Lansdowne Park Redevelopment Phase 1 | Completed

[Ottawan]

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

Or intensification is not something you merely put somewhere, but try to achieve everywhere.

Certainly there needs to be LOTS of intensification at Bayview. It is not either/or.

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by Ottawan

Or intensification is not something you merely put somewhere, but try to achieve everywhere.

Certainly there needs to be LOTS of intensification at Bayview. It is not either/or.

Well we agree on Bayview.

Lansdowne our opinions clearly differ.

[lrt's friend]

I am having a hard time accepting all the arguments against Lansdowne Live.

Why is conducting commercial business at this location so objectionable, when really that was its purpose since Day 1? It was a place to exhibit commercial, industrial and agricultural products. Doesn't Lansdowne Live effectively revive this in a more modern way, especially if we can attract some top notch tenants?

I thought the city's objective was to intensify the city, yet Lansdowne Park is one of the best examples of a site being de-intensified. How many buildings have already been torn down? How many buildings are grossly underutilized? How much of the site has already been eroded and turned into parkland? I have worked with a 1922 aerial photograph of the area for a historical project and there were far more buildings there which were built right to the edge of the canal. This was before the Driveway claimed the shoreline of the canal.

Why are we not respecting the outdoor sporting tradition of the park? There was some sort of grand stand at Frank Clair Stadium going back prior to 1900 and it was used as a race track and no doubt for other sports.

Why are we content to not make the best use of our heritage buildings? The Aberdeen Pavilion is an absolutely stunning building and it is a pity that it remains empty most of the year. The Horticultural Building is left pretty much derelict and as it stands we cannot appreciate its architectural value. We need to showcase these buildings with an important use. Lansdowne Live provides us with this opportunity while other proposals do not.

As far as our transit plan is concerned, I have always been disturbed how our current plan evolved based on cost. Instead of serving priority needs, and Lansdowne Park could be considered one, we chose the routes that could be built at the lowest cost. This is why LRT is being built on the Transitways first and why the Ottawa River Parkway route was recommended. These were the cheapest routes to build although they don't provide the best intensification possibilities and they don't offer the greatest ridership growth opportunities. This is also why we chose to avoid the hospital connection to the east end. It was cheaper to avoid this connection. Does this mean that we should also stop all further development of the General Hospital/CHEO campus?

[McC]

Originally Posted by Ottawan

Or intensification is not something you merely put somewhere, but try to achieve everywhere.

Certainly there needs to be LOTS of intensification at Bayview. It is not either/or.

As posted in the previous thread, there already is a Council-approved plan for the Bayview Yards: http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/plann...oncept_en.html

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by McC

As posted in the previous thread, there already is a Council-approved plan for the Bayview Yards: http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/plann...oncept_en.html

Yes its perfect for the current model, mixed retail, residential, commercial and civic.

Negotiating and participating with the local community there and the City to fill in the Civic portion with a civic facility stadium makes the site completely workable for the current stadium tied development.

Provided there is community participation and most importantly agreement on how it will all work within that area.

[blackjagger]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Yes its perfect for the current model, mixed retail, residential, commercial and civic.

Negotiating and participating with the local community there and the City to fill in the Civic portion with a civic facility stadium makes the site completely workable for the current stadium tied development.

Provided there is community participation and most importantly agreement on how it will all work within that area.

Are we looking at the same approved concept? How would you fit a stadium in the allocated Civic portion of the plan? A stadium would require almost the entire area.

[lrt's friend]

I guess when Bayview is considered so much preferable for a stadium, why would residents in the neighbourhoods surrounding Bayview be any more in favour of it compared to the Glebe? For large events, local streets will still be clogged with traffic and parking will be at a premium. Don't kid yourself, people will use on-street parking if it is closer than Tunney's Pasture. Once Bayview becomes a real possibility, I guarantee that community resistance will escalate. Where does this really lead us?

I have said it here some time ago, the real alternative to Lansdowne is not Bayview, but some location on the fringe of the city where there are minimal number of neighbouring residents objecting.

Toronto was able to build central stadiums and arenas by using surplus railway lands away from residences and by using, oh my, land at the CNE. Heaven forbid that they did such a thing for this purpose. They actually built a soccer stadium at Exhibition 'Park'. Hmmm, and there is no subway to Exhibition Park, just a slow streetcar line. Toronto screwed up as well, I guess.

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by blackjagger

Are we looking at the same approved concept? How would you fit a stadium in the allocated Civic portion of the plan? A stadium would require almost the entire area.

have a look at www.vo-ao.ca and click on English to proceed (regrettably have not had time for the bilingual portion)

The dimensions have all been measured out for a stadium up to 30,000 seats.

The Bayview lot is only a small component to the Bayview/Somerset development area.

See section at same site regarding "Information for Developers" and click the orange button for Open Bid Information.

On the Open Bid Information page look down to the heading "Images"

Hover your mouse over the fourth link and you will see in the viewing the enormous development opportunity there.

A detailed summary of the Bayview Somerset Development Area may be seen higher up the page titled Bayview/Somerset Report.

There is also a sample 20 point "RFP English Printable"

(Don't click on the Complete RFP Book, it is a whopper).

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I guess when Bayview is considered so much preferable for a stadium, why would residents in the neighbourhoods surrounding Bayview be any more in favour of it compared to the Glebe? For large events, local streets will still be clogged with traffic and parking will be at a premium. Don't kid yourself, people will use on-street parking if it is closer than Tunney's Pasture. Once Bayview becomes a real possibility, I guarantee that community resistance will escalate. Where does this really lead us?

I have said it here some time ago, the real alternative to Lansdowne is not Bayview, but some location on the fringe of the city where there are minimal number of neighbouring residents objecting.

Toronto was able to build central stadiums and arenas by using surplus railway lands away from residences and by using, oh my, land at the CNE. Heaven forbid that they did such a thing for this purpose. They actually built a soccer stadium at Exhibition 'Park'. Hmmm, and there is no subway to Exhibition Park, just a slow streetcar line. Toronto screwed up as well, I guess.

You won't have onstreet parking, just drop off, some parking in the development (similar to Rideau ) and VIP/Bus/Emergency parking close by.

The majority of parking will be at Tunney's (4,000 spots) and people will either walk from there, or take a shuttle or take the transitway the one stop.

The vast majority of people will take rapid transit.

The cumulative effect would be to minimize traffic and to not disrupt the community, providing the community is interested.

That won't be known until they are asked and involved.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by jemartin

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.

It is great to speak in generalities, but you and I both know that there has been no significant intensification in the Glebe to speak of in the past 10 years, outside of a couple of small condo buildings on Bank St. In fact, the trend has been towards de-intensification, as the apartment buildings that have burned recently have tended to be replaced with larger houses or townhouses containing fewer, not more units.

In my experience, there is very little appetite for intensification in the Glebe. The arguments being trotted out against Lansdowne Live (traffic, delivery trucks, building height, character of the neighbourhood) are the same old tired arguments that are used against any significant infill project anywhere. I am quite sure that if someone proposed this same type of project on private land in the Glebe, the level of grief would be similar. For proof of that, look at the outcry caused by a noisy air conditioner on a senior's residence. Or the fight that blocked a new pub on Bank St. (If you can't put a pub on Bank, where can you put it?) This is not a neighbourhood that is generally open-minded to new development.

Further, the idea that publicly-owned land should not be used for intensification purposes is simply incorrect. In fact, a huge number of major infill projects around the country were/are to be built on public land. Disused or underutilized public land (and especially land on designated main streets) is instrumental in achieving intensification goals.

As was pointed out before, it is not a question of either Lansdowne or Bayview. It should be both.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by jemartin

You won't have onstreet parking, just drop off, some parking in the development (similar to Rideau ) and VIP/Bus/Emergency parking close by.

The majority of parking will be at Tunney's (4,000 spots) and people will either walk from there, or take a shuttle or take the transitway the one stop.

The vast majority of people will take rapid transit.

The cumulative effect would be to minimize traffic and to not disrupt the community, providing the community is interested.

That won't be known until they are asked and involved.

While I am loath to let you take this discussion down one of your tangents, this is simply untrue. The statements that the "vast majority of people will take rapid transit" and "the cumulative effect will be to minimize traffic" are entirely without basis. Even if the majority take transit, you are introducing a 30,000 seat stadium and hundreds of thousands of square feet of retail into the area. The minority is still a lot of people driving cars. Traffic and parking will get significantly worse, just as at Lansdowne.

Further, do you have any idea whether the 4000 spots at Tunney's are actually available for this purpose? You speak of it like it's a foregone conclusion, but I doubt that the federal government is going to agree to that plan for any number of reasons that I don't think you have considered.

You are glossing over problems at Bayview while nitpicking every aspect of the Lansdowne proposal.

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by phil235

It is great to speak in generalities, but you and I both know that there has been no significant intensification in the Glebe to speak of in the past 10 years, outside of a couple of small condo buildings on Bank St. In fact, the trend has been towards de-intensification, as the apartment buildings that have burned recently have tended to be replaced with larger houses or townhouses containing fewer, not more units.

In my experience, there is very little appetite for intensification in the Glebe. The arguments being trotted out against Lansdowne Live (traffic, delivery trucks, building height, character of the neighbourhood) are the same old tired arguments that are used against any significant infill project anywhere. I am quite sure that if someone proposed this same type of project on private land in the Glebe, the level of grief would be similar. For proof of that, look at the outcry caused by a noisy air conditioner on a senior's residence. Or the fight that blocked a new pub on Bank St. (If you can't put a pub on Bank, where can you put it?) This is not a neighbourhood that is generally open-minded to new development.

Further, the idea that publicly-owned land should not be used for intensification purposes is simply incorrect. In fact, a huge number of major infill projects around the country were/are to be built on public land. Disused or underutilized public land (and especially land on designated main streets) is instrumental in achieving intensification goals.

As was pointed out before, it is not a question of either Lansdowne or Bayview. It should be both.

Bayview yes, as it is an empty vacant public lot zoned for such a proposed development.

Lansdowne no due to its value as an open space for the public, defined as park (see Oxford ) and the historical intent of the land.

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by phil235

While I am loath to let you take this discussion down one of your tangents, this is simply untrue. The statements that the "vast majority of people will take rapid transit" and "the cumulative effect will be to minimize traffic" are entirely without basis. Even if the majority take transit, you are introducing a 30,000 seat stadium and hundreds of thousands of square feet of retail into the area. The minority is still a lot of people driving cars. Traffic and parking will get significantly worse, just as at Lansdowne.

Further, do you have any idea whether the 4000 spots at Tunney's are actually available for this purpose? You speak of it like it's a foregone conclusion, but I doubt that the federal government is going to agree to that plan for any number of reasons that I don't think you have considered.

You are glossing over problems at Bayview while nitpicking every aspect of the Lansdowne proposal.

You are correct, no one has asked the Federal Government if they would want to rent out the 4,000 empty parking spots on game day weekends. Would it be something they might consider? No one will know until they are approached.

On whether or not people would not take their cars, you make it impossible by limiting the spots and promoting additional buses down an existing traffic free transitway and O-Train.

You only have to look at the Rogers Centre in Toronto, a roughly 60,000 seat stadium with 600 spots of parking. Rapid transit and downtown lots.

That the site at Bayview was originally supported by both Mayor O'Brien and Peter Hume would tend to support the viability of directing development under an open competition to that very location.

That Bayview fits the Master Plan also demonstrates the logic.

That Bayview is the number one location by the City of Ottawa Stadium Site location study also re-affirms the choice.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Bayview yes, as it is an empty vacant public lot zoned for such a proposed development.

Lansdowne no due to its value as an open space for the public, defined as park (see Oxford ) and the historical intent of the land.

Value is subjective. Many believe that the stadium is the most valuable use of Lansdowne, rather than an "open space".

You speak often of the "historical intent" of the land. To the best of my knowledge, land does not have intent. So exactly whose intent are you referring to?

[phil235]

Originally Posted by jemartin

You are correct, no one has asked the Federal Government if they would want to rent out the 4,000 empty parking spots on game day weekends. Would it be something they might consider? No one will know until they are approached.

On whether or not people would not take their cars, you make it impossible by limiting the spots and promoting additional buses down an existing traffic free transitway and O-Train.

You only have to look at the Rogers Centre in Toronto, a roughly 60,000 seat stadium with 600 spots of parking. Rapid transit and downtown lots.

That the site at Bayview was originally supported by both Mayor O'Brien and Peter Hume would tend to support the viability of directing development under an open competition to that very location.

That Bayview fits the Master Plan also demonstrates the logic.

That Bayview is the number one location by the City of Ottawa Stadium Site location study also re-affirms the choice.

Believe it or not, I actually agree with your theory - promote transit and do little or nothing for cars. People will adapt. I just think that applies just as well to Lansdowne. If transit access is truly a priority, implement strong transit priority on the Driveway, Colonel By and Bank St before and after events. It reallly isn't an insurmountable task to get people the 10 or 12 blocks to the various transitway stations. That way you force people to take transit or walk to the site and crowds will naturally disperse through available routes.

Re Skydome, contrary to popular belief, it is not actually right on rapid transit. I haven't mapped it out, but I did that walk for some time. It is a considerable distance between the stadium and Union station, involving many grade changes. Further, Union station has been woefully inadquate for such crowds, and only now is being upgraded, 20 years after the fact.

[jemartin]

Originally Posted by phil235

Value is subjective. Many believe that the stadium is the most valuable use of Lansdowne, rather than an "open space".

You speak often of the "historical intent" of the land. To the best of my knowledge, land does not have intent. So exactly whose intent are you referring to?

Not sure how you equate an unusable stadium to an asset, and no financial reward sufficient to recoup investment, and certainly no guaranteed tenant.

New stadium construction is 70% the cost of what they are proposing.

Of course land can have an intent. National Parks, public squares, recreation areas, leisure, business, residential ( of course all subsequent to the non ownership of the original native population, though they too would have had some intent to areas, such as hunting areas, sacred places, and areas good for dwelling ).

The creation of the space at Lansdowne has an undisputed precedent as a public park or public meeting place (also the definition of park).

[phil235]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Not sure how you equate an unusable stadium to an asset, and no financial reward sufficient to recoup investment, and certainly no guaranteed tenant.

New stadium construction is 70% the cost of what they are proposing.

Of course land can have an intent. National Parks, public squares, recreation areas, leisure, business, residential ( of course all subsequent to the non ownership of the original native population, though they too would have had some intent to areas, such as hunting areas, sacred places, and areas good for dwelling ).

The creation of the space at Lansdowne has an undisputed precedent as a public park or public meeting place (also the definition of park).

Really, land can have an intent? How do you know its intent then? Did you ask it?

I think most people would recognize that land only has the intent that someone has ascribed to it. In the case of Lansdowne, there are many different groups who have had many different intents for that parcel of land. Perhaps the most consistent intent for the site over the years has been the stadium. It is for that reason that you can't seriously claim that Lansdowne has an intent that excludes a stadium. It just isn't factual from a historical perspective. You are confusing your own intent with the intent of the land.

[McC]

Originally Posted by jemartin

Bayview yes, as it is an empty vacant public lot zoned for such a proposed development.

Lansdowne no due to its value as an open space for the public, defined as park (see Oxford ) and the historical intent of the land.

No, the approved plan for Bayview is not "such a proposed development" it is this: http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/plann...ed_concept.jpg

Now please jemartin, keep your Bayview fantasies on the other thread where they belong.

[Luker]

Originally Posted by phil235

Really, land can have an intent? How do you know its intent then? Did you ask it?

I think most people would recognize that land only has the intent that someone has ascribed to it. In the case of Lansdowne, there are many different groups who have had many different intents for that parcel of land. Perhaps the most consistent intent for the site over the years has been the stadium. It is for that reason that you can't seriously claim that Lansdowne has an intent that excludes a stadium. It just isn't factual from a historical perspective. You are confusing your own intent with the intent of the land.

Hahahahaa! As long as JEMartin is able and willing to be embarrassed and reprimanded for his illogical, self-serving/motivating, inconclusive, rhetoric of twisted lies, I will be here to laugh at his simplicity and misfortune.

Please, don’t stop with your self serving egotistical irrelevant (minus you) rants. Thanks and ps, you and your self serving Glebe NIMBY “Douche sac” (Pardon my French heh), can learn what proper city building and intensification looks like through a multi consulted process, and an international design tender process. K thanks, sincerely your local teenager student

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Luker

Hahahahaa! As long as JEMartin is able and willing to be embarrassed and reprimanded for his illogical, self-serving/motivating, inconclusive, rhetoric of twisted lies, I will be here to laugh at his simplicity and misfortune.

Please, don’t stop with your self serving egotistical irrelevant (minus you) rants. Thanks and ps, you and your self serving Glebe NIMBY “Douche sac” (Pardon my French heh), can learn what proper city building and intensification looks like through a multi consulted process, and an international design tender process. K thanks, sincerely your local teenager student

Careful now, you might hurt his feelings like I did.

P.S. Excellent arguments against the Bayview and Lansdowne "proposals" submitted by our dear jemartin. I also love how not that many people stop to think about what residents in the west end think about this idea to put a stadium in their neighbourhood where one hasn't existed before, whereas it SHOULD be a non-issue at Lansdowne.