The New Official Lansdowne Park Conservancy Thread

[lpc]

Originally Posted by Umpaidh

So instead of a 4 week RFQ, the city should spend a taxpayers dollars reviewing every single proposal from qualified and unqualified then? Fair enough.

But the RFP process began on February 19th, with the designs unveiled May 20th, and the winning design was selected in early June. Using the cities own wording, this was an aggressive schedule for the plan. That is a total of 90 days, plus a few weeks to deliberate over which plan is best.

And again, the urban park plan is still not ready to put a shovel into the ground, over 10 months later.

Now please provide an example, as previously requested, of a project of equal size that only took 60 days for the entire process to proceed.

The RFQ portion is included within the RFP. You eliminate applicants by requirement. The City also can add an administrative fee of between $5,000 to $10,000 per application if you desire to further weed out the serious to not serious contenders. The point being that you narrow the scope within the context of the RFP and make life easier.

If you would like a link to the Phase I and Phase II specifications and dates of the RFQ and RFP they are easily found on the internet and confirm the dates provided.

The Front Lawn portion has not started for the simple reason there is no contract even though a winner has been declared. This was a shortcoming of the RFP. They outlined that the winner would not be entitled to a contract. This is a sad reminder of how politics have played too much into the process.

No matter how many examples are provided it is quite clear that you plan to argue for no reason. The fact remains that 60 day RFP's are an industry norm. Feel free to search on the MERX site and find 60 days RFP's through Municipal, Provincial and Federal releases and for much larger projects.

We contend that the City more than likely has the RFP ready for release and that a 60 day RFP with built in requirements for bidders will be released.

We also are ready for such an eventuality as are a number of well known firms who have been keeping close tabs on the developments on Lansdowne Park.

[lpc]

Originally Posted by Umpaidh

Please provide a link or put out a press release indicating this, and I will believe you.

The release has been made and is also on our website.

Several papers have spoken with us and we anticipate some coverage on the matter within the coming days.

[Umpaidh]

Originally Posted by lpc

The RFQ portion is included within the RFP. You eliminate applicants by requirement. The City also can add an administrative fee of between $5,000 to $10,000 per application if you desire to further weed out the serious to not serious contenders. The point being that you narrow the scope within the context of the RFP and make life easier.

If you would like a link to the Phase I and Phase II specifications and dates of the RFQ and RFP they are easily found on the internet and confirm the dates provided.

The Front Lawn portion has not started for the simple reason there is no contract even though a winner has been declared. This was a shortcoming of the RFP. They outlined that the winner would not be entitled to a contract. This is a sad reminder of how politics have played too much into the process.

No matter how many examples are provided it is quite clear that you plan to argue for no reason. The fact remains that 60 day RFP's are an industry norm. Feel free to search on the MERX site and find 60 days RFP's through Municipal, Provincial and Federal releases and for much larger projects.

We contend that the City more than likely has the RFP ready for release and that a 60 day RFP with built in requirements for bidders will be released.

We also are ready for such an eventuality as are a number of well known firms who have been keeping close tabs on the developments on Lansdowne Park.

The dates I provided are from the website, and if you arent willing to provide an example, then you are right, this conversation isn't worth either of our time. It seems every time you provide an example, someone shoots it down, and you fall back on your talking points. Much like Michael and John do, and continue to do.

Edit: Also, I will be watching with baited breath for the news reports regarding OSEG playing football under the conservancy model, as a one sentence post on your own website is not a press release.

[lpc]

It is pointless to say an RFP cannot be completed in 60 days by the City when they have done so in the past.

It is also a given that if so ordered by the court the RFP process will likely be shortened to 45 days, however that would be after losing 5 months of summer construction time.

The logical turn of events is for the City to get it done now, gain an additional 5 months and allow breathing room for the inevitable mistakes and delays that are also a reality.

PS - To clarify. Though OSEG has confirmed they will play at a stadium developed and run by the Conservancy, they are equally willing to play at any stadium. This is not new, just not well known publicly. The contractual obligation to play at any suitable stadium regardless of who builds it confirms their position and is written into their franchise contract with the CFL.

[kevinbottawa]

I've stated why I prefer the OSEG plan in the past. Now seeing the pictures, unfortunately there's nothing appealing about this plan. It's not in the best interest of the city and it's the status quo. It bothers me seeing drawings of a stadium with World Cup 2014 written on the picture, hearing about the CFL playing at the NBBJ-designed stadium, and being told it's a given that the courts will reopen the RFP process. So many assumptions. Before I simply disagreed but now I'm completely turned off.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by kevinbottawa

........, and being told it's a given that the courts will reopen the RFP process. So many assumptions. Before I simply disagreed but now I'm completely turned off.

Big assumption indeed. It might not be the case even if City were found not to have followed its own policies.

[lpc]

Originally Posted by kevinbottawa

I've stated why I prefer the OSEG plan in the past. Now seeing the pictures, unfortunately there's nothing appealing about this plan. It's not in the best interest of the city and it's the status quo. It bothers me seeing drawings of a stadium with World Cup 2014 written on the picture, hearing about the CFL playing at the NBBJ-designed stadium, and being told it's a given that the courts will reopen the RFP process. So many assumptions. Before I simply disagreed but now I'm completely turned off.

The over riding concern over Lansdowne is to seek a working balance between development, history, heritage, tradition and best bang for the buck.

Can towers and high density be successful at Lansdowne? Possibly.

Can those items be located elsewhere? Definitely.

Are there better financial models to examine at Lansdowne? Without doubt yes!

Are placing towers and high density at Lansdowne the best use of this special site in our Nation's Capital?

Now that is the question that needs to be carefully answered.

Our position is that this special site deserves something unique, and that means precluding towers, private homes and large ten story commercial structures.

We are proposing 110,000 sq/ft of mixed retail/restaurants/pubs, or about 1/3 the proposed retail mix of the developer bid (and 1/5th overall).

Bottom line for the taxpayer is a self financing model with no taxpayer cost under the Conservancy (all site revenue surplus pays off the investment) as compared to $403M cost to the taxpayer or, pardon the term, "corporate welfare" under the developer model.

The main objective of the Conservancy is to demonstrate the high yield not only financially but to tourism and overall quality of life with the philosophy of our approach, essentially cultural economics.

Preserving the heritage and traditions of the site and keeping the 150 year public trust for the benefit of the next generations we believe is a very worthwhile and profitable pursuit.

[lpc]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Big assumption indeed. It might not be the case even if City were found not to have followed its own policies.

A common mis perception is re-opening of the RFP process. It was never opened.

One thing is for certain, there are no guarantees with the courts, but selling the idea of "revenue neutral" with a known taxpayer cost of over $400M will be a problem. If the City is found to not have followed policy that is their prerogative and not an item for remedy from the court. That is not the main trust. The question is did the City break the law, and that is something the court will rule on.

As pointed out the easiest and simplest way out of this is to follow the intent of the By-Law. There is no risk in having an RFP now. The risk to the City is waiting.

[michaelae]

Isn't it a bit extreme to ban Mr.LPC on a thread dedicated to the LPC ? i figured it'd be a spot he could bring details forth in without swamping other threads. Seemed perfect. Odd censure.

[Cre47]

Another bad thing about the plan in the addition of a lack of or unsufficient lively areas and residential and retail space (and once again I repeat no Wal-Mart and big-box crap) is the absence of the pedestrian bridge crossing to the Main Street area (it would have been shown at the top of the image if it was at Fifth Avenue.

[LeadingEdgeBoomer]

Cre47--a bridge across the canl at fifth avenue has taken a life of its own , completely separate and not dependent upon the Lansdowne project. The city has started an EA concerning the bridge as per this notice from the city web site.

Environmental Assessment Study

The City of Ottawa has initiated an environmental assessment (EA) study to identify a recommended plan for improving multi-use (pedestrian/cycling) linkages over the Rideau Canal in Midtown Ottawa (between Pretoria Bridge and the Bank Street Bridge). The overall objective of this study is to identify a distinctive, functional crossing that is respectful of the Canal’s scenic, natural and cultural heritage context.

About the Study
This EA study will be planned as a Schedule ‘C’ Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA). The main activities include:

Assessing the need for a new multi-use crossing

Defining planning, design, and aesthetic parameters
Examining potential crossing locations and their impacts on surrounding areas
Examining design alternatives
Identifying a recommended plan detailing the preferred functional design, mitigation strategy, project cost, and required approvals.
Specifically, this study will address the ‘Five L’s’: Linkages; Location; Length; Landing and Looks.

Phase 1 Problem or Opportunity
Linkages
Does the Rideau Canal represent a barrier to pedestrian and cycling connectivity in Midtown Ottawa?
If so, how does this barrier affect travel behaviour?
Is there an opportunity to enhance linkages between neighbourhoods in Midtown Ottawa?
Phase 2 Alternative Solutions
Linkages
What is the preferred planning alternative?
Do nothing
Improve existing connections (Pretoria and Bank Street Bridges); or
Construct a new crossing?
Phase 3 Alternative Design Concepts for Preferred Solution
Location
What are the key opportunities and constraints in the study area?
How do different crossing locations affect planning and design considerations?
Where is the most desirable location for a crossing?
Length
How does the crossing location influence the length of the crossing?
How does the length of the crossing affect aesthetic and design concepts?
How does the length of a crossing influence project costs?
Landing
How will crossing approaches/landings impact the canal, adjacent roadways, recreational pathways, and green spaces?
How will the crossing connect to the neighbourhoods on either side of the canal?
How will the crossing connect to existing pathways?
Looks
How will study area constraints and associated structural design considerations influence the architectural design of a new crossing?
What aesthetic features are desirable for the crossing?
What aesthetic features are appropriate for the crossing, given the cultural heritage of the Canal?
Phase 4 Environmental Assessment Documentation
Phase 5 Detail Design and Implementation will be the focus of future
The City of Ottawa, the National Capital Commission, Parks Canada, other interested agencies, and the public will work together throughout the EA study to explore opportunities to enhance pedestrian and cycling connections across the Canal. The study will culminate in the design of a crossing that will better connect residents, workers, and visitors of Midtown Ottawa.

Additional information about this study is discussed in the Statement of Work approved by City Council on April 7, 2010.

If you have questions about this study, please contact:

Colin Simpson MCIP RPP
Senior Project Manager
City of Ottawa
110 Laurier Avenue West, 4th Floor
Ottawa ON K1P 1J1
Tel: 613-580-2424, ext. 27881
Fax: 613-580-2578
E-mail: colin.simpson@ottawa.ca

[michaelae]

Hi Phil235,
Not sure if you'll find my reply here or not. The other thread is apparently closed.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the viability of a huge market at Lansdowne. I just don't believe that Ottawa is a large enough city to support two large markets. Smaller neighbourhood markets, absolutely, but the type of place that you are describing (a large market that is surrounded by restaurants and bars) is really along the lines of the Byward Market and would be in direct competition with it. You haven't provided any compelling description of the differences between the two.

clearly the right balance need to be achieved. i think we can build up from the market, it's not what i'd call a real market along the lines of jean-talon, it's pretty small scale. ottawa doesn't have a market as such. the market (downtown) is an interesting mix of shops and restaurants , with a slight peppering of market and it can as such not be threatened by a larger market in another part of town.

We'll also have to disagree that the market would draw people all of the time. Yes, there are some stalls that are open later, but the vast majority of the stalls close up in the evenings. You then have unusuable empty space (and unusable paved space in every market I've ever seen). Even the Byward Market isn't open evenings, and it is greatly scaled back in the colder months. And the Byward Market is in a prime tourist district, on rapid transit and surrounded by a high-denisty residential area with built-in customers. There is really no evidence of any kind that a market at Lansdowne would be anything but a part-time user of the public space. A market may be part of a good public space, but it won't anchor one by itself.

The market does work as a combination small shops + restaurants/pubs/... though.
I agree a site needs multiple things to do, and that a pure market would tend to be bursty in use. However market + restaurants starts to look busy a lot of the time.
Are you pointing out that Lansdowne not being on major transitway is in fact a major problem ? i would definitely agree with that one and why they didn't run part of their tunnels (or at least a major transitway) to Lansdowne beats me. I guess we're expecting most people in cars and that there won't be any traffic jams somehow.

I would also point out that these bars and restaurants that you are counting on would need to be in buildings. And unlike Granville Island or Jean Talon Market, Lansdowne doesn't have the small outdated commercial-industrial buildings that lend themselves to that sort of development. You aren't going to get a vibrant space by sticking some bars and restaurants in the horticulture building and the Coliseum

I suppose it could start with the existing buildings and grow from there - referring back to the thought of grow as you build success rather than throw in huge sums at cadillacs and pray which is the oseg plan.
Speaking of Granville, this link http://www.pps.org/great_public_spac...ic_place_id=99 is somewhat interesting, it shows they did it for 25M including buyout of buildings. It says minimalist can be very successful if it's done as an area. I really think that although the LPC Conservancy isn't perfect, it lays a great large foundation towards a place that in 5 years will be really amazing. Equally i think the oseg plan is a wasted opportunity - i can build a series of chain stores and condos anywhere on any old land and have the same success (or not). When you're in 500,000 sq ft of shopping you don't know if you're above or below ground. For that matter build the oseg store-land underground with the transit tunnel 8) many large cities have that and it is fun as part of the underground city of shopping.

If the Conservancy were to promote an incremental development of the site, which

i'd be interested in that too, or from the oseg for that matter. i'd put them side to side and consider. why hasn't an incremental success based approach been tabled ?

sorry i cut short i need to leave i'm late, another time !

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by michaelae

Isn't it a bit extreme to ban Mr.LPC on a thread dedicated to the LPC ? i figured it'd be a spot he could bring details forth in without swamping other threads. Seemed perfect. Odd censure.

No, and here are the main reasons why:

1) He is merely jemartin in disguise.

2) Said individual hijacked the actual Lansdowne development thread and continued to post in there eve though he was granted an lpc thread. Now, he has gone and created a second one in which to spam the forum with his incessant tripe.

3) He had been warned before. Several times.

[michaelae]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

No, and here are the main reasons why:
1) He is merely jemartin in disguise.
2) Said individual hijacked the actual Lansdowne development thread and continued to post in there eve though he was granted an lpc thread. Now, he has gone and created a second one in which to spam the forum with his incessant tripe.
3) He had been warned before. Several times.

Well if LPC is JEMartin and if this is "The New Official Lansdowne Park Conservancy Thread" then it makes sense to have Mr.Martin speak here doesn't it ? i find his text interesting - i realize there's a lot of it but he's put in a lot of thinking and passion into it and has lots of interesting angles and useful thoughts.
Currently the Lansdowne Park Conservancy LPC represents the only valid alternative to oseg and serves to show a different view with many really positive characteristics. I realize this site is pretty unique in appearing to have most people pro-oseg that i've seen anywhere but i'd think you'd want to see alternatives anyways. Besides which aren't you just a bit worried the oseg is going to collapse by end of summer when the courts rule in. I presume they're putting lots of lawyers into it, but this one might be a bit more than they can dance out of. I for one would like to see Lansdowne become something, i'd like to see FIFA here, i like a lot of what the LPC Conservancy has on the table, and i've found it interesting to hear some views in this site on what people are looking for.
I see the Conservancy as the future, whether it's done by the conservancy as such or some other similar way, whether it's their basic proposal or whether it's some sort of proposal that also addresses some of the ideas on this site. Dialogue is good. Censorship is not.
I would ask in view of keeping things democratic, open, and informed and interesting that he be reinstated. This could be made conditional to him keeping any Conservancy info on this particular thread, since other threads should cover whatever other threads are for. I haven't seen LPC be rude or anything although i've seen one or two other who have been including to me - perhaps they should be banned instead of Mr.Martin

People who don't want a direct line from LPC can simply avoid this thread. Seems simple and pleasant enough no ? free speech if polite and informative and constructive is almost always a good thing, even if it's not the political wind of the hour. Just don't visit places you don't like. Meanwhile let LPC tell us what the conservancy's up to.

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by michaelae

Well if LPC is JEMartin and if this is "The New Official Lansdowne Park Conservancy Thread" then it makes sense to have Mr.Martin speak here doesn't it ?

I haven't seen LPC be rude or anything although i've seen one or two other who have been including to me - perhaps they should be banned instead of Mr.Martin

Meanwhile let LPC tell us what the conservancy's up to.

hmm, call me suspicious but based on the fact that michaelae has only commented on Landsdowne threads and is a big proponent of jemartin, I'd say that michalae and jemartin are either one and the same or on very good terms with one another. How many different personas, nom-de-plumes can one poster create.? With the introduction of disposable email addresses to sign up to forums, this sort of thing is going to go on for a while.

If you think that your bombardment of postings on this forum will have any influence on a court case, OMB hearing, City Council decision etc, I'd love to drink some of your kool-aid.

[JFFournier]

Originally Posted by michaelae

Currently the Lansdowne Park Conservancy LPC represents the only valid alternative to oseg

Valid how? Aside from JEMartin constantly posting about it wherever he can, it has no support from anyone with the ability to make it happen.

It doesn't even have media support; Randall Denley's article about it included a number of quotes which made many Conservancy claims appear quite doubtful and a following a Sun article about it, the paper wrote an editorial to basically say that it was a wste of time.

There's nothing "valid" about it.

[JFFournier]

Originally Posted by michaelae

Well if LPC is JEMartin and if this is "The New Official Lansdowne Park Conservancy Thread" then it makes sense to have Mr.Martin speak here doesn't it ?

No, it doesn't. He was banned for a reason. This thread only exists because he attempted to work around that ban. Having been banned, it's not something he's entitled to.

[reidjr]

michaelae
No not really the lpc plan is not supported by many most media does not seem to support it and even the support it does have well in short is a very small.

[JeffB]

Originally Posted by michaelae

Well if LPC is JEMartin and if this is "The New Official Lansdowne Park Conservancy Thread" then it makes sense to have Mr.Martin speak here doesn't it ? i find his text interesting - i realize there's a lot of it but he's put in a lot of thinking and passion into it and has lots of interesting angles and useful thoughts.
Currently the Lansdowne Park Conservancy LPC represents the only valid alternative to oseg and serves to show a different view with many really positive characteristics. I realize this site is pretty unique in appearing to have most people pro-oseg that i've seen anywhere but i'd think you'd want to see alternatives anyways. Besides which aren't you just a bit worried the oseg is going to collapse by end of summer when the courts rule in. I presume they're putting lots of lawyers into it, but this one might be a bit more than they can dance out of. I for one would like to see Lansdowne become something, i'd like to see FIFA here, i like a lot of what the LPC Conservancy has on the table, and i've found it interesting to hear some views in this site on what people are looking for.
I see the Conservancy as the future, whether it's done by the conservancy as such or some other similar way, whether it's their basic proposal or whether it's some sort of proposal that also addresses some of the ideas on this site. Dialogue is good. Censorship is not.
I would ask in view of keeping things democratic, open, and informed and interesting that he be reinstated. This could be made conditional to him keeping any Conservancy info on this particular thread, since other threads should cover whatever other threads are for. I haven't seen LPC be rude or anything although i've seen one or two other who have been including to me - perhaps they should be banned instead of Mr.Martin

People who don't want a direct line from LPC can simply avoid this thread. Seems simple and pleasant enough no ? free speech if polite and informative and constructive is almost always a good thing, even if it's not the political wind of the hour. Just don't visit places you don't like. Meanwhile let LPC tell us what the conservancy's up to.

It would have made sense for him to post here, if he hadn't been banned on three occasions. And it hasn't been because of his ideas, but his attitude and behavior in his posts.

I've been lurking here for a while (I am a bit shy ), and have following the blogs and articles on the Citizen website as well. His style really isn't much dialogue as monologue: posting repeatedly the same information and not answering questions when they didn't fit his agenda. It makes serious discussion difficult. Unfortunately, that does take away from the merits of his proposal (and I would agree there are some merits to it).

Honestly, if he had stepped forward with something like this plan 3 or 4 years ago and had tried to work with a group that was looking to bring the CFL here (and back at that point it needn't have been OSEG as they hadn't struck a deal with the CFL yet) then I might have been in favour of it. But given Mr. Martin's initial animosity to the stadium renovation (and he still has his "Plan B" of a smaller stadium and a new one at Bayview - which I am sure he would still prefer), his lack of respect towards people who disagree, and his arrogance in lecturing people about how things are done - it makes it hard to get on board. Especially with a viable plan already through council.

Ultimately though, the city has decided not to consider his proposal, and unless something changes it is pretty much moot.

[S-Man]

hear hear!