Lansdowne Park Redevelopment Phase 1 | Completed

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Temperance

Yeah, I have to say it's pretty bad. The architecture itself is ok but it seems they are just making lansdowne into another shopping mall. And the idea of continuing the local grid into the park only magnifies this. So much for Lansdowne "park".

I disagree on the grid point. I think that extending the grid is exactly the right way to integrate the new into the existing neighbourhood and ensure that it works as part of the whole, rather than a stand-alone island.

[acottawa]

Plan B seems to have the most useable space (and less smelly water features), which is good. I don't really see the point of the bridge though; there isn't much across the canal at that point and it is one of the widest parts of the canal. The last thing this project needs is an expensive bridge to nowhere.

[rodionx]

Originally Posted by phil235

I disagree on the grid point. I think that extending the grid is exactly the right way to integrate the new into the existing neighbourhood and ensure that it works as part of the whole, rather than a stand-alone island.

Yeah, I wouldn't go so far as to say its a shopping mall. Malls are inward facing, and this design does try to integrate, more or less, with the surrounding neighbourhood. It just doesn't try very hard. There's that Sparks Street vibe to it, and even people who support it have picked up on the fact that the space wouldn't look too good without a fair number of warm bodies walking around. A big box anchor store might bring them in, or more residential, but neither of those options would go over well with the locals. Not that anything would.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Temperance

Yeah, I have to say it's pretty bad. The architecture itself is ok but it seems they are just making lansdowne into another shopping mall. And the idea of continuing the local grid into the park only magnifies this. So much for Lansdowne "park".

What are you talking about? The grid idea is fantastically urban. Also, hardly a shopping mall. I have lived in San Diego, where numerous examples of egregious outdoor malls exist and this is far from it.

P.S. Landowne was never a "park" full of grass and trees as so many people seem to imagine. Deal with it.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by rodionx

Yeah, I wouldn't go so far as to say its a shopping mall. Malls are inward facing, and this design does try to integrate, more or less, with the surrounding neighbourhood. It just doesn't try very hard. There's that Sparks Street vibe to it, and even people who support it have picked up on the fact that the space wouldn't look too good without a fair number of warm bodies walking around. A big box anchor store might bring them in, or more residential, but neither of those options would go over well with the locals. Not that anything would.

Well, I think that there are many potential anchors, including the Whole Foods, the theatre, the stadium/arena (which should be much busier once redone) and the new park. Add in the considerable residential component and I am reasonably confident that it has much more potential to draw people on a regular basis than Sparks does. It's tough to get the mix right in a big project like this, but I think they've made a pretty good attempt.

[Temperance]

I guess I am just of the feeling that it is valuable to preserve public space. That doesn't mean it all needs to be grassy park but I think piling in another commercial development (when that can be done anywhere in the city) to meet the business needs of a private developer is not very appealing to me. Sitting here in Amsterdam it doesn't feel very "fantastically urban" or creative to pay for the upgrade of a sports stadium by wedging business into a public space (park or not).

[Temperance]

Originally Posted by rodionx

Yeah, I wouldn't go so far as to say its a shopping mall. Malls are inward facing, and this design does try to integrate, more or less, with the surrounding neighbourhood. It just doesn't try very hard. There's that Sparks Street vibe to it, and even people who support it have picked up on the fact that the space wouldn't look too good without a fair number of warm bodies walking around. A big box anchor store might bring them in, or more residential, but neither of those options would go over well with the locals. Not that anything would.

I do find the design fairly inward-facing. I understand the point that the extension of the grid helps to integrate it into the community. But it does seem like a fairly weak integration. It's true that what is there now isn't great but that doesn't mean we should settle for mediocracy. I guess my point is that if you were designing things from scratch, and you removed the sports issue of bringing the CFL back to Ottawa, I don't think this would be the optimal use for the park. It could definitely be much worse but it could also be much better. When I look at the design I guess I am also realising that I am philosophically opposed to the idea of converting Lansdowne Park into a shopping district. Even if it is a fairly well-designed shopping district.

[Ottawan]

You do realize that strip malls are never mixed-use, never more than two stories (usually just one, but sometime some light office use above the commercial), always have parking lots between them and the road, and large loading docks at the back?

While some of your criticisms (despite my disagreement with them) are viable, such as the contention that it is inward facing, your analogy to a strip mall is just a ridiculous way to discuss any substantive issues about the plan.

[Temperance]

Originally Posted by Ottawan

You do realize that strip malls are never mixed-use, never more than two stories (usually just one, but sometime some light office use above the commercial), always have parking lots between them and the road, and large loading docks at the back?

While some of your criticisms (despite my disagreement with them) are viable, such as the contention that it is inward facing, your analogy to a strip mall is just a ridiculous way to discuss any substantive issues about the plan.

Edited my post because I think you have a point about the language I chose.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Temperance

I do find the design fairly inward-facing. I understand the point that the extension of the grid helps to integrate it into the community. But it does seem like a fairly weak integration. It's true that what is there now isn't great but that doesn't mean we should settle for mediocracy. I guess my point is that if you were designing things from scratch, and you removed the sports issue of bringing the CFL back to Ottawa, I don't think this would be the optimal use for the park. It could definitely be much worse but it could also be much better. When I look at the design I guess I am also realising that I am philosophically opposed to the idea of converting Lansdowne Park into a shopping district. Even if it is a fairly well-designed shopping district.

I understand your point, although I don't think you can separate the sports issue, which is more than just bringing the CFL back to Ottawa, from the question of what to do with Lansdowne Park. These are our major city-owned sports and recreation facilities, and without significant investment in the short term, they will be lost. That use of the site represents a significant puclic interest. I find it hard to argue in the abstract that some other use should trump the existing public interest. It is that rationale that I feel outweighs the argument that public space should not be touched.

As well, to say that the rest of the site is "not great" is a bit of an understatement. The rest of the site is a complete disaster, and has been that way for 40 years. That is almost two generations. To continue to wait for the optimal plan at the expense of multiple generations of citizens is not in the public interest. And if this plan fails, I just don't see the political will to tackle the issue anytime soon. You have to remember that this outcry of pressing public interest only arose once someone took it upon themselves to make a proposal for the site with financing plans. That has to tell you something about the general will of the people to move forward.

All that said, have a look at the Bank St. fascade of the site. It involves a wide promenade with street-level retail. Very outward-facing. In my view, that is an excellent use of the space, as it will serve to tie the designated main street of the Glebe to that in Ottawa South, creating a significant retail service area. It will counteract the damage caused by the massive blank wall of the Glebe Centre. It is also a relatively pain-free means of achieving intensification of the neighbourhood, which is necessary, on a largely unused site. Perhaps the design could be improved, but in essence, that is why I think this is squarely in the interest of the city.

[Ottawan]

Originally Posted by Temperance

Edited my post because I think you have a point about the language I chose.

Thank you! That makes much more sense.

Personally I feel that intensification of this kind must be done where possible because I believe greater density creates vibrancy, and increasing density is much more difficult to do in areas that are already built up. In such places, it requires demolition (which is not only costly, but has a negative impact on maintaining ties to our past).

[rodionx]

Originally Posted by Temperance

I do find the design fairly inward-facing. I understand the point that the extension of the grid helps to integrate it into the community. But it does seem like a fairly weak integration. It's true that what is there now isn't great but that doesn't mean we should settle for mediocracy. I guess my point is that if you were designing things from scratch, and you removed the sports issue of bringing the CFL back to Ottawa, I don't think this would be the optimal use for the park. It could definitely be much worse but it could also be much better. When I look at the design I guess I am also realising that I am philosophically opposed to the idea of converting Lansdowne Park into a shopping district. Even if it is a fairly well-designed shopping district.

One thing that must limit the planners of the commercial and residential section is that their section does have to pay off that stadium. They can't just make it cool and fun; they have to make sure that every square foot earns its keep. In that sense, I tend to agree with you: the "sports issue" limits the design options. The flip side of that, of course, is that we'll get a working downtown stadium out of the deal.

Still, when the main criticism of the plan is that they are building a shopping mall, it was very unwise of them to use an architectural style that's associated with contemporary shopping malls. When I compared it to the Centrum, it was mainly the architecture I was talking about. That glossy, pointlessly angular architecture. At its best it looks like Starfleet Academy. At its worst, it looks like every cineplex on the planet. Not that I'm going to harp on that any more.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by rodionx

One thing that must limit the planners of the commercial and residential section is that their section does have to pay off that stadium. They can't just make it cool and fun; they have to make sure that every square foot earns its keep. In that sense, I tend to agree with you: the "sports issue" limits the design options. The flip side of that, of course, is that we'll get a working downtown stadium out of the deal.

Still, when the main criticism of the plan is that they are building a shopping mall, it was very unwise of them to use an architectural style that's associated with contemporary shopping malls. When I compared it to the Centrum, it was mainly the architecture I was talking about. That glossy, pointlessly angular architecture. At its best it looks like Starfleet Academy. At its worst, it looks like every cineplex on the planet. Not that I'm going to harp on that any more.

I agree with the style comment. I actually envisioned something more traditional with brick pavilions blending into the Bank St. streetwall. I love the idea of the public square, but think it would work better with traditional styling - i.e. a paving stone square surrounded by restuarants etc. I worry that the modern version will be more like Dundas Square in Toronto, which doesn't seem to live up to potential.

However, working backwards, I think that the stadium design probably drove the retail design to make it fit together. And the stadium almost had to be done in that style, given that the glass and steel of the Civic Centre is remaining more or less intact. I also think the designers probably felt that steel and glass worked better with the Aberdeen Pavillion and Horticulture Building. While it's not my preference, it's not a big enough issue to change my mind on the plan.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

I like the layout and the general site plan, especially if the option B park is chosen. However, the architecture, while kinda neat in some areas of the plan, is not what I hoped for. Ideally, I'd like something like this:

[waterloowarrior]

The City's environment, arts/heritage/cultre and pedestrian/transit advisory committees have come out against the project, or at least are recommending major changes/rethinking of certain components


EAC http://www.letsgetitright.ca/images/...20release1.pdf
http://www.letsgetitright.ca/images/...gn%20ideas.pdf

PTAC http://www.letsgetitright.ca/issues/background/30

arts, heritage, culture
http://www.letsgetitright.ca/images/...velopment1.pdf




Ottawa Citizen accused of suspending Designing Ottawa blog's coverage, which was critical of Lansdowne, due to external pressure http://www.letsgetitright.ca/images/...s%20korski.pdf

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by Ottawan

Thank you! That makes much more sense.

Personally I feel that intensification of this kind must be done where possible because I believe greater density creates vibrancy, and increasing density is much more difficult to do in areas that are already built up. In such places, it requires demolition (which is not only costly, but has a negative impact on maintaining ties to our past).

Or you put intensification where it is zoned for just that, the Bayview/Somerset Development Area, and that is on Rapid Transit, and aligns with the Master Plan.

Lansdowne is neither zoned for it, has no rapid transit, and major development at the site falls way outside the boundaries of the Master Plan.

Three strikes and yer* out!

* referring to the plan

[K-133]

What would Google do?

[waterloowarrior]

June 9: Council receives staff reports on LPP (see C below for list of reports)

June 17: Tabling of the Auditor General’s Supplementary Report on accuracy of staff projections and reasonableness of assumptions used; and questions on the Lansdowne Partnership and Implementation Plan and Related Reports

C. Reports to be presented to City Council on June 9 Staff

Main Report entitled LPP Implementation Report
Transportation Studies & Supporting Transportation Demand Management Plans
3rd Party Independent Peer Review of the reports on retail prepared by Tate Economic Research Inc and Market Research Corporation

(from http://www.letsgetitright.ca/events)

[phil235]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Or you put intensification where it is zoned for just that, the Bayview/Somerset Development Area, and that is on Rapid Transit, and aligns with the Master Plan.

Lansdowne is neither zoned for it, has no rapid transit, and major development at the site falls way outside the boundaries of the Master Plan.

Three strikes and yer* out!

* referring to the plan

This kind of comment highlights one of the significant ironies surrounding this issue.

The Glebe is not exempt from intensification simply because it is not on a proposed rapid transit route. Intensification will come to the Glebe one way or another, as it will to every neighbourhood in this city. In reality, the Lansdowne proposal is one of the least painful ways to achieve intensification of the area. By opposing on that basis, opponents are likely to find themselves faced with less desirable intensification schemes in the years to come.

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by phil235

This kind of comment highlights one of the significant ironies surrounding this issue.

The Glebe is not exempt from intensification simply because it is not on a proposed rapid transit route. Intensification will come to the Glebe one way or another, as it will to every neighbourhood in this city. In reality, the Lansdowne proposal is one of the least painful ways to achieve intensification of the area. By opposing on that basis, opponents are likely to find themselves faced with less desirable intensification schemes in the years to come.

Hard to quantify less desirable. Examples are intensification of older structures, converting tenant buildings to condos, converting large home lots to mutli condo lots, there are any number of intensification projects around the Glebe.

The big difference is that they are private developments on private land, not public park (meeting place) land.

It is a question that raises many issues, such as should you proceed with sole sourcing such massive contracts, should the City be a developer of private homes/retail/office, what is the value of public space to the quality of life of the city dwellers, the preservation of heritage and culture, the list goes on.

All of these issues have been raised due to not following basic procurement of competitive bidding, of not following the Master Plan detailing intensification should take place adjacent to LeBreton and rapid transit and by allowing the developers rather than the City to direct growth.

What is less painful? Seeing this plan through and cut a heritage site in two, or developing on a vacant fenced off lot at Bayview already zoned for exactly this type of development tied mix, on rapid transit and fulfilling the Master Plan objectives?

The second option can expand with 5 to 10 times the development space at Bayview/Lebreton and you would decrease the dependence on cars.

The same cannot be said for Lansdowne.

Greater development space at Bayview means greater developer return and greater taxation return for the city with fewer associated costs of underground parking garages, building a new trade show structure, and paying exorbitant amounts for landscaping.

The grief all this is causing has all come about not due to intensification but rather trying to do it in the wrong spot.