The Official Lansdowne Park Conservancy Thread

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by phil235

I don't recall, as I don't ever drive to the 67's games. I expect that they come close, but I'm not sure.

Is there room for 300 parking spots, plus a soccer field where the south stands sit? A proposed site plan would be helpful.

IF a park proposal were ever accepted for the site, I'd much rather see the city spend some money to bury the parking and get more greenspace.

Agreed, underground parking would be nice, but hugely expensive, you would never make your money back.

Estimates are roughly $35,000.00 per spot to $35,000.00 per spot.

Better in my opinion to stick with a fixed amount of surface parking and encourage the use of shuttles down the QE driveway in winter, and add bike racks in the summer as well. Even include a BIXI bike location for the NCC free bike program.

[Aylmer]

Jamaican Phoenix:

This plan will never exist. Arguing about it is as useful as pleading an orange not to turn purple.


Jemartin:

No matter how hard you try to make yourself seem like the intelligent, better-than-this side of the argument, your orange will not turn purple.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Even include a BIXI bike location for the NCC free bike program.

Le What?

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Since you have replied thoughtfully and on point...

Oh please, I've asked you questions before and you didn't answer them. Don't play this game.

The Conservancy assumes all revenues and costs and takes care of the Park in partnership with the City. In fact the City will sit on the Board along with other interested parties, but management of the Park will be done by a nonprofit professional team (ie. highly qualified but lower salaries). No taxpayer money will be used.

And what exactly are your cost estimates? I'm hoping that you are aware that demolition AND renovation of those facilities will be very expensive. Well into the millions. How exactly do you plan to fund this, since asking for donations rarely gets into the millions unless it's a concerted effort and the money is being raised for cancer and other illnesses.

Who are these interested parties? Also, how certain of you that a highly-qualified(and usually since they're good, highly paid) team of professionals is going to work for a lower salary? What is your guarantee that no taxpayer money will be used? Are you trying to tell us that all the costs for demo and reno are going to come from private investors that won't actually be investing anything into the Park?

Demolition of the South Stands will come about either in year two or three. Using local connections and good will the anticipated cost will be in the $300,000.00 range at the extreme and will come out of site budgeting.

Stop right there. Not only are you saying the demolition won't be immediate, it will also, through "local connections and good will", cost only $300,000.00 at the extreme price range? Buddy, demolishing the lower stands cost the city $1.2 million. What makes you think demolishing the rest(which is a larger structure) will cost dramatically less?

All projects would be prioritized and each year annual maintenance would continue, with additional fund raising each year for a different project.

So let's just pretend for a moment that this fund raising scheme works magically to your ideas, what happens if/when people stop? What happens to this park? Surely, it will stagnate. On top of that, the costs needed for demolition and renovation of existing structures will cost several million dollars at least. I highly doubt your fund raising can come up with that kind of cash even over the span of a few years which means the existing facilities will continue to fall into a state of disrepair and look dingy.

As mentioned no city money would be used, just site revenue and what is raised. Bayview is a city concern.

So you want the city to foot the cost of Bayview, which will be a tonne of money it doesn't have right now, but (as you stated earlier) you want your Conservancy to keep all the revenue. In others words, am I to believe that you honestly think the city is going to give up its Lansdowne revenue(more like deficit right now) AND foot the bill for a new stadium at Bayview, where in that document you cited, there are clearly plans for the site in question?

The NCC has agree to partner with the City. If the City in turn partners with the Lansdowne Park Conservancy then the NCC will in turn work with that partner. If the NCC wishes to keep all the grounds as they are with no changes then we would work with that. Existing access points are sufficient.

Not necessarily. The NCC in my experience can be a fickle thing. The NCC may have agreed to partner with the city, but in case you haven't noticed, they've voiced their concern over several issues already AND have stonewalled several proposals and aspects. And then we have Parks Canada on top of that. Again, you wanted perimeter parking; those are NCC lands. How do you plan to reconcile this?

As mentioned Bayview is not concerned with Bayview. However it is clear to me and many others that a competitive bidding process from other developers for a stadium tied development fits there and would get better costing for the taxpayer. That site also meets the Master Plan and is on rapid transit. Bayview has an approved study passed by City Council in 2005. A copy can be seen at:

How do you figure it would get better costing for the taxpayer? We'd have to cancel the current proposal(which would risk the city being sued. AGAIN.), approve more studies and more designs which would cost money, and then find the money to build and finance the stadium, and that's all assuming that Ottawa gets a team in that situation, let alone an owner/group of owners.

And since you're referring to the Master Plan, the current Lansdowne proposal fits into the Master Plan in that it further develops designated main streets, meets increased urban density desires and includes more green space. That's three aspects to the Master Plan compared to your one.

http://www.vo-ao.ca/images/pdf/bayvi...rsetreport.pdf

And would you look at that? Gosh golly gee, there are already plans for Bayview!

The Lansdowne Park Conservancy is a non profit management model to run the entire park, using the substantial site revenues of $4.7M. Costs are much too high right now and new management will quickly see an operational surplus.

This is a false number since basic maintenance cost of existing facilities is the reason why Lansdowne is losing money and why the city wanted to do something with it. How do you know new management will quickly see an operational surplus? Are you magically going to fix the site in the few years you've claimed while somehow maintaining the current trade shows, etc. without delving into taxpayer's pockets?

100% Public site for all of Ottawa.

You're right, it's for all of Ottawa. Which means people other than Glebites should get a say in what they think should go at Lansdowne and currently, people seem for the most part to either like or be indifferent to the current proposal.

P.S. Here's something else I haven't seen you address; why should the Glebites get what they want in the form of no stadium, when you and others who think like you are trying to force a stadium at Bayview where there hasn't been one before? The stadium has been a part of the Glebe's history for a century and that shouldn't change. Buying into that neighbourhood so close to an established city function comes with the understanding that it will be loud and noisy a lot of the time. For all the shouting coming from Glebites, they appear to be deaf to what people in Bayview are trying to say. Also, Bayview residents have complained about Bluesfest, and that's only temporary at two weeks out of the year. How are you going to reconcile these citizens? What if they don't want a stadium there? What then?

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by jemartin

I also believe that would meet the requirements for 10,000 spectators.

Originally Posted by jemartin

As for what to do with it, you find someone who wants crushed cement fill, crush it and sell it. Ecological and cost effective for both parties.

See, it's stuff like this why I think your plan is terrible; it operates under a LOT of assumptions and pure, golden optimism. That's not enough to make a good proposal.

[Ottawan]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Main Entry: 1agrar·i·an
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈgrer-ē-ən\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin agrarius, from agr-, ager field — more at acre
Date: 1600

1 : of or relating to fields or lands or their tenure
2 a : of, relating to, or characteristic of farmers or their way of life <agrarian values> b : organized or designed to promote agricultural interests

The Conservancy plans to offer an agrarian friendly site at lower rent.

Please get back to me when you have confirmed the Ex would move with that offered to them.

Ok... I accept your definitions. But they exhacerbate the problem that most annoyed me the first time: how can you have a "of, relating to" friendly site, or a "relating to" friendly site. It just doesn't make sense as a sentence, thus confusing any sense it might make as a concept.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Better in my opinion to stick with a fixed amount of surface parking and encourage the use of shuttles down the QE driveway in winter...

So...who pays for the shuttles? Is it privately funded, or are you going to charge people to take a shuttle to see a modest park?

[Ottawan]

A serious question (not that my questions before about sources and supporters were not serious, but after about 6 seperate posts asking for them without even one pretence at an answer, I've pretty much given up on substantiation for anything):

How are you going to 'easily' manage Lansdowne better to achieve a surplus from the 4.7 million $ in revenues? The current state of disrepair of Lansdowne is in large part due to the inadequate maintenance budget, and it is currently operating at a loss in an attempt to keep the place from deteriorating further.

So, do you have a current detailed breakdown of the costs/revenues of the group at the City that manages Lansdowne? Which parts of what they do do you feel can be cut back?

[RTWAP]

As additional details come out, slowly, it seems more and more like there are a lot of very optimistic assumptions built into the proposal.

To me, the biggest one of all is the idea that the city would even go for such a risky venture with a partner with absolutely no track record of success. If this project fails then the city is left with a Lansdowne failure that continues to drain funds, and no stadium. It is reasonable to wonder if this is actually the goal.

For the city to actually embrace the project, they would realistically need to be partnering with an entity that has shown they can manage things like this but on a smaller scale. Kind of like partnering with CCOC on a large low-income housing project based on the fact that they have demonstrated they know what they're doing with smaller affordable housing.

But lets assume that the city decides it is such a great idea that they should try to set aside the lack of demonstrated experience. A reasonable first step would be to argue that the plan and its associated assumptions demonstrate a very prudent and cautious approach that lessens the need for prior experience. So when you have the primary project proponent arguing that the larger portion of the stands could easily be demolished for 25% or less of the cost of the smaller portion, then that type of fantastical assumption does incredible damage to the perceived seriousness of the proposed project.

It's about perception of risk, and the details on this proposal all seem slanted as much as possible to make it work. It's a house of cards, a relentless series of unlikely outcomes that all need to line up perfectly.

I'm forced to conclude that either the primary proponent is really hopelessly optimistic, or is attempting to be deviously disruptive. Either way, the energy put forth is admirable. I just wish it was focused on something that had a real chance of improving the city. We need more people like that.

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by Ottawan

A serious question (not that my questions before about sources and supporters were not serious, but after about 6 seperate posts asking for them without even one pretence at an answer, I've pretty much given up on substantiation for anything):

How are you going to 'easily' manage Lansdowne better to achieve a surplus from the 4.7 million $ in revenues? The current state of disrepair of Lansdowne is in large part due to the inadequate maintenance budget, and it is currently operating at a loss in an attempt to keep the place from deteriorating further.

So, do you have a current detailed breakdown of the costs/revenues of the group at the City that manages Lansdowne? Which parts of what they do do you feel can be cut back?

The park has been losing money for years but since 2006 ( the last year of football when the park lost $1M ) the loses have been shrinking.

Areas of question are firstly compensation. There are 5 front office staff and approx 8 people in operations. Total budget is $2.5M.

Repairs and maintenance on buildings and grounds is roughly $600,000.00 per year and the majority of that is on the Civic Centre.

On top of that the expenses have a number of vague entries. however the business analysts that I have consulted all point to the gross revenue of the park as being excellent, but costs are out of balance.

Latest gross revenue is just under $5M.

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by RTWAP

As additional details come out, slowly, it seems more and more like there are a lot of very optimistic assumptions built into the proposal.

To me, the biggest one of all is the idea that the city would even go for such a risky venture with a partner with absolutely no track record of success. If this project fails then the city is left with a Lansdowne failure that continues to drain funds, and no stadium. It is reasonable to wonder if this is actually the goal.

For the city to actually embrace the project, they would realistically need to be partnering with an entity that has shown they can manage things like this but on a smaller scale. Kind of like partnering with CCOC on a large low-income housing project based on the fact that they have demonstrated they know what they're doing with smaller affordable housing.

But lets assume that the city decides it is such a great idea that they should try to set aside the lack of demonstrated experience. A reasonable first step would be to argue that the plan and its associated assumptions demonstrate a very prudent and cautious approach that lessens the need for prior experience. So when you have the primary project proponent arguing that the larger portion of the stands could easily be demolished for 25% or less of the cost of the smaller portion, then that type of fantastical assumption does incredible damage to the perceived seriousness of the proposed project.

It's about perception of risk, and the details on this proposal all seem slanted as much as possible to make it work. It's a house of cards, a relentless series of unlikely outcomes that all need to line up perfectly.

I'm forced to conclude that either the primary proponent is really hopelessly optimistic, or is attempting to be deviously disruptive. Either way, the energy put forth is admirable. I just wish it was focused on something that had a real chance of improving the city. We need more people like that.

No one said go with a team with no track record.

I will get back to you on the demolition costs.

I am being 100% genuine and as mentioned am following a proven management model.

This is about love of City and neighborhood, keeping a place for all to access free of economic constraint, keeping all public land that is zoned for leisure and major public space remain that and do it in the most affordable manner.

Major development and intensification is done on rapid transit, not public park land. A development tied stadium can more effectively be done at Bayview as all studies have indicated and at a site that has already been approved by council in 2005 for just such an enterprise.

All of this has come about by bad process. This is about getting our City back on track and in a position to be a leadership example for the rest of Canada.

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Jemartin:

No matter how hard you try to make yourself seem like the intelligent, better-than-this side of the argument, your orange will not turn purple.

No one has ever claimed that I am trying to be intelligent before, so thank you!

As for different shades? Sometimes a little green in the morning, occasionally a little red from too much sun, once in a while a little blue, but have yet to experience either orange or purple.

Will keep you posted if something comes up!

[phil235]

Originally Posted by jemartin

The park has been losing money for years but since 2006 ( the last year of football when the park lost $1M ) the loses have been shrinking.

Areas of question are firstly compensation. There are 5 front office staff and approx 8 people in operations. Total budget is $2.5M.

Repairs and maintenance on buildings and grounds is roughly $600,000.00 per year and the majority of that is on the Civic Centre.

On top of that the expenses have a number of vague entries. however the business analysts that I have consulted all point to the gross revenue of the park as being excellent, but costs are out of balance.

Latest gross revenue is just under $5M.

I suspect that part of the reasons the business analysts make that comment is that the current staff of the park is paid city wages with benefits. I imagine that you could get people to work more cheaply, but I'm always skeptical of the argument that cheaper or fewer staff is the way to make things run more smoothly.

To get back to the questions you've been asked:

1) What do the business analysts say about the capital costs? Clearly the current budget is too low on that front.

2) How much of your surface area will be devoted to parking and access to parking?

3) What happens to the park if revenues fall short of your projections?

These are key questions that you need to answer. So far you have been dodging.

[lrt's friend]

In view of the fact that revenue is raised from parking for major events, doesn't the reduction in the number of parking spaces end up reducing revenue?

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

In view of the fact that revenue is raised from parking for major events, doesn't the reduction in the number of parking spaces end up reducing revenue?

One option is to simply charge more for certain events. Basic Supply and demand.

But the revenue lost from taking out a good chunk of the spaces wouldn't affect the bottom line too much.

The park is rarely filled past 60%.

Overall though parking revenues accounted for roughly 1/6th of overall site revenue.

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by phil235

I suspect that part of the reasons the business analysts make that comment is that the current staff of the park is paid city wages with benefits. I imagine that you could get people to work more cheaply, but I'm always skeptical of the argument that cheaper or fewer staff is the way to make things run more smoothly.

To get back to the questions you've been asked:

1) What do the business analysts say about the capital costs? Clearly the current budget is too low on that front.

2) How much of your surface area will be devoted to parking and access to parking?

3) What happens to the park if revenues fall short of your projections?

These are key questions that you need to answer. So far you have been dodging.

1. Not if you go incrementally. Add in fundraising and patron and membership support and it will do well.

2. Roughly 20%. (approx 150 cars per acre, so roughly 8 acres)

3. We would have to cut back on expenses and increase fund raising.

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by jemartin

No one said go with a team with no track record.

You have waited very late in the game to introduce a proven team. Council will be making their decision in a few weeks.

Originally Posted by jemartin

I will get back to you on the demolition costs.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by jemartin

I am being 100% genuine and as mentioned am following a proven management model.

I'll take you at your word on your motivation, but you might want to keep my initial doubts in mind when others react poorly to your comments. You have a somewhat snarky style at times and it can serve to reinforce a perception that you're really just playing spoiler in this whole process.

Originally Posted by jemartin

This is about love of City and neighborhood, keeping a place for all to access free of economic constraint, keeping all public land that is zoned for leisure and major public space remain that and do it in the most affordable manner.

Those are your priorities. While I agree they are nice, they are not the only priorities for me, and the challenge is balancing them all. Personally, I find the OSEG proposal strikes much closer to mark than your own in that regard.

Originally Posted by jemartin

Major development and intensification is done on rapid transit, not public park land. A development tied stadium can more effectively be done at Bayview as all studies have indicated and at a site that has already been approved by council in 2005 for just such an enterprise.

Lansdowne is not park land. I understand that you are proposing that it should be, but that's still in doubt. The 'Park' in Lansdowne is currently short for 'Parking Lot'.

Originally Posted by jemartin

All of this has come about by bad process. This is about getting our City back on track and in a position to be a leadership example for the rest of Canada.

Unsolicited proposals are not by definition bad. After all, you're attempting to use the same mechanism with your Conservancy plan.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

jemartin, if you keep trolling the other thread while ignoring this one, I WILL resume trolling you in this one...

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by RTWAP

You have waited very late in the game to introduce a proven team. Council will be making their decision in a few weeks.



Thanks.



I'll take you at your word on your motivation, but you might want to keep my initial doubts in mind when others react poorly to your comments. You have a somewhat snarky style at times and it can serve to reinforce a perception that you're really just playing spoiler in this whole process.



Those are your priorities. While I agree they are nice, they are not the only priorities for me, and the challenge is balancing them all. Personally, I find the OSEG proposal strikes much closer to mark than your own in that regard.



Lansdowne is not park land. I understand that you are proposing that it should be, but that's still in doubt. The 'Park' in Lansdowne is currently short for 'Parking Lot'.



Unsolicited proposals are not by definition bad. After all, you're attempting to use the same mechanism with your Conservancy plan.

The design competition agreed that all the park was parkland. Aside from development interest and a misguided attempt at another stadium, the current design competition would simply be extended around and confirm nature replaces concrete.

No one disagrees that the sea of concrete has to go, that paved over the original fields of grass and trees.

Unsolicited proposals are not necessarily bad at all, it depends on how they are allowed to be used. in this case the city is only taking unsolicited bids, completely contrary to the procurement law but you work with what you got.

[migo]

Originally Posted by jemartin

No one said go with a team with no track record.

I am being 100% genuine and as mentioned am following a proven management model.

This is about love of City and neighborhood, keeping a place for all to access free of economic constraint, keeping all public land that is zoned for leisure and major public space remain that and do it in the most affordable manner.

Major development and intensification is done on rapid transit, not public park land. A development tied stadium can more effectively be done at Bayview as all studies have indicated and at a site that has already been approved by council in 2005 for just such an enterprise.

All of this has come about by bad process. This is about getting our City back on track and in a position to be a leadership example for the rest of Canada.

If you feel so stongly about the ideas/beliefs you have posted so far, and hopefully realizing that democracy will prevail, why don't you run for City Council or City Mayor?