[umbria27]

Originally Posted by S-Man

Interesting renderings. The top shorter building is a little busy (what does the tan/brown finish look like when it's not sunset?)

Yeah, there's a lot going on there. I like that they are trying to be adventurous and break up the vertical lines, but there may be one too many finishes. It's so hard to tell from a render. Are there more shots of this building? Maybe some from street level?

[umbria27]

Would have liked the podium of this building to tie in with the bridge in the foreground



And for the tower portion to have more in common with the South Side stands "Veil" in the background.

[LeadingEdgeBoomer]

I was listening to a report on Lansdowne on radio this morning. It included a brief comment by councillor Stephen Blais.

The city now thinks it can get as much as 50 million dollars for the naming rights to the stadium. That is three times a previous estimate.

i do not know what info they have to come up with this estimate. Is it realistic?

If it is, it will be quite a windfall to the City. That amount alone would pay for the urban park development.

Then, after it is built, perhaps they can sell the naming rights to the urban park.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by umbria27

Would have liked the podium of this building to tie in with the bridge in the foreground



And for the tower portion to have more in common with the South Side stands "Veil" in the background.

Agreed, that building doesn't seem to tie into anything, really. Perhaps the design features at the top are supposed to relate to the stadium, butit isn't very clear from these renders.

[Ottawan]

I'm surprised by those renders. Based on conversations with people who live and work nearby, I was expecting something that looks like a shopping mall. Instead I'm seeing an interesting pedestrian-oriented mixed use area with a calibre of architecture that raises the bar for future developments in Ottawa.