LeBreton Flats 2.0 (RendezVous LeBreton) | Cancelled

[Richard Eade]

I tend to agree with Ken Rubin’s take on LeBreton; that it should have a LOT more thought about PEOPLE and less thought about private development.

I favoured the Devcore bid over RL’s because it had a lot more stuff that might attract people. In fact, one of the things that they suggested was a Media and Communications Centre. Now Ken Rubin states that “the library also needs to be part of a larger mandate for a community and national meeting and media communications place and an accessible, adjacent year-round event place.” So, why not combine those ideas into a library/archives/media & communications centre of excellence? There could even be a component about curating of media, perhaps run by Carleton University as part of their Curatorial Studies program. We have telecom and high-tech communication companies galore in this area; why not get them to participate?

Devcore also had an Automobile Museum suggested, so why not make that also include a centre of excellence for Autonomous Vehicle development? Ottawa has attracted a lot of individual Autonomous Vehicle developers; so why not offer a place where ideas can be nurtured and grow? We try to do that with the Innovation Centre at Bayview.

How about a national convention centre – maybe shaped to represent a huge teepee? It could include information about the First Peoples of the area and how this was a traditional meeting spot.

Not all of the ideas that Devcore suggested would have been winners, but, in my opinion, they offered a lot more for people than the private residence towers, private office towers, and a private arena that RV put forth.

Sure, there needs to be a component that will pay for development of the area, but there should also be a considerable ‘people’ component.

[Kitchissippi]

The way I see it 900 Albert is all rentals, and LeBreton was supposed to be mostly condominiums. Two different markets and financial models. The fact that there would already be a supermarket at Trinity Centre might even help sell condos at LeBreton faster.

Although it's hard to predict the future, the LeBreton site is really unparalleled in its central location and access to transit. There's a chance to create a type of community that that does not currently exist in the city — dense urban living with unique features (the Aqueduct and riverfront) and likely the conveniences and retail offerings normally found in the suburbs (urban format big box stores? Cineplex? Modern rec centre/library?). Done right I think the plan was feasible and even had the potential to attract new residents (i.e. retirees from Toronto fed up with the big city, or from elsewhere looking for a place with more conveniences and services). If anything it would just suck up condo sales from other parts of the city.

[McC]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

If LeBreton was supposed to be such a ‘People Friendly’ area, how come the City built a WALL across it?



(Of course, that is a rhetorical question.)

If the City had been serious about encouraging LeBreton to become a 'People Place', it should have built Booth Street upon a porous viaduct. Perhaps there could have been artisan stalls in some of the arches. You know, once it becomes a 'People Place'.

I think that the idea is/was that the level of the Booth viaduct would become the new ground level (and ditto at the extension of Preston in the future), with buildings opening their front doors onto it at grade (and sloping down to the existing buildings to the east). That way it should look like a hill, instead of an overpass, and the wall would have basements and garages built up to it. I believe that the plans for developing the lands on either side of City Centre Avenue are supposed to do the same thing with respect to the Somerset Viaduct.

[ars]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I saw it coming. I was in denial, but I saw it coming. Trinity probably should have put that and the Gladstone proposal on hold, at least until the arena was built.

Same here, but my main concern was Eugene Melnyk himself. I knew if this development was going to hit snags, it would be because of him.

This man has proven, time and time again, his inability to work with anyone other than the people who do his bidding.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

If LeBreton was supposed to be such a ‘People Friendly’ area, how come the City built a WALL across it?

I think the plan is to have the buildings butt up to that wall. The ones cornering the Aqueduct would have a street level and a canal level

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

Honestly, at this point the NCC should maybe keep a couple parcels to be developed later into national monuments or something... then transfer Lebreton Flats to the Canada Lands Company and get out of the way. Canada Lands Company knows how to get things developed. Something like plans for Les Bassins du Nouveau Havre in Montreal would be fine.

This does make sense. CLC does good stuff. While Rockcliffe is mostly suburban that's a product of its location.

The ideal use for the Lebreton lands is to transform it into an actual urban neighbourhood where people live and work. That's why RVL plan was superior to the DevCore one IMO; the DevCore one turned the whole place into a series of tourist gimmicks that would be routinely dead after 6pm.

The cruel reality is that an arena is too expensive to be privately financed by development of Lebreton. So ditch the arena and go ahead with building an urban neighbourhood in that space. The RVL plan was pretty great, use that as the blueprint for the land's development minus the arena. Sure it will take 20 years or so to fill it all out, but no rush. Just get it started.

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think Trinity probably knew from the beginning that the math for Lebreton wasn’t going to work and continued to focus on their own project.

In that scenario, Trinity likely participated in the Lebreton project solely to increase the market appeal for the 900 Albert project, which is a pretty dirty trick IMO.

[ars]

Originally Posted by CityTech

In that scenario, Trinity likely participated in the Lebreton project solely to increase the market appeal for the 900 Albert project, which is a pretty dirty trick IMO.

I don't believe that there is any proof or indication of this. Both Trinity and CSMI commissioned reports that backed both of their viewpoints(CSMI believed that 900 Albert and Lebreton can't coexist, Trinity believed that they can) and Trinity filed the planning applications for Lebreton in September, from which you can assume they were fully on board with the project.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

If LeBreton was supposed to be such a ‘People Friendly’ area, how come the City built a WALL across it?



(Of course, that is a rhetorical question.)

If the City had been serious about encouraging LeBreton to become a 'People Place', it should have built Booth Street upon a porous viaduct. Perhaps there could have been artisan stalls in some of the arches. You know, once it becomes a 'People Place'.

Creating a new Gardiner expressway type underpass space doesn't sound very appealing....

Once LeBreton is finally developed Booth will be lined with buildings and hopefully street-front retail.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by shawkr

Kanata belongs to Ottawa the Metropolis.

Kanata does not belong to Ottawa the City.

Both statements are true pre- and post-amalgamation.

I’m sorry but you are wrong. “Ward 4 - Kanata North,” “Ward 6 - Stittsville-Kanata West” and “Ward 23 - Kanata South” are all wards within the City of Ottawa.

https://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/plann...-and-ward-maps

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by ars

I don't believe that there is any proof or indication of this. Both Trinity and CSMI commissioned reports that backed both of their viewpoints(CSMI believed that 900 Albert and Lebreton can't coexist, Trinity believed that they can) and Trinity filed the planning applications for Lebreton in September, from which you can assume they were fully on board with the project.

I wouldn’t assume that, particularly since they apparently filed those plans without finalizing any agreements.

[McKellarDweller]

Originally Posted by shawkr

I'm still a little foggy on how Melnyk is harmed in all this. Does he have a direct financial interest in the residential developments? I thought his investment was in the arena.

My understanding is that Melnyk/the partnership were going to use proceeds from selling residences / leasing and selling commercial space to finance/float the arena construction. As others have said on here, it looks like Melnyk does not have the liquidity or willingness to get an arena project off the drawing board into reality without this cash flow. He is right that the Trinity/Bayview project would soften demand/absorption/viability for the critical early phase of the Lebreton project.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by CityTech

This does make sense. CLC does good stuff. While Rockcliffe is mostly suburban that's a product of its location.

The ideal use for the Lebreton lands is to transform it into an actual urban neighbourhood where people live and work. That's why RVL plan was superior to the DevCore one IMO; the DevCore one turned the whole place into a series of tourist gimmicks that would be routinely dead after 6pm.

The cruel reality is that an arena is too expensive to be privately financed by development of Lebreton. So ditch the arena and go ahead with building an urban neighbourhood in that space. The RVL plan was pretty great, use that as the blueprint for the land's development minus the arena. Sure it will take 20 years or so to fill it all out, but no rush. Just get it started.



In that scenario, Trinity likely participated in the Lebreton project solely to increase the market appeal for the 900 Albert project, which is a pretty dirty trick IMO.

Ditching the arena and obviously the Sensplex leaves us with nothing more than a typical 21st century modern development, which will likely inspire nobody considering its prominent location. It will be Lansdowne minus. Nothing more than a cash cow for the developers with no incentive to provide public amenities beyond the minimum needed to support the neighbourhood. I have visions of the 1990s plan for Lansdowne without a stadium, which was horrid. Nothing like desperation to produce terrible results.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Ditching the arena and obviously the Sensplex leaves us with nothing more than a typical 21st century modern development, which will likely inspire nobody considering its prominent location. It will be Lansdowne minus. Nothing more than a cash cow for the developers with no incentive to provide public amenities beyond the minimum needed to support the neighbourhood. I have visions of the 1990s plan for Lansdowne without a stadium, which was horrid. Nothing like desperation to produce terrible results.

I agree with your take - the result is not likely to be very inspiring. Though I also agree with City Tech - going back to a cluster of random tourist attractions is not likely to lead to a vibrant neighbourhood.

My view is that the arena is important not just for the Sens, but as a national events centre as advertised, and to be a focal point of the neighbourhood. An arena like that could be busy most nights of the year, both with the usual sports and concerts, but also national conventions, ceremonies etc. For that reason, I think that some public support makes sense, whether it be in the form of free land, incremental tax financing or something else. The city as a whole loses if we don't get that amenity downtown.

What I would like to see - the NCC cleans up the land, uses the Rendez-vous urban plan, but divides up the developable area into smaller parcels to make it accessible to smaller firms. It then holds a design competition to seek out the best proposals to create a kind of national architectural showcase neighbourhood. The winners get the land for free, but some portion of the profits from their developments is funneled into the public amenities, including the arena.

The buildout would need to be in stages, but I think the result could be attractive to locals and visitors alike.

[shawkr]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I’m sorry but you are wrong. “Ward 4 - Kanata North,” “Ward 6 - Stittsville-Kanata West” and “Ward 23 - Kanata South” are all wards within the City of Ottawa.

https://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/plann...-and-ward-maps

The "City of Ottawa" also includes Carp, Dunrobin, Cumberland and Metcalfe. There are points within the municipal boundary that are closer to Ogdensburg than Parliament. If you thought the question is about official municipal jurisdictions, then I can't help you.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by phil235

I agree with your take - the result is not likely to be very inspiring. Though I also agree with City Tech - going back to a cluster of random tourist attractions is not likely to lead to a vibrant neighbourhood.

My view is that the arena is important not just for the Sens, but as a national events centre as advertised, and to be a focal point of the neighbourhood. An arena like that could be busy most nights of the year, both with the usual sports and concerts, but also national conventions, ceremonies etc. For that reason, I think that some public support makes sense, whether it be in the form of free land, incremental tax financing or something else. The city as a whole loses if we don't get that amenity downtown.

What I would like to see - the NCC cleans up the land, uses the Rendez-vous urban plan, but divides up the developable area into smaller parcels to make it accessible to smaller firms. It then holds a design competition to seek out the best proposals to create a kind of national architectural showcase neighbourhood. The winners get the land for free, but some portion of the profits from their developments is funneled into the public amenities, including the arena.

The buildout would need to be in stages, but I think the result could be attractive to locals and visitors alike.

The city seems to think they can have a neighbourhood with outstanding architecture and public amenities without any significant financial commitment or investment. That goes back to the comment that the public amenities need to require modest upkeep by the city. Let the weeds grow next to those outdoor patios that may never be built. A condo neighbourhood with no public attraction will not become a magnet to other Ottawans nor tourists, regardless of the presence of LRT.

[waterloowarrior]

It's strange that three separate columns this week, and Melnyk's own statement of claim are saying 900 Albert will be condominiums, but the development is actually planned as rental units owned by InterRent REIT

https://ottawasun.com/opinion/column...ight-in-kanata
https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/co...eal-the-better
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...for-ottawa-ncc

But consider the more cautious report on LeBreton’s economics prepared by the firm PwC. Yes, it was commissioned by Melnyk, but its conclusions are supported by independent data.

The gist of the report, outlined in Melnyk’s statement of claim, is that Ottawa has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create a kind of Times Square in the empty LeBreton quarter. However, PwC concluded the sheer scale of Trinity’s $400-million condo-and-retail development at 900 Albert — with nearly 1,400 proposed units — would result in a rival centre of activity in an area of the city that has economic wealth to support just one.


Further, PwC concludes, the early commercial advantages belong to Ruddy. Not only would 900 Albert be the first to market its condos, PwC notes, but it would enjoy greater economies of scale because it is taller and require less spending to prepare the site for construction. Trinity should therefore be able to sell comparable units for less than would be the case on LeBreton Flats.

PwC’s research points to the need for a master development that includes both LeBreton Flats and 900 Albert, one that would create a single centre concentrated around the arena.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

It's strange that three separate columns this week, and Melnyk's own statement of claim are saying 900 Albert will be condominiums, but the development is actually planned as rentals.

The whole focus on 900 Albert is a red herring if you ask me. Melnyk’s position is that he expected Trinity to sit on the land until Lebreton was done? That they needed to sell it off to someone else...who would build condos? I don’t see any alternative that makes sense.

The idea that Trinity went through the 3-year Lebreton process in bad faith knowing that the project wasn’t viable is preposterous. All of that effort for the purpose of gaining an advantage for their much smaller 900 Albert project? Again, doesn’t make sense.

There is no chance that Melnyk ever expects to get to a point where he has to prove those dubious claims in court. The only logic that makes sense is that the lawsuit was filed for a strategic purpose. That or he really is unstable and is lashing out at everyone around him (as was claimed in lawsuits by those former Sens executives whose suits were quietly settled earlier this year).

[m0nkyman]

It seems to be being taken as obvious that having 900 Albert develop is harmful to the LeBreton development. This isn’t obvious to me.

The concurrent development of Zibi, 900 Albert, Rendezvous and Claridge LeBretons, as wel as the Library made this area seem really hot. Made me think that investing in the area was a good choice. I’ve been watching the retail opportunities like a hawk.

Ottawa is growing fast enough to absorb hundreds of acres of suburban development and nobody questions it. It amazes me that we don’t believe in our potential as an urban city even on this forum.

[McC]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

It's strange that three separate columns this week, and Melnyk's own statement of claim are saying 900 Albert will be condominiums, but the development is actually planned as rental units owned by InterRent REIT

Lots of folk (including people getting published in print, unfortunately) seem to use the word “condo” lazily to mean any highrise housing (usually contemptuously)

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by m0nkyman

It seems to be being taken as obvious that having 900 Albert develop is harmful to the LeBreton development. This isn’t obvious to me.

The concurrent development of Zibi, 900 Albert, Rendezvous and Claridge LeBretons, as wel as the Library made this area seem really hot. Made me think that investing in the area was a good choice. I’ve been watching the retail opportunities like a hawk.

Ottawa is growing fast enough to absorb hundreds of acres of suburban development and nobody questions it. It amazes me that we don’t believe in our potential as an urban city even on this forum.

Development of taller buildings in this city happens very slowly. There just isn’t that much demand. There is a condo glut right now, so there are lots of projects in the planning phase but very few shovels going into the ground on new projects. Trinity’s development (if it isn’t vapourware) would probably absorb the capacity in the area for a decade.