LeBreton Flats 2.0 (RendezVous LeBreton) | Cancelled

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by Mugwumper

... It has tons of condos, plus affordable housing, office space, a huge new central arena and central library...

I sure wish that people would stop saying that RV plan includes a new Central Library. It does not! The RV group has suggested that a library could be built, by others, next to ‘its’ property. This would be like me trying to sell my house by saying that my neighbour might build a nice new garage (include a picture of the taj mahal) on his property next door. Only the DCDLS group has proposed building a library on the property.

The RV group is not going to build the library (unless they are contracted to, and paid to, by someone else) and it will not be built on their property. Putting the library within the property boundary would reduce the number of profit-producing towers that can be built.

And, while I'm ranting, does anyone really, seriously, believe that the aqueduct is going to be ploughed and used for skating? Really? It is much smaller than you might imagine, cut by bridges that you can’t pass under, and has running water in it (that drives the pumping station so it can't be stopped in the winter). And just who is going to put in the money needed to prepare, monitor, and maintain such an ice surface?

OK, why stop while I'm on a roll: How often do you think the fancy lighting is going to happen? Is there going to be a 'hologram' show every night? I expect not. I wouldn't doubt that we will only see anything interesting a few times a year. It is just too expensive to create and put on the displays for free.

Even the model presented by the RV group was somewhat misleading. The model showed the entire arena having a green roof. In fact, there will only be a narrow band around the roof's periphery; the rest being a standard gravel roof (with no access). And that ‘Forest’ walk around the arena’s roof is only accessible from within the arena, via an elevator. Like the ‘public’ space that the City insisted upon at 150 Elgin, I don’t imagine that it will attract too many passers-by. I’m seeing it more as the ‘designated smoking area’ during arena events.

That new RV arena that is supposed to be much more accessible and have a bigger spectator draw is spec'ed as having more than a thousand fewer seats than the old arena had. Do you know why? Because the per-seat price can be increased significantly. In 2015, the number of seats in the old arena was reduced by a few hundred when regular (lower priced) seats were replaced with 'Victory Suite' seats that sell for significantly more. This is the same thinking which led to the fewer seats spec'ed in the new arena. Sell fewer seats at a much higher cost. This is about increasing profit.

The RV proposal seems to rely on programming to make the area interesting but there is really no incentive for the RV group to provide that programming. It would be expensive for no real benefit to the group. How much programming happens at Lansdowne between events; or even during events? Sparks Street is very crowded on the few times a year that there is programming, but it is not overly crowded at other times. There are bars and restaurants along Sparks, but they just don’t seem to draw too many people to them, despite all the new and older condos in the core.

It seems to me that the RV group is building more unrealistic expectations than the other group is. DCDLS is putting forward a list of privately run attractions that it has gotten interest from partners on. Granted, some of those partnerships might have been exaggerated somewhat, but there are enough other attractions that the entire area likely won’t fail. That is a benefit of throwing everything in.

J.OT.13, you say that you love to wander around vibrant areas; but what about not-so vibrant areas? One of the reasons that the Byward Market is a ‘happening place’ is because it attracts people – including many tourists. This mass of people then attracts others, like buskers, who, in turn, creates more draw to the area. Why is it that we don’t generally see buskers (and I’m using them as an indicator of fun-loving crowds) along Hazeldean Road in Kanata; or in front of the Science and Tech museum on St. Laurent? I expect that it is because there is no ‘buzz’ happening around the single attraction or in front of a specific restaurant or business.

[Stevenson]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I sure wish that people would stop saying that RV plan includes a new Central Library. It does not! The RV group has suggested that a library could be built, by others, next to ‘its’ property. This would be like me trying to sell my house by saying that my neighbour might build a nice new garage (include a picture of the taj mahal) on his property next door. Only the DCDLS group has proposed building a library on the property.

The RV group is not going to build the library (unless they are contracted to, and paid to, by someone else) and it will not be built on their property. Putting the library within the property boundary would reduce the number of profit-producing towers that can be built.

And, while I'm ranting, does anyone really, seriously, believe that the aqueduct is going to be ploughed and used for skating? Really? It is much smaller than you might imagine, cut by bridges that you can’t pass under, and has running water in it (that drives the pumping station so it can't be stopped in the winter). And just who is going to put in the money needed to prepare, monitor, and maintain such an ice surface?

OK, why stop while I'm on a roll: How often do you think the fancy lighting is going to happen? Is there going to be a 'hologram' show every night? I expect not. I wouldn't doubt that we will only see anything interesting a few times a year. It is just too expensive to create and put on the displays for free.

Even the model presented by the RV group was somewhat misleading. The model showed the entire arena having a green roof. In fact, there will only be a narrow band around the roof's periphery; the rest being a standard gravel roof (with no access). And that ‘Forest’ walk around the arena’s roof is only accessible from within the arena, via an elevator. Like the ‘public’ space that the City insisted upon at 150 Elgin, I don’t imagine that it will attract too many passers-by. I’m seeing it more as the ‘designated smoking area’ during arena events.

That new RV arena that is supposed to be much more accessible and have a bigger spectator draw is spec'ed as having more than a thousand fewer seats than the old arena had. Do you know why? Because the per-seat price can be increased significantly. In 2015, the number of seats in the old arena was reduced by a few hundred when regular (lower priced) seats were replaced with 'Victory Suite' seats that sell for significantly more. This is the same thinking which led to the fewer seats spec'ed in the new arena. Sell fewer seats at a much higher cost. This is about increasing profit.

The RV proposal seems to rely on programming to make the area interesting but there is really no incentive for the RV group to provide that programming. It would be expensive for no real benefit to the group. How much programming happens at Lansdowne between events; or even during events? Sparks Street is very crowded on the few times a year that there is programming, but it is not overly crowded at other times. There are bars and restaurants along Sparks, but they just don’t seem to draw too many people to them, despite all the new and older condos in the core.

It seems to me that the RV group is building more unrealistic expectations than the other group is. DCDLS is putting forward a list of privately run attractions that it has gotten interest from partners on. Granted, some of those partnerships might have been exaggerated somewhat, but there are enough other attractions that the entire area likely won’t fail. That is a benefit of throwing everything in.

J.OT.13, you say that you love to wander around vibrant areas; but what about not-so vibrant areas? One of the reasons that the Byward Market is a ‘happening place’ is because it attracts people – including many tourists. This mass of people then attracts others, like buskers, who, in turn, creates more draw to the area. Why is it that we don’t generally see buskers (and I’m using them as an indicator of fun-loving crowds) along Hazeldean Road in Kanata; or in front of the Science and Tech museum on St. Laurent? I expect that it is because there is no ‘buzz’ happening around the single attraction or in front of a specific restaurant or business.

Your point about the seats is inaccurate. There are fewer seats because the sens can't have as many seats as other buildings due to the fact that they can't sell tickets to the largest business in Ottawa, the federal government.

Of,course they need to maximize profits, these are private businesses we are talking about. There's nothing wrong with that.

I also can't believe that somebody would think the RV group plan is less realistic than the other. The attractions are hardly realistic and they don't even have secure agreements in place for some of the things. Hell they aren't even committing to building the arena yet, which is the major part of the plan. The attractions are gimmicks and something that looks flashy but has no real substance

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

And, while I'm ranting, does anyone really, seriously, believe that the aqueduct is going to be ploughed and used for skating? Really? It is much smaller than you might imagine, cut by bridges that you can’t pass under, and has running water in it (that drives the pumping station so it can't be stopped in the winter). And just who is going to put in the money needed to prepare, monitor, and maintain such an ice surface?

There's a giant pipe beneath that aqueduct that actually now carries the water to the pumping station. The open water is just excess run-off that relies on
the water level of the river (sometimes it's stagnant when it's low). At any rate I doubt it's feasible to have a skating surface here unless at great cost they relocate the pipe.

from westsideaction

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

In some ways I wouldn't mind the Rendezvous proposal if instead of the Asticou area being permanent buildings, they make the space north of the Aqueduct into a changeable canvas. Run all necessary utilities in there and configure it for 3 or 4 pavilion type buildings with 10 to 15 year lifespans, which at the end could be easily dismantled and recycled. If the CTC can be deemed a throw-away after a couple of decades, there is nothing wrong with designing buildings that are properly recyclable, in fact it might be a great exercise. Each one could focus on a topic that is currently trending which might not a decade later. If in the future the replacements are staggered every 2 to 5 years, there could be something new at the site all the time, and feature the latest in architectural styles. Being opposite the festival park, something like this could work really well, bits of starchiteture without permanent commitment.

I'm thinking of the amazing expo pavilions that are often only built for a year, which are architectural statements and pieces of art but could easily last a bit longer. They're a different class of building and often stretch the envelope of design and engineering (I wonder if you could buy some of these after they're done with them). At maybe $10- to $20-million a piece prorated over a decade+ would be worth it, about the same cost a single museum would refurbish its exhibits. Also if this space has an ephemeral quality to it, creates an urgency to visit (and more often) since it might not be the same in a few years, sort of an architectural equivalent of having fresh cut flowers that keep some people happy for a week

Most expo pavilions are obsolete the day the world's fair ends. They're built with fancy architecture because the government or corporation that builds them deems the multimillion dollar cost for a disposable building a good investment because of the massive profile and millions of visitors a world's fair will attract. Those economics are not at all applicable for Ottawa.

[Mugwumper]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Most expo pavilions are obsolete the day the world's fair ends. They're built with fancy architecture because the government or corporation that builds them deems the multimillion dollar cost for a disposable building a good investment because of the massive profile and millions of visitors a world's fair will attract. Those economics are not at all applicable for Ottawa.

Yes, there aren't many examples of World's Fair architecture that have survived for very long after their fair ended, although there's a scant handful that have become world-renowned, plus adding value to the city where they're located.

The Eiffel Tower and Grand Palais in Paris are exceptions. Same with the Seattle Space Needle, the Art Institutute of Chicago buildings, and Melbourne was lucky enough to hold onto their Royal Exhibition Building. That's not much to count, after all the World's Fairs that the world has seen.

Those World's Fair survivors kind of meet the definition of "risky"... big public financial investment, big payoff... for the few that became famous structures. Ottawa's not looking at hosting the world's fair, however.... just developing a bunch of riverfront lots that have been vacant for decades.

[Mugwumper]

I don't see why the present aqueduct couldn't be widened beyond its current configuration. What's the alternative? Demolish it and move it somewhere else? Not feasible. They have to retain the aqueduct, so why not widen it? It makes sense. Maybe the IllumiNATION proposal should've included explicit costing for renovating the LeBreton aqueduct, but the costing is being kept confidential for both proposals at this point.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by Stevenson

Your point about the seats is inaccurate. There are fewer seats because the sens can't have as many seats as other buildings due to the fact that they can't sell tickets to the largest business in Ottawa, the federal government.

Of,course they need to maximize profits, these are private businesses we are talking about. There's nothing wrong with that.

I also can't believe that somebody would think the RV group plan is less realistic than the other. The attractions are hardly realistic and they don't even have secure agreements in place for some of the things. Hell they aren't even committing to building the arena yet, which is the major part of the plan. The attractions are gimmicks and something that looks flashy but has no real substance

From The Ottawa Citizen, September 15, 2015 (http://ottawacitizen.com/sports/hock...-tire-centre):

The project began with sledge hammers and wrecking balls. The Senators removed 18 suites, and eight rows of seats in front of them. Also, the concourse behind them, and right out to the street (to valet parking).

In all, capacity in this members-only club is 472. The so-called ‘Victory’ suites are already sold out. The loges, with their affixed table tops (great for entertaining writers on deadline!) sold quickly, and now more have been added. The sale of individual seats ensue.

This new, not-for-the-average-Joe fan experience is all-inclusive — parking, seats, food, the works. Seats start at $10,000 and loges and suites go up from there.

You guessed it. There is a payback for the hockey club.

“We expect an uptick, from our ticket (revenues), of about eight to 10 per cent from the Club (Bell) alone,” Leeder says. “It’s substantial. It’s a big investment so you need that type of improvement just to pay for it, but in the long run it’s good for the hockey club as well.”

By losing individual seats to help make the change to fewer, but more luxurious seats, the overall capacity of CTC drops to 18,694 from 19,153.

Where does your explanation of fewer seats come from?

The Senators do sell fewer corporate seats than some teams, but they have a large number of dedicated individual fans. Are you suggesting that that would change when the arena moves? Would the existing corporate sponsors stop buying boxes and tickets for a downtown arena? Would the dedicated fans choose to stop going?

We keep being told that the Senators could be drawing even bigger crowds "if the arena were not way out in the middle of no-where." That if the arena had been built downtown, "where it should have been built in the first place", then more people from the east-end and Gatineau would go to the games. Are you telling me that that is not true? Are you telling me that if the arena were downtown the lack of direct sales to the Government would cause a drop in game attendance?

If that is true, then I suggest that they leave the arena out in the boonies and keep their fan-base.

As for the RV group's plan being unrealistic; yes, I think that they are suggesting things that sound good, if said fast, but that probably don't have any real substance behind the mental image.

If you are talking about whether the RV plan could succeed, then that is a different point. Yes, I think it could do very well for the group. It is a plan that, I think, maximizes profit for them; so they are likely going to build it all - over time. Once they have exclusive rights to the land, why wouldn't they milk it for all they can.

In contrast, I think that the DCDLS group's plan is much less greedy and gives much more back to the people of Ottawa/Canada. That said, I don't think that the DCDLS plan is as good a plan for people movement. I'm not a fan of how they segregate the private buildings from the public realm or how they allow the arena's customers to arrive and leave by LRT without any interaction with the rest of the area.

Each plan has good points. I would like to have the NCC give each of the bidders a reasonable amount of money to buy the ideas so that it could create a better plan than either of the two submitted. And, of course, for the NCC to actually include public opinion in the ultimate plan.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

In contrast, I think that the DCDLS group's plan is much less greedy and gives much more back to the people of Ottawa/Canada.

We have no idea how much dcdls plans to "give back" - we have no idea what components they will pay for, what components they have a partner willing to pay for, what components are purely aspirational and what components they will ask taxpayers to pay for.

[LeadingEdgeBoomer]

Originally Posted by acottawa

We have no idea how much dcdls plans to "give back" - we have no idea what components they will pay for, what components they have a partner willing to pay for, what components are purely aspirational and what components they will ask taxpayers to pay for.

Correct, we know nothing about financing and what public money they will ask for. I do not trust them much. They knew that Melnyk was going to pitch an arena, and that many in Ottawa have wanted a downtown one for years. So they counter with an arena of their own even though Melnyk has the franchise and DC can not assure us that Melnyk will come on board. He says he will not, and his heirs probably will not .

They throw Molson's name around in regard to the Brewseum and Molson asks them to desist because Molson has not agreed to anything. What other fantasies are they trying to sell us here?

[Admiral Nelson]

Originally Posted by LeadingEdgeBoomer

Correct, we know nothing about financing and what public money they will ask for. I do not trust them much. They knew that Melnyk was going to pitch an arena, and that many in Ottawa have wanted a downtown one for years. So they counter with an arena of their own even though Melnyk has the franchise and DC can not assure us that Melnyk will come on board. He says he will not, and his heirs probably will not .

Melnyk's unwillingness to entertain future negotiation shouldn't count against DCDLS's proposal. Why should it? It's a spiteful position. It's bluster anyhow: making a deal would be good for business, and Melnyk is a businessman. I expect a change of tone if he loses. Otherwise, we'll have to wait until a future owner takes over.

Separately, why do you criticize DCDLS for its pragmatism regarding an arena? They recognized what the public wanted and obliged.

Originally Posted by LeadingEdgeBoomer

They throw Molson's name around in regard to the Brewseum and Molson asks them to desist because Molson has not agreed to anything. What other fantasies are they trying to sell us here?

Fantasies? So you'd reject the more ambitious option that requires more private investment just in case it falls short somewhere? I see, why risk bringing different new attractions to Ottawa — we only need normal, and we demand it with zeal!

Skepticism isn't an argument anyway, because as you noted, this is all moot until we see the financials. But if there's anyone that can actually pull off what DCDLS has proposed, it's them.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by enrigue8

Honestly stay too conservative is not good.If illumination win, Ottawa will still be retarded compared other in the world. Ottawa is a G7 capital. Plus the architecture of illumination is very poor. I want to see beautiful architecure in the capital of my country.It will change nothing to debate because only 5 people will decide the fate of the project.

If you can come up with "beautiful architecture" that isn't faddish and won't be dated inside of a decade, and which can adapt itself well in response to future economic and social pressures, go for it.

The 1937 World's Fair ain't it.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

I'm thinking of the amazing expo pavilions that are often only built for a year, which are architectural statements and pieces of art but could easily last a bit longer.

I have the same question looking at each one of those pictures of ugly sculptural "architecture":

Where's the damn door?

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I have the same question looking at each one of those pictures of ugly sculptural "architecture":

Where's the damn door?

Only those with a child-like curiosity and a pure heart will find it....

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Admiral Nelson

Melnyk's unwillingness to entertain future negotiation shouldn't count against DCDLS's proposal. Why should it? It's a spiteful position. It's bluster anyhow: making a deal would be good for business, and Melnyk is a businessman. I expect a change of tone if he loses. Otherwise, we'll have to wait until a future owner takes over.

For one, it isn't Russia or Sicily. One does not have to sell an asset just because someone with better connections wants it.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Only those with a child-like curiosity and a pure heart will find it....

I guess the curiosity thing is a necessary but not sufficient condition, huh?

[daud]

Originally Posted by LeadingEdgeBoomer

Correct, we know nothing about financing and what public money they will ask for. I do not trust them much. They knew that Melnyk was going to pitch an arena, and that many in Ottawa have wanted a downtown one for years. So they counter with an arena of their own even though Melnyk has the franchise and DC can not assure us that Melnyk will come on board. He says he will not, and his heirs probably will not .

They throw Molson's name around in regard to the Brewseum and Molson asks them to desist because Molson has not agreed to anything. What other fantasies are they trying to sell us here?

Molson is just covering their "you know what". They are interested in the concept but haven't formalized anything.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...lebreton-rival

I love both proposals. My only beef with Rendez-Vous is that they should have put a major tourist attraction (other than an arena) in there-aquarium, entertainment concept or something. There probably wouldn't be any discussion about which bid is better had they done that and not doing it is a flaw in their submission (IMHO). In the end they didn't and now are faced with serious competition. I don't know what the process is going forward, but I do believe they could seal the deal if they upped the ante and put an aquarium or other unique entertainment attraction/venue in there.

Devcore went outside the box and came back with unique concepts. Its a key advantage in their proposal; their main disadvantage, is the lack of a hockey team or deal to put the Sens there. Their playing their hand well though, and they seem to have caught the rendez-vous group off guard.

I actually think there is growing consensus on the proposals and their advantages and shortcomings as outlined by a few here and other blog and news articles already. I'm certain we'll end up with a hybrid of the proposals in the end and whoever wins, the arena will be built with the Sens in the building.

[zzptichka]

Why do people want overpriced one-time single-purpose big-box attractions like car museum or aquarium there? Is it inferiority complex?
Even cinema would be better IMO. Where is the closest one? Lansdowne?
Planetarium + IMAX combo would be great too.

[Stevenson]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Why do people want overpriced one-time single-purpose big-box attractions like car museum or aquarium there? Is it inferiority complex?
Even cinema would be better IMO. Where is the closest one? Lansdowne?
Planetarium + IMAX combo would be great too.

Agreed and I still don't get how these attractions will attract tourists. Tourists will be attracted by the stuff we already have. I don't go to a city to go to a sky-diving simulator.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by daud

Molson is just covering their "you know what". They are interested in the concept but haven't formalized anything.

Probably more to the point: Molson's trademark agent freaked out.

[YOWflier]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Why do people want overpriced one-time single-purpose big-box attractions like car museum or aquarium there? Is it inferiority complex?
Even cinema would be better IMO. Where is the closest one? Lansdowne?
Planetarium + IMAX combo would be great too.

Because attractions like this are good for tourism.

Someone mentioned it earlier and it was a very good point. The more "stuff" there is to do (outside of the core reasons for visiting) the longer people might stay. Four days instead of three, three instead of two, etc; the longer they stay the more they spend on hotels, restaurants, activities, shopping, and other things. Ottawa's tourism section is quite healthy from what I know, but it's never a bad thing to make sensible additions.

I prefer the Sens' proposal overall but I find it lacks in those aforementioned attractions. An aquarium, National botanical garden, skydiving facility, etc., are all valid things that tourists could and would gobble up.