Lansdowne Park Redevelopment Phase 1 | Completed

[alecz_dad]

Fortunately, unlike the folks on Holmwood, my house does not look out on to Lansdowne. At the moment I can look down the street and the trees almost hide the carbuncle that is the cinema.

Originally Posted by JFFournier

Hey, any chance that the view from your house is the bigger reason why you're still agonizing over this? Could it be that the enjoyment levels of visitors is actually secondary?

[alecz_dad]

I suspect they signed a multi-year lease with reassurances that the football team would be tits up in a few years.

Originally Posted by Acajack

You mean they signed a multi-year lease without knowing that there was a stadium that would be used in the complex?

[alecz_dad]

Better hurry up. I reckon that with the unfair subsidy that the stores at Lansdowne will be receiving, and the impediment that the increase in traffic and demand for parking, will place on the stores on Bank Street, many will soon be gone. Already, a number of them have left, and storefronts remain vacant.

Originally Posted by JFFournier

Awwwww....

No need for concern then. As a visitor, what would I be losing, exactly? All those great visits to the Coliseum building? If I still want to go to some of the stores I've enjoyed in the past, I can. If I want to go into Central Park, I can (God knows very few people do, despite claims of lack of park space in the Glebe). And now the Horticulture will actually be useful! The stadium will be much improved. I will enjoy the Glebe far more!

As touching as your concern for visitors is, it is unnecessary. The most vocal opposition came from within the Glebe. It doesn't seem as though many people living outside the neighborhood were afraid of losing whatever made the Glebe a nice place to visit so I think you can rest easy.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

I suspect they signed a multi-year lease with reassurances that the football team would be tits up in a few years.

That sounds totally preposterous.

[JFFournier]

Originally Posted by Acajack

That sounds totally preposterous.

But par for the course.

[JFFournier]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

Better hurry up. I reckon that with the unfair subsidy that the stores at Lansdowne will be receiving, and the impediment that the increase in traffic and demand for parking, will place on the stores on Bank Street, many will soon be gone. Already, a number of them have left, and storefronts remain vacant.

A number have already left? Is there a chance that perhaps their departure is unrelated to what's going on Lansdowne Park?

[kevinbottawa]

I add my name to the small list of people who think conversations about Bayview and lamenting the current Lansdowne plan are pointless and actually quite annoying. Once upon a time I used to enjoy this thread.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

Phil,

OSMUG learned from the experience of all their failures. So, they:
* promised the glorious return of football (for how long, I wonder?);
* they concocted a scheme where the land technically remained public, paying $1 a year lease, while de facto privatizing it;
* they shackled the repair of the Civic Centre with a convoluted financial arrangement that required the building of a private mall and private condos on public land;
* they brushed away concerns about how 300,000 sq/ft of retail, 280 condo units and a 20,000 seat stadium are all going to co-exist with only 1500 parking spots, with magical thinking that people will just decide to bus, walk and bike in greater numbers than has ever been the case before.

As for driving distances, it's not far off what you suggest for SBP.
Lansdowne to:
Kanata = 22 km
Orleans = 15 km
Riverside South = 15 km
Barrhaven = 18 km
Promenades de l'outaouais (Gatineau) = 13 km

...

By inextricably tying up the new mall and condo construction with the fixing up the old stadium, OSMUG and the City were able to sidestep the intent of the OP in this regard, which is to ensure that NEW development -- and let's not kid ourselves, that's what this is -- conforms to the urban development objectives agreed upon in the OP.

Are you honestly arguing that a central location doesn't benefit more people, and that it is more beneficial to have absolutely everyone hop in their cars and head to the farthest reaches of suburbia for every major event? And then drive again to a bar or restaurant after the game? It is more than distances - its the absolute lack of proper alternative transportation options that makes that a completely irresponsible idea to promote. And don't kid yourself. Lansdowne is a transit paradise compared to Riverside South or Kanata. That is the reason that your cherry-picked San Francisco example is an exception, not an example of good planning. Lansdowne is in the middle of the most densely populated and walkable part of the city. The benefits of that are quite obvious to most people.

In terms of your parking complaint, most contemporary urban theorists see the limitation and pricing of parking as the single most important factor in getting people to use alternative means of transportation. The City got the parking right on this development, and it is very likely to show when modal shares are calculated.

Lastly, what you and most critics absolutely fail to acknowledge is the fact that this is not a new facility. There has been a stadium and arena on site for decades. No one has yet been able to explain why it made more sense to tear down the existing facility, including a perfectly good 10,000 seat arena, when you would just have to replace the arena at enormous cost elsewhere.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

Indeed, but I really do not understand how a pedestrian- and transit-oriented development will work in a city that is now so significantly suburban and rural.

Although there has been some intensification in recent years within the central area, it is pretty clear that the majority of residents still live in the suburbs. The 2006 Census population count for pre-amalgamation Ottawa was 328,105, whereas it was estimated that a total of 1,148,800 people lived in the greater Ottawa (Ottawa-Gatineau) area.

[/IMG]

These are pretty interesting statistics you have chosen. Irrespective of metro area population counts, the majority of people in Ottawa still live inside the Greenbelt. The claim that the suburbs are "where people live" is straight out of Ken Gray territory.

And isn't the idea of putting this type of development in a central location just the type of strategy that makes sense if your goal is to counteract suburban sprawl? You are walking a really fine line if you aren't a fan of suburban sprawl as you claim.

And lastly, your contention that there are a lot of vacancies on Bank St. is simply untrue. There is always significant turnover on that strip, and there are not more vacancies now than there were 2 years ago or 5 years ago.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by phil235

Are you honestly arguing that a central location doesn't benefit more people, and that it is more beneficial to have absolutely everyone hop in their cars and head to the farthest reaches of suburbia for every major event? And then drive again to a bar or restaurant after the game? It is more than distances - its the absolute lack of proper alternative transportation options that makes that a completely irresponsible idea to promote. And don't kid yourself. Lansdowne is a transit paradise compared to Riverside South or Kanata. That is the reason that your cherry-picked San Francisco example is an exception, not an example of good planning. Lansdowne is in the middle of the most densely populated and walkable part of the city. The benefits of that are quite obvious to most people.

In terms of your parking complaint, most contemporary urban theorists see the limitation and pricing of parking as the single most important factor in getting people to use alternative means of transportation. The City got the parking right on this development, and it is very likely to show when modal shares are calculated.

Lastly, what you and most critics absolutely fail to acknowledge is the fact that this is not a new facility. There has been a stadium and arena on site for decades. No one has yet been able to explain why it made more sense to tear down the existing facility, including a perfectly good 10,000 seat arena, when you would just have to replace the arena at enormous cost elsewhere.

Parking is such a red herring issue. Throught the 70s and 80s the stadium had a capacity of almost 35,000. Then they tore down the bleachers in both end zones and this brought capacity to 30,000. All of this time, the number of on-site parking spaces remained at 2,200.

The new stadium will seat 24-25,000. With 1,100 parking spaces.

So the ratio of parking spaces to capacity is not significantly changed.

At no time in history have 10% of the spectators at Frank Clair parked on site.

As for transit, OC Transpo runs special express buses to an from the stadium to major stations across the city. Always have since I was a kid.

[McC]

Originally Posted by phil235

These are pretty interesting statistics you have chosen. Irrespective of metro area population counts, the majority of people in Ottawa still live inside the Greenbelt. The claim that the suburbs are "where people live" is straight out of Ken Gray territory.

The pre-amalgamation City of Ottawa population count would have excluded inside-the-Greenbelt residents of Vanier, (tiny) Rockliffe, and significant portions of Gloucester and Nepean.

[ThaLoveDocta]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

Better hurry up. I reckon that with the unfair subsidy that the stores at Lansdowne will be receiving, and the impediment that the increase in traffic and demand for parking, will place on the stores on Bank Street, many will soon be gone. Already, a number of them have left, and storefronts remain vacant.

Please explain how increased traffic causes stores to close.

Also, please explain how a stadium not yet built, and stores and condos not yet open, have caused increased traffic, which has caused stores to "have left already".

This is getting ridiculous.

[JackBauer24]

Originally Posted by ThaLoveDocta

Please explain how increased traffic causes stores to close.

Also, please explain how a stadium not yet built, and stores and condos not yet open, have caused increased traffic, which has caused stores to "have left already".

This is getting ridiculous.

It's really quite simple. Because of all the noise and dust caused by the construction, instead of walking about the Glebe, Glebites have turned to using their cars to protect themselves from the elements - that's the increased traffic part.

As for the closing stores part, I would guess that the increased usage of their cars results in more gas being bought, cutting into their budget, leaving less money to support local businesses.

[JackBauer24]

Originally Posted by Acajack

As for transit, OC Transpo runs special express buses to an from the stadium to major stations across the city. Always have since I was a kid.

Wait.... are you saying the city will actually create new and more frequent bus or train routes to and from the stadium, lessening the impact traffic will have? That's crazy talk.

[Boxster]

Originally Posted by JackBauer24

It's really quite simple. Because of all the noise and dust caused by the construction, instead of walking about the Glebe, Glebites have turned to using their cars to protect themselves from the elements - that's the increased traffic part.

As for the closing stores part, I would guess that the increased usage of their cars results in more gas being bought, cutting into their budget, leaving less money to support local businesses.

Come on - I believe that is a lot of bul.....

[JackBauer24]

Maybe I dreamed this, but I recall a few years back, Bank St. was under heavy, heavy construction for about a year between Holmwood and Fifth Ave (it maybe have been as far north as First Ave). THAT construction had a much more significant impact on the traffic (pedestrian and vehicle) to the area. I don't seem to recall too much of an up roar from Glebites then, nor do I recall seeing a bunch of stores shut down either.

Now you're claiming that a project, which is attracting a lot of positive attention around the city, is located on the cusp of the Glebe, which has yet to interfere with any traffic, and will further improve the appeal of the Glebe, is responsible for businesses closing? If there are businesses that have closed due to the construction at Lansdowne, they were as weak as your latest argument and were destined to fail.

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

Better hurry up. I reckon that with the unfair subsidy that the stores at Lansdowne will be receiving, and the impediment that the increase in traffic and demand for parking, will place on the stores on Bank Street, many will soon be gone. Already, a number of them have left, and storefronts remain vacant.

[JackBauer24]

Originally Posted by Boxster

Come on - I believe that is a lot of bul.....

That's the only theory I could come up with linking businesses closing with Lansdowne construction.

Anyone else have any other theories? Preferably one that isn't half-baked?
Or are we all in agreement that these two items are independent of one another?

[umbria27]

Originally Posted by ThaLoveDocta

Please explain how increased traffic causes stores to close.

Also, please explain how a stadium not yet built, and stores and condos not yet open, have caused increased traffic, which has caused stores to "have left already".

This is getting ridiculous.

I would be interested to know what the vacancy rate is for Glebe retailers and how that compares to the rate before the OSEG deal was concluded. I seem to recall the retail survey saying the vacancy rate was very low.
Anecdotally there seem to be more empty store fronts than a few years ago, but I suspect (and hope) it's a temporary phenomenon, partly related to last year's (was it last year, I can't remember now) Bank street reconstruction. There's always a certain amount of churn of retailers on any street. Some like Slaysh have moved because they realized their hipster clientele lived elsewhere. Others like Alex's Bakery seemed to have been poorly thought out and underfunded. All that is normal. There have been significant new ventures: ZaZaZa Pizza, a new juice place, a new burger place. My guess is that some potential tenants are waiting to see how it all shakes out.
We really won't know what the effects are for a few years and I expect the BIA will keep a close eye on vacancy rates for a while.

[JackBauer24]

I'm on Bank St. in the Glebe almost every day, and I really haven't noticed a higher turnover rate now than before - it's pretty much on par than pre-Lansdowne construction.

The Glebe has proven to be a great location where businesses can be quite lucrative if they are positioned and structures properly. But if you have a poor product or service, or one that is out of touch with your direct clientele, it won't matter where your business is - it'll most likely fail.

With or without Lansdowne, the Glebe will always have it's "followers" where the right type of business will flourish. Lansdowne will only add more potential shoppers to the area, which can't be a bad thing if you're a business owner.

Originally Posted by umbria27

I would be interested to know what the vacancy rate is for Glebe retailers and how that compares to the rate before the OSEG deal was concluded. I seem to recall the retail survey saying the vacancy rate was very low.
Anecdotally there seem to be more empty store fronts than a few years ago, but I suspect (and hope) it's a temporary phenomenon, partly related to last year's (was it last year, I can't remember now) Bank street reconstruction. There's always a certain amount of churn of retailers on any street. Some like Slaysh have moved because they realized their hipster clientele lived elsewhere. Others like Alex's Bakery seemed to have been poorly thought out and underfunded. All that is normal. There have been significant new ventures: ZaZaZa Pizza, a new juice place, a new burger place. My guess is that some potential tenants are waiting to see how it all shakes out.
We really won't know what the effects are for a few years and I expect the BIA will keep a close eye on vacancy rates for a while.

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

Better hurry up. I reckon that with the unfair subsidy that the stores at Lansdowne will be receiving, and the impediment that the increase in traffic and demand for parking, will place on the stores on Bank Street, many will soon be gone. Already, a number of them have left, and storefronts remain vacant.

Given that Minto is the #1 landlord of commercial property in the Glebe as well as at Lansdowne, I doubt, somehow, that they will charge lower rents for their newly built Lansdowne retail spaces and higher rents for their older Bank St properties in order to screw themselves over.