Lansdowne Park Redevelopment Phase 1 | Completed

[jemartin]

Nik Nanos Poll on Lansdowne
From David Reevely article:

This poll had a sample size of 360 people, which means it's not as precise as a 1,000-person poll. But that might not matter overmuch either, if you get results like this:

77 per cent saying reject or postpone Lansdowne Live,
18 per cent saying go ahead with it,
3 per cent saying leave Lansdowne as it is.

Honestly, if you're opposed to Lansdowne Live, the Nanos poll provides you what you're looking for in a poll. Here's the argument,
buttressed by what Nik Nanos himself told city council:

1) Lansdowne Live is a huge and important move with a unique piece of land. Morally, moving ahead with it demands significant public support.

2) The poll shows doubt about the proposal. Not massive opposition, but skepticism and uncertainty.
People are not convinced. They are not in support.

Therefore

3) We should not move ahead.

[reidjr]

So we should just go by one poll is that your logic if so should be rely on one poll for everything.So if there was a poll that said we should close 90% park space and cut all funding to arts if most want that we just do that from one poll.There has been many polls done where people favor oseg.

[Aylmer]

I'm certain that most people's concern is about the cost, unfounded as they may be. Well, believe it or not, that rarely matters. The Montréal Metro was expensive. The expo was expensive. But what will we have to say about Lansdowne, 50 years from now? "Lad, back in 2010, we saved millions on this park by grown' grass instead of spendin' all our pennies on some developer's siren call!"

So, to not offend some people's short term concerns, we should make Lansdowne vanilla tapioca for everyone for years to come?

"For good measure", read the top of page 58 of Fahrenheit451.
Oh, and the City's website:

Myth #7: This is not affordable for the City.

Fact: The City Treasurer confirms that the financial requirements are within the City’s financial capacity and the Auditor General has confirmed the accuracy of the financial forecasts and concluded “that the financial model for the LPP can achieve its projected results.”

The project has been structured by City Council so that revenue from the commercial component of the Lansdowne site pays for the costs of refurbishing the stadium and Civic Centre. City Treasurer Marian Simulik has confirmed that the cost of repaying any debt the City incurs for this project would be less than the revenue raised from the overall project.

The City’s Auditor General, Alain Lalonde, has confirmed that the City used a sound financial approach on this project. His report states that “the financial model for the LPP can achieve its projected results.” At Council on June 17, 2010 the Auditor General said “it is my opinion that the figures used in the financial projections are accurate.”

[AuxTown]

Wow, this thread sucks! We should be talking about ways we can see Lansdowne being developed under the current plan and things that we could do to perfect the OSEG proposal, but instead we continue to bicker. I just seems that Glebites will not accept defeat on this one. They have been defeated over and over by council votes, public support, legal appeals, and not to mention good reason. It's clear that people want this to happen and it will be a damn shame if it doesn't.

[citizen j]

^Glebites will not accept anything other than what benefits the Glebe. This is about nothing else. You'll recall that the original proposal from the Conservancy involved as much empty greenspace and as little stadium as they (or he) thought they could get past Council. The current proposal is still about building a park for the Glebe and throwing a bone (i.e., the south stands) to the rest of the city. While the same Machiavellian parochialism can be found in almost any corner of the city, the differences here are: 1) the Glebe is much more affluent than the average neighbourhood and can fund something like this court case; and 2) there is no football stadium surrounded by asphalt to be rebuilt and redeveloped in, say, Alta Vista, South Keys, Bells Corners, Copeland Park, Kanata, or Orleans. Instead, those neighbourhoods get real big-box retail surrounded by parking lots not by park(the stretch of commercial/residential development along Holmwood is not a "mall" or "suburban big-box retail" and to suggest it is is a deliberate distortion).

While the current whiny brinksmanship from those opposed to the redevelopment of Lansdowne is annoying, it's to be expected from a group that sees itself as entitled to dictate its agenda to the rest of the city without regard to clear results from an an elected council.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Like I said, show me a proper poll with the two competing bids and I will show you overwhelming support for the Conservancy.

No such poll exists because no one takes your bid seriously except for Glebites.

Are the vast majority in favour of making Lansdowne beautiful? Absolutely.

Are they in love with having it privatized and having their taxes go up? Probably not.

Yet support for this project would dictate otherwise.

Would they love to see a development that respects heritage, returns all site revenue surplus to the taxpayer, keeps and continues the 150 year tradition of a public space, adds prestige to our nation's capital, maintains a full farmers market, promotes local entrepreneurs not international conglomerates,
decreases traffic congestion and increases quality of life?

More than likely yes.

1. OSEG's bid respects Heritage.
2. We lose money with Lasndowne staying in its current condition.
3. There is still going to be public space. What part of this don't you grasp?
4. The Lansdowne Live bid brings more prestige to Ottawa than yours.
5. The Farmer's Market is going to still be there and be LARGER under the LL bid.

It is pretty clear that many here are so bound and determined to work for the developers your rational thinking is gone.

Can you even look at yourself objectively? You keep giving us this attitude like you're the only one who is right when MOST of us have been taking you to task on your "model". Are you sure you're not the one who's in the wrong?

In the meantime a challenge to anyone who can explain the OSEG financial model.

Developers make money, city makes money, we get a new Landmark destination with unique attractions, a return to the traditional home of sports and convert asphalt to parkland. Everybody makes money, and everybody wins.

My bet is not a single person here has any idea. You don't even have a clear idea what you are arguing for.

See above, doofus.

Originally Posted by reidjr

You really beleave that a council that supports the oseg more then the last council.

This is why I don't support J's "proposal"; he's flipping delusional.

Originally Posted by jemartin

Nik Nanos Poll on Lansdowne
From David Reevely article:

This poll had a sample size of 360 people, which means it's not as precise as a 1,000-person poll. But that might not matter overmuch either, if you get results like this:

So you basically just told us that it's not precise, but shouldn't matter.

You're a tool, you know that?

77 per cent saying reject or postpone Lansdowne Live,
18 per cent saying go ahead with it,
3 per cent saying leave Lansdowne as it is.

Honestly, if you're opposed to Lansdowne Live, the Nanos poll provides you what you're looking for in a poll. Here's the argument,
buttressed by what Nik Nanos himself told city council:

1) Lansdowne Live is a huge and important move with a unique piece of land. Morally, moving ahead with it demands significant public support.

2) The poll shows doubt about the proposal. Not massive opposition, but skepticism and uncertainty.
People are not convinced. They are not in support.

Therefore

3) We should not move ahead.

Now here is MY actual numbers, with references as proof.

1. 63% support the OSEG Lansdowne redevelopment.

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/p...e.aspx?id=4841

2. 2-1(66.6%) support the Lansdowne Redevelopment.

http://communities.canada.com/ottawa...1-support.aspx

3. 50% support Lansdowne Live. (in June)

http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa.../14233261.html



Now something interesting; community leaders from across the city coming out in support of LL.

http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...0/The%20Bridge

[jemartin]

Thank God for Superior Court.

Save you all from yourselves!

Not a single one among you can even explain the developer financial model.

[Aylmer]

*sigh*

Thank god for the Supreme Court: Put this bid out of its misery.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Thank God for Superior Court.

Save you all from yourselves!

Not a single one among you can even explain the developer financial model.

Actually, I did. It's also known as a P3.

[jemartin]

Like I said earlier, look up P3.

Time to educate yourself.

In the meantime the challenge is still there for anyone who can accurately describe the developer revenue model.

[Umpaidh]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Nik Nanos Poll on Lansdowne
From David Reevely article:

This poll had a sample size of 360 people, which means it's not as precise as a 1,000-person poll. But that might not matter overmuch either, if you get results like this:

77 per cent saying reject or postpone Lansdowne Live,
18 per cent saying go ahead with it,
3 per cent saying leave Lansdowne as it is.

Honestly, if you're opposed to Lansdowne Live, the Nanos poll provides you what you're looking for in a poll. Here's the argument,
buttressed by what Nik Nanos himself told city council:

1) Lansdowne Live is a huge and important move with a unique piece of land. Morally, moving ahead with it demands significant public support.

2) The poll shows doubt about the proposal. Not massive opposition, but skepticism and uncertainty.
People are not convinced. They are not in support.

Therefore

3) We should not move ahead.

For the record, those are not from a nanos Poll, those are from a Compas Ressearch poll from 2009. Link to David Reevely Article. Those results seem to point to skepticism and uncertainty, and lack of support. Oh no, wait, they don't. Here is the question that weilded the results, with David Reevely's comment bolded for emphasis.

But consider the wording of the question that yielded this result:

All things considered, which of the following opinions is closest to your own?

Decline the current proposal and have the kind of open, transparent competition that people have a right to expect from their governments (35)
Postpone any decision until the city’s needs for light rail are fully satisfied and taxpayers can know all the costs (23)
Postpone making any high cost decision on Lansdowne until it is clear that Canada is coming out of the recession (19)
Go ahead with the current proposal (18)
Leave Lansdowne as it is (3)
UNPROMPTED Don’t know/Refused (2)

Really? I mean, really?

A question like that does not yield meaningful results. Cite this poll and you make a fool of yourself.

Really John? You seem to have forgotten to copy paste that part into your comment. I wonder why that would be?

Now, lets look at a more recent poll conducted by Ipsos Reid, from June 25th, 2010. Majority (63%) of Ottawa Residents Support Lansdowne Park Redevelopment Project

Here's David Reevely Commenting on it.

And, oh look, here's RTWAP's post from the 26th of June posting the entire Citizen article.

Finally, a point I want to make about developing Bayview, NBBJ estimates a total cost of developing that site as $444.75 million. For someone pushing that as an option still, I am shocked that John is not mentioning that fact. Especially considering he is the one who requested the estimate from NBBJ, as can be seen on page 65 of his proposal. And yes John, I realize that you are pushing the other options first, and that page 65 is part of the supplementary information, but surely, to be fair (after all, everyone else has to be) you should have mentioned this information.

Everybody needs to relax, JeMartin has been making a game of posting on various news sites under different monikers, trying to drum up support for his ideas. When you actually look into his plan, you realize that his 'firm stadium price' is only an 'order of magnitude' price, meaning it could be quite far off, and CANNOT by any means be compared to the design from OSEG. They are apples and oranges, as far as how far into the development process they are.

[jemartin]

Like I have said.

People want Lansdowne to be developed.

Now it is time for a new poll with the two alternatives.

The Conservancy will win majority support.

People are in favor of change for sure, but not at the current price.

Order of magnitude is what both bids have presented and now before the internal procurement department review process.
Of course one has to examine how many pro stadiums NBBJ has designed and built compared to the developers. That is
apples and oranges, You go with the ones who are specialists for the price advantage. Competitive bidding works!

In the meantime the challenge is still out there for anyone who can accurately
describe the developer financial model.

New challenge. Can anyone show a final cost of the developer proposal? (going to be rather difficult since no final numbers have been shown!)

Any takers?

Bottom line? Why on earth are people fighting to support privatization of public space?

Are we fighting? Of course we are, to protect this beautiful public space and keep it self sustaining and public for the enjoyment of our grandchildren.

[Umpaidh]

Now, to get back on topic, I am very happy that this is moving forward, with shovels in the ground by June, as I think the current plan states.

I wish the city was able to focus more on the issues of this plan, as opposed to the plan as a whole. For example, the city footing the bill for the movement of the horticulture building. I mean really, that should have been split, since it benefits the commercial segment (with parking, and keeping the commercial/residential elements together).

I am also happy to see that the review of the revenue model, done by Price Waterhouse Coopers has shown that the numbers show a nominal increase of returns for the city from the last time the numbers were crunched.

I think the placement of the Art Gallery could turn out to be great, assuming the design of the building is welcoming to people walking by.

I am still wondering what other establishments they will have at Lansdowne, will the brands/names they had originally signed to non-binding contracts come through? We will have to find out.

[Umpaidh]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Order of magnitude is what both bids have presented and now before the internal procurement department review process.

Speaking of Sun Tzu:
"If you are far from the enemy, make him believe you are near."
"All warfare is based on deception."

Yes, it is quite clear you have read a bit of his works, unfortunately, as you have now come to realize, in an internet forum where people have time to search for information, and to think of their answers before saying them, some of his strategies do not work.

Edit:

Here's another quote, which seems quite fitting considering how many times you have changed you plans for developing Bayview and/or Lansdowne.
"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Umpaidh

Now, to get back on topic, I am very happy that this is moving forward, with shovels in the ground by June, as I think the current plan states.

I wish the city was able to focus more on the issues of this plan, as opposed to the plan as a whole. For example, the city footing the bill for the movement of the horticulture building. I mean really, that should have been split, since it benefits the commercial segment (with parking, and keeping the commercial/residential elements together).

I am also happy to see that the review of the revenue model, done by Price Waterhouse Coopers has shown that the numbers show a nominal increase of returns for the city from the last time the numbers were crunched.

I think the placement of the Art Gallery could turn out to be great, assuming the design of the building is welcoming to people walking by.

I am still wondering what other establishments they will have at Lansdowne, will the brands/names they had originally signed to non-binding contracts come through? We will have to find out.

I was wondering about the start up timing - does mid-2011 look fairly firm? Has there been anything to indicate how the work will be staged? In particular I have been assuming that the residential component will need to be phased in.

[jemartin]

In the meantime the challenge is still out there for anyone who can accurately
describe the developer financial model.

New challenge. Can anyone show a final cost of the developer proposal? (going to be rather difficult since no final numbers have been shown!)

Any takers?

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Umpaidh

Now, to get back on topic, .....
I think the placement of the Art Gallery could turn out to be great, assuming the design of the building is welcoming to people walking by.....

I still have doubts about the Art Gallery as a draw. Why do you see it so favourably? I am going to have to educate myself about the City's collection.

[jemartin]

Art Gallery = 50,000sf climate controlled environment.

Add $40M.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by jemartin

I have no litigation before the city.

However if I were to make a prediction, the new council will drop the developer proposal before it even makes it to court.

You better think about such a victory and your involvement in such a scheme trying to get that victory. This would be massive devastation of the will of city council. If you expect the conversancy to walk into a vaccuum achieved by such a victory, I can only imagine the degree of political opposition that will be created and rightly so. There will be a lot of jaded people out there when such a ploy is used to effectively claim a major city facility as the Glebe's local park.

If city council loses control over developing Lansdowne as it sees fit, it is time to sell the park off for private development and be rid of it.

What I would like to know is why does a bunch of lawyers from the Glebe, the Glebe Community Association and the Friends of Lansdowne Park, all of whom are not elected, believe that they are better than City Council and city staff at planning our city? This really what this all amounts to. This small bunch of special interest groups want to run the city but are unwilling to legitimately run for office to accomplish this.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

......
If city council loses control over developing Lansdowne as it sees fit, it is time to sell the park off for private development and be rid of it.

That would probably be my second choice - save the community park and a strip bordering the Driveway and sell the rest to developers for some high density mixed use. The city could then use the revenue for both a new art gallery and a new concert hall (assumption being that there would be no stadium).