Lansdowne Park Redevelopment Phase 1 | Completed

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by Ottawan

Because parks can only exist in non-urban areas, and public space only exists in the form of vast, open areas, uninhibited by anything that would give them form or function.

Certainly non-park, non-open-areas such as the courtyards, streets, and pedestrian walkways of the ByWard Market are not public spaces. Nor are the grounds of Parliament, inhibited as they are by urban structures such as the West Block, East Block, Centre Block and buildings accross the street on Wellington. Don't get me started on Sparks Street or Confederation Square. Just because thousands of people gather at the Cenotaph every Remembrance Day (let alone countless other special and everyday occasions) does not make this a public space, because such a classification can only be accorded to windswept grass.

Please tell me which better fits the definition of Lansdowne Park:

Twin towers, private homes, major retail box stores on land found for public use and enjoyment.

Or, some modest parking limited to the outer edge of the park, maintain the heritage buildings, take down the stadium and add more playing fields, trees and an outdoor natural grass amphitheatre and an outdoor public pool?

I know what I would prefer and as a place that will be for all of Ottawa.

[Ottawan]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Please tell me which better fits the definition of Lansdowne Park:

Twin towers, private homes, major retail box stores on land found for public use and enjoyment.

Or, some modest parking limited to the outer edge of the park, maintain the heritage buildings, take down the stadium and add more playing fields, trees and an outdoor natural grass amphitheatre and an outdoor public pool?

I know what I would prefer and as a place that will be for all of Ottawa.

If we're playing the "Let's define false dichotomies" game, then I pose my own question:

Please tell me which better fits the definition of Lansdowne Park:

A vibrant community and focal point that fills the urban fabric in a central part of the city where it has long been lacking, that is animated by active, forward-thinking residents and by visitors from the rest of the city and beyond who are drawn to it year-round by exciting attractions and venues. An urban community that respects and enhances important heritage buildings and seamlessly blends into the spectacular and unique parkland designed by an internationally reputed landscape architecture firm.

Or, yet another sterile open grassy space, that creates the greatest enjoyment to those who get a pretty view as they drive by it at 40 km above the speed limit on the parkway, that does not generate enough revenue to cover the lawn mowing, and with so little to draw people there that even those living nearby won't take the time to walk to the far side of the grassy lawn. This park is run by a self-proclaimed Conservancy 'group' that consists of a single person.

In your own words: "I know what I would prefer and as a place that will be for all Ottawa"

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Please tell me which better fits the definition of Lansdowne Park:

Twin towers, private homes, major retail box stores on land found for public use and enjoyment.

Or, some modest parking limited to the outer edge of the park, maintain the heritage buildings, take down the stadium and add more playing fields, trees and an outdoor natural grass amphitheatre and an outdoor public pool?

I know what I would prefer and as a place that will be for all of Ottawa.

There is no question - the first is vastly more appealing and the Landsdowne Live plan is vastly better that that!

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by Ottawan

If we're playing the "Let's define false dichotomies" game, then I pose my own question:

Please tell me which better fits the definition of Lansdowne Park:

A vibrant community and focal point that fills the urban fabric in a central part of the city where it has long been lacking, that is animated by active, forward-thinking residents and by visitors from the rest of the city and beyond who are drawn to it year-round by exciting attractions and venues. An urban community that respects and enhances important heritage buildings and seamlessly blends into the spectacular and unique parkland designed by an internationally reputed landscape architecture firm.

Or, yet another sterile open grassy space, that creates the greatest enjoyment to those who get a pretty view as they drive by it at 40 km above the speed limit on the parkway, that does not generate enough revenue to cover the lawn mowing, and with so little to draw people there that even those living nearby won't take the time to walk to the far side of the grassy lawn. This park is run by a self-proclaimed Conservancy 'group' that consists of a single person.

In your own words: "I know what I would prefer and as a place that will be for all Ottawa"

Thank goodness for Central Park Conservancy New Yorkers were forward enough to realize the value of central open and beautiful public space.

Had they taken a different vision New york would not be as beautiful.

Let us learn from their example.

[Ciemny]

"add more playing fields, trees and an outdoor natural grass amphitheatre and an outdoor public pool"

This sound more like a large community park. Andrew Haydon park minus the outdoor public pool. I think the delusion here stems from the fact that:

1. Your incrimental/piecemeal aproach twoards creating your vision of the park is not realistic. the 0.5-1 million $ range of funds to do alterations will not come close to the expense of leveling the stadium. Think how much the south side stand demolition cost, I would be surprised if you could level the stadium under 10-15 million$. With your level of funding the new Gleebe park will not be complete for decades.

2. I have a park, pool, childrens playgrounds, soccer fields 10 minutes walk from my house. What makes you think tourists and citizens of Ottawa would want to continually come to an area that is just a field, plus a few heritage buildings, because that is what you "grass ampitheatre" really is. Unless you use your imagination, still ends up as a grassy field.

[Ciemny]

New York has different issues. They need the park since they lack any meaningful greenspace other than Central Pak. Ottawa is swimming in green space, we have plenty of community parks and the Greenbelt which is accesible from almost any part of the city in short time. We are NOT NYC, we do not have the same issues. Constantry comparing us to a city 18 times our size is illogical, you seem to think that we lack greenspace, that Ottawa has a desperate shortage of any parks or community centers, lets flood the city with yet one more glorified open field to satisfy someones green fetish. There is no way we will became like NYC, never ever, no matter what we do, we have the feds and the NCC to thank for that, for better or worse.

[rodionx]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

Reread my post. All the things I listed that weren't at Centrum ARE going to be at Lansdowne. It's nothing like Centrum, and I say that as a man who's spent way too much time at Kanata Centrum.

Fine. Lets just say the design of the commercial section is dull. Unlike the stadium and most of the "front lawn" plans, there's nothing about this design that would make people want to come down just to look at it. Architecturally, it's bland, and the layout is comparable to Sparks Street. As for the courtyards, it looks like someone told the architect to create courtyards, so he took his generic design, left a space between two buildings, and drew a square there. Voila. There's a courtyard like that near Bank and Laurier. There's no reason for anyone to spend time in those courtyards.

Bold would have been to create a maze of courtyards, maybe with braziers in the middle where people could shelter from the wind in the winter. They could be used as event spaces in the summer. Bold would have been to use the roofs for something. Bold would have been to do something nobody expected - like that crazy bridge in Option B. The Lansdowne plan was shaping up to be amazing, and this design kind of dragged it back to earth again.

Side note to jemartin - please return to your own thread

[phil235]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Thank goodness for Central Park Conservancy New Yorkers were forward enough to realize the value of central open and beautiful public space.

Had they taken a different vision New york would not be as beautiful.

Let us learn from their example.

Once again, this thread is for the discussion of the specific plans that have been presented, not to relentlessly flog other ideas. There is a thread for discussion of the Conservancy idea. Please be courteous and use it.

Vis à vis the public space comment, there is no question in my mind that this plan will create some excellent public spaces. More of the public will make use of the site in this configuration than would in the case of a basic park.

In particular, the idea of a public square at the new arena entrance is intriguing. I wonder, however, about the modernist styling. In my experience, more traditional squares lined with small cafes and bars are more likely to function well than are the more modernist attempts to manufacture public space.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Agreed.

And certainly not a park or a public space.

You're right; it's not a park. How true to the site's history. As for not being public space; are you high on crack? Did you miss all the plazas, shops, farmers market and courtyards? This is the first solid attempt to bring people from all over Ottawa to Lansdowne and not just for hockey, football and concerts.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Marshsparrow

Again - how are 24,000 people supposed to get in there and get out of there - no OTrain mass transit - there will be lots of parking - gridlock - this is the only plans misgiving.

Um, the exact same way as people always have at Lansdowne?

Seriously, not only are walking and public transport popular forms of getting to and from Lansdowne, but there are plans for a possible water taxi on the Canal.

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by Ciemny

"add more playing fields, trees and an outdoor natural grass amphitheatre and an outdoor public pool"

This sound more like a large community park. Andrew Haydon park minus the outdoor public pool. I think the delusion here stems from the fact that:

1. Your incrimental/piecemeal aproach twoards creating your vision of the park is not realistic. the 0.5-1 million $ range of funds to do alterations will not come close to the expense of leveling the stadium. Think how much the south side stand demolition cost, I would be surprised if you could level the stadium under 10-15 million$. With your level of funding the new Gleebe park will not be complete for decades.

2. I have a park, pool, childrens playgrounds, soccer fields 10 minutes walk from my house. What makes you think tourists and citizens of Ottawa would want to continually come to an area that is just a field, plus a few heritage buildings, because that is what you "grass ampitheatre" really is. Unless you use your imagination, still ends up as a grassy field.

Keeping the Ex, trade shows and the rural exhibits is hardly a "glebe" park.

All tourists will love a destination that has a place to relax with modest entertainment.

Taking down half of south stands was $1m. For a nonprofit conservancy companies willingly work for less, closer to $300,000.00.

The north stands is a longer term project and not a rush. The grounds are straightforward and there are plenty of able bodied individuals with heavy equipment, earth and donations of trees.

Beautification is not expensive and what the people will love, in keeping with the true history of the park, and befitting a national capital.

This is the peoples place, and 150 years of 100% public access will be carried forward.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Thank goodness for Central Park Conservancy New Yorkers were forward enough to realize the value of central open and beautiful public space.

Had they taken a different vision New york would not be as beautiful.

Let us learn from their example.

Jesus Castrating Christ, shut up about Central park already.

Have you ever been to Central Park? Are you aware of its sheer size? Are you aware that a "sweet deal" in the Upper West and East Sides of the Park is 500 square feet for $500,000? Are you aware that there are hardly any huge open fields in that Park? Are you aware that several roads run through the Park? Are you aware that the parks draws include but are not limited to; tennis courts, skating rinks, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, a zoo, gardens, theatres, horse carriage rides, vendors, etc.?

And have you been to New York City? Even if you took Central Park out of the equation it is still a fantastic and beautiful city! The architecture, the culture, the food, the sights; it's all beautiful and fantastic. Lansdowne(and by extension, Ottawa) can NEVER be like that. It's on a completely different level and in its own league. Stop comparing our sea of asphalt that has had a stadium for over 100 years and is surrounded by single-dwelling developments full of cranky old people to Central Park that is in one of the richest, most culturally diverse and important global cities that also has many times the population that also happens to be incredibly affluent.

There is no comparison. Stop trying to make one.

[YOWflier]

The plan looks great. Grab the shovels and move on with it already.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by rodionx

Fine. Lets just say the design of the commercial section is dull. Unlike the stadium and most of the "front lawn" plans, there's nothing about this design that would make people want to come down just to look at it. Architecturally, it's bland, and the layout is comparable to Sparks Street. As for the courtyards, it looks like someone told the architect to create courtyards, so he took his generic design, left a space between two buildings, and drew a square there. Voila. There's a courtyard like that near Bank and Laurier. There's no reason for anyone to spend time in those courtyards.

Bold would have been to create a maze of courtyards, maybe with braziers in the middle where people could shelter from the wind in the winter. They could be used as event spaces in the summer. Bold would have been to use the roofs for something. Bold would have been to do something nobody expected - like that crazy bridge in Option B. The Lansdowne plan was shaping up to be amazing, and this design kind of dragged it back to earth again.

Side note to jemartin - please return to your own thread

1. People don't come to the site presently to see the heritage buildings, so what exactly is the point you're trying to make about this?

2. This design doesn't seem to be about getting people to look at it, but to get people to come to the area and hang around for a while.

3. It would have been nice to see some rather bold ideas, but Ottawa has a history of shying away from bold ideas. Even then, I'd hardly say this dragged down the process, but I would have liked to see something more like the earlier renders we saw that showed buildings built in a historic fashion.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by ac888yow

The plan looks great. Grab the shovels and move on with it already.

If only projects in Ottawa were that simple...

[waterloowarrior]

quick photoshop....

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

quick photoshop....

If only you could photoshop option B. That one is pretty much my favourite so far.

[Umpaidh]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

If only you could photoshop option B. That one is pretty much my favourite so far.

I was about to do that, but when I looked at the plan for option B, it appears that it already matched the lansdowne plan, when you look at the pdf provided by the option B team, the building footprints are almost identical, with few exceptions.

Edit: To talk about plan B, I do prefer the non-conforming plan they have, that leaves the horticulture building where it is, and blends the park in with the commercial aspect.

[c_speed3108]

Here is the results of a similar project at New York's Coney Island. It is similar to Lansdowne in that the area had fallen into disrepair, had certain historically designated things like the Cyclone roller coaster.

They have revitalized the area with new rides and some residential and retail development. A baseball stadium was also built there a few years back.

They also had LOTS and LOTS of debate and controversy.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/Yo...122/story.html

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Umpaidh

I was about to do that, but when I looked at the plan for option B, it appears that it already matched the lansdowne plan, when you look at the pdf provided by the option B team, the building footprints are almost identical, with few exceptions.

Edit: To talk about plan B, I do prefer the non-conforming plan they have, that leaves the horticulture building where it is, and blends the park in with the commercial aspect.

Same. I'm still unsure how they're going to move an entire heritage building but I think it could still fit with the park option B. I really like the public art displays, bringing people down to the canal, the pedestrian bridge and the garden/forest feel of it.