Lansdowne 2.0 (Northside Stands/Arena Redevelopment) | Proposed

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by phil235

Yeah, just based on how much French your hear, it would also seem the Whole Foods draws quite a few Gatinois as well.

It's actually pretty easy to get down there from Gatineau, if you take Dalhousie off the M-C bridge, then Sussex-Mackenzie-Colonel By-Pretoria-Queen Elizabeth.

[Kelnoz]

Originally Posted by phil235

Yeah, just based on how much French your hear, it would also seem the Whole Foods draws quite a few Gatinois as well.

Many of the chains just aren't available in Gatineau, and it's a good place to go hang out to walk around a few places without having to bother with driving from store to store.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I'm surprised the Famous Players in Gloucester hasn't started offering the VIP service.

Would be super interesting to see Cinema 9 get a liquor license!

Is that cinema still called Famous Players? Haven't been there in 30+ years. (By there I mean inside.)

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Is that cinema still called Famous Players? Haven't been there in 30+ years. (By there I mean inside.)

No. It's Scotiabank. Probably been for much longer than I think. I just can't let go of the old names. Civic Centre. Corel Centre. Ottawa River Parkway. Twitter.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

No. It's Scotiabank. Probably been for much longer than I think. I just can't let go of the old names. Civic Centre. Corel Centre. Ottawa River Parkway. Twitter.

Famous Players was at Gloucester Centre. It was the first state of the art multiplex . It was shocking how short-lived it was and suddenly replaced by Silver City now Scotia Bank next door

[Ottawacurious]

Project update: Lansdowne 2.0 Project

https://engage.ottawa.ca/lansdowne-2-0
21 Mar 2024

The City’s Lansdowne 2.0 project addresses the need to reinvest in the site with more housing, better public spaces, and more destination retail. In particular, the project addresses the functionally obsolete TD Place North Side Stadium Stands and TD Arena. TD Arena is one of the City’s most energy inefficient buildings, and both arena and north side stands are reaching the end of their functional lives.

Proposal

In November 2023, City Council granted approval to proceed to the next stage of planning for Lansdowne 2.0 through the approval of the fourth report on Lansdowne, entitled the 2023 Lansdowne Partnership Plan – Authorization to Proceed to the Next Steps in the Redevelopment Report(External link).

The report, on the basis of the due diligence efforts, put forward a revised Concept Plan incorporating sentiments for reduced complexity in construction, reduced residential density and intensification, and improvements in the public realm space. As a result, the primary changes were the reduction of the number of proposed residential towers from 3 to 2, thus a reduction in the number of residential units and residential parking spaces.

The revised proposal also recommended that the retail podium be developed as a two-story built form, with a reduction in the amount of space for commercial uses from 108,000 to 49,000 square feet, but an increase of 8,000 square feet compared to the current retail podium (J block).

New public realm space, as well as a dedicated number of Event Centre parking spaces were added to the project. Additional key changes to the Partnership Agreement were proposed, such as extending the life of the agreement to 2066 and elevating the City within the “waterfall” so the City will be receiving cash disbursements earlier, some portion of which is guaranteed. In this revised waterfall framework, the City is benefiting much more from the partnership than previously, and the risk allocation is more balanced.

The estimated cost to the City for the construction of this project was $419.1M as outlined in the approved report. The project was approved to be funded from the disposal of air rights, debentures premiums, capital budget, expected funding from senior levels of government and long-term debt. The long-term debt will be repaid in part by various revenue sources including a portion of the property tax uplift and payments from the closed financial system.

To learn more about the proposal, please visit the Lansdowne 2.0 Engage Ottawa page here.

Project update

On November 24, 2023, City Council passed both the Zoning By-law (By-law 2023-510) and Official Plan Amendment (OPA 19) and granted approval to proceed to the next stage of planning for Lansdowne 2.0.

Council also directed staff to assess the benefits and drawbacks of each proposed procurement model for the delivery of the new Event Centre and new North Side Stands. This is to ensure Council and the public is informed of the value and risks of each option. (Recommendation #7 of 2023 Lansdowne Partnership Plan – Authorization to Proceed to the Next Steps in the Redevelopment Report)

In the latest staff report (Lansdowne 2.0 Procurement Options Analysis and Recommendations(External link)), staff is recommending that the Design-Bid-Build model, with the continuation of the project architects, as it is the most advantageous model for Council to proceed with. This delivery procurement model provides timeline advantages, as well as project knowledge advantages.

Council directed staff to develop a social procurement framework with OSEG to increase supply chain diversity and increase opportunities for those experiencing economic disadvantage and within equity-deserving communities in the construction and development of Lansdowne 2.0.

Progress on the social procurement framework is being reported back to Council as part of the procurement delivery method analysis, and the ongoing results of the social procurement framework will continue to be reported back through the annual Lansdowne Report.

Lastly the development of a framework of Request for Offer (RFO) criteria that will support the air rights disposal process is being presented to Council.

Based on the staff recommended procurement model of Design-Bid-Build (with the current project architects) and the associated design and construction schedule, the reasonable time to initiate the Request for Offer (RFO) process will be Q1 2025.This is the sixth report City Council will consider for the continued evolution of Lansdowne Park, more commonly referred to as Lansdowne 2.0.

Event Centre and Site Plan Control application

Since Council granted approval to proceed with the next steps, staff has also been working toward bringing forward a site plan control application for the Event Centre and new North Side Stands.

Having received an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT), the Zoning By-law amendment and Official Plan Amendment will be considered by the OLT.

An OLT hearing will be scheduled according to the next available date on the Tribunal’s calendar with the City’s legal staff advocating for a date at the Tribunal’s earliest availability.

Work on the future site plan can still proceed during an appeal but without the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments in effect, a building permit for the new Event Centre and new North Side Stands cannot be issued, nor can a site plan control application be formally deemed complete and circulated, nor receive final approval.

The first phase of site plan approvals is the new Event Centre. The Event Centre site plan application will be supported by plans and studies, including engineering (civil, geotechnical, transportation), urban / planning design, landscape design, architecture, environmental, and heritage components of the project.

The site plan control application for the new Event Centre and new North Side Stands will be phased in two separate approvals, beginning with the Event Centre site plan work in Q2 to Q3 2024. Below is a conceptual timeline that will be presented to Council for consideration.

Public engagement

Since the launch of the Lansdowne 2.0 Project, City staff have worked to ensure a robust public engagement process has taken place. This has included a dedicated project website for residents to review information, a dedicated email address for residents to send in questions and concerns, four public information sessions, multiple surveys, weekly coffee chats, pop-up events, and weekly meetings with the Ward Councillor.

Should City Council approve the recommendations in this report and continue with the project, there will be many more opportunities to engage with staff and the City on the site plan, detailed design work, and the public realm.

Public engagement during the pre-application stages of the Site Plan application is aimed to both inform and seek input from the public on matters such as:

Event Centre and integration with public realm
LEED / sustainability elements
Heritage
Accessibility (through the Accessibility Advisory Committee)
Stay tuned for key dates and upcoming public information sessions.

Committee and Council

The City will be considering Lansdowne 2.0 Procurement Options Analysis and Recommendations(External link) and recommendations at:

April 2, 2024 - Finance and Corporate Services Committee
April 17, 2024 - City Council
Residents interested in speaking as a delegate at the Committee should contact the City Clerk’s office(External link) to register.

Next Steps

Should the OLT appeal be resolved in the City’s favour by end of Q4 2024, the site plan application will be able to proceed through a formal submission and circulation process.

The project will also be able to proceed with a Request for Offer of the Air Rights in Q1 2025, based upon the framework of criteria and based upon the progression of the design of the north side stands.

Progressing site plan and detailed design will afford the opportunity for the submission of a building permit submission on the Event Centre and north side stands by end of Q4 2024 to start of Q1 2025.

For more information, please visit the project webpage here.

If you have any questions, comments or concerns please send us an email at LansdowneRenewal@Ottawa.ca(External link).

[Ottawacurious]

I dunno.... I'm just not excited about it this go around.

[Richard Eade]

Yup. We are determined to shrink the arena where the PWHL plays. Apparently, they just sold out the Bell Centre in Montreal – capacity 21,105 – in minutes; but 5,000 seats should be more than enough here.

I know, I know; the PWHL could simply move to the NHL arena. Why do we need to have such a big jump between the reduced 5,000 seats and the almost 20,000 seats?

[Harley613]

Our second largest arena having 5000 seats will surely be a regret as the region continues to grow past 2 million people in just a few years.

[DTcrawler]

I would imagine they picked 5,000 as a figure that they can sell out every night, and given the excess demand, charge a premium for tickets. I wish they would’ve gone somewhere closer to 8,000 to be future-proofed but I think for the time being 5K satisfies OHL regular season demand. It’ll be interesting to see how PWHL does as the initial hype dies down, especially after Ottawa recently traded away fan-favourite Lexie Adzija. I think we’ll see more expensive tickets for PHWL when the new arena opens but consistent sellouts. And then of course “marquee” games can be played at the Sens arena, wherever that may be years from now.

[Djeffery]

Honestly, they are going through the work anyway, it makes sense to make the arena larger right off the bat. There are tons of entertainment options for a 9-10k seat arena that won't go to a 5k or use a curtained off NHL arena. I just think Ottawa will regret not going larger with this building when they had the chance.

[DTcrawler]

With capacity reductions to both the arena and the stadium as part of 2.0, I wonder if this has anything to do with pressure from local residents about traffic during events. Inadequate transit service was frequently used as one of the reasons this plan shouldn't go ahead. That'd be pretty on point for Ottawa... instead of managing the traffic better, just reduce the number of attendees.

[Ottawacurious]

Even beyond the stadium seating, the plan is being diluted to a point where it's just not exciting. A death by a thousand compromises? I don't envy the project team trying to find that elusive balance.

[BlueJay]

Originally Posted by DTcrawler

I would imagine they picked 5,000 as a figure that they can sell out every night, and given the excess demand, charge a premium for tickets. I wish they would’ve gone somewhere closer to 8,000 to be future-proofed but I think for the time being 5K satisfies OHL regular season demand. It’ll be interesting to see how PWHL does as the initial hype dies down, especially after Ottawa recently traded away fan-favourite Lexie Adzija. I think we’ll see more expensive tickets for PHWL when the new arena opens but consistent sellouts. And then of course “marquee” games can be played at the Sens arena, wherever that may be years from now.

Good Points and I agree with you. Right now, the average attendance for PWHL Ottawa is just over 7000 per game. Once the honeymoon period is over, I think we will see an average of around 5000 per game so it makes sense to create a demand with a lower capacity. Even though it is not really comparable because you cannot continue with an NHL rink of this size, but it's an example. The Arizona Coyotes Mullet arena has 4600 seats and their average ticket price is around $240 and they are at a 100% attendance rate while the Sens average price is around $130 with a 93% attendance rate. It would benefit PWHL & OHL to have a lower seat count, as it will if the Sens build their new rink with 17000 seats.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by BlueJay

Good Points and I agree with you. Right now, the average attendance for PWHL Ottawa is just over 7000 per game. Once the honeymoon period is over, I think we will see an average of around 5000 per game so it makes sense to create a demand with a lower capacity. Even though it is not really comparable because you cannot continue with an NHL rink of this size, but it's an example. The Arizona Coyotes Mullet arena has 4600 seats and their average ticket price is around $240 and they are at a 100% attendance rate while the Sens average price is around $130 with a 93% attendance rate. It would benefit PWHL & OHL to have a lower seat count, as it will if the Sens build their new rink with 17000 seats.

There's gotta be an arena in town with 1500 seats or so, imagine what they could sell tickets for there. The OHL isn't like the NHL where you can play the "ticket scarcity" game to a certain extent. You aren't going to double the price that people are willing to pay in the O by thinking they will scramble for the fewer tickets. They will just go find something else to spend it on.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

There's gotta be an arena in town with 1500 seats or so, imagine what they could sell tickets for there. The OHL isn't like the NHL where you can play the "ticket scarcity" game to a certain extent. You aren't going to double the price that people are willing to pay in the O by thinking they will scramble for the fewer tickets. They will just go find something else to spend it on.

I think you are right that the OHL can’t play the scarcity game to drive up ticket prices, nor would they want to. But they can in the sense that it creates an urgency to buy tickets if games or sold out. It also creates a much better atmosphere in the rink.

The 67s are still the main tenant in the rink, as they have 2-3 times as many home games as the PWHL, so the new rink has to work for them and for the Blackjacks. 5000 is pretty much a perfect size for the 67s and is too big for the Blackjacks. The trend has been smaller arenas and stadiums at virtually every level for a better live experience. It remains to be seen what PWHL attendance will settle in at long term, but 5000 seems like a reasonable projection.

[J.OT13]

I think the 5,500 capacity was mostly a budget decision. OSEG needed to sell something the City would buy into, and a 10,000 or even 8,000 arena would have been too rich for the City.

We have to remember that prior to the redevelopment, the 67s did get closer to that sellout crowd with 7k, 8k, 9k+

https://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attenda...h.php?tmi=7314

Better parking might have been part of it. Having a competitive NHL team team might have built more excitement for hockey overall.

If access is an issue, it would be easy for the City and OSEG to work out a bus shuttle deal to get people to and from the arena, or any other transit improvement.

Overall, I'm underwhelmed by the plan. It's nothing more than a downgrade in capacity and a couple residential towers. Nothing new to attract people to Lansdowne. Nothing. Space for the music venue? Gone. Rec Room? Gonzo.

At least move the Ottawa Sports Hall of Fame to Lansdowne. Do something.

Also:

New public realm space, as well as a dedicated number of Event Centre parking spaces were added to the project.

Why? The venues are smaller. Parking availability for the Event Centre should not go up.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by phil235

I think you are right that the OHL can’t play the scarcity game to drive up ticket prices, nor would they want to. But they can in the sense that it creates an urgency to buy tickets if games or sold out. It also creates a much better atmosphere in the rink.

The 67s are still the main tenant in the rink, as they have 2-3 times as many home games as the PWHL, so the new rink has to work for them and for the Blackjacks. 5000 is pretty much a perfect size for the 67s and is too big for the Blackjacks. The trend has been smaller arenas and stadiums at virtually every level for a better live experience. It remains to be seen what PWHL attendance will settle in at long term, but 5000 seems like a reasonable projection.

Honestly, I think if you could replicate London's Budweiser Gardens there, it would be the perfect setup. 6500 seats main bowl, with 2500 more in an easily curtained off upper level, a level of suites. Looks surprisingly cozy with the upper level curtained off, and the original intent was doing that for the OHL, with the upper level being used for larger concerts, or NHL/NBA exhibition games. As it happens, the Knights haven't closed the upper level once in the 22 or so seasons they have played there.

The 67's have a long rich tradition and have benefited from very good fan support over the years. They have suffered in the recent past, part of which is probably the team on the ice, and part the venue. I'm not sure what happened 10 years ago to cause attendance to drop but it was on the way back up when covid threw a wrench in things. But after so many years of leading the league or close to it, in attendance, I think it would be a disservice to them to limit them to 5000 in a new building after only a short time of lower support.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Djeffery;10171514[B

]I'm not sure what happened 10 years ago to cause attendance to drop[/B] but it was on the way back up when covid threw a wrench in things. But after so many years of leading the league or close to it, in attendance, I think it would be a disservice to them to limit them to 5000 in a new building after only a short time of lower support.

The temporary move to Kanata while Lansdowne was being redeveloped.

[Richard Eade]

A few thoughts on the TD Place Arena issue:

Is it better to charge $25 to 10,000 people (total of $250,000); or to charge $50 to 5,000 people (total $250,000)?

Personally, I would say that charging a lower price to more people would be the best option. It allows more people to be ‘involved’. This builds a larger fan-base, extending it to a wider array of income classes. More people talking about the games increases the ‘buzz’; which increases interest in future games. The 67’s were most popular when the ticket prices were ‘reasonable’ for families and there was lots of excitement for the large crowds. ‘Intimate venues’ are great for intimate events (think; music recital, one-man play, etc.), but to whip up a frenzy about an event, there needs to be a huge crowd. Excitement, like most emotions, is contagious.

I’ve never been a fan of the ‘only rich people should be able to do that’ philosophy. It’s the kids in the school yard who are going to be wearing the jerseys and telling all their friends how much fun they had at the game – not the executive in the boardroom. Imagine being the father of three girls and telling them that you can’t take them to see their role-models play because it is too expensive. I do understand that it is the way of big business. Even Disney has finally succumbed to the demands of the ‘bean-counters’. Disney used to have a ‘Fast Pass’ (skip the queue system) that allowed any park-goer to schedule in a limited number of queue jumps. Now, to align with what other parks do, Disney now charges a hefty premium so that wealthier folks can skip the lineup of peons. We haven’t been back to Disney World for a while now, preferring other, less busy parks (Busch Gardens, Sea World, Discovery Cove, Etc.) where the extra cost to skip the lines is not necessary. ‘Everyone is equal – but some are more equal than others.’

Does the idea of making tickets scarce to increase the price really work? Yes, I know a basic of economic principles says that higher prices can be charged for rarer goods, but what is the elasticity of buyers of hockey tickets? I suppose that it has been studied, but, anecdotally, it looks to me as if the pool of those willing to pay much higher prices is much smaller. I and members of my family used to go to a fair number of Sens games. The prices kept going up and up, and we switched from 100-level seats to higher-up ones. Then we stopped going altogether. There are 14 people who have not been to a Sens game in years, now. PWHL games, yes; 67’s games, yes; Red-Blacks games, yes; VNL games, yes; Sens games, no. I don’t even follow the Sens closely any more.

What is going to happen to the 67’s and PWHL Ottawa during the reconstruction of the (shrunken) arena? The last time the 67’s had to move out to the west-end arena, their attendance dropped. Can they live through another attendance drought? The PWHL is just getting started. How will a far west-end location affect them?

Would it be possible to build the new arena BEFORE shutting down the existing TD Place arena? This would, to my mind, be the only benefit to decoupling the arena from the north stands. I prefer the more compact ‘stacked’ arrangement – although it is, maybe, a bit too cramped under the existing stands. I would have preferred the new facility to be a similar organization of the two, but with the arena sunk lower and a bit further north to open up more seating under the stadium stands.