Lansdowne Park Redevelopment Phase 1 | Completed

[lrt's friend]

Why not 2018, like the LRT plan? Let's have the big party with the city in total turmoil. Let's face it, the 2017 party will have to be curtailed because the transit system will not be able handle a big crowd downtown with the Transitways closed and LRT not yet operational.

By the way, did everybody notice how awful the downtown Christmas light display was this year? A sign of Conservative austerity and their hatred for the city of Ottawa. The Southway Inn (Bank and Hunt Club) has a better display and they keep it on until after Winterlude is over.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by JFFournier

What they mean is simply: Blow up this plan and let's make it a project to get a better one ready to open in 2017. In other words, these folks who constantly claim to want to renovate the park are asking that we take another five years to do it.

Isn't that Ottawa's unofficial motto - "Why do something now when we might be able to do something else five years from now?"

[JFFournier]

Originally Posted by LeadingEdgeBoomer

I guess it can not be avoided seeing as he gets to be on the planning committee because he is the ward councilor.

Ah, I know, but there were about a half dozen other people involved in this and I haven't heard a thing from any of them. If he's the only to speak, I'd just as soon not hear it.

for example, today on CFRA:

======
Capital Ward Councillor David Chernushenko remains "unconvinced" the proposed redevelopment of Lansdowne Park will be the right one.

As the City and the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group continue working on the updated plan for the project, Chernushenko says there are "several fundamental concerns."

Chernushenko writes on his website that traffic demand management measures are "inadequate" to accommodate daily traffic and parking requirements, let alone special event parking. He says Lansdowne Park as a pioneering pedestrian-only precinct will not be realized and the plans narrow the views of the Aberdeen Pavilion.

Chernushenko is a member of the Lansdowne Design Review Panel working on the design, landscape and architectural plans for the redevelopment.

The Capital Ward Councillor does say there has been progress made on public transportation, the design of many retail buildings and improvements to the urban park.

But Chernushenko says the redevelopment is plagued by one fundamental problem: "This is the wrong place for a new major stadium and such a concentration of retail activity."
======

Oh yes, please, let's go down THAT road again.

[JFFournier]

Ah-ha!

OTTAWA — The release of new drawings showing updated plans for Lansdowne Park is now scheduled for Tuesday morning, according to multiple sources.

No formal announcement has been made, but Capital Councillor David Chernushenko told the Citizen the public session would be within the next two weeks, sometime before a meeting of city council’s finance committee on Feb. 16.

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Lansdow...#ixzz1ld15gmNj

[phil235]

Originally Posted by JFFournier

Ah, I know, but there were about a half dozen other people involved in this and I haven't heard a thing from any of them. If he's the only to speak, I'd just as soon not hear it.

for example, today on CFRA:

======
Capital Ward Councillor David Chernushenko remains "unconvinced" the proposed redevelopment of Lansdowne Park will be the right one.

As the City and the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group continue working on the updated plan for the project, Chernushenko says there are "several fundamental concerns."

Chernushenko writes on his website that traffic demand management measures are "inadequate" to accommodate daily traffic and parking requirements, let alone special event parking. He says Lansdowne Park as a pioneering pedestrian-only precinct will not be realized and the plans narrow the views of the Aberdeen Pavilion.

Chernushenko is a member of the Lansdowne Design Review Panel working on the design, landscape and architectural plans for the redevelopment.

The Capital Ward Councillor does say there has been progress made on public transportation, the design of many retail buildings and improvements to the urban park.

But Chernushenko says the redevelopment is plagued by one fundamental problem: "This is the wrong place for a new major stadium and such a concentration of retail activity."
======

Oh yes, please, let's go down THAT road again.

In fairness to Chernushenko, I heard him speak at a GCA meeting recently. When one woman made a speech about the Glebe being robbed of parkland (because Lansdowne is designated a park), Chernushenko quite forcefully shut her down, saying that "some people would argue that turning 20 acres of asphalt into an urban park is increasing the amount of parkland, not decreasing it".

Though I do wish they'd quit rehashing the great stadium debate.

[umbria27]

Originally Posted by S-Man

Maybe he fell down the stairs....

The render for the site above is amazing in the amount of precious 'greenness' so loved by Ottawans. Also amazing it's still being fought by Glebites solely becaue it's not 100% green (ie - 100% useless - a local park).

I've had to talk to people like O Town Hockey describes; they start out making themselves sound selfless and ethically superior, but ultimately their motives are completely petty and self-serving.

Can we please ignore this straw man of the "100% useless - a local park"? I know that some people think it's the secret agenda of all critics but since it's not going to happen, how about we discuss the actual design or the points raised by the counselor:

- Promoting mature trees along the boulevards. If the intention is to replicate the neighboring street scapes, that makes sense. It's all well and good to say the 600 x 400 pixel render looks green enough, but we all know that render does not equeal reality. Sounds like a valid (and solvable) concern to me
- Ducting the car park so that it doesn't vent into the outdoor market. Valid concern - I'd rather not have extra carbon monoxide with my salad
- Narrowing the views of the Aberdeen Pavillion - I thought that Heritage Ontario actually had easements on these views. Isn't encroaching on them inviting another lawsuit?
-As for the day-to-day traffic concerns. They've been done to death. People will be able to reach the place or not. Some people may get stuck in traffic on Bank for 20 minutes and either decide never to come back or to park and walk next time. If Minto or Trinity aren't concerned for their tenants, I'm not going to argue

[lrt's friend]

We have a big, big problem in this city concerning public transit and this all ties in with the Lansdowne issue. If you want people to use transit, it has to be sufficiently convenient. If you want to encourage people to not drive to Lansdowne especially for major events, then more service must be provided and the service must not involve most people having to transfer multiple times. In years gone by, there used to be buses from all parts of the city that would run to Lansdowne for football games. In more recent years, this was reduced to just supplemental buses on Route 1 and 7. So, we provide the bare minimum in service and you get the bare minimum in results.

But the underlying issue is also the funding of OC Transpo and how many people get discount fares or don't pay at all. If we want to encourage ridership, and grow ridership, there must be a scenario where each new passenger does not cost the taxpayer money. In other words, when buses are sufficiently full, they must start generating a profit.

I have commented before about the Unipass being underpriced. I have also commented that people living outside the Greenbelt should pay more to come into the city. Also, offering free service to seniors, which is a growing segment of our population is not sustainable. We cannot continue to make effectively political decisions that undermine the financial sustainability of OC Transpo and to create a situation where there is a disincentive to provide increased service because the average fare just puts too much burden on the taxpayer. When we do this, and we cannot generate a profit even with crush loaded buses, we will have to continue to cut off-peak service to maintain control over expenses. I feel this is highly undesirable to continue to cut off-peak service if we want intensification of the city to succeed.

Getting back to Lansdowne issue itself, I do not know how relocation of the stadium can be done in a timely manner or without costing the city more money. I also question whether transit will be able to handle crowds any better than the current location. Even Bayview is awkward to access from many parts of the city and we cannot expect most people to use transit. Even then, the LRT project will actually make it more difficult to access Bayview for the forseeable future as direct service to many parts of the city is eliminated.

[JFFournier]

Originally Posted by phil235

In fairness to Chernushenko, I heard him speak at a GCA meeting recently. When one woman made a speech about the Glebe being robbed of parkland (because Lansdowne is designated a park), Chernushenko quite forcefully shut her down, saying that "some people would argue that turning 20 acres of asphalt into an urban park is increasing the amount of parkland, not decreasing it".

Good to know. Perhaps his present role on the design team makes him a bit more sensitive to baseless criticism of the plan.

[reidjr]

lrt's friend
As people who live outside the green belt pay extra while that would help i think you would charge people extra who are going to travel outside the greenbelt if you just charge one and not the other your going to create all sorts of issues.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by reidjr

lrt's friend
As people who live outside the green belt pay extra while that would help i think you would charge people extra who are going to travel outside the greenbelt if you just charge one and not the other your going to create all sorts of issues.

I am not following your comment.

There are many cities that have zone fares and I believe this includes Vancouver.

As it stands, some people are paying an express surcharge, but really the cost relates to distance travelled. So, it should not matter whether you are using an express bus or not. You should pay extra to travel across the Greenbelt. This is a natural dividing point in this city.

Surely other cities have addressed the manner in which extra fares are collected in a fair way.

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I am not following your comment.

There are many cities that have zone fares and I believe this includes Vancouver.

As it stands, some people are paying an express surcharge, but really the cost relates to distance travelled. So, it should not matter whether you are using an express bus or not. You should pay extra to travel across the Greenbelt. This is a natural dividing point in this city.

Surely other cities have addressed the manner in which extra fares are collected in a fair way.

My point is if you live past the green belt or travel past the belt everyone should have to pay extra.

[Luker]

Paris, Berlin, Calgary, Vancouver, to name a few of the top of my head... Yes service fees and the accompanied service is too low as a result.

Agreed, Senors cannot continue to ride for free forever. At minimum they should have a significantly reduced bus pass as most are daily transit users.

The student pass may be under priced comparatively, but coming from experience, there is many students who do not and would not buy a pass that are now obligated to. Carleton and Ottawa U have 25k Undergrads each, it would be difficult to believe that 50% of Carleton's students come by bus - however more likely for Ottawa U. $305 (8 month pass / 2 of those months students are in exams and then back home asap... 6month pass almost) x 50,000 = good deal for OC...

Many on the student council and in the 'know' are adamant that the process for instating the passes were fraudulent and corrupt... For two reasons, one the universities lobbied very very hard and was dishonest in doing so, exaggerating future service improvements, and whos main aim was to reduce the amount of on-site parking dependencies now and in the future thus allowing for more develop-able land (with out the need to provide parking structures) as they can argue that with these NEW transit numbers justify this, despite many pass holders not using the poor OC service to Carleton (minus the o-train).

Second tidbit: The student association in the same election voted yes to fall Reading Week and yes to Bus Passes. However, the 35% student pop who participated was only enough to enact the bus passes and not the additional reading week... Latter rumoured reason was that the additional days in the schooling schedule would ad up to millions of extra dollars... Donno how true that was, still doesn't make sense.

[LeadingEdgeBoomer]

David Reevely has an article on the unveiling of the latest design version of LP tomorrow. Nothing really new there, but he tacks on this at the end of the article.

Co-ordinator John Martin released a statement on the weekend saying that he and the city have asked for a quick hearing before the divisional court in Toronto; the city contends that Martin is asking for a re-examination of the same basic issues brought by the Friends of Lansdowne and wants his case dismissed as an “abuse of process.”

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/La...#ixzz1ldXEzMv7

The news is to how the city is trying to get the LPC case squashed before trial

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by reidjr

My point is if you live past the green belt or travel past the belt everyone should have to pay extra.

If you are not crossing to another zone, you should not have to pay extra. We want to encourage short trips, which also makes local service sustainable. In other words, it you are traveling from Chapel Hill to Place d'Orleans, regular fare should apply. But, if you are travelling to St. Laurent, then you would pay a premium. It only makes sense, because it is a longer trip. It is time to end the subsidy of suburban riders making long trips at the same fare as those living in Centretown travelling to the Rideau Centre.

Remember the city is growing bigger and bigger and more people are travelling longer distances. We cannot continue this without someone paying more and that should apply to those travelling further. After all, if you are using a car, you are paying for more gas and wear and tear on your vehicle.

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Why not 2018, like the LRT plan? Let's have the big party with the city in total turmoil. Let's face it, the 2017 party will have to be curtailed because the transit system will not be able handle a big crowd downtown with the Transitways closed and LRT not yet operational.

By the way, did everybody notice how awful the downtown Christmas light display was this year? A sign of Conservative austerity and their hatred for the city of Ottawa. The Southway Inn (Bank and Hunt Club) has a better display and they keep it on until after Winterlude is over.

As for the lights no i don't think that's a sign of austerity i think it has more to do with wanting to be pc correct and not over do it as for 2017 that is Canada's big birthday and it would not shock me if all levels of gov pump a tons of money into Ottawa for 2017.

[lrt's friend]

I talked about the unipass because I thought it was initially underpriced. Of course, pricing must be done carefully, however, at the same time you don't want it to be financial drain on the system.

I have spoken in the past about the consequences of the bus strike and the fact that the unipass program has masked the situation. What has happened is that we have lost a lot of full fare riders as a result of the strike and replaced them with discounted fare riders.

You can easily look at this and connect it with last year's service reductions.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by reidjr

As for the lights no i don't think that's a sign of austerity i think it has more to do with wanting to be pc correct and not over do it as for 2017 that is Canada's big birthday and it would not shock me if all levels of gov pump a tons of money into Ottawa for 2017.

The Christmas lights used to a big highlight during a dark December night. It is no longer worth going downtown to see them anymore. The display was dreadful this year and the colours chosen were blah! We need some brightness at that dark time of the year and it is shameful that a private hotel owner can do a much better job. Sometimes if you do a half-**s job, why bother doing it at all? This is beyond political correctness. That would be accomplished by switching to the new type of lights.

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The Christmas lights used to a big highlight during a dark December night. It is no longer worth going downtown to see them anymore. The display was dreadful this year and the colours chosen were blah! We need some brightness at that dark time of the year and it is shameful that a private hotel owner can do a much better job. Sometimes if you do a half-**s job, why bother doing it at all? This is beyond political correctness. That would be accomplished by switching to the new type of lights.

Yes they use to great over the past year it has got worse and worse if you look at how much political correctness is around christmas it does not shock me we see less and less.

[S-Man]

Who actually pays for the Xmas lights - the feds or city? Just curious.

Also: 2012 buzzword - "straw man"

2011 buzzword: "smoke and mirrors"

[JFFournier]

Originally Posted by umbria27

- Narrowing the views of the Aberdeen Pavillion - I thought that Heritage Ontario actually had easements on these views. Isn't encroaching on them inviting another lawsuit?

OTTAWA — The provincial heritage agency that controls key aspects of the Aberdeen Pavilion at Lansdowne Park can live with the redevelopment planned for the property as long as the historic centrepiece of the site is preserved and enhanced, according to an agreement it's reached with the city.

http://capitalward.ca/en/component/c...lansdowne-plan