Lansdowne Park Redevelopment Phase 1 | Completed

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

If the stadium is full, why are there no cars in the parking lots? It makes it seem that the parking lots are grand pedestrian promenades, which they are not. This is the view of the site seen through rose colour glasses.

It seems to me that this has all been done before. Didn't the Central Canada Exhibition Association manage the park until the early 1970s?

I still don't understand how a conservancy group will be a successful retail landlord.

Parking at Lansdowne under the Conservancy Non Profit Incorporation would be surface which is safer, more popular and of course easier to access the specific point on the site you wish to attend. Original parking is for 1,250 with an additional 250 on an as needed basis. The promenade aspect of the parking areas is of course available when the cars aren't there which is most of the time. More spaces and 1/5 the intensification = significantly less traffic issues.



The Central Canada Exhibition Association ran the park from 1888 to 1970 as a nonprofit and ran a surplus each and every year, including with the new centennial stadium and the Rough Riders.

The retail landlord aspect is where you bring in a retail sales expert, just as any property manager firm does. The clarification that may be missing is that the park is under a non profit incorporation but run professionally. Staff and senior administration are already in place.

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by jchamoun79

Or a successful venue manager/operator, for that matter. OSEG knows a thing or two about sports and entertainment. I have a hard time imagining a conservancy group would have that same expertise.

So how would the Conservancy operate Frank Clair Stadium and the Civic Centre? Would it have full-time, in-house venue management staff, or would it hire a - gasp - private management firm like SMG or Global Spectrum to book concerts and events?

There is already a successful venue opererations team for the stadium, same that has been in place for the past many years, and all City of Ottawa employees. They would be included in the purchased services section as outlined in the financials. Park Manager, admin staff, engineers, ice makers, everyone you need and all with extremely valuable experience.

For large events we can look at tendering out the concession and security staff.

You seem to be confusing important items here.

The Conservancy will be a non for profit Incorporation. The park will be professionally run as it has always been, only this time with all activities in house and not under a massive accounting bureaucracy.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Staff and senior administration are already in place.

Was there a competitive process to select the staff and senior administration?

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

You know guys, we should be arguing with him and questioning him in the thread devoted to his "proposal"; not this thread which is for ACTUAL Lansdowne Development debate and info.

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by phil235

JeMartin, you claim to be interested in real debate on this issue, yet all I have seen from your is a repetition of the same lines over and over. I asked you a very direct question as follows:

"If you are truly interested in this debate, then answer a direct question - do you consider Granville Island to be "privatized"? How about Harbourfront in Toronto? Or are those public places? "

I assume you have chosen to ignore it because it doesn't fit into your black and white definition of what is public space and what is private space.

This is a key point in the debate - whether you can create a public space that includes significant private ownership. I'm giving you a real chance to actually join the discussion. Why don't you surprise everyone here and respond?

If there is private ownership then it is no longer public land.

One of the guiding principles of the Conservancy that may help you is that the park remain 100% public. If new structures are needed they will be owned by the City of Ottawa, managed by the Conservancy and leased to the tenants.

I am not familiar of the Harbourfront articles, but admire the board makeup of Granville Island. The land at Granville as I understand it is owned by the CMHC and is federal, they act as a landlord with input from invested parties, such as the CIty of Vancouver, the Arts Community, Architects, Heritage, Business, Community, etc....

[K-133]

jemartin

You have outlined a good starting point about what is important to you. First, I think you should ask yourself five layers of 'why' to each of your points. As the points themselves don't make for good design requirements.

Second, I really think you need to recognize that other citizens have other requirements. To be successful you will have to get these people on your side, and to do so, you must understand their requirements and work them into your design.

One requirement I can think of off the bat (not well defined) is that the design must contribute to the management to the city's growth i.e. Our population is growing, and the design must help to address that issue. Your design fails to meet this, while the LL design does.

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by phil235

Was there a competitive process to select the staff and senior administration?

You would have to ask the City of Ottawa, which is who they work for.

I am assuming yes!

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by K-133

jemartin

You have outlined a good starting point about what is important to you. First, I think you should ask yourself five layers of 'why' to each of your points. As the points themselves don't make for good design requirements.

Second, I really think you need to recognize that other citizens have other requirements. To be successful you will have to get these people on your side, and to do so, you must understand their requirements and work them into your design.

One requirement I can think of off the bat (not well defined) is that the design must contribute to the management to the city's growth i.e. Our population is growing, and the design must help to address that issue. Your design fails to meet this, while the LL design does.

If you follow the master plan you towers near rapid transit and you encourage public space.

The LL proposal, while perhaps good intentioned, fails at both.

The Conservancy will enhance the city prestige, quality of life, protect heritage and increase tourism.

The towers and intensification will go to Bayview.

Two site done well and following modern urban planning of cultural economics and TOD.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by jemartin

If there is private ownership then it is no longer public land.

One of the guiding principles of the Conservancy that may help you is that the park remain 100% public. If new structures are needed they will be owned by the City of Ottawa, managed by the Conservancy and leased to the tenants.

I am not familiar of the Harbourfront articles, but admire the board makeup of Granville Island. The land at Granville as I understand it is owned by the CMHC and is federal, they act as a landlord with input from invested parties, such as the CIty of Vancouver, the Arts Community, Architects, Heritage, Business, Community, etc....

You are confusing the terms "public land" and "public space".

The point that I have been trying to make over and over again is that a dynamic public space can involve considerable private control over the land.
The buildings at Granville Island are typically covered by long-term leases to private sector entities. Harbourfront is a mix of leases and outright private ownership.

So if you agree that Granville is a public space, it seems entirely inconsistent that you continually refer to Lansdowne as "private". The arrangement is substanitally the same. Long term lease of the commercial buildings to private entities, with free public access to the walkways and squares, as well as the park.

You can argue that unlike Granville, Lansdowne will be leased to a single entity. However for the average person visiting the site, I can't see how that would make much difference at all. They are both public spaces.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by jemartin

You would have to ask the City of Ottawa, which is who they work for.

I am assuming yes!

I thought you said that the park was to be run by a non-profit corporation?

To follow on K-133's point, one of the key things I like about the current plan is that it allows for significant intensification within the Glebe in a way that I think is for the most part respectful of the existing residents.

Your plan includes no intensification whatsoever. What level of intensification are you prepared to accept within the Glebe?

[K-133]

Originally Posted by jemartin

If you follow the master plan you towers near rapid transit and you encourage public space.

The LL proposal, while perhaps good intentioned, fails at both.

The Conservancy will enhance the city prestige, quality of life, protect heritage and increase tourism.

The towers and intensification will go to Bayview.

Two site done well and following modern urban planning of cultural economics and TOD.

Though I personally would embrace such a project in the Bayview area, you really haven't addressed the requirement which I put forth with anything other than a vague response. And I can not and will not support your proposal until you do.

I also think your proposal of placing such a project in the area is hypocritical given your concern for heritage and the NCC's plans for the area. But that's for another thread...

My perception of your proposal is that it inhibits growth in the Glebe ward, as it ensures that the land cannot be used to help the city's growth. If nothing, it ensures that the area remains the same, with a new coat of paint on it.

[AuxTown]

For a more productive debate on the current Lansdowne plan, please click here: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...35#post5076935

Otherwise, please continue your bickering.

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by K-133

Though I personally would embrace such a project in the Bayview area, you really haven't addressed the requirement which I put forth with anything other than a vague response. And I can not and will not support your proposal until you do.

I also think your proposal of placing such a project in the area is hypocritical given your concern for heritage and the NCC's plans for the area. But that's for another thread...

My perception of your proposal is that it inhibits growth in the Glebe ward, as it ensures that the land cannot be used to help the city's growth. If nothing, it ensures that the area remains the same, with a new coat of paint on it.

It is why the twain shall not meet then.

By your definition Mont Royal in Montreal, Stanley Park in Vancouver and Central Park in New York
are all areas for intensification.

I don't know about you but I don't want to see skyscrapers in public space.

Development will come along the rapid transit development. Coincidentally George Dark,
head jurist of the park space works with Urban Strategies, the same firm the developed
the Official Plan of the City of Ottawa 2004 and that guides development ( or is supposed to ).

Lansdowne is not and never was intended for intensification, this has been invented by
the developers, hence all the re-zoning meetings and OMB challenges. The program will
fail for the same reason as why you can't fit a much larger square peg into a much smaller
round hole.

Urban Strategies developed with the City a plan to intensify along the rapid
transit corridor. Bayview to Preston. Exactly where the towers need to go.

And the Bayview/Somerset development area is already zoned for such an intensification.
Lansdowne was never intended for intensification this whole
intensification argument is groundless and manufactured.

Keep the park public and intensify where it is strategic.

Then you end up with a great city as Montreal, Vancouver and New York have all learned.
Central Park space is in downtown is required for the health and well being of the citizens
and integral to proper urban design.

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by phil235

I thought you said that the park was to be run by a non-profit corporation?

To follow on K-133's point, one of the key things I like about the current plan is that it allows for significant intensification within the Glebe in a way that I think is for the most part respectful of the existing residents.

Your plan includes no intensification whatsoever. What level of intensification are you prepared to accept within the Glebe?

Intensification has no basis at Lansdowne and is a manufactured argument (read post above). This is why you see zoning meetings to try an redefine Lansdowne and all the OMB Challenges.

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by phil235

You are confusing the terms "public land" and "public space".

The point that I have been trying to make over and over again is that a dynamic public space can involve considerable private control over the land.
The buildings at Granville Island are typically covered by long-term leases to private sector entities. Harbourfront is a mix of leases and outright private ownership.

So if you agree that Granville is a public space, it seems entirely inconsistent that you continually refer to Lansdowne as "private". The arrangement is substanitally the same. Long term lease of the commercial buildings to private entities, with free public access to the walkways and squares, as well as the park.

You can argue that unlike Granville, Lansdowne will be leased to a single entity. However for the average person visiting the site, I can't see how that would make much difference at all. They are both public spaces.

Never said anything about private at Lansdowne, you should be clear on that by now.

The Land and buildings are owned by the City of Ottawa at Lansdowne and would
remain so. The change is that it is run by a non profit corporation dedicated to
re-invest back into the City, and taxpayer.

No private ownership at Lansdowne, it is really that simple.

Lease operations is what has been done at Lansdowne for the last 150 years
and would continue. But there is only 80,000sf of public access lease-able
space under the Conservancy, vs what is it now 500,000sf under the developer
proposal?

Clearly a large commercial tower, condos and commercial space are not public.
The scale of these buildings is also overwhelming and you see no such aggressive
development at Granville Island. The buildings at Granville and at Lansdowne under
the Conservancy are scaled to the human experience, which is the same as we propose,
11m in height.

You attract people to your city by open spaces and with buildings the compliment the area
they will not come if you overwhelm them.

That is the secret of cultural economics and the success of cities that embrace these central
meeting places such as Mont Royal, Central Park and Stanley Park. Lansdowne will be our Central
meeting point.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Intensification has no basis at Lansdowne and is a manufactured argument (read post above). This is why you see zoning meetings to try an redefine Lansdowne and all the OMB Challenges.

This simply isn't true. There is a strong planning basis for intensification in all neighbourhoods in the city. It's all about allowing more people to live in walkable communities.

This is why you aren't fighting the good fight that you think you are. What you are really doing is trying to exempt our neighbourhood from intensification.

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by phil235

This simply isn't true. There is a strong planning basis for intensification in all neighbourhoods in the city. It's all about allowing more people to live in walkable communities.

This is why you aren't fighting the good fight that you think you are. What you are really doing is trying to exempt our neighbourhood from intensification.

You are clearly mistaking Lansdowne and the neighborhood.

Lansdowne is for all of Ottawa and our Nation's Capital.

What is being put forth by the Conservancy Non Profit Incorporation we believe is more befitting for this historical and public space.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Never said anything about private at Lansdowne, you should be clear on that by now.

The Land and buildings are owned by the City of Ottawa at Lansdowne and would
remain so. The change is that it is run by a non profit corporation dedicated to
re-invest back into the City, and taxpayer.

No private ownership at Lansdowne, it is really that simple.

Lease operations is what has been done at Lansdowne for the last 150 years
and would continue. But there is only 80,000sf of public access lease-able
space under the Conservancy, vs what is it now 500,000sf under the developer
proposal?

Clearly a large commercial tower, condos and commercial space are not public.
The scale of these buildings is also overwhelming and you see no such aggressive
development at Granville Island. The buildings at Granville and at Lansdowne under
the Conservancy are scaled to the human experience, which is the same as we propose,
11m in height.

You attract people to your city by open spaces and with buildings the compliment the area
they will not come if you overwhelm them.

That is the secret of cultural economics and the success of cities that embrace these central
meeting places such as Mont Royal, Central Park and Stanley Park. Lansdowne will be our Central
meeting point.

So it is now clear that you would rather repeat the same things over and over rather than have any real discussion of the interaction between the public and private spheres. I don't think that there can be any real debate (with anyone other than you) that some of the most important and dynamic public spaces in the world include a significant proportion of private ownership/control.

Where you see the creation of a park and prevention of any intensification of the Glebe as a gift to future generations, I don't see it that way. I think you are creating a gift for a privileged few who are fortunate enough to live nearby. On the other hand. I think the best gift we can give to the next generation is to create more dynamic walkable neighbourhoods in the city and provide more people with a chance to live in them.

Perhaps talk of preventing "towers" and private ownership is a good way to convince others of the righteousness of your cause. Calling an issue simple doesn't make it so. There needs to be room for other visions in any Lansdowne plan, and your proposal doesn't make room for any vision other than your own. That is why it won't ever resonate with a broad cross-section of the city.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by jemartin

You are clearly mistaking Lansdowne and the neighborhood.

Lansdowne is for all of Ottawa and our Nation's Capital.

What is being put forth by the Conservancy Non Profit Incorporation we believe is more befitting for this historical and public space.

More befitting is in the eye of the beholder.

I'm quite sure that the mistake is not mine. Do you have any citation for your claim that Lansdowne is somehow exempt from intensification?

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by phil235

So it is now clear that you would rather repeat the same things over and over rather than have any real discussion of the interaction between the public and private spheres. I don't think that there can be any real debate (with anyone other than you) that some of the most important and dynamic public spaces in the world include a significant proportion of private ownership/control.

Where you see the creation of a park and prevention of any intensification of the Glebe as a gift to future generations, I don't see it that way. I think you are creating a gift for a privileged few who are fortunate enough to live nearby. On the other hand. I think the best gift we can give to the next generation is to create more dynamic walkable neighbourhoods in the city and provide more people with a chance to live in them.

Perhaps talk of preventing "towers" and private ownership is a good way to convince others of the righteousness of your cause. Calling an issue simple doesn't make it so. There needs to be room for other visions in any Lansdowne plan, and your proposal doesn't make room for any vision other than your own. That is why it won't ever resonate with a broad cross-section of the city.

Well your ability to be negotiable is your position.

That is fine, not trying to "convert" you, just stating the philosophy of the Conservancy.

Preserve and protect and maintain the park for the enjoyment of present and future generations
and carry on the 150 year, 100% public tradition.

Same as is done is in all great cities of the world.


With respect to the "privileged few" how would you define private condos at a privatized Lansdowne?

If there is anything to be learned about this debate it is that keeping the park public
serves everyone, corporatizing and privatizing it is most definitely is for the privileged few.

Again, you are entitled to your own belief.