Lansdowne 2.0 (Northside Stands/Arena Redevelopment) | Proposed

[bartlebooth]

Originally Posted by RuralCitizen

To allow for the major increase in density, they should implement a tram that would run on Carling, turn onto the Queen Elizabeth Dr., and continue on Elgin.

You would have stations at least at DowsLake/CivicHospital, Bronson, Bank/Lansdowne, and downtown.

We already close the parkways for bikes. I think we can live with removing cars and converting one of the canal parkways for tram. We could enhance the MUPs as part of this project.

This won't happen unfortunately. My understanding is that the NCC is adamantly opposed to the idea. I think we'd sooner see a Bank street LRT tunnel (and for the record, I don't think a Bank street tunnel will happen in my lifetime haha).

[RuralCitizen]

Originally Posted by AR-OTT

Ideally cars would be removed from both sides of the canal. The greenspace surrounding the canal would feel 3 times as big if they removed Queen Elizabeth and Colonel By. Maybe they could add more pedestrian crossings over the canal as well.

I think one would remain for cars as it is the "ceremonial route" from the airport. When dignitaries from other countries arrive to Ottawa, I believe they use this route instead of Bronson. (Don't get me wrong, our street infrastructure shouldn't be built for dignitaries, but for Ottawa people). But it is nice to have a beautiful entry to Ottawa, it is essentially our red carpet entrance. They usually adjust the flags lining the canal to the country of the visiting person.

I don't see why the NCC would be so opposed to a tram along QED, it would be a great touristic/scenic trip for a visitor. Kind of a fast version of the Rideau Canal Cruise tours. Removing cars, would probably reduce the amount of salt used in the winter affecting all the beautiful NCC landscaping. From the tram you could see the Tulip festival.

I think it would make for amazing pictures. Especially if the tram vehicles have an iconic unique look only found in Ottawa. (kind of like the San Francisco iconic pictures of the trams going up the steep hills).

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by bartlebooth

This won't happen unfortunately. My understanding is that the NCC is adamantly opposed to the idea. I think we'd sooner see a Bank street LRT tunnel (and for the record, I don't think a Bank street tunnel will happen in my lifetime haha).

Do you know why? I feel like some of the new senior staff at the NCC would be more amenable to this sort of thing.

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by AR-OTT

Ideally cars would be removed from both sides of the canal. The greenspace surrounding the canal would feel 3 times as big if they removed Queen Elizabeth and Colonel By. Maybe they could add more pedestrian crossings over the canal as well.

Ideally for whom?

[bartlebooth]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

Do you know why? I feel like some of the new senior staff at the NCC would be more amenable to this sort of thing.

Not sure. My good friend was given the news through a city councillor he's in touch with. I know it's quadruple hand news so I should be careful but there's no reason for him to lie about it. And given what I've seen from the NCC over the years, it's not really a shock. I've always hated that the canal is flanked on both sides by expressways and would love to see that change but I just don't see it happening in my lifetime.

[Uhuniau]

The streets surrounding the Austrian Parliament are embedded with tram tracks.

I think if they can make pomp and ceremony and official pageantry work in Vienna, even with tracks in the roads, we can do the same.

There's even w- w- w- wwwwwirrrrrrrrrres!

Vienna.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by bartlebooth

This won't happen unfortunately. My understanding is that the NCC is adamantly opposed to the idea.

Why? I don't see the difference between a tram using Queen Elizabeth Drive or cars. The tram is more easily controlled and dictated...

Originally Posted by bartlebooth

I think we'd sooner see a Bank street LRT tunnel (and for the record, I don't think a Bank street tunnel will happen in my lifetime haha).

With this attitude? Yes. I don't disagree, but Ottawa is never going to have these things if nobody ever pushes for them in the first place.

[bartlebooth]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Why? I don't see the difference between a tram using Queen Elizabeth Drive or cars. The tram is more easily controlled and dictated...



With this attitude? Yes. I don't disagree, but Ottawa is never going to have these things if nobody ever pushes for them in the first place.

Honestly, I don't know why. It makes no sense to me. I'm just sharing what a city councillor said. They believe the NCC would never allow a tram on QED. It's sad but here we are. Not saying it's a bad idea.

And yes, people should push for things like this. I've tried in my own way for many years but this city has a way of wearing people down when it comes to imagining a city outside the status quo. That probably explains my bad attitude, haha.

[Uhuniau]

The Greber vision of the NCC is starting to crumble. The Parkways are getting punctured so people can get back to the river., and that only became a cause celebre, what, a decade ago?

I would classify some sort of transit on that QED route to be "improving access to waterways".

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

The Greber vision of the NCC is starting to crumble. The Parkways are getting punctured so people can get back to the river., and that only became a cause celebre, what, a decade ago?

I would classify some sort of transit on that QED route to be "improving access to waterways".

'starting' to crumble?

[The Conductor]

This plan helps speed up Bank Street O-Train

[DTcrawler]

Originally Posted by RuralCitizen

I think one would remain for cars as it is the "ceremonial route" from the airport. When dignitaries from other countries arrive to Ottawa, I believe they use this route instead of Bronson. (Don't get me wrong, our street infrastructure shouldn't be built for dignitaries, but for Ottawa people). But it is nice to have a beautiful entry to Ottawa, it is essentially our red carpet entrance. They usually adjust the flags lining the canal to the country of the visiting person.

I always found this hilarious. Welcome to Ottawa, let's parade you down this pothole ravaged, decaying roadway so that you're sure to be suffering from CTE by the time you arrive downtown. Oh, you've arrived at night? Great, you can enjoy the gentle ambiance created by the fact that only 50% of street lamps are in working order (with widely varying colour temperatures).

[OTownandDown]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

[B]A vibrant, revamped Lansdowne Park will benefit Ottawa

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/bu...benefit-ottawa

I'm for this development, but these news articles sound *exactly* like the first round of Lansdowne developer marketing. Have we learned nothing?

"Lansdowne is not doing well"
"We'll just build more condos"
"oh, ok!"

[Dzingle Bells]

Originally Posted by bartlebooth

This won't happen unfortunately. My understanding is that the NCC is adamantly opposed to the idea. I think we'd sooner see a Bank street LRT tunnel (and for the record, I don't think a Bank street tunnel will happen in my lifetime haha).

What about making Colonel By one-way going downtown from Bronson to Rideau and QED one-way going south from Laurier to Bronson? I'd vote for complete private vehicle removal as well but this could be more amenable to the NCC? Then use the leftover lane to expand the MUP and create more of a boardwalk along the length of the canal on both sides.

[OTSkyline]

Or keep Colonel By Drive as-is for now (for ceremonial routes and all) but replace the existing Queen Elizabeth Driveway with tram running from Rideau to Carling LRT and then improve Canal access, landscaping and stuff. This should also help appease Glebe residents as a quiet tram with improved Canal access would be much better than the existing busy highspeed parkway.

NCC is already closing the driveway every weekend for half of the year and for the full summer now for walking/biking.. I don't see how this proposal would be such a stretch.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Harley613

'starting' to crumble?

Metaphorically and sociopolitically, I mean; we knew the concrete was garbage years ago.

[Ottawacurious]

This is the webinar that Shawn Menard hosted, now available on Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FztKu8axAQ

They did go through a lot of the questions/areas of concern being posed on here; definitely most people were against the initial idea.
- concern on the financials, concern related to using public taxes collected from the condos to pay for it, etc.
- transportation
- making the green roof walkable
- location of the new civic center encroaching on park space
- how affordable the affordable housing would be. (based on Glebe rates of average market rent)
- types of retail (if we couldn't get boutique last time, how will we get it this time?)
- bidding on air rights for builders - will there be public consultations on the buildings?
- OSEG will not be able to start building by November (too many approvals to go before shovels hit ground)
- A roof for the north stand was budgeted but removed
- The green roof price was priced but found too expensive to make the financials work.
- 700 parking spots: too many. City would prefer to reduce the # as parking costs money rather than makes money for the project.
- not enough new park space based on increased number of ppl (will do a cash in lieu for additional parkland)
- Lansdowne 2.0 sounds like repeat of 1.0. Concern about trust they'll do better in 2.0. ('we have more experience and actual data based on 8 yrs of experience and have learned from it')
- Can the project be put on hold or not lock the next council in on this?
- Aging friendly location. (we are at concept right now, too early: new buildings have new standards related to this)
- Will there be a public competition? (builders will purchasing air rights, then through planning review process)
- How tall are the towers? (29, 34, 40 stories...and yes, taller than anything else in the Glebe. This is all driven by the financials.)
- Tall tower shadows (they won't be a big impact on Holmwood and too early to do actual analysis)
- 5 million visitors were supposed to happen. Only had 4. What went wrong, how will we fix it?
- Too small to fit the Brier (will review w/ OSEG but was planned to do Brier and Grey cup ....{read: it should be fine)
- Process is being rushed and citizens aren't being heard.
- ....and many many more.


I asked if we could get taller buildings including a hotel but....I feel my question was not read/ignored as it probably didn't suit the bias of the meeting. Also, I would like to know why they limited themselves to 1200 units.

[DTcrawler]

Originally Posted by Ottawacurious

This is the webinar that Shawn Menard hosted, now available on Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FztKu8axAQ

They did go through a lot of the questions/areas of concern being posed on here; definitely most people were against the initial idea.
- concern on the financials, concern related to using public taxes collected from the condos to pay for it, etc.
- transportation
- making the green roof walkable
- location of the new civic center encroaching on park space
- how affordable the affordable housing would be. (based on Glebe rates of average market rent)
- types of retail (if we couldn't get boutique last time, how will we get it this time?)
- bidding on air rights for builders - will there be public consultations on the buildings?
- OSEG will not be able to start building by November (too many approvals to go before shovels hit ground)
- A roof for the north stand was budgeted but removed
- The green roof price was priced but found too expensive to make the financials work.
- 700 parking spots: too many. City would prefer to reduce the # as parking costs money rather than makes money for the project.
- not enough new park space based on increased number of ppl (will do a cash in lieu for additional parkland)
- Lansdowne 2.0 sounds like repeat of 1.0. Concern about trust they'll do better in 2.0. ('we have more experience and actual data based on 8 yrs of experience and have learned from it')
- Can the project be put on hold or not lock the next council in on this?
- Aging friendly location. (we are at concept right now, too early: new buildings have new standards related to this)
- Will there be a public competition? (builders will purchasing air rights, then through planning review process)
- How tall are the towers? (29, 34, 40 stories...and yes, taller than anything else in the Glebe. This is all driven by the financials.)
- Tall tower shadows (they won't be a big impact on Holmwood and too early to do actual analysis)
- 5 million visitors were supposed to happen. Only had 4. What went wrong, how will we fix it?
- Too small to fit the Brier (will review w/ OSEG but was planned to do Brier and Grey cup ....{read: it should be fine)
- Process is being rushed and citizens aren't being heard.
- ....and many many more.


I asked if we could get taller buildings including a hotel but....I feel my question was not read/ignored as it probably didn't suit the bias of the meeting. Also, I would like to know why they limited themselves to 1200 units.

Thanks for the summary, and for advocating for non-NIMBYist causes during the session.

Overall, I want this proposal to go ahead and would hate to see it get watered down, or slowed down, to appease Glebites. Do it right or don't do it at all.

If I had to critique any part of the project based on the information we have available now, I'd say I wish the green roof were to be accessible and a roof to be included on the new north side stands. A shame those two options are cost-prohibitive.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by DTcrawler

If I had to critique any part of the project based on the information we have available now, I'd say I wish the green roof were to be accessible and a roof to be included on the new north side stands. A shame those two options are cost-prohibitive.

I think that there will be a green roof, it’s just a question of whether it will be accessible to the public. Given the walkway around the top of the arena, I’m not sure how important it is. The roof on the stadium though, I would rank as very important.

I was down at the stadium tonight. My concern is the encroachment on the park, but there is quite a bit of distance between the end zone and the current peak of the hill, so the encroachment may not be terrible. There is definitely lots of room on the south side, but it remains to be seen how much it will cut into the park by the Aberdeen pavilion. It will be a great idea if they can execute it well.

One thing is obvious is that they need to open the park up to the canal. It’s ridiculous that you could be at the water feature and have no idea that you are 50 metres from the canal. It makes no sense that the park is so separate. By removing the dense thicket in spots, you could more than gain back what you’d lose with the arena. More than that, by extending the urban park to the road, you’d likely have the effect of slowing traffic on the QED.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by phil235

One thing is obvious is that they need to open the park up to the canal. It’s ridiculous that you could be at the water feature and have no idea that you are 50 metres from the canal. It makes no sense that the park is so separate. By removing the dense thicket in spots, you could more than gain back what you’d lose with the arena. More than that, by extending the urban park to the road, you’d likely have the effect of slowing traffic on the QED.

Totally agree. Skated to Whole Foods a few times this winter and crazy how disconnected Landsdowne is even on the busiest Canal skating days. There was one proposal to actually bring the canal into the site. Possibly too expensive and certainly too imaginative for the process then. We could add revenue generation retail (restaurants) and housing to the canal side which I suppose would bring the same shocked and appalled. Meanwhile the most valuable chunk of real estate is used as a parking exit and a decent play structure totally shut off from the canal. They also kept Sylvie Holden Park as if it was some jewel of the Glebe.