Lansdowne Park Redevelopment Phase 1 | Completed

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by phil235

Could you please explain to me how you would get a developer to provide ongoing affordable housing without any ongoing
involvement by the city?

Density and by way of RFP.

You make it a requirement. For the privilege of developing the land you take it to the highest bidder.

The more the density available to bid on the greater the ability of the developer to absorb the cost
of affordable housing as a cost of doing business.

Land is scarce, time for the City to deploy fundamental supply and demand.

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

...... Piss off.


.........what kind of drugs do you use?

Please try and contain your language.

Civil discussion is encouraged.

[jemartin]

[QUOTE=phil235;5077188]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Park space is not for intensification.

CQUOTE]

I fully agree. But how exactly have you decided that Lansdowne is park space?

If you believe in mixed-use development, it does not make any sense to say that you can put in a stadium and arena, but you can't include any commercial/residential under any circumstances. That kind of separation of land uses is exactly what has gotten us in the mess we are currently in.

I didn't decide, it is zoned as major recreation.

Also, park as green space alone and park as meeting place are two different definitions.

In the case of Lansdowne, they overlap, hence the Major recreation designation.

It was never intended for intensification.

Again I repeat, this entire "towers at Lansdowne" discussion is manufactured and has nothing
to do with proper city planning.

Back to the basics and enough meddling.

Many chefs spoil the broth and in this case it has to be thrown out.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Density and by way of RFP.

You make it a requirement. For the privilege of developing the land you take it to the highest bidder.

The more the density available to bid on the greater the ability of the developer to absorb the cost
of affordable housing as a cost of doing business.

Land is scarce, time for the City to deploy fundamental supply and demand.

But jemartin, the delivery model for affordable housing in this country is by way of rent supplements that are geared to income. Those supplements are managed by government, whether it be municipal or other entities created for that purpose. Simply saying developers will do it in exchange for density is vastly oversimplifying the issue.

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I have a lot of sympathy that park space should not be used for intensification, however, Lansdowne is unique in that it has not been green space. It has been a public location with many buildings that have been used for a wide variety of activities generally not associated with 'green' parks. Many of these activities and buildings have been lost in the last few decades and so what we have been seeing in a very urban location is serious de-intensification or more bluntly decay. It is for this reason that the park and the heritage buildings need repurposing. Because of its unique nature, I cannot support plans that encourage and continue the trend towards de-intensification. On the contrary, the location needs revitalization and that can be best achieved with redevelopment including some new buildings (to replace the many that have been torn down over the years) and to create a critical mass on site so that we make sure that the heritage buildings will be made good use of by the public. Lansdowne is not in any way equivalent to Central Park in New York that was designed by a world renowned landscape architect and therefore the use of Lansdowne must be made unique to this city. I think the preservation of heritage at Lansdowne has been completely misused since Lansdowne has changed so much in the last 50 years. We have one great building on site and one other with potential but otherwise there is nothing there really worth preserving as it is. It is sad how the Aberdeen Pavilion sits in the middle of the park with little reason to bring people to it. Putting it as a focus of a new urban landscape is exactly what it needs.

I also think that in an urban environment such as the Glebe, it is progress when surface parking can be eliminated and replaced by underground parking. I am completely supportive of eliminating the suburban aspects of Lansdowne and that means elimination of the acres of surface parking.

You are quite right, the park has always had a variety of buildings scaled for
a park. Now there are two definitions of park; 1. original greenspace and 2, that
applies in this instance, meeting place.

Lansdowne always has been a public meeting place, be it for horse races, exhibitions, car derby's, football, speed skating, tractor shows concerts, the list goes on....

But you also bring up to separate discussions, namely revitalization and intensification.

There are mutually exclusive.

In other words you revitalize without intensifying due to the public aspect of the site.

In terms of heritage the site lines to the Aberdeen are kept rather than encroached upon.

The Horticulture Building and the Coliseum Buildings are restored in a heritage fashion and
turned into beautiful functioning buildings for the public to enjoy.


It is not progress to install underground parking so that you can take away
from surface space with towers and over sized buildings.

Public spaces have surface parking as seen in Mont Royal, Stanley Park and
Central Park, but modest amounts, as in the Conservancy plan.

Roughly ten acres is given back to green space under the Conservancy plan.

[phil235]

[QUOTE=jemartin;5077259]

Originally Posted by phil235

I didn't decide, it is zoned as major recreation.

Also, park as green space alone and park as meeting place are two different definitions.

In the case of Lansdowne, they overlap, hence the Major recreation designation.

It was never intended for intensification.

Again I repeat, this entire "towers at Lansdowne" discussion is manufactured and has nothing
to do with proper city planning.

Back to the basics and enough meddling.

Many chefs spoil the broth and in this case it has to be thrown out.

"Major recreation" is a broad designation that ranges well beyond park space. In the context of Lansdowne it has never meant a green park. To say it is a park is not true to either the zoning or the historical use of the site, which you claim to be.

How can you dismiss the promotion of mixed-use development as "manufactured" and having nothing to do with proper city planning? What do you even mean by that? Every vision for Lansdowne that departs from the status quo comes from somewhere, including your insistence on a green park that never existed. How do you decide that your vision is the only one that represents "proper" city planning? Do you have any background in planning whatsoever?

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by phil235

But jemartin, the delivery model for affordable housing in this country is by way of rent supplements that are geared to income. Those supplements are managed by government, whether it be municipal or other entities created for that purpose. Simply saying developers will do it in exchange for density is vastly oversimplifying the issue.

Not at all.

It is a matter of re thinking the equation and thinking outside the box.

The private market will supply it. Let the City keep that money for other
important initiatives that need the funding.

Governments are always looking to decrease their bill.

This method is now the norm. Ottawa needs to catch up.

[jemartin]

[QUOTE=phil235;5077282]

Originally Posted by jemartin

"Major recreation" is a broad designation that ranges well beyond park space. In the context of Lansdowne it has never meant a green park. To say it is a park is not true to either the zoning or the historical use of the site, which you claim to be.

How can you dismiss the promotion of mixed-use development as "manufactured" and having nothing to do with proper city planning? What do you even mean by that? Every vision for Lansdowne that departs from the status quo comes from somewhere, including your insistence on a green park that never existed. How do you decide that your vision is the only one that represents "proper" city planning? Do you have any background in planning whatsoever?

This is going nowhere Phil. You aren't listening you are just reacting and arguing
for the sake of it.

Follow the rules and you have your answers.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Not at all.

It is a matter of re thinking the equation and thinking outside the box.

The private market will supply it. Let the City keep that money for other
important initiatives that need the funding.

Governments are always looking to decrease their bill.

This method is now the norm. Ottawa needs to catch up.

So now you know better on affordable housing as well? Tell me then, how do you ensure that the affordable housing is occupied by those who need it?

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by phil235

So now you know better on affordable housing as well? Tell me then, how do you ensure that the affordable housing is occupied by those who need it?

Take a break Phil.

[phil235]

[QUOTE=jemartin;5077286]

Originally Posted by phil235

This is going nowhere Phil. You aren't listening you are just reacting and arguing
for the sake of it.

Follow the rules and you have your answers.

I agree that it is going nowhere. But you have to understand that it is extremely arrogant to claim to have all the answers on "proper city planning" when your first experience with it comes on this issue. ONe would think that there would be pros and cons to each approach. Yours seems to be the only vision without any cons.

You need to accept that not everyone sees the world as you do. But alas, that isn't likely to happen at this point, now is it.

[TMA-1]

This is now a crop from the original but it is still my photo and no one has permission to use it, credit or not. Delete it immediately. (Yes, TMA-1 = southfacing). Go rent a plane and take your own photo. Note that I don't actually know who "you" are as the artwork is not credited, or if it is then I missed it, but I assume jemartin).

Originally Posted by jemartin

Lansdowne Park with Lansdowne Park Conservancy and new Frank Clair Stadium by NBBJ (Solar roof on South Stands)

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by TMA-1

This is now a crop from the original but it is still my photo and no one has permission to use it, credit or not. Delete it immediately. (Yes, TMA-1 = southfacing). Go rent a plane and take your own photo. Note that I don't actually know who "you" are as the artwork is not credited, or if it is then I missed it, but I assume jemartin).

The photo has been removed

[Aylmer]

Well, this one does seem to capture the projected popularity of the place.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Take a break Phil.

A little ironic that you would be the one saying this.

Granted, I shouldn't allow myself to be so irritated by your comments. But to claim that you know better how to deliver social housing than those who work in the field is to the point of being ridiculous. As is appearing on a board populated with planners and lecturing them on "proper city planning". Or to claim that you are the last word on heritage. Or procurement law. I wouldn't mind so much if you once acknowledged that you are presenting a personal opinion and don't actually have any experience in any of these areas. That is why people find your message to be so irritating. Even you must know at some level that it is ridiculous to present yourself as an expert on all of these areas.

I just shudder to think that this type of superficial analysis of issues could actually have some influence on the way our city is developed. Perhaps my fear is overblown.

[AuxTown]

Originally Posted by TMA-1

Yes, TMA-1 = southfacing

What do you do for a living TMA that gets you up in the sky so often? Awesome photos BTW!

Oh ya, this thread is a gongshow!

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Please try and contain your language.

Civil discussion is encouraged.

Sir, I am holding back from calling you all disgusting variations of the words "heinous" and "troll".

Again, you can't say that civil discussion is encouraged when you yourself have proven incapable of such a task.

[jchamoun79]

Originally Posted by jemartin

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.

And yet we suffer the indignity of a crumbling stadium that has been so poorly maintained that it's missing half its south-side stands.

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by jchamoun79

And yet we suffer the indignity of a crumbling stadium that has been so poorly maintained that it's missing half its south-side stands.

You are confusing venue operations with capital investment.

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by phil235

A little ironic that you would be the one saying this.

Granted, I shouldn't allow myself to be so irritated by your comments. But to claim that you know better how to deliver social housing than those who work in the field is to the point of being ridiculous. As is appearing on a board populated with planners and lecturing them on "proper city planning". Or to claim that you are the last word on heritage. Or procurement law. I wouldn't mind so much if you once acknowledged that you are presenting a personal opinion and don't actually have any experience in any of these areas. That is why people find your message to be so irritating. Even you must know at some level that it is ridiculous to present yourself as an expert on all of these areas.

I just shudder to think that this type of superficial analysis of issues could actually have some influence on the way our city is developed. Perhaps my fear is overblown.

You are confusing social service with capital investment.