LeBreton Flats 2.0 (RendezVous LeBreton) | Cancelled

[fishcakes]

New poster here, but a long-time lurker.

There are certainly weaknesses to both proposals, but I think it’s important not to forget that both are a tremendous improvement to the status quo for Ottawa. I for one did not expect either proposal to be as awe-inspiring as they ended up being.

That being said, I do think that the Rendezvous proposal is the better one, urban design wise. There seems to be better integration of public use elements with residential components, and there is better adaptive reuse of what already exists on the property, namely the aqueduct. It also better integrates with the surrounding street-grid and sight-lines, making it stick out less like a sore thumb.

Even from their sample images themselves, you can tell that Rendezvous put a lot of thought into how the pieces fit together; you have lots of shots spanning the entire project, while with the DCDLS one focuses on each individual building. A project is more than just the sum of its individual parts.

Proponents of the DCDLS project argue that it offers more attractions, and thus offer more tourist value. But you can’t just think that if you build it, they will come. Just look at Victory Park, Dallas, which was a similar master-planned development. Featuring a Museum of Nature and Science, the American Airlines Center, a live-music venue (House of Blues), a ‘luxury gourmet grocer’, and more, it was a failure because it failed to attract people (http://www.salon.com/2012/05/19/urba...o_one_has_fun/).

By splitting the residential element of the proposal from the public realm elements, the DCDLS proposal has some of the same failings. It’s also heavily weighed towards single-use attractions that do not provide much utility to the people that will live nearby. While attractions are nice, the biggest part of what makes a city attractive is the people.

I was born in Toronto, and went to university in Montreal. During my time in both cities, I’ve never felt like they could have used another aquarium, or a downtown sky-diving simulator, to be a better place to live. The thing I loved about both cities was that every time you walked outside, you would experience something different. I once jogged up Mount Royal at 4 in the morning, and saw a unicycle troupe practicing at the observatory. I’ve seen more people lined up for Tetsu’s Japanese Cheesecake in Toronto than I’ve seen walking through Sparks Street (a bit of an indictment of both cities). While Ottawa is an amazing city to live in, I’ve never felt that same degree of urban vibrance.

While some of it is certainly due to the population difference, another part of it self-inflicted. We worry too much about ‘national significance’, about ‘becoming more of a destination’, about ‘coming out of the shadow of Toronto’. In the midst of all this, we forget to consider that Ottawa also needs to be a city that people live in. While neither Lebreton Flats proposal is perfect, the Rendezvous proposal is the one that clearly has put more thought into creating a living, breathing community.

[bartlebooth]

Originally Posted by fishcakes

New poster here, but a long-time lurker.

There are certainly weaknesses to both proposals, but I think it’s important not to forget that both are a tremendous improvement to the status quo for Ottawa. I for one did not expect either proposal to be as awe-inspiring as they ended up being.

That being said, I do think that the Rendezvous proposal is the better one, urban design wise. There seems to be better integration of public use elements with residential components, and there is better adaptive reuse of what already exists on the property, namely the aqueduct. It also better integrates with the surrounding street-grid and sight-lines, making it stick out less like a sore thumb.

Even from their sample images themselves, you can tell that Rendezvous put a lot of thought into how the pieces fit together; you have lots of shots spanning the entire project, while with the DCDLS one focuses on each individual building. A project is more than just the sum of its individual parts.

Proponents of the DCDLS project argue that it offers more attractions, and thus offer more tourist value. But you can’t just think that if you build it, they will come. Just look at Victory Park, Dallas, which was a similar master-planned development. Featuring a Museum of Nature and Science, the American Airlines Center, a live-music venue (House of Blues), a ‘luxury gourmet grocer’, and more, it was a failure because it failed to attract people (http://www.salon.com/2012/05/19/urba...o_one_has_fun/).

By splitting the residential element of the proposal from the public realm elements, the DCDLS proposal has some of the same failings. It’s also heavily weighed towards single-use attractions that do not provide much utility to the people that will live nearby. While attractions are nice, the biggest part of what makes a city attractive is the people.

I was born in Toronto, and went to university in Montreal. During my time in both cities, I’ve never felt like they could have used another aquarium, or a downtown sky-diving simulator, to be a better place to live. The thing I loved about both cities was that every time you walked outside, you would experience something different. I once jogged up Mount Royal at 4 in the morning, and saw a unicycle troupe practicing at the observatory. I’ve seen more people lined up for Tetsu’s Japanese Cheesecake in Toronto than I’ve seen walking through Sparks Street (a bit of an indictment of both cities). While Ottawa is an amazing city to live in, I’ve never felt that same degree of urban vibrance.

While some of it is certainly due to the population difference, another part of it self-inflicted. We worry too much about ‘national significance’, about ‘becoming more of a destination’, about ‘coming out of the shadow of Toronto’. In the midst of all this, we forget to consider that Ottawa also needs to be a city that people live in. While neither Lebreton Flats proposal is perfect, the Rendezvous proposal is the one that clearly has put more thought into creating a living, breathing community.

I agree with this. Well said. I find what Devcore is offering is not fundamentally unique to Ottawa. It offers a badly designed set of disconnected zones. We have plenty of that in this city. Sure, the attractions are different for Ottawa but once some or all those disappear, and they will, the bones of Devcore's plan are still bad.

Also, welcome to the forum!

[Aylmer]

Welcome! A very thoughtful post - my thoughts exactly.

And what a great and terrifying article. I really think it deserves its own post:

Urban entertainment districts: Blocks where no one has fun


If you took all the clichés about horrible urban design and shoved them into 75 acres, you’d probably end up with something pretty close to Dallas’ Victory Park. A pre-planned billion-dollar collection of imposing hyper-modern monumental structures, high-end chain stores, enormous video screens, expensive restaurants, a sports arena and tons of parking, completely isolated from the rest of the city by a pair of freeways, Victory Park is like the schizophrenic dream of some power-hungry capitalist technocrat.

Or in this case, his son’s. The — neighborhood? development? — was built by Ross Perot Jr. as an “urban lifestyle destination.” But what it really is is an entertainment district: that swath of cityscape whose character has been preordained by a city council vote and is now identified by brightly colored banners affixed to lampposts. (The entertainment district’s close cousin, the arts district, is often lurking somewhere nearby.)

What could be wrong with a district where nightclubs and galleries are encouraged to thrive? Nothing, necessarily; done right, a city can help foster these scenes with a gentle guiding hand. Constructing an entire milieu from whole cloth, however, is where cities get into trouble. “The problem with these created-overnight districts is that you’re trying to create a culture as opposed to letting one grow,” says Nathaniel Hood, a Minneapolis-based transportation planner. “You’re getting the culture that one developer or city council member thinks the city needs, as opposed to the ground-up culture that comes from multiple players.”

Victory Park is an extreme example, hyper-planned right down to the performances to be held at its American Airlines Center. (“A U2 concert is fabulous,” Perot told the Wall Street Journal. “KISS, not so good.”) But the Dallas Arts District, though less micro-managed, has struggled with its identity as well. Conceived in the 1970s by design consultants in faraway Boston, it relocated the city’s arts institutions to the northeast corner of downtown. Another planning consultancy drew the boundaries of the district, and one by one, the city’s cultural icons were moved there. Today, it contains the Morton H. Meyerson Symphony Center, the Nasher Sculpture Center, the Dallas Museum of Art, and the Winspear Opera House. It’s home to buildings by Renzo Piano, I.M. Pei, Rem Koolhaas and Norman Foster. In fact, you’ll find everything in the Dallas Arts District except a lot of people, says Patrick Kennedy, owner of the Space Between Design Studio and the blog Walkable DFW.

“A district inherently becomes a single-use idea,” says Kennedy. “Everything has to be ‘art.’ You end up with a bunch of performing arts spaces and when they’re not in use it becomes a vacuum.” This vacuum has made the district itself a museum of sorts, something impressive to observe but strangely inert. (The Chicago Tribune called the area “the dullest arts district money can buy.”)

[...]

That’s a defeatist choice to have to make, but the monocultures created by urban districting make it almost inevitable. At last week’s 20th annual Congress for the New Urbanism, Hood spoke about the folly that is Kansas City’s Power & Light District, an $850 million entertainment district whose neon signage is as blinding as its eagerness to be hip. But no one would mistake Power & Light for a neighborhood created by cool kids. “Land costs are higher downtown, so you have to create something genuinely unique,” says Hood. “It can’t just be an outdoor mall with slightly cooler bars.”

But that’s exactly what you get in the Power & Light District: themed venues catering to neatly delineated tastes, Epcot-style: the Maker’s Mark Bourbon House & Lounge (“Southern Hospitality rises to a new level”), the Dubliner (“true Irish ambiance”), Howl at the Moon (“a completely unique dueling piano entertainment concept”) and PBR Big Sky (“every cowboy and cowgirl’s nighttime oasis”). The model suggests that city life is nothing more than a selection of personal consumption experiences. But at times, the district feels more like a very enthusiastic ghost town — one with a $12.8 million budget shortfall.

It’s not just that the developers are boring people — the economics of single-owner districts incentivize blandness. Chain stores and restaurants can afford to pay higher rent, so they get first dibs. To boost rents even higher, tenants are sometimes promised that no competition will be allowed nearby. “Starbucks will be willing to pay the higher rent if [the developer doesn’t] let other cafes into the area,” says Hood. And forget about occupying the Power & Light District — you’re on private property. For a full list of the rules (no bicycles, panhandling, profanity on clothing) you can consult its website.

“A true [arts or entertainment] district is always sort of moving around,” says Kennedy. “It’s wherever the bohemians find cheap real estate.” For instance, compare Power & Light or Victory Park or even the Dallas Arts District with Boston’s Kenmore Square, which developed in the ’80s and ’90s as a wildly diverse barrage of punk venues, rock clubs, dive bars, sports bars and beloved hole-in-the-wall restaurants, all anchored by Fenway Park, bringing together an unlikely cross-section of Bostonians into one spontaneous not-an-entertainment-district for freaks, foodies and sports nuts alike. And despite being unplanned and unsubsidized (or, more accurately, because of that), Kenmore eventually upscaled in exactly the way city leaders hope for.

Kenmore Square, by the way, also disproves the conventional wisdom that the presence of a stadium or arena automatically dooms neighborhoods. “Fenway Park is a beautiful example of a large entertainment-type building sitting in a neighborhood that’s very vital,” says Dean Almy, director of the Dallas Urban Laboratory, “and one of the things that makes it vital is that it isn’t all about Fenway Park.”

But mainly, it shows that these districts work better without all the bureaucratic attachment parenting. A great example is Cincinnati, where, rather than busting in with relocation plans and a branding scheme, the city has designated five neighborhoods Community Entertainment Districts where aspiring restaurateurs can simply get a liquor license directly from the state for about $1,500, rather than on the open market where they cost up to $30,000.

Milwaukee has taken a similarly hands-off approach to Water Street, an area on the city’s waterfront where a fairly raucous bar scene emerges nightly. Daniel Campo, assistant professor of architecture and planning at Morgan State University, co-authored a study of the Water Street scene and identified several factors that make it work: Small, older buildings (cheap enough to open a dive bar in), flexible facades (no historic designations), open late (naturally) and located on a slightly dicey fringe of town where chaos can unfold.

Campo characterizes such spaces as areas of “benign neglect,” neighborhoods where entertainment zones can naturally emerge. “These are places where no one lives, the cops don’t go there, people don’t care about that area.” He compares it to New York in the ’70s and ’80s, when the police had bigger fish to fry than kids drinking beer on the street. “You have to be comfortable with the way these places work. There’s going to be loud people, messes on the sidewalk — it’s not for everyone.” They’re an example of what philosopher Michel Foucault called heterotopias: “Neither utopian or dystopian, but a paradoxical combination of both.”

[...]

What these areas of Cincinnati, Milwaukee and Cleveland have in common is (and I hate to even utter this often meaningless phrase) urban authenticity. It’s a notion that gets tossed around a lot, but here it truly applies — people know when they’re being handed an experience that was created by committee for purely economic purposes. Planned districts are about “applying a label and hoping your city lives up to it,” says Kennedy. Instead, cities should “foster a natural emergence of character. You never know what’s going to pop up.”

In some ways, this is also a critique of IllumiNATION and Lansdowne: when you build an entire neighbourhood at once, it lacks the diversity which only time can foster. That said, though stores come and go, the built form - the bones of which we so often talk here - remains. Lansdowne may be a collection of big names now, but in fifteen, twenty years as the new-building smell wears off, smaller stores will take their place and make the whole place feel more 'urban' and lived-in. I predict the same thing will happen to IllumiNATION: people will complain that it feels to stiff at first, but like a good pair of walking shoes, it'll shift over time to become a comfortable neighbourhood.

Such an outcome, however, could not happen to the Devcore proposal: without any real urban structure to speak of, the only thing it has is its attractions. It can't adapt or mold - it must either be loved exactly as it is or be ignored. As fashions and tastes evolve, a restaurant might serve different dishes or get replaced rather quickly, but single-use attractions tend to need to suffer excessively long and painful (and expensive) declines into obsolescence before someone has to bring in the wrecking ball. Ontario Place is a fine example.

That's not to say that big attractions doom a place, but since they are so likely to become obsolete or stale, putting them all in one place is a recipe for an ENTIRE DISTRICT to become obsolete and stale. I'd rather we build a neighbourhood which starts off a little dull but grows to become great than build one which, like cheap bubble gum, starts off great and quickly becomes hard and tasteless.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Welcome! A very thoughtful post - my thoughts exactly.

And what a great and terrifying article. I really think it deserves its own post:





In some ways, this is also a critique of IllumiNATION and Lansdowne: when you build an entire neighbourhood at once, it lacks the diversity which only time can foster. That said, though stores come and go, the built form - the bones of which we so often talk here - remains. Lansdowne may be a collection of big names now, but in fifteen, twenty years as the new-building smell wears off, smaller stores will take their place and make the whole place feel more 'urban' and lived-in. I predict the same thing will happen to IllumiNATION: people will complain that it feels to stiff at first, but like a good pair of walking shoes, it'll shift over time to become a comfortable neighbourhood.

Such an outcome, however, could not happen to the Devcore proposal: without any real urban structure to speak of, the only thing it has is its attractions. It can't adapt or mold - it must either be loved exactly as it is or be ignored. As fashions and tastes evolve, a restaurant might serve different dishes or get replaced rather quickly, but single-use attractions tend to need to suffer excessively long and painful (and expensive) declines into obsolescence before someone has to bring in the wrecking ball. Ontario Place is a fine example.

That's not to say that big attractions doom a place, but since they are so likely to become obsolete or stale, putting them all in one place is a recipe for an ENTIRE DISTRICT to become obsolete and stale. I'd rather we build a neighbourhood which starts off a little dull but grows to become great than build one which, like cheap bubble gum, starts off great and quickly becomes hard and tasteless.

Excellent points. I think the overall theme is right on - it is tough to plan an entire district from scratch and have it work like a real neighbourhood. I also think and hope that you are right - after the new building smell (which is awful by the way) wears off, you end up with something more organic and interesting.

That said, you don't have a lot of choice in a case like Lansdowne or Lebreton. Unless you want the City or NCC to act as developers and parcel out pieces of land to individual owners (not a good idea), then you need to engage a private sector develper to take on that role. You can potentially achieve a somewhat better result by splitting the land between several developers. Maybe that is the best approach for Lebreton - divide it between the two groups and let them compete with each other to create the more vibrant area. You loose some of the master-planned elegance, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

[Arcologist]

Originally Posted by Admiral Nelson

Good lord, Mykl, you're wielding your arguments throughout this thread like a bludgeon. Let us debate this a little more dispassionately and with less ridicule.

You disparage Devcore's proposed attractions. Sell us on the Rendezvous alternative. It seems their vision is an environment that skews heavily to condos — a slow-growth recipe that will take decades to finish. Yes, it also includes a mix of retailers, but is it likelier to resemble Wellington West's or Lansdowne's? How attractive a draw is this likely to be for Ottawa residents – let alone tourists – considering not only your own peculiar tastes?

Ultimately, is Rendezvous proposing something that is truly more ambitious and more nationally significant than Devcore? I would say no. And I suspect the NCC might agree.

Brilliantly put -- thank you Nelson!

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by phil235

That said, you don't have a lot of choice in a case like Lansdowne or Lebreton. Unless you want the City or NCC to act as developers and parcel out pieces of land to individual owners (not a good idea), then you need to engage a private sector develper to take on that role. You can potentially achieve a somewhat better result by splitting the land between several developers. Maybe that is the best approach for Lebreton - divide it between the two groups and let them compete with each other to create the more vibrant area. You loose some of the master-planned elegance, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

Personally, I think LeBreton should be broken up into smaller parcels and developed as the need arises. The first parcel that was given to Claridge was already too big. If there is no immediate need, there is nothing wrong with reserving some of the land for a yet unknown future use. The whole site is just far too big to be put in the hands of one corporation. I'd like to see them focus on the Albert and Booth street corridors and the Aqueduct with a subdivision plan that gets opened up to all individual developers, the rest can be revisited later.

Some urban designers and planners have this notion that they somehow invented the principles of urban life or can control it. In fact some of the best parts of cities are ones that evolved organically according to human need or passion. I don't know of one masterplanned community that outshines the best products of happenstance.

It's also weird how just because some creative spaces have been developed out of old warehouses despite their cold drab character (the anomaly and contrasting juxtaposition is what makes it cool), suddenly designers think that all creative spaces have to look warehouse-y. A lot of the infill housing and condos even no longer look like housing, it's hard to tell them apart from offices. Much of modern architecture and design has become a denial and disguising of our messy humanity — owning a sleek glass table sometimes makes me wish I was devoid of body oils and incapable of producing fingerprints

[little italian]

Originally Posted by fishcakes

We worry too much about ‘national significance’, about ‘becoming more of a destination’, about ‘coming out of the shadow of Toronto’. In the midst of all this, we forget to consider that Ottawa also needs to be a city that people live in. While neither Lebreton Flats proposal is perfect, the Rendezvous proposal is the one that clearly has put more thought into creating a living, breathing community.

Well said! I really hope the NCC hears this last part!

[Arcologist]

I still think we should go with a hybrid version of the two proposals, whereby there are less condos than what Rendez-Vous is proposing, and less flashy-glitzy stuff like Devcore's proposal.

Problem solved. Now for a drink at the Brewseum!

[rocketphish]

Proposed LeBreton Flats Abilities Centre 'a place for all,' proponents say

Don Butler, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: February 2, 2016 | Last Updated: February 4, 2016 12:18 PM EST

The Abilities Centre, most would agree, is one of the more appealing elements of RendezVous LeBreton’s redevelopment proposal for LeBreton Flats.

Just don’t call it a centre for people with disabilities, says Todd Nicholson. “It’s anything but that. It’s a place for all.”

On that, Nicholson has credibility. He won a gold medal for Canada in sledge hockey at the 2006 Paralympic Games in Turin, chairs the International Paralympic Committee’s athlete’s council and is married to Emily Glossop, chair of the Abilities Centre Ottawa’s board.

The first Abilities Centre in Canada opened in June 2012 in Whitby. If a similar facility comes to Ottawa – when it comes to Ottawa, its determined proponents say – it will be just the second in the country.

In RendezVous LeBreton’s plan, the Ottawa Abilities Centre occupies two floors on top of a two-rink Sensplex. It would open as early as 2021.

Recreation and sports activities are a key component. Its fieldhouse would have three basketball courts surrounded by a six-lane, 200-metre track. There would be fitness equipment, a high-tech training facility and an indoor playground for children, all fully accessible to both disabled and able-bodied users.

But there’s more to the Abilities Centre than that, Glossop says. Another stream would be devoted to arts, culture, music and drama, including a theatre for stage productions.

Life skills would be taught in an area fitted out like a condo, with a fully accessible kitchen and bathroom, a bedroom and washing facilities. “It’s a place where you can work on developing independent skills or relearn them after an injury or illness,” Glossop says.

Research and innovation is also part of the mix, in partnership with local institutions such as Carleton University and Algonquin College.

Users of the Abilities Centre would have access to the Sensplex and vice versa, making the integrated facility the largest recreation and community centre in the capital region, Glossop says.

Ultimately, Activities Centre Ottawa would like to erase the perception that things such as wheelchair sports and sledge hockey are exclusively for people with disabilities.

“In Canada, about 70 per cent of all wheelchair basketball players are able-bodied,” says Marnie Peters, an accessibility consultant who won gold as a member of Canada’s women’s basketball team at the 2000 Paralympic Games in Sydney. “They play because wheelchair basketball is a sport unto itself.”

The RendezVous LeBreton group first approached Activities Centre Ottawa shortly after its incorporation as a not-for-profit in September 2014.

It was immediately interested, attracted by the space on LeBreton Flats and its accessibility by transit. “I would have to say that this is an amazing opportunity,” says Glossop.

Though Senators Sports & Entertainment strongly supports the initiative, it’s up to Activity Centre Ottawa to raise the needed funds, which are significant. The centre in Whitby cost $42 million, paid for by a $21-million fundraising campaign and contributions from all three levels of government.

There’s no guarantee, of course, that the National Capital Commission will choose RendezVous LeBreton’s proposal.

If it doesn’t, Glossop says, “we’re going to continue down the same path – creating awareness, raising funds, then finding another location. We are going to build this centre no matter what.”

[email protected]
twitter.com/ButlerDon

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...ilities-centre

[AuxTown]

I really hope the NCC has a finger on the pulse of this forum. So many insightful and thoughtful comments. I don't have a background in urban design so I tend to sit in the background of these threads, occassionally adding my "yah what he said!" to things. My gut feeling is that Melnyk et al have the better and more practical bid for Lebreton and I hope they are successful. Lansdowne was a great thing for football and the Glebe but this project, being at the intersection of our two major transit lines, will really be city-changing and hopefully for the better.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Proposed LeBreton Flats Abilities Centre 'a place for all,' proponents say

Don Butler, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: February 2, 2016 | Last Updated: February 4, 2016 12:18 PM EST.
.
.
Though Senators Sports & Entertainment strongly supports the initiative, it’s up to Activity Centre Ottawa to raise the needed funds, which are significant. The centre in Whitby cost $42 million, paid for by a $21-million fundraising campaign and contributions from all three levels of government.
.
.
.
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...ilities-centre

I wonder if this is similar for the DCDLS consortium's attractions? Will each attraction's group be responsible for paying for their own facility? If so, it is nice that they are keen to be on LeBreton Flats, but if they have to pay the full shot, they might not be able to move there. Or is DCDLS building the facilities and leasing them out; with the groups effectively paying for them over the long-term?

The Activity Centre is a big plus of the RV consortium's bid. Is there a possibility that it will be dropped if it can't pay its own way? If Activity Centre Ottawa can't come up with the money, does that mean that we will be left with an arena, a 2-ice-sheet Sens-plex, a row of bars along a small aqueduct, and a lot of condominiums/offices in that bid?

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Personally, I think LeBreton should be broken up into smaller parcels and developed as the need arises. The first parcel that was given to Claridge was already too big. If there is no immediate need, there is nothing wrong with reserving some of the land for a yet unknown future use. The whole site is just far too big to be put in the hands of one corporation. I'd like to see them focus on the Albert and Booth street corridors and the Aqueduct with a subdivision plan that gets opened up to all individual developers, the rest can be revisited later.

Some urban designers and planners have this notion that they somehow invented the principles of urban life or can control it. In fact some of the best parts of cities are ones that evolved organically according to human need or passion. I don't know of one masterplanned community that outshines the best products of happenstance.

It's also weird how just because some creative spaces have been developed out of old warehouses despite their cold drab character (the anomaly and contrasting juxtaposition is what makes it cool), suddenly designers think that all creative spaces have to look warehouse-y. A lot of the infill housing and condos even no longer look like housing, it's hard to tell them apart from offices. Much of modern architecture and design has become a denial and disguising of our messy humanity — owning a sleek glass table sometimes makes me wish I was devoid of body oils and incapable of producing fingerprints

All good points, though I think central Paris is an okay example of a masterplanned community that works pretty well.

I think that breaking the site up and letting it happen bit by bit has its advantages, but a big drawback is the amount of time it takes to get something that works. This isn't a typical neighbourhood with multiple landlords who can buy and sell property over time - it's a massive piece of vacant land whose the single government owner keeps it out of the market for extended periods of time and is subject to all sorts of specific rules.

It is unlikely that there will ever be a "need" for more than a parcel here and there to build a big project like a museum or an arena, but that doesn't mean that the area would develop organically just because the NCC only lets out bits and pieces at a time. For all we know, Claridge could keep winning competitions and end up building out the whole thing.

Multiple developers is definitely desirable, I'm not sure about artificially drawing out the timing.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

The Activity Centre is a big plus of the RV consortium's bid. Is there a possibility that it will be dropped if it can't pay its own way? If Activity Centre Ottawa can't come up with the money, does that mean that we will be left with an arena, a 2-ice-sheet Sens-plex, a row of bars along a small aqueduct, and a lot of condominiums/offices in that bid?

Just a guess, but if it's like other projects supported by the Sens, they participate actively by providing resources and expertise to set up a business model that they have used elsewhere. I also suspect that the Sens Foundation would be involved, and they have significant cash and fundraising ability.

[AuxTown]

Originally Posted by phil235

Just a guess, but if it's like other projects supported by the Sens, they participate actively by providing resources and expertise to set up a business model that they have used elsewhere. I also suspect that the Sens Foundation would be involved, and they have significant cash and fundraising ability.

Apparently the Sens Foundation is the 2nd largest local charity in town; something I did not realize previous.

With regards to Paris, I don't think that's a fair comparison. Not only has it had over 150 years to build organically from the original plan, but it was also done at a time where labour was cheap and building massive swaths of quality structures was much easier to do. I would love to see multiple developers as well for the condo portion or at least different architects/designers working on the various aspects of the project to ensure a more eclectic feel. The Claridge portion of Lebreton is a perfect example of what happens when the same architects/designers try to develop multiple adjacent buildings. Not to mention what happened with Claridge Plaza one through ten down on Rideau.

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Some urban designers and planners have this notion that they somehow invented the principles of urban life or can control it. In fact some of the best parts of cities are ones that evolved organically according to human need or passion. I don't know of one masterplanned community that outshines the best products of happenstance.

The Glebe is a local master-planned community, but Paris and Eixample are probably the best of examples. They had a designer either add onto an existing city or someone who would demolish most of the city and plan large boulevards, uniform buildings and install modern utilities and services. There might be other examples in other cities I'm missing.

It usually takes time for new neighbourhoods to function like pre-existing ones. It's like when you have to break in a new pair of leather shoes - you can't start wearing them and expect them to feel comfortable like other pairs you've had for years. You have the wear them every day until the fit. New neighbourhoods are the same.

At first it might feel strange and impersonal when first built, but as people continue living and visiting them, as economies become more balanced and businesses that serve people's interests they will become broken in and desirable places to live and visit. It'll take time, but I think Zibi will become a decent place to hang out several years after it's built, and hopefully the same can be said for LeBreton, Bayview, Tunney's Pasture, Lees and any other new neighbourhoods built.

(I don't know how much can be said for the parks and plazas planned for all four corners of SJAM and Booth in both proposals though. That's an excessive amount of open space.)

Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey

Apparently the Sens Foundation is the 2nd largest local charity in town; something I did not realize previous.

With regards to Paris, I don't think that's a fair comparison. Not only has it had over 150 years to build organically from the original plan, but it was also done at a time where labour was cheap and building massive swaths of quality structures was much easier to do. I would love to see multiple developers as well for the condo portion or at least different architects/designers working on the various aspects of the project to ensure a more eclectic feel. The Claridge portion of Lebreton is a perfect example of what happens when the same architects/designers try to develop multiple adjacent buildings. Not to mention what happened with Claridge Plaza one through ten down on Rideau.

Paris is a perfect example of functional master-planned communities. An overall plan was created, including how to build roads and boulevards connecting major landmarks, designating shapes of city blocks and architecture of buildings on them (uniform), as well as planning for sewers, etc. It took time to eventually construct all the buildings and infrastructure, and then it took even more time for the city to become "lived-in". Eventually things were tweaked to accommodate private vehicles and the metro, and now for bikes, etc. New buildings where added and parks and civic institutions were built. The point is that things take time. Lebreton would be similar. We have a plan for how the area will develop, and then over time we will be building along the lines of those plans (building designs, etc. are subject to change) and people will begin living there. Then parts of it will be tweaked to increase comfort and mobility.

It can be a concern if one developer does only one sort of building in an area that is unappealing like what Claridge tends to do (although Haussmann's planned created an entire city of buildings that look identical). It's not so much because it's one developer responsible for building as it is someone choose unappealing designs that fail to engage people on the street. They don't do inspiring buildings nor give us a reason to want to visit their buildings (what is there to visit in Fusion?). On the other hand, Q West are not aesthetically pleasing but given time the businesses might be replaced with something more in line with what people like in the area and will become acceptable (hopefully). Barry J. Hobin's buildings on Richmond are better examples of good design in Westboro, but typically Ottawa fails to attract the right ideas that cities like Toronto and Vancouver seem to get regularly. I'd be curious to see the success of all of Toronto's master-planned communities.

[acottawa]

Paris as we understand it was the result of a massive demolition effort by Haussman (with the backing of Napolean III). Rome, Berlin, Vienna and most other European cities were the result of similar efforts (often helped along by fires or destruction from wars). There is little organic about Paris or Rome (London is somewhat more organic because its leaders had more limits on their power).

These efforts "benefited" from despots willingness to spend massive amounts of money and a lack of concern for either the workers or displaced - something that is considerably more difficult in a modern democratic country.

Beyond the political context, I think the thing that sets "good" masterplanned communities from "bad" masterplanned communities is that the former were essentially built around walking and the latter were not.

[Richard Eade]

Despite still having a lot of questions, some of which can’t be answered (for example financial ones), my view of the bids so far is this:

RV:
+ I like the smaller blocks, giving more routes between the buildings, and potentially more small retailers
+ I like the covered LRT and more bridges across the aqueduct, breaking that barrier
+ I like that the arena is centered between LRT stations
+ I like the (potential) inclusion of the Activity Center
+ I like the inclusion of hotels
+ I like the suggestion that under the Preston Bridge will be animated
+ I like that the slender towers are set-back on the podia

- I don’t like that there is really only one major attraction with primarily evening attendance once or twice a week
- I don’t like the abundance of vehicle roadways throughout the area
- I don’t like the heavy dependence on ‘programming’ to make the area interesting
- I don’t like that the arena’s Crown Forest Overlook is accessed only through the arena

Overall, I think that the RV plan is a pretty good design for making money for the consortium. There are lots of residential units (rentals, condos, and hotels) to make money from and the new arena will ensure an increase in revenue for the Senators. In that respect, I expect that there is a good chance that it would ‘succeed’ as a project.

Unfortunately, the neighbourhood’s flow-through configuration is also porous for vehicles. There will be 8,500 parking spots on the site, and many roads leading to them. This is a car-based neighbourhood. The Preston Canopy, for example, is just a nicer name for the Preston Street Bridge, which gets the road over the LRT as it cuts through the site. The nice covering over the LRT, provides for Canada Drive, which is the road access to the arena. There will, of course, be buildings that do need car access (I am thinking that very few goalies will arrive at the Sensplex hauling their gear on the LRT), but those should have underground parking and be accessed without adding internal roads.

Apart from the bars and restaurants supporting the arena-going crowds, there is little provided in this plan to support the residents who will be living here. There are no larger grocery stores, no churches, or play grounds. (Those would have taken space away from building more profitable towers.) There will be over 7,000 people, but they will need to go somewhere else for the necessities of life. That explains why they will all need cars.

I do like that the arena is between the two LRT stations since it can divide and reduce the crush of people after an event, but there appears to be little in the way of bars/restaurants between the arena and Bayview Station. Most of the establishments appear to be along the aqueduct, on the way to Pimisi Station. There should be places west of the arena too.

I am not convinced that the “extensive programming” of the public realm will be all that frequent or long-lasting. There just won’t be enough people drawn to go there on evenings when there isn’t a special event at the arena. The NCC’s Sound and Light show works because it is part of the Parliament Buildings experience. There really isn’t an experience like that in this plan.

DCDLS:
+ I like that there are a number of different ‘attractions’ included in the proposal
+ I like that there are amenities for the new residents (library, school, Farm Boy, YMCA)
+ I like that the pedestrian area is just that, a pedestrian area – no cars around the ‘attractions’
+ I like that parking is underground with access from the periphery
+ I like the Canadensis Walk including plants from across the country
+ I like that the arena is ‘sunk’ into the ground to minimize its perceived height
+ I like the more imaginative architecture shown in their plan

- I don’t like the arena tied to one LRT station, allowing people to come & go with no interaction with the area
- I don’t like the hard delineation (aqueduct & LRT) between the public and private areas
- I don’t like that there is only one pedestrian crossing of the LRT between Pimisi and Bayview Stations

The DCDLS plan is quite different in what it seems to be trying to do. Instead of maximizing the profit, it appears to be trying to create an area that can create and sustain its own vibrancy. By clustering a diverse group of ‘attractions’, the idea seems to be to attract as many people to the site as possible, in hopes that the area gets a ‘buzz’ and synergies develop. The area already has a major tourist attraction next door, the War Museum. Adding more ‘attractions’ a short walk away might make this a ‘go to’ district for tourists. I assume that the DCDLS group is including lots of hotel rooms in their plan so that tourists can literally walk to a different ‘attraction’ each day they stay.

I think that the DCDLS folks will find that the arena needs connecting practice ice (the real reason the RV group included a Sensplex) and a near-by hotel. Without these, the logistics of NHL hockey become more challenging. Since their arena is set off in the western extreme, it might be possible to leverage a revamped Tom Brown arena for the practice ice – but they would need to talk to the City about that.

Of course, this still leaves the main arena beside one LRT station. With the arena connected to the Bayview Station, people will be able to come and go without walking anywhere else in the area. This will not encourage people to visit the nearby bars and restaurants. Instead, it will cause the station to get swamped by a crush of people all trying to access the LRT at about the same time. I was told that another reason that the arena is in the west is because that is where the deepest ‘soil’ was, so it could be sunk deeper. I don’t know if I believe this since almost all of the surface ‘soil’ will be removed anyway, leaving a relatively flat rock pan over the entire area.

I can see some logic in segmenting the public realm from the public ‘attractions’, but I think the delineation is too severe. There should be much better pedestrian facilities to cross both the aqueduct and the LRT tracks. I would have also preferred to see mixed use buildings instead of the single-use pavilions being planned. Why not have three floors of ‘Automobile Experience’ with a hotel tower on top? The ‘Communication Centre’ appears to have office/studio space associated with it, in a pseudo-mixed use format, but it is still pretty much directed at one purpose. (Of course, that purpose could be expanded to encourage the film industry in Ottawa.)

I like the idea of a botanical walkway through the site to break the expansive concrete walkways, but I worry (as I do with the RV plan) that there is really no incentive to keep it up after the initial burst of enthusiasm.

I think that each plan has strengths, and each has weaknesses. I wouldn’t want to see either built exactly as proposed; but I think that either could be made acceptable.

[mykl]

Originally Posted by Admiral Nelson

Good lord, Mykl, you're wielding your arguments throughout this thread like a bludgeon. Let us debate this a little more dispassionately and with less ridicule.

You disparage Devcore's proposed attractions. Sell us on the Rendezvous alternative. It seems their vision is an environment that skews heavily to condos — a slow-growth recipe that will take decades to finish. Yes, it also includes a mix of retailers, but is it likelier to resemble Wellington West's or Lansdowne's? How attractive a draw is this likely to be for Ottawa residents – let alone tourists – considering not only your own peculiar tastes?

Ultimately, is Rendezvous proposing something that is truly more ambitious and more nationally significant than Devcore? I would say no. And I suspect the NCC might agree.

First of all, if I sound like I'm bludgeoning, it is due to the fact that I am angered by the lunacy that people supporting devcore are spewing. You accuse me of ridiculing while in the same breath calling me peculiar: I believe the word you're looking for is urbanist. Rendezvous is promoting live-work-play, which is every urbanist's goal. Condos for 7000 to replace the 7000 displaced when the area was bulldozed. Returning the area to the people. Lots of office space in an attractive location. Lots of shops and restaurants which will range in size and substance as in anything other shopping area in the world. Things come and go. In this retail landscape, Farmboy could close tomorrow. 2 years ago Devcore could have had a giant Futureshop as an anchor. Retail is fluid. Stop worrying about the specific stores that will be there (since you're not worrying about the stores that will be in Devcore's plan). Next is the covering of the LRT which is the only way you're going to attract people to the area en masse on foot. Research desire paths if you want to understand why Devcore's single bridge is an extreme detriment to accessing the site. As for the "work" portion of devcore, you'd be getting a job selling museum tickets, and live, well you don't technically live near the things, you live across the street from the things, surrounded by seniors and students, the people who have the least money to spend in the area. Urbanism 101 devcore is not.

In all honesty, there is nothing nationally significant about either proposal, and if you say Canadansis Walk, you're suggesting that someone from British Columbia is going to come to Ottawa to verify that we're growing their plants. No. Tell me how any of these Devcore items are nationally significant: a school that teaches 50% of our national languages, 2 sister museums to the Science and Tech museum, which everyone already cries is terrible so we should build 2 more even though they've never been to the new version that is already costing many millions of dollars and by all accounts looks to be gorgeous, skateboarding, indoor sky diving, foreign owned beer thing they lied about the rights to, a city library that has their own competition underway. I could go on.

No, Rendezvous is also not putting up a big giant banner that says "This way to national significance", but there should be a great deal of pride taken in the fact that they will develop the land with intelligence, over the course of a reasonable time frame (your beloved devcore bandshell that could easily be put at Confederation Park or Major's Hill will take many years to be realized) the area will grow.

Now, every time I post a passionate view of my thoughts on the site, no one responds to the questions I pose. You have not. You've simply tried to bulldoze your ideas back into the spotlight. So take a look in the mirror and ask yourself why you're not responding to me if you're asking me to respond to you. You think my tastes are peculiar, well I question whether you have any taste at all if you're interested in a poorly laid out ideas-thrown-at-the-wall amusement park on our last great tract of land, that isn't inviting to pedestrians until after they arrive. Rendezvous has developed itself to work its way into the city, devcore has not.

And it couldn't be described more eloquently than this:

Originally Posted by Aylmer

In some ways, this is also a critique of IllumiNATION and Lansdowne: when you build an entire neighbourhood at once, it lacks the diversity which only time can foster. That said, though stores come and go, the built form - the bones of which we so often talk here - remains. Lansdowne may be a collection of big names now, but in fifteen, twenty years as the new-building smell wears off, smaller stores will take their place and make the whole place feel more 'urban' and lived-in. I predict the same thing will happen to IllumiNATION: people will complain that it feels to stiff at first, but like a good pair of walking shoes, it'll shift over time to become a comfortable neighbourhood.

Such an outcome, however, could not happen to the Devcore proposal: without any real urban structure to speak of, the only thing it has is its attractions. It can't adapt or mold - it must either be loved exactly as it is or be ignored. As fashions and tastes evolve, a restaurant might serve different dishes or get replaced rather quickly, but single-use attractions tend to need to suffer excessively long and painful (and expensive) declines into obsolescence before someone has to bring in the wrecking ball. Ontario Place is a fine example.

That's not to say that big attractions doom a place, but since they are so likely to become obsolete or stale, putting them all in one place is a recipe for an ENTIRE DISTRICT to become obsolete and stale. I'd rather we build a neighbourhood which starts off a little dull but grows to become great than build one which, like cheap bubble gum, starts off great and quickly becomes hard and tasteless.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I think that the DCDLS folks will find that the arena needs connecting practice ice (the real reason the RV group included a Sensplex) and a near-by hotel. Without these, the logistics of NHL hockey become more challenging. Since their arena is set off in the western extreme, it might be possible to leverage a revamped Tom Brown arena for the practice ice – but they would need to talk to the City about that.

As has been mentioned a few times, there is absolutely no need for the arena to have connected practice ice. In fact, almost no NHL arenas do. Most practice facilities are in the suburbs, near where the players live.

There is no nefarious reason for the inclusion of a Sensplex, other than it is a needed facility for the community and generally a good idea.

[McC]

I wonder if a downtown Sensplex (either here or at the Tom Brown site) would lead the City (and School Board?) to redevelop-repurpose the well-under-regulation size McNabb?