Lansdowne 2.0 (Northside Stands/Arena Redevelopment) | Proposed

[rocketphish]

Finance committee recommends $332M 'Lansdowne 2.0' plan to council

Jon Willing, Ottawa Citizen
May 06, 2022 • 4 hours ago • 3 minute read



People suspicious of a $332.6-million redevelopment proposal for Lansdowne Park accused the city on Friday of replicating a lacklustre model from the first project and called on council to widely consult the public before endorsing the plan.

But, after listening to about 30 presentations from both enthusiastic and protesting delegates during a meeting lasting more than eight hours, the finance and economic development committee unanimously endorsed a staff-recommended strategy to pursue a new event centre arena and north-side stands, partly paid by revenue from a high-rise development on the site.

Council will be asked to ratify the committee’s Lansdowne 2.0 decision on May 25.

The finance committee is the easier approval for Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group, the city and the partnership’s supporters; when it comes to Lansdowne, most of the skepticism on council has come from non-committee members.

Just like the first redevelopment of Lansdowne, there’s plenty of apprehension in the city, especially in communities around the site, about a revised public-private partnership that city staff say would be a good financial deal for property taxpayers.

Skeptics argued they haven’t seen Lansdowne fulfill the vision of the first redevelopment under the partnership.

“I’m reminded of the Taylor Swift song that says, ‘I think I’ve seen that film before,'” said June Creelman, who helped lead the Friends of Lansdowne group that fought the city/OSEG partnership in court more than 10 years ago.

“The ending was certainly not what was promised last time,” Creelman said.

“We are doubling down on a failing strategy,” Neil Saravanamuttoo said during his deputation.

One problem identified by speakers is the proposed 1,200 new homes in high rises that could be taller than 40 storeys, but on a property not served directly by rapid transit. The city hasn’t yet advanced detailed planning arguments other than that the site could use more homes and that 1,200 units would supply the property taxes needed to fund the Lansdowne 2.0 project.

The city would need to borrow $275.5 million and make $13.8 million in annual principal and interest payments for 40 years to help pay for the new sports facilities and part of a new retail component. The city would count on the future property taxes, sale of residential development “air rights” and ticket surcharges to pay off the debt.

If council votes to move ahead with Lansdowne 2.0, the city plans to spend $8 million on pre-construction work, including running a competition for air rights and working on planning approvals.

All three community associations closest to Lansdowne said the city should slow down and re-examine a financial Hail Mary.

Supporters, however, said council shouldn’t set up a block in front of Lansdowne 2.0.

Voicing support for city’s recommendations were Glebe BIA executive director Patrick Burke, Ottawa Board of Trade president and CEO Sueling Ching, Ottawa Tourism president and CEO Michael Crockatt and Canadian Football League commissioner Randy Ambrosie.

Jon Sinden, who moved to Old Ottawa South from Toronto with his family three years ago, told the committee about how Lansdowne had enriched his family’s lives in their short time living in Ottawa through concerts and sporting events. Sinden urged councillors to endorse Lansdowne 2.0.

OSEG managing partner Roger Greenberg said the first Lansdowne redevelopment should have replaced all the sports facilities and built more homes.

“We’re 10 years smarter and we’re trying to address the two glaring weaknesses that are left in the situation,” Greenberg said.

Coun. Shawn Menard, who represents the Lansdowne area, was angry that no one on the committee would move his motion to the table for discussion on his behalf, calling committee members’ behaviour “shameful.” He wanted to recommend launching a public consultation before committing the city to the next step in Lansdowne 2.0.

Menard, who’s not a member of the committee, will get an opportunity to present motions during the next city council meeting.

“We were on a really good path, then we ignored what we said what we were going to do,” Menard said of the consultations.

City manager Steve Kanellakos said public consultations wouldn’t have been practical without having a proposal to share. “Implicit in the next steps is public consultation,” Kanellakos said.

The next city council will get the final say in 2023 on whether to go through with Lansdowne 2.0.

Mayor Jim Watson defended the city’s approach, saying blue-sky exercises didn’t lead to financially realistic projects.

Watson, who’s not running for re-election, said he believed most people liked what the city and OSEG had done at Lansdowne so far. He acknowledged many people’s suggestion that the proposed Lansdowne redevelopment should be an election issue.

“I really hope it is,” Watson said.

jwilling@postmedia.com
twitter.com/JonathanWilling

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...lan-to-council

[kwoldtimer]

What would OSEG's financial commitment be wrt the sports facilities and retail component?

[J.OT13]

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.

I'll touch on a few of those.

Having the mixed-use area finance Lansdowne only takes away tax revenue to maintain infrastructure, improve transit, bolster local city provided amenities to serve the new residents.

Transit sucks in the area outside of game days and I don't see that improving, because the perfectly functional Transitways and bus lanes to suburbs HAVE to be converted, according to the City.

Not only will no new green space be added to serve these new residents, but green space will be lost by building the arena a the east end of the field. Should we make that roof usable greenspace, that would mitigate the issue significantly.

What they call "affordable housing" nowadays is a joke. Maybe its time to have some social housing in the Glebe. Instead of having concentrations of social housing all over the City, it might be best to spread it out.

Roof of the north side stands would be nice, but not necessary. We have plenty of stadiums in Canada with no or limited roof lines. Maybe they could build the stadium in a way as to no preclude the possibility of adding one in the future.

As for the limit of 1,200 units, that was explained in the City report. From the article posted by rocketphish April 29th:

There’s also one important caveat included in the report. The water infrastructure can handle the redevelopment, “however, there are some limitations to the wastewater and stormwater capacity that could impact the air rights,” the report says.

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...6&postcount=79

I'm not against the project, and I don't think it should be delayed for too long, but there are some legitimate questions that need to be answered. We can't scream "NIMBY!!" because people aren't willing to sign on the dotted line before reading the fine print. The proposal overall seems to have received a warmer reception from locals and the Councillor than what I expected honestly.

[YOWetal]

The opaque structure makes it hard to see how much the city is actually spending. Borrowing $240 million is really excessive IMHO for CFL and a few small parks and a farmers market. I assume much of this is complicated waterfall funds and we will get some back but it's hard to peel back the finances. An NHL team would certainly bring more benefit to Ottawa and I am not sure the poor finances of owning a CFL team vs NHL is how we should allocate funds.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

The opaque structure makes it hard to see how much the city is actually spending. Borrowing $240 million is really excessive IMHO for CFL and a few small parks and a farmers market. I assume much of this is complicated waterfall funds and we will get some back but it's hard to peel back the finances. An NHL team would certainly bring more benefit to Ottawa and I am not sure the poor finances of owning a CFL team vs NHL is how we should allocate funds.

To be fair, the Lansdowne facilities are not just for the CFL - they also host OHL hockey, basketball and soccer( and possibly rugby). The total attendance still probably wouldn’t match the Sens, but it’s a big number using the facilities, and at a price point that makes it more accessible to a broader range of people.

[rocketphish]

The new Lansdowne is an investment, not an expense
It's critical that we build a city that brings people together, with attractive destinations, major events and strong public infrastructure. Lansdowne 2.0 can be part of that.

Mark Sutcliffe, Ottawa Citizen
May 10, 2022 • 14 hours ago • 3 minute read

Why are we in Ottawa so reluctant to invest in our community? We strive to be a big city, but often our thinking is too small.

Consistently, federal and municipal governments have been reluctant to spend money maintaining important properties in the capital. The prime minister’s residence was allowed to become unliveable and, seven years after the last occupant moved out, there’s still no plan to repair or replace it. The Supreme Court building was assessed to be in critical condition more than five years ago, but a restoration won’t begin until next year (the U.S. is not the only place where the Supreme Court has leaks). And Lansdowne Park was falling apart until a major upgrade a decade ago.

This is partly a function of leadership, but all of us are to blame. If politicians didn’t worry about a public backlash over significant long-term investments, they wouldn’t be so hesitant to approve them.

The first Lansdowne redevelopment project is an example of how difficult it is to think long-term and do things properly. For years, the site was a giant parking lot with a crumbling stadium and not much activity, with rising maintenance and repair costs. But even a strong proposal to restore and improve the site was a hard sell at city council and the solution was only partial. Only the worst parts, including the south-side stands, were fixed, with a mere patchwork for the aging north-side seating and the arena underneath it.

The new Lansdowne isn’t perfect, but it’s a huge improvement over what was there before. Yet the proposal had to be justified with some mathematical gymnastics, using future tax revenues to offset the city’s investment. It’s a silly way to approach funding important public infrastructure. No money is free. If you could justify city dollars being spent on anything that would produce additional future tax revenue, then the city should chip in toward the cost of expanding my home, since I’ll pay more taxes over the next few years on a more valuable property.

The new Lansdowne 2.0 proposal uses the same rationale. But rather than expect a cost-neutral model, we should change our thinking. This project is an investment, not an expense. Lansdowne Park is a community asset, not a liability. It’s owned and used by the people of Ottawa. The true measure of its success isn’t how much tax revenue it produces, but how many people use it over the next few decades, and how it contributes to a better way of life for residents.

It’s especially important right now, when people are more mobile than ever. Many Ottawa businesses are finding it hard to hire new employees, in part because local workers are being recruited by companies all over the continent. In a time when people can work remotely, where you work and where you live can be separate decisions. So it’s critical that we build a city that brings people together, with attractive destinations, major events and strong public infrastructure.

We hear increasingly about the shortage economy, but we should make sure the biggest shortage isn’t one of imagination. Think about the prospect of a further improved Lansdowne Park, exciting new attractions on LeBreton Flats, expanded public transit, a new downtown public library, and a world-class hospital near Dow’s Lake. Will there be stumbling blocks and occasional cost overruns with some of these major projects? Of course. But that doesn’t mean in the long run they won’t generate significant benefits to the community.

Instead of trying to make the numbers on the Lansdowne 2.0 proposal work based on future tax revenue, let’s embrace the project for what it is: a worthwhile investment in important public infrastructure that will benefit the community for decades, an asset that will make Ottawa a better place to live and will help build the local economy. And let’s not allow short-term thinking to hold us back from building an appealing city with many attractions.

Mark Sutcliffe is a longtime Ottawa entrepreneur, writer, broadcaster, and podcaster. He hosts the Digging Deep podcast, a business coach and adviser, and is a chair with TEC Canada. His column appears every two weeks.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...not-an-expense

[rocketphish]

Like it or not, Ottawa, we're stuck with Lansdowne 2.0
Was turning Lansdowne, a prized public space, into a mall the best Ottawa could do? We couldn’t think of other options?

Mohammed Adam, Ottawa Citizen
May 12, 2022 • 12 hours ago • 3 minute read

When Ottawa council meets in two weeks to discuss so-called Lansdowne 2.0, the right decision would be to put the proposal on hold and let the next city government handle it. But it won’t happen. This lame-duck council will approve the $332-million proposal and present the next one with a fait accompli.

There is no turning back on Lansdowne. It is a burden taxpayers will continue to shoulder. That’s the bargain the city made when it sole-sourced the redevelopment to the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG).

The first Lansdowne plan, buttressed by the “waterfall’ financial scheme, was supposed to be self-financing. In fact, the city said it would make money — until it didn’t. Barely six years into a 30-year deal, OSEG was back asking for a redo. The city obliged. The plan was extended for another 10 years to 2054. The math changed, and the money the city was supposed to make from the deal disappeared into thin air.

You’d think city hall would learn its lesson, but obviously not. The city and OSEG are back with Lansdowne 2.0, which, based on the same magical mathematics, would be self-financing. Believe it if you will, but history says not.

The OSEG plan includes the construction of new north stands, an additional 1,200 residential units and a downsized arena. To pay for the project, the city would borrow $275 million and fork out $13.8 million annually in principal and interest payments for 40 years. The city has already spent more than $200 million on Lansdowne. It is now banking on the sale of residential development, property taxes that are normally used to pay for services, and air rights to pay off the debt.

Of course, the Canadian Football League, the Ottawa Board of Trade and assorted businesses love the proposal. What’s not to love when public money is being poured into private enterprise? But if you are a long-suffering taxpayer, you have to wonder what’s in this for you.

Many say the redeveloped Lansdowne is better than the asphalt wasteland it used to be, but that’s not saying much. The real question about Lansdowne is whether turning a prized public space into a mall is the best Ottawa could do. We couldn’t think of other options?

Lansdowne redevelopment, in truth, is a reflection of the city’s ambition when it comes to capital building. For Ottawa, it’s not about scaling dizzying heights or excellence. Our philosophy is always “something is better than nothing,” so we settle for less. That’s how LeBreton Flats has become a campus of banal buildings. It is why we settled for a mundane condo building on the old Daly site in the heart of downtown, instead of doing something memorable. And it is why we went for a mall at Lansdowne Park. Instead of an asphalt wasteland, now we have a mall. Something is better than nothing.

So, now we have it, and we are stuck with it.

Even if you believe the new plan is good for the capital, the speed with which the city is pushing it through should make you wonder: why the rush? City politicians are going full speed to approve the plan because they want to lock it in. This council is being asked to approve the OSEG plan’s core elements — the business case, the financial plan and the housing component — and a budget to get things rolling. If Lansdowne 2.0 is only a concept plan, why is the city asking for $8 million now to spend on planning studies and other processes? Once council approves the proposal, it is cast in stone. There will be no going back.

Sure, the next council can reject the proposal, but at what cost to the city? Two years ago, senior officials warned that if council rejected OSEG’s bailout, the group could simply abandon Lansdowne, saddling the city with millions of dollars in costs. Needless to say, OSEG prevailed.

Now, the stakes are even higher. Like it or not, good or bad, we are stuck with OSEG’s Lansdowne.

Mohammed Adam is an Ottawa journalist and commentator. Reach him at nylamiles48@gemail.com

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/ad...-lansdowne-2-0

[AuxTown]

This article is ridiculous. Lansdowne on a nice day like today is THE MOST vibrant spot in the city. Yes there are restaurants and retail but the public spaces, while maybe not world-class, are the nicest in the city and extremely pedestrian friendly. The park is beautiful and well-used and the stadium design only adds to the atmosphere along Bank Street and the canal. We are in a city of 1M not 10M so we need to stop comparing to places like Central Park etc. Like many others on this forum, I wish we had a Bank St subway, but transit actually does a pretty good job getting people to and from the site, particularly on game days. This article is exactly the reason we are still debating Lebreton after decades of failed discussions and plans. For once in the bleak history of this "city that fun forgot" developers and city staff are working together and the outcome has been surprisingly....FUN.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by AuxTown

This article is ridiculous. Lansdowne on a nice day like today is THE MOST vibrant spot in the city. Yes there are restaurants and retail but the public spaces, while maybe not world-class, are the nicest in the city and extremely pedestrian friendly. The park is beautiful and well-used and the stadium design only adds to the atmosphere along Bank Street and the canal. We are in a city of 1M not 10M so we need to stop comparing to places like Central Park etc. Like many others on this forum, I wish we had a Bank St subway, but transit actually does a pretty good job getting people to and from the site, particularly on game days. This article is exactly the reason we are still debating Lebreton after decades of failed discussions and plans. For once in the bleak history of this "city that fun forgot" developers and city staff are working together and the outcome has been surprisingly....FUN.

Agreed, this just trots out the same old arguments that Lansdowne is somehow a "mall" (I guess he missed the stadium, arena, market, park, festivals, bball courts, playgrounds etc.) and that it isn't as good as some vaguely-defined something else that it could have been. If anything, the bland part of the design was the result of too much process, consultation and compromise.

None of the people making this argument remotely touch on how the vibrancy of the city would be impacted if it didn't have the Redblacks/67s/Atletico/Blackjacks, which would have almost certainly been the case, or a central movie theatre, or a proper festival spot etc.

I honestly think that most of the people complaining don't actually go to Lansdowne. Sure, it's visitor numbers didn't match certain projections, but they are still huge, it's mostly busy with people, and its busy-ness is trending upwards with the improvements that have been made. It's also a bit arrogant to dismiss that outright because you think that some other use would have been better.

[originalmuffins]

What a useless and ridiculous article. Absolutely baffling viewpoint.

Of course the city needs to spend money to make planned areas and developments prosper and modernize. Are these NIMBYs really proud that Lansdowne used to be a concrete wasteland in the heart of the city?

I bet they love the fact that LeBreton is just barren land with nothing to show for it. How can our city grow without identifying improvements that need to be implemented. They expect the city to run opposite to how successful organizations run. The key to success for our city is exactly that, which is to review, access, and put in efforts to improve areas of the city. The city has had improper planning, yet we are seeing progress in some areas at least.

What a joke of an article, the writer should be ashamed as with other ones trying to garner support against it.

[kevinbottawa]

That's a very Ken Gray, Friends of Lansdowne-esque article. I feel like I just went into a time machine.

[J.OT13]

Lansdowne is not quite as great as what was promised, but it is miles better. I too don't understand those who continue to argue that we could have done better, without actually making any suggestions (other than a park, which would likely only be used by locals in the Glebe, and maybe Old Ottawa East ad South).

And in defense of 700 Sussex, the ground floor was well designed and very lively 6+months of the year. Had we built some major destination in a place surround by other destinations in a nightmare intersections, traffic jams would have been far worse. I actually think the NCC made the right call here. It may even be better than the overly huge Daly Building.

[jchamoun79]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Like it or not, Ottawa, we're stuck with Lansdowne 2.0
Was turning Lansdowne, a prized public space, into a mall the best Ottawa could do? We couldn’t think of other options?

Mohammed Adam, Ottawa Citizen
May 12, 2022 • 12 hours ago • 3 minute read

What a horrible take.

Lansdowne is prized public space BECAUSE of the redevelopment a decade ago. It's not perfect, but it's fun, vibrant and vastly better than what was there before - and a million times nicer.

As others have said, this article is ridiculous. It fixates on the retail aspect and rehashes disproven Friends of Lansdowne nonsense, while ignoring all of the other uses and amenities of the Park.

The "It's a mall!!" crowd are either being intentionally dishonest, or they have never set foot in Lansdowne since it reopened in 2014.

[originalmuffins]

Glad we're all on the same page. 2.0 definitely needs some improvements in some areas, but adding in that height and density (1200 units) is very key to making Lansdowne livelier than ever.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by AuxTown

This article is ridiculous. Lansdowne on a nice day like today is THE MOST vibrant spot in the city. Yes there are restaurants and retail but the public spaces, while maybe not world-class, are the nicest in the city and extremely pedestrian friendly. The park is beautiful and well-used and the stadium design only adds to the atmosphere along Bank Street and the canal. We are in a city of 1M not 10M so we need to stop comparing to places like Central Park etc. Like many others on this forum, I wish we had a Bank St subway, but transit actually does a pretty good job getting people to and from the site, particularly on game days. This article is exactly the reason we are still debating Lebreton after decades of failed discussions and plans. For once in the bleak history of this "city that fun forgot" developers and city staff are working together and the outcome has been surprisingly....FUN.

I also disagree with the article and given many constraints including dealing with the anti-capitalist crowd like save Lansdowne, agree it was near the best we could have done. That said, the public spaces are certainly not the best and most pedestrian friendly in the city as low a bar the latter is. It is a shopping mall with a nice residential district. This was necessary to pay for a stadium and Arena but let's not kid ourselves we built anything world class. Better than before isn't really good enough. Also as a city of 1 million a lot of the retail and especially restaurant success has come at the expense of other destinations. The Byward market had a long list of problems but the opening of Lansdowne did seem to be a turning point. I guess I don't know where we go from here either.

[mykl]

How could Lansdowne even be considered a mall? I can only count 5 or 6 stores that are for purchasing groceries or consumer goods. everything else is a restaurant or service. (plus the theatre, school, and offices).

[phil235]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I also disagree with the article and given many constraints including dealing with the anti-capitalist crowd like save Lansdowne, agree it was near the best we could have done. That said, the public spaces are certainly not the best and most pedestrian friendly in the city as low a bar the latter is. It is a shopping mall with a nice residential district. This was necessary to pay for a stadium and Arena but let's not kid ourselves we built anything world class. Better than before isn't really good enough. Also as a city of 1 million a lot of the retail and especially restaurant success has come at the expense of other destinations. The Byward market had a long list of problems but the opening of Lansdowne did seem to be a turning point. I guess I don't know where we go from here either.

I agree that it isn’t as pedestrian-friendly as it should be, but that has improved considerably since they re-worked the square.

As for the comment on the Market, not sure I’be heard that one before. Could the 10 or so restaurants in Lansdowne really have that big of an an impact on the Market? Surely a city of a million people can support a few different restaurant areas.

My sense is that the Market struggled through the pandemic, but there’s also been a bunch of private sector investment lately. (I know that when I went for brunch a couple of weeks back, everywhere was packed.) With all of the condos and hotels going up, I can’t really see how it could be characterized as being in any real decline or to link that to Lansdowne.

[OTSkyline]

Anyone who visited the Market last year when Patios were open, weather was half decent and the pilot of closing some streets to vehicular traffic can attest it was packed and not struggling as one would suggest.

If the market is experiencing a slowdown it's because we're not doing enough to keep is clean, safe and lively. It's sort of just been existing for a while, any type of pilot of "parkade/market building" seem to take years and years of consultations, so little gets done...

[originalmuffins]

I don't think revitalizing Lansdowne took away from Byward, all it means is that Byward needs to be kept clean and kept up to current standards. We can't just leave it as a dumping ground as it holds a strong identity for our city, and that means making people want to go there because there are places to go and places to spend time leisurely.

Either way, any slowdowns Byward has had, were probably due to COVID. Ottawa is big enough to support multiple hotspots of activity especially when you consider we have another 400k people in Gatineau that cross all the time. NCR is close to 1.5 million, it's a collective metro area even if we do have a provincial line between them.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

Anyone who visited the Market last year when Patios were open, weather was half decent and the pilot of closing some streets to vehicular traffic can attest it was packed and not struggling as one would suggest.

If the market is experiencing a slowdown it's because we're not doing enough to keep is clean, safe and lively. It's sort of just been existing for a while, any type of pilot of "parkade/market building" seem to take years and years of consultations, so little gets done...

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear in my comment. I was more referring to it struggling during the winter when restrictions were in place. It's definitely been hopping during the good weather. I'd also note that the rebuild of the square in front of the market has been a big success, as has the closure of William St. - it is constantly full of people. We need public investment in those types of things to match the private investment.

I actually think that there has been a bit of a change in culture in Ottawa - public spaces like those ones are becoming more popular. I think it bodes well for improvement of the public spaces at Lansdowne.