LeBreton Flats 2.0 (RendezVous LeBreton) | Cancelled

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by ars

Just to play devil's advocate, is there any specific reason why any of those attractions, that Devcore has proposed, need to be at Lebreton?

There's a very compelling reason to have an NHL arena and a central library(no matter who builds it) in that location, but why could an indoor skydiving attraction not be placed somewhere else in the city? Or the skate park? Or the brewseum/car museum? We already have the war museum right there, seems like a Beer museum and car museum might be museum overkill for one location...

No, there is no specific reason that any attractions need to be built on LeBreton Flats; it is just a space that has room, is currently being planned for redevelopment, and has had some options suggested to be put there. If you have better places to put new attractions, you can propose them any time, any where. But I’ll warn you that if they are not ‘downtown’, then you may get all of the people who complain that the Science & Tech museum of too far from the core complaining about where your attractions are placed. It seems that there is a vocal group who feel that attractions should be clustered downtown (but that some attractions are not worthy of being included because they, personally, would only visit them once, or never).

Have you ever wondered why a Burger King would set up a restaurant at an intersection, diagonally from a McDonald’s? You might think that they would do better if they were on a block away from the competition. Well, oddly enough, it turns out that both the McDonald’s and the Burger King do better when they are close. And if a Wendy’s opens near by then things get even better. This is, as lrt’s friend pointed out, not a phenomenon that is exclusive to fast-food joints. It turns out that when there is a group of similar vendors or activities, it becomes a destination that people head to without much thought of what they will do when they get there. That decision can be made closer to the destination. In the case of fast-food, a person will head to the intersection, knowing that they will be able to get something there. It doesn’t matter if they haven’t decided which of the restaurants they are specifically going to when they start out. Car dealers are the same, as are theatres (Theatre Districts), stores (malls), and even life choices (job fairs). Having multiple choices in one place is appealing and draws in more people. The sum of the whole is bigger than its parts.

There would be nothing wrong with Ottawa having an entertainment district at LeBreton that included many of the attractions suggested in the DCDLS bid, the War Museum, and a sports and entertainment arena. It would simply become the place that people head to when they want to do something, but haven’t made up their mind what to do, yet. There are synergies created when similar businesses cluster together.

[Kitchissippi]

I agree, moving the arena downtown is a "nice to have" but will result in very little net gain in tourism. To people who come to Ottawa for hockey or concerts the difference between downtown and Kanata might be convenience but it won't stop them from going either way. It's the businesses in Kanata who have come to depend on the periodic flow will likely be severely affected. Big winner would be Melnyk if he gets the LeBreton land for cheap or next to free, and then get to redevelop the CTC lands into more suburban housing, stores and offices which would raise that land's value significantly. Something to watch for when they release the financials.

[Temperance]

There is no doubt in my mind that the Devcore proposal is a tourist draw - not just for the attractions but the dynamic architecture. I just cannot see people wanting to visit the Sens proposed neighbourhoods (condo canyons with parks). Having said this I do wish the Devcore proposed attractions were a bit more Ottawa and a bit more unique. It would be great if the main science museum was in Lebreton Flats and the old (current) museum became the annex rather than the other way around. I would also bury the rail line and bring in a bit more mixed use (perhaps at the expense of the "brewseum") to the attractions part of Devcore's Lebreton.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

No, there is no specific reason that any attractions need to be built on LeBreton Flats; it is just a space that has room, is currently being planned for redevelopment, and has had some options suggested to be put there. If you have better places to put new attractions, you can propose them any time, any where. But I’ll warn you that if they are not ‘downtown’, then you may get all of the people who complain that the Science & Tech museum of too far from the core complaining about where your attractions are placed. It seems that there is a vocal group who feel that attractions should be clustered downtown (but that some attractions are not worthy of being included because they, personally, would only visit them once, or never).

Have you ever wondered why a Burger King would set up a restaurant at an intersection, diagonally from a McDonald’s? You might think that they would do better if they were on a block away from the competition. Well, oddly enough, it turns out that both the McDonald’s and the Burger King do better when they are close. And if a Wendy’s opens near by then things get even better. This is, as lrt’s friend pointed out, not a phenomenon that is exclusive to fast-food joints. It turns out that when there is a group of similar vendors or activities, it becomes a destination that people head to without much thought of what they will do when they get there. That decision can be made closer to the destination. In the case of fast-food, a person will head to the intersection, knowing that they will be able to get something there. It doesn’t matter if they haven’t decided which of the restaurants they are specifically going to when they start out. Car dealers are the same, as are theatres (Theatre Districts), stores (malls), and even life choices (job fairs). Having multiple choices in one place is appealing and draws in more people. The sum of the whole is bigger than its parts.

There would be nothing wrong with Ottawa having an entertainment district at LeBreton that included many of the attractions suggested in the DCDLS bid, the War Museum, and a sports and entertainment arena. It would simply become the place that people head to when they want to do something, but haven’t made up their mind what to do, yet. There are synergies created when similar businesses cluster together.

I have gone to Lansdowne not knowing which restaurant I am going to. I have actually chosen there because there are multiple choices. If there was only one, I likely wouldn't have gone there. So, exactly as you have expressed.

[FFX-ME]

Originally Posted by Boxster

Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Niagara Falls, Calgary and Quebec are more popular in terms of international visitors. Ottawa is in seventh place at best.

Actually, Ottawa is not even on tripadvisor's top 10 Canadian cities for tourism:

http://ottawacitizen.com/storyline/g...ions-in-canada

Truly a disappointing and an arena sure won't fix that. We need more.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

Actually, Ottawa is not even on tripadvisor's top 10 Canadian cities for tourism:

http://ottawacitizen.com/storyline/g...ions-in-canada

Truly a disappointing and an arena sure won't fix that. We need more.

Tofino British Columbia has now knocked out Calgary in the top 10. Ottawa is now #12 on the list.

These lists do tell you that some places command high status based on one or two outstanding characteristics.

I did a little more digging and it seems that Gatineau is considered separate. Gatineau attractions such as the Canadian Museum of History and Gatineau Park are not included on the Ottawa list, which is simply ridiculous. It is one tourist area. TripAdvisor needs reform. After all, how do they include Niagara Falls and Niagara-on-the-Lake as separate destinations?

[Mugwumper]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Tofino British Columbia has now knocked out Calgary in the top 10. Ottawa is now #12 on the list.

These lists do tell you that some places command high status based on one or two outstanding characteristics.

I did a little more digging and it seems that Gatineau is considered separate. Gatineau attractions such as the Canadian Museum of History and Gatineau Park are not included on the Ottawa list, which is simply ridiculous. It is one tourist area. TripAdvisor needs reform. After all, how do they include Niagara Falls and Niagara-on-the-Lake as separate destinations?

I agree, and realistically, the Ottawa tourist region should include other parts of Gatineau like Wakefield (Black Sheep Inn? the train?), Buckingham, Montebello, etc., and on the Ottawa side, Kingston, and maybe even Thousand Islands... Can't understand why Gatineau Park would be excluded. Is the Museum of History (Civilization) excluded because it's in Hull? Geez.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Mugwumper

I agree, and realistically, the Ottawa tourist region should include other parts of Gatineau like Wakefield (Black Sheep Inn? the train?), Buckingham, Montebello, etc., and on the Ottawa side, Kingston, and maybe even Thousand Islands... Can't understand why Gatineau Park would be excluded. Is the Museum of History (Civilization) excluded because it's in Hull? Geez.

Yes, Gatineau is further down the list, so only Ontario attractions are included with Ottawa. Only Quebec attractions are shown for Gatineau. If both cities were included together (as they should be for tourism purposes), we would probably have made the top 10 list.

[Uhuniau]

According to actual, y'know, statistics, Ottawa-Gatineau is (was, in 2012), Number 4 among CMAs:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tabl...rts33a-eng.htm

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Mugwumper

I agree, and realistically, the Ottawa tourist region should include other parts of Gatineau like Wakefield (Black Sheep Inn? the train?), Buckingham, Montebello, etc., and on the Ottawa side, Kingston, and maybe even Thousand Islands... Can't understand why Gatineau Park would be excluded. Is the Museum of History (Civilization) excluded because it's in Hull? Geez.

Thousand Islands and Kingston are going too far. They're 200km from Ottawa. But Gatineau, definitely.

[Buggys]

Originally Posted by Stevenson

No need to be condescending. At the end of the day people will come to Ottawa to see the Parliament buildings, museums, and they will come to see events/games at the arena or other places such as the NAC. The other stuff is just filler.

I agree a skydiving simulator would be cool for the people who actually live here, I just don't see it as being a tourist draw, and I don't see a brewseum or the other stuff as being tourist draws. I think the arena will be the biggest tourist draw. Sports and historic sites are probably the biggest draws for any big city in North America.

For me, I go to a city to see the historic sites, monuments, and sports. That's it for me. I do agree an aquarium is a tourist draw but I don't think it's the right fit for Ottawa. We have little to do with fish and sea creatures.

Whoa there! We're (& Lebreton) on the Ottawa River, which empties into the St. Lawrence. 20-30 years ago, it was a common sight to find handfuls of juvenile American eels here. If there's a place to build an aquarium, it's by some riverbank!

[EdFromOttawa]

Originally Posted by Radster

All good points, but I think what you missed, and what the people supporting the Devcore plan are trying to say is that the Devcore plan would help increase tourism in Ottawa, make people stay a day longer to check out one more museum, skydive, or visit the aquarium. Whereas the RV plan, with the main attraction being the arena, will NOT increase tourism in Ottawa. The sports tourists who are already travelling to attend games will continue to do so, basically, it will be status quo.

As for the standard attractions like the parliament, supreme court, gallery and museums, lets get real here. You were a kid before, or maybe you have kids. While some kids might be fully satisfied with historical stuff like parliament, supreme court and maybe 1-2 museums, MOST kids want something exciting mixed in and will coax the parents to go to an aquarium, to go see a car museum, skydiving, etc. RV doesn't have that.

You have to look at the full spectrum of tourists, all demographics, from everywhere. Not just the Torontonians, Montrealers who drive here for a weekend. But the Americans who come up here, or Europeans, Asians etc.

Overall, when it comes to tourism for all over in all demographics, RV proposal will result in the status quo for Ottawa tourism (arena downtown will not result in more tourists than having the arena in Kanata). But the Devcore proposal will increase tourism (due to all the extra attractions). Its just logic.

100% agreed. Ottawa is not the tourist magnet many think, and quite honestly there are many parts of the city that are embarassing to visitors. I've often faced the question from out of towners: "so there's a few museums and parliament...? What else??" and have struggled to suggest things outside of restaurants or broad types of activities that could be done anywhere.

Canadensis would at least put some new stuff on our civic map.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by EdFromOttawa

Canadensis would at least put some new stuff on our civic map.

The walk with plants?

[Buggys]

A Ripley's aquarium at Lebreton can be cool. But how about one like the Shedd Aquarium in Chicago or National Aquarium in Baltimore. Now that would be something!

Water for the aquarium can be connected directly to the Ottawa River. And the aquarium can be involved in conservation efforts such as cleanup of the Ottawa River, increasing the population of American eels, and awareness of the invasive Zebra mussels.

One can dream....

[silvergate]

Originally Posted by EdFromOttawa

100% agreed. Ottawa is not the tourist magnet many think, and quite honestly there are many parts of the city that are embarassing to visitors. I've often faced the question from out of towners: "so there's a few museums and parliament...? What else??" and have struggled to suggest things outside of restaurants or broad types of activities that could be done anywhere.

Canadensis would at least put some new stuff on our civic map.

A few other museums and a thing you could do at home? Just tell them about SkyZone, LaserQuest, FunHaven, Monopolatte, The Loft, etc etc etc

[YOWflier]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

According to actual, y'know, statistics, Ottawa-Gatineau is (was, in 2012), Number 4 among CMAs:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tabl...rts33a-eng.htm

Come on now, don't let stats get in the way of some good rhetoric.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Okay, something that no one here (or either of the proposals) seems to be addressing with regards to tourism...

Yes, some extra museums and attractions could and would help. Hell, I'd kill for a Portrait Gallery.

The problem is that a lot of the new proposed attractions likely exist in some facsimile closer to where other tourists come from. If you have precious time in Canada, are you going to go to a small aquarium in Ottawa, or a bigger one in Toronto?

Ottawa has to play to its strengths, and those strengths are: overabundance of nature, the rivers and canal, and - unlike many other western countries - significant indigenous cultures and history.

If you want people to make Ottawa/National Capital Region a major national and international draw? Then we have to unconditionally own what we have. We need to get serious about our waterfront; we need to get serious and all-season about the canal; we need to get National Park status for Gatineau Park; we need boardwalks, businesses, homes, and retail reintegrating with our water sources; we need to make the local Algonquin culture a draw and a part of our history and identity; we got all these farms, so let's start making a concerted pitch for this being fresh food country as opposed to wine country.

No amount of architecture and design for us is going to launch us past the likes of Montreal, Quebec City, and Vancouver. Instead of looking externally, this city and the region at large needs to look internally for our unique sparks and draws.

We got water, borderline excessive amounts of nature in and at the edge of our city, lots of markets/ranches/farms, and indigenous cultures. That's what we have to use, develop, and market if we want to make ourselves truly known to the world and to draw more people here.

"I went to Ottawa and paddled a traditional birch bark canoe in a national park just minutes from our hotel downtown, then we got to experience an authentic powwow featuring the freshest local foods, meats, cheeses, and drinks from the region, and capped it all off with a nice dinner cruise down the canal!" sounds a lot better than "yeah, I went to the aquarium and 'brewseum'. The one's in Toronto were better."

Seriously, we have so much water that if we were smart and forward thinking we would start developing ourselves and trying to pitch ourselves as "The Venice of Canada/North America."

[bikegypsy]

Originally Posted by EdFromOttawa

100% agreed. Ottawa is not the tourist magnet many think, and quite honestly there are many parts of the city that are embarassing to visitors. I've often faced the question from out of towners: "so there's a few museums and parliament...? What else??" and have struggled to suggest things outside of restaurants or broad types of activities that could be done anywhere.

Canadensis would at least put some new stuff on our civic map.

To be fair, all cities have their shitty areas. I used to live in Paris, the world's most visited and romantic city, and I could show you some horrible neighborhoods.

[bikegypsy]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

No amount of architecture and design for us is going to launch us past the likes of Montreal, Quebec City, and Vancouver. Instead of looking externally, this city and the region at large needs to look internally for our unique sparks and draws.

Spot on

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

Okay, something that no one here (or either of the proposals) seems to be addressing with regards to tourism...

Yes, some extra museums and attractions could and would help. Hell, I'd kill for a Portrait Gallery.

The problem is that a lot of the new proposed attractions likely exist in some facsimile closer to where other tourists come from. If you have precious time in Canada, are you going to go to a small aquarium in Ottawa, or a bigger one in Toronto?

Ottawa has to play to its strengths, and those strengths are: overabundance of nature, the rivers and canal, and - unlike many other western countries - significant indigenous cultures and history.

If you want people to make Ottawa/National Capital Region a major national and international draw? Then we have to unconditionally own what we have. We need to get serious about our waterfront; we need to get serious and all-season about the canal; we need to get National Park status for Gatineau Park; we need boardwalks, businesses, homes, and retail reintegrating with our water sources; we need to make the local Algonquin culture a draw and a part of our history and identity; we got all these farms, so let's start making a concerted pitch for this being fresh food country as opposed to wine country.

No amount of architecture and design for us is going to launch us past the likes of Montreal, Quebec City, and Vancouver. Instead of looking externally, this city and the region at large needs to look internally for our unique sparks and draws.

We got water, borderline excessive amounts of nature in and at the edge of our city, lots of markets/ranches/farms, and indigenous cultures. That's what we have to use, develop, and market if we want to make ourselves truly known to the world and to draw more people here.

"I went to Ottawa and paddled a traditional birch bark canoe in a national park just minutes from our hotel downtown, then we got to experience an authentic powwow featuring the freshest local foods, meats, cheeses, and drinks from the region, and capped it all off with a nice dinner cruise down the canal!" sounds a lot better than "yeah, I went to the aquarium and 'brewseum'. The one's in Toronto were better."

Seriously, we have so much water that if we were smart and forward thinking we would start developing ourselves and trying to pitch ourselves as "The Venice of Canada/North America."

Exactly right. I understand that some people want things at Lebreton that will stimulate Ottawa's tourist draw, but I don't think what Devcore is proposing will really accomplish that. None of the proposal's elements will offer anything that you can't already find in other cities, including Toronto and Montreal. Sure, it would be nice to have an aquarium, indoor skydiving, etc, but i don't think Lebreton is the appropriate location for them, except for a select few. Devcore's plan makes Lebreton look like a theme park...