HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Downtown & City of Ottawa


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1021  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2009, 1:14 PM
Franky's Avatar
Franky Franky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
So much for the heritage value of Lansdowne and the canal when we are suggesting that the Queen Elizabeth Parkway be put in a tunnel. The Queen Elizabeth Parkway is over 100 years old in itself. This scenic driveway is used by countless tourists every year to see beautiful views of the city, and especially during the Tulip Festival and Winterlude. This is a total waste of tax money and makes improvements to Lansdowne by taking away benefits enjoyed by the greater community.
I think that burying that section would improve pedestrian and recreational enjoyment of the canal when linked to Lansdowne and NCC lands. Think beyond the car-centric view. There is a parkway on both sides of the canal. I never thought I'd be arguing against the heritage of asphalt.
__________________
Francois
     
     
  #1022  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2009, 1:31 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,166
I don't understand how this will be a great benefit to the City. Again, it is really a glorified benefit to the people living in the Glebe. Think about the number of tour buses, and the number of visitors who have driven along the Queen Elizabeth Parkway. Put those people in a tunnel and so ends that attraction for visitors. We already have bike paths and pedestrian walkways along the canal. The busyness of the location in many respects makes it more fun. The parkway is only 2 lanes wide and does not create a significant barrer, nothing compared to the Ottawa River Parkway which is almost a freeway. Also, we already have a great park in central Ottawa with direct access to the canal shore. It is called the Arboretum. We don't need another imposing dead zone devoid of traffic in the evening. Traffic is actually an asset for security after dark.

A tunnel = $$$$$+++++ Why is it that these ideas presented by opponents of Lansdowne Live always involve more tax payer dollars? Do we not realize that the more expensive an alternative plan costs the less likely that anything will get done.
     
     
  #1023  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2009, 2:15 PM
Franky's Avatar
Franky Franky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
I don't understand how this will be a great benefit to the City. Again, it is really a glorified benefit to the people living in the Glebe. Think about the number of tour buses, and the number of visitors who have driven along the Queen Elizabeth Parkway. Put those people in a tunnel and so ends that attraction for visitors. We already have bike paths and pedestrian walkways along the canal. The busyness of the location in many respects makes it more fun. The parkway is only 2 lanes wide and does not create a significant barrer, nothing compared to the Ottawa River Parkway which is almost a freeway. Also, we already have a great park in central Ottawa with direct access to the canal shore. It is called the Arboretum. We don't need another imposing dead zone devoid of traffic in the evening. Traffic is actually an asset for security after dark.

A tunnel = $$$$$+++++ Why is it that these ideas presented by opponents of Lansdowne Live always involve more tax payer dollars? Do we not realize that the more expensive an alternative plan costs the less likely that anything will get done.
Those are good points, but it's not the whole parkway that was proposed be put underground, just a part by Lansdowne.

Lots of people enjoy the canal from the recreational paths, not from their cars/buses and it's not just people who live in the Glebe. I think removing the barrier between the canal and Lansdowne would increase it's use by others instead of being an island only people who live in the Glebe can access easily. You could bike or walk up the recreational path right to the Park. That part of QED is on a curve and is not easy to cross safely.

Security - unlike the Arboretum, there is the Bank St. bridge and the CBy parkway on the other side so not as much hiding possibility.

Say 800 m underground (less if you straighten out the tunnel), would cost what? $15M cut and cover? But you get 2 acres of prime land back plus you increase the usefulness and value of the park. Lansdowne Park is valued at $160M for 40 acres, that's $4M/acre, so half of the construction cost is covered by value added, maybe all of it when you consider the value added from having a continuous area. Also, it would be an NCC project, not a city of Ottawa project. Combining some of Lansdowne park as greenspace with the NCC greenspace would create a really nice green component for whatever goes into Lansdowne.

There may even be an opportunity to create some underground parking there for access to the park.
__________________
Francois
     
     
  #1024  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2009, 2:29 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,166
There is no need for more underground parking if it is not going to serve as a major venue. You have stated that you want to rid the park of the stadium.

As I said, we already have bike paths and walkways there. What value added is there? If crossing the parkway is a problem, there are cheaper ways to solve the problem. A traffic signal? A decorative walking bridge over the parkway?
     
     
  #1025  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2009, 2:51 PM
Franky's Avatar
Franky Franky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
There is no need for more underground parking if it is not going to serve as a major venue. You have stated that you want to rid the park of the stadium.

As I said, we already have bike paths and walkways there. What value added is there? If crossing the parkway is a problem, there are cheaper ways to solve the problem. A traffic signal? A decorative walking bridge over the parkway?
Some plans call for the Civic Centre to remain as well as amateur level stands, basically development on a scale that fits the area and transit and parking accessibility.

I would like to see some sort of revenue generating facility - I've posted ideas in that vein here, none anyone likes. Maybe a design competition could come up with some good ideas.

Yes, true about the accessibility problem. There was never much reason to cross there before. A few bridges could work if you want to go on the cheap.
__________________
Francois
     
     
  #1026  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2009, 4:29 PM
RTWAP's Avatar
RTWAP RTWAP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franky View Post
Say 800 m underground (less if you straighten out the tunnel), would cost what? $15M cut and cover? But you get 2 acres of prime land back plus you increase the usefulness and value of the park. Lansdowne Park is valued at $160M for 40 acres, that's $4M/acre, so half of the construction cost is covered by value added, maybe all of it when you consider the value added from having a continuous area. Also, it would be an NCC project, not a city of Ottawa project. Combining some of Lansdowne park as greenspace with the NCC greenspace would create a really nice green component for whatever goes into Lansdowne.

There may even be an opportunity to create some underground parking there for access to the park.
Burying the transitway at Baseline station is costing about $200million, but that includes moving utilities and a few bridges and such. My gut feel is that $15million wouldn't be enough but who knows.

I'm in favour of a redevelopment like LL, but I would love to see it be car-less, at the surface level. I don't know how expensive it would be, or how reasonable, but from a simplistic point of view I wish they'd just excavate the entire site (including QED) and put the roads and parking underground. Just have entry and exit ramps at the edges of the property, on Bank Street and along QED. Imagine an intersection half-way through the QED tunnel that allowed traffic to enter the LL underground parking complex.

I have seen entire streets and roundabouts underground in various places (London, Chicago). I wonder if it would be a good fit for what they're trying to accomplish at Lansdowne.

Imagine if that main thoroughfare that they show in the artists conceptions (the one with the great view of the Aberdeen Pavillion) were actually a pedestrian space, with space for some seasonal programming. Have petting zoo under a tent in the summer. Or a beer garden during Octoberfest. Arts and crafts stalls one day of the week. Whatever. Make it a true pedestrian space, not cars and sidewalks.
     
     
  #1027  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2009, 4:38 PM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
As I said, we already have bike paths and walkways there. What value added is there? If crossing the parkway is a problem, there are cheaper ways to solve the problem. A traffic signal? A decorative walking bridge over the parkway?
I'd make it easier to cross by splitting the lanes/putting in a wide median (rather like it is between Bronson and Bank). That way pedestrians who are crossing only have to concern themselves with one direction at a time, and the fact of driving on a one-lane road will tend to slow motorists down as well. Crosswalks could be added if needed. The idea of a tunnel is just kind of fanciful.
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
     
     
  #1028  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2009, 4:39 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,166
I think that Lansdowne Live goes a long way towards a carfree environment for the park. Parking is underground and road access is minimized. Maybe I am wrong, but the vistas towards the Aberdeen Pavillion are to for pedestrians, which is a far cry from what is there today, which is pedestrian hostile. It also takes into consideration additional transit access for very large events.
     
     
  #1029  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2009, 5:40 PM
Franky's Avatar
Franky Franky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTWAP View Post
Burying the transitway at Baseline station is costing about $200million, but that includes moving utilities and a few bridges and such. My gut feel is that $15million wouldn't be enough but who knows.

I'm in favour of a redevelopment like LL, but I would love to see it be car-less, at the surface level. I don't know how expensive it would be, or how reasonable, but from a simplistic point of view I wish they'd just excavate the entire site (including QED) and put the roads and parking underground. Just have entry and exit ramps at the edges of the property, on Bank Street and along QED. Imagine an intersection half-way through the QED tunnel that allowed traffic to enter the LL underground parking complex.

I have seen entire streets and roundabouts underground in various places (London, Chicago). I wonder if it would be a good fit for what they're trying to accomplish at Lansdowne.

Imagine if that main thoroughfare that they show in the artists conceptions (the one with the great view of the Aberdeen Pavillion) were actually a pedestrian space, with space for some seasonal programming. Have petting zoo under a tent in the summer. Or a beer garden during Octoberfest. Arts and crafts stalls one day of the week. Whatever. Make it a true pedestrian space, not cars and sidewalks.
Welcome RTWAP.

The idea of an underground entry point is interesting. The intersection can be open-air, but below grade to keep costs down and allow more generous excavation (maybe a short turn lane and a merge lane?). The roundabout idea might work well too.

I think you're right on tunnel cost - $4,000/m^2 at Baseline, so 8,000 m^2 = $32M. That's very expensive.

What does a 1100 parking space underground garage cost? $50M at $50,000 per parking space?
__________________
Francois

Last edited by Franky; Oct 5, 2009 at 7:40 PM.
     
     
  #1030  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2009, 7:02 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,244
Province won't help with sole-sourced Lansdowne project, Watson says
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Pr...209/story.html

Last edited by waterloowarrior; Oct 5, 2009 at 11:38 PM.
     
     
  #1031  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2009, 10:49 PM
jchamoun79 jchamoun79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
Why is it that these ideas presented by opponents of Lansdowne Live always involve more tax payer dollars? Do we not realize that the more expensive an alternative plan costs the less likely that anything will get done.
I think your second question answers your first question.
     
     
  #1032  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2009, 11:38 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,244
Lansdowne Live open to changes, but they'll have to be negotiated, team says

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/La...209/story.html
By Patrick Dare, The Ottawa CitizenOctober 5, 2009 7:21 PMComments (29)
OTTAWA — The business partnership behind the Lansdowne Live project is open to changing its plan but they would have to come through negotiations with the city, not ill-informed criticisms, says the businessman leading the project.

Roger Greenberg, spokesman for Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group, said Monday that he has sensed in recent days some softening of support from city council for the proposed redevelopment of Lansdowne Park.

“There are about 12 councillors who are sitting on the fence,” said Greenberg, chief executive of The Minto Group and one of four businessmen who put together the proposal.

Greenberg said it’s possible for the business partnership to reduce space for the retail component of the development but the city would have to accept that less revenue would come from the site.

Greenberg said he is taken aback by the misinformation that’s being circulated about the proposed development and he assembled four business community supporters to express their support Monday. He has also got the permission of city manager Kent Kirkpatrick to show up at city public meetings on the project to answer questions.

The city is considering entering a partnership with a group of four Ottawa businessmen who comprise the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group; Greenberg, John Ruddy, William Shenkman and Jeff Hunt. The $250-million project would see the deteriorating football stadium and Civic Centre arena refurbished, stores, a theatre complex and offices built, restaurants added to the Aberdeen Pavilion and a section of the property near the Rideau Canal turned into greenspace. The city would put up roughly half of the capital for the project while the business group would manage the site.

A Canadian Football League franchise, the Ottawa 67’s hockey team and a pro soccer team would be part of the partnership. In the second phase of the project, residential buildings and a hotel would be constructed along Bank Street and Holmwood Avenue.

Ottawa businessman Peter Cleveland, a top executive at Ernst & Young before founding his own consulting firm, said that the proposed business deal is good because: all of the 37 acres of Lansdowne Park would remain in public ownership; the private partnership would bear the risk for construction and operating losses; and the city would still get property taxes on the new retail space regardless of how successful the buildings are.

Cleveland said the fears of Bank Street bankruptcies are wrong because the project would increase pedestrian traffic in the area. He said just as Westboro saw boosted property values and business sales in the area when large new businesses arrived, so too would the Lansdowne project give the Glebe business area a boost.

Cleveland said critics are making a lot out of the profit the business partnership would make from the project but he said they could never raise capital for the project if they couldn’t make money.

Businessman Jim Wright said the four business people in the partnership have their reputations at stake and aren’t about to do a development that would tarnish those reputations. He also said that allowing Lansdowne Park to decay would be the wrong thing to do.

“We need an outdoor stadium. We’re the capital of Canada,” said Wright.
Erin Kelly, executive director of the Ottawa Chamber of Commerce, said people need to think of what happens if council doesn’t approve the business partnership and Lansdowne continues its downward slide.

Greenberg said critics have thrown out incorrect information, such as the Glebe Business Improvement Area’s description of the retail space as the size of a big regional mall of 600,000 square feet, when the actual new store space would be closer to 200,000 square feet. Greenberg said that while some have told Glebe residents that the area would be flooded with people and cars, most of the event days at Lansdowne would have modest crowds averaging 7,500.

“Change is paralysing,” said Greenberg. “There’s been a lot of fear that’s
been put into people.”

On Monday the Ottawa Farmers’ Market came out against the Lansdowne Live proposal as it stands, saying it would hurt the viability of the market, which operates at Lansdowne Park on Thursdays and Sundays from May to October.

The farmers’ market opposes any change that would see a new non-city group being its landlord. The farmers’ market also opposes the proposed moving of the Horticulture Building, due to its heritage status. As well, the farmers’ market says it would like to be housed in the Aberdeen Pavilion, rather than see restaurants there.

One of the criticisms of the Lansdowne Live deal is that it’s a sole-source procurement, with the city negotiating exclusively with Greenberg's group.

If the City of Ottawa wants to go ahead with a sole-source deal, it’s free to do so. But the city cannot count on the provincial government for any financial contribution to the project, says Municipal Affairs Minister Jim Watson.

A letter from Watson to Capital Councillor Clive Doucet says that the provincial government would require that any joint project involving the provincial government would have to include a competitive process. And the province made that clear to the city’s officials at the August meeting of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario convention in Ottawa.
Watson was writing Doucet on behalf of the provincial government. Doucet, who is leading the battle against Lansdowne Live, had inquired whether the provincial government could intervene in the project.

Watson, the MPP for Ottawa West-Nepean, responded by saying municipal governments are responsible governments with the powers to run their own business.

The city has obtained a legal opinion that it can contract with the business group without a competitive process because the group brings a unique opportunity due to the sports franchises under its control.

All construction using public money, however — the stadium, the Civic Centre and the parking garage — would be put to competitive tender.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
     
     
  #1033  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2009, 12:17 AM
rodionx rodionx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Centretown
Posts: 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by jchamoun79 View Post
I think your second question answers your first question.
Lol. That's the darker interpretation. I've been wondering if the opponents really believe their own fantasies, or if their underlying goal is just to keep anything from happening there. They must enjoy the quiet of the semi derelict stadium and event spaces next door. If they obstruct long enough, it will become greenspace by default. Nothing but weeds and a ridiculously overpriced farmer's market, with kids tobogganing on the ruins in winter.
     
     
  #1034  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2009, 1:08 AM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,166
Who gets the privilege of pushing the button to explode the next part of Lansdowne Park? A boy's dream ........ to demolish something, the bigger the better.
     
     
  #1035  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2009, 2:18 AM
Franky's Avatar
Franky Franky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,551
"If the City of Ottawa wants to go ahead with a sole-source deal, it’s free to do so. But the city cannot count on the provincial government for any financial contribution to the project, says Municipal Affairs Minister Jim Watson."

That says a lot.
__________________
Francois
     
     
  #1036  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2009, 3:18 AM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,244
     
     
  #1037  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2009, 6:59 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,244
Lansdowne could have less shopping if taxpayers pay more, top bureaucrat says

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Lansdow...140/story.html
     
     
  #1038  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2009, 8:53 PM
matty14 matty14 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franky View Post
"If the City of Ottawa wants to go ahead with a sole-source deal, it’s free to do so. But the city cannot count on the provincial government for any financial contribution to the project, says Municipal Affairs Minister Jim Watson."

That says a lot.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we were seeking funding from them in the first place. There goes Jim again, making his opinion of municipal matters public that are none of his business.
     
     
  #1039  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2009, 9:18 PM
rodionx rodionx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Centretown
Posts: 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post
There's a good first person summary of this meeting in the West Side Action blog. This blogger lives near Bayview, home of the imaginary stadium that will replace the one at Lansdowne. I thought this quote was quite appropriate:

Quote:
The alternatives to Lansdowne only look attractive because they are not fleshed out, they are conceptual ideas only, being compared to a detailed Lansdowne plan. Of course it is easy to pick at the detailed plan and fantasize about the vague one. Sell the sizzle.
     
     
  #1040  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2009, 10:26 PM
Franky's Avatar
Franky Franky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by matty14 View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we were seeking funding from them in the first place. There goes Jim again, making his opinion of municipal matters public that are none of his business.
It does open the door to funding from the province if we start a proper design competition.
__________________
Francois
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Downtown & City of Ottawa
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:11 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.