Building LeBreton Flats - Master Planning

[JayBuoy]

Originally Posted by phil235

Can't we have both?

possibly. But an arena, and all of the complementary businesses can easily choke out any real services for the neighbourhood.

There will inevitably be tension between the space as a neighbourhood (residents) and the space as an attraction (visitors).

But most of all I just think an arena will take up way too much space, that imho is better utilized for housing.

[spotlight]

Originally Posted by JayBuoy

possibly. But an arena, and all of the complementary businesses can easily choke out any real services for the neighbourhood.

There will inevitably be tension between the space as a neighbourhood (residents) and the space as an attraction (visitors).

But most of all I just think an arena will take up way too much space, that imho is better utilized for housing.

But he vast majority of the Lebreton project proposal is already housing...

[orleans_man]

Originally Posted by JayBuoy

possibly. But an arena, and all of the complementary businesses can easily choke out any real services for the neighbourhood.

There will inevitably be tension between the space as a neighbourhood (residents) and the space as an attraction (visitors).

But most of all I just think an arena will take up way too much space, that imho is better utilized for housing.

See your concerns and surely more housing would be great.

However, how a metropolitan area of 1.4 Million still not have any of it's major entertainment spaces near transit in 2021 is really unbelievable? We have Lansdowne (arena and stadium) on a transit island and the largest indoor event space (Canadian Tire Centre) located in furthest possible corner from it's population.

I really do hope that in the future there is a centrally located event space near transit (Lebreton or otherwise).

[phil235]

Originally Posted by JayBuoy

possibly. But an arena, and all of the complementary businesses can easily choke out any real services for the neighbourhood.

There will inevitably be tension between the space as a neighbourhood (residents) and the space as an attraction (visitors).

But most of all I just think an arena will take up way too much space, that imho is better utilized for housing.

I think that those are valid concerns, particularly on the complementary business, but the arena itself doesn't need to take up that much space. It's basically going to need one city block, plus whatever public space is attached. There would still be room for decades worth of housing to be added at Lebreton.

Alternatively, you make it part of the financial terms that the proponents contribute to the construction of housing elsewhere, which could be a win-win.

[RuralCitizen]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Sounds like an abusive ex-husband.

Back to the subject at hand, sure some zoos and aquariums focus on saving wildlife and research, but Ottawa's inland location makes an aquarium an odd choice. Just like the car museum, there's little to no link to the city.

.

I understand and agree with your point for a car museum, we don't have any link to car factories or car history. We have more link to paper and wood mills.

But why would Ottawa be a weird location for an aquarium? the Ottawa river has more than 85 indigenous fish species, this isn't counting the other kind of aquatic animals and plants. Ottawa is full of water but we barely interact with it. An aquarium would be a great tool to teach the locals about it. Of course we aren't a tropical or sea coast location, but that argument would also apply to the Toronto aquarium with its different species of shark and tropical fishes.

[RuralCitizen]

Originally Posted by JayBuoy

I'm not really for an arena. I find it noxious, offensive, that the feds razed a (poor) neighbourhood and are still fumbling to build an arena 70 years later. The right thing to do is rebuild a neighbourhood.

I don't think an arena should be a priority when we are in the midst of a massive housing crisis. There will be other chances to build luxury infrastructure - arenas, Ferris wheels, water fountain shows. The focus has got to be on building a cohesive, affordable neighbourhood, that is effectively integrated with the rest of the city. Fingers crossed, but my expectations are low.

No one is saying to exclusively built entertainment venues here. Housing is an integral part of the project, but the site is giant. There is plenty enough space for housing, commercial (grocery), restaurants, entertainment. We can't just dwell on the past that happened 70 years ago and rebuild housing as it was.

The site is located in the city's core, between 2 LRT station, near 2 cross river link (Commanda bridge, and Booth-Eddy), near a national museum.
I think the site deserves more than ONLY housing and regular neighbourhood ammenities seen in every other city neighbourhood. Sure it will be a component of it, but we need more, more, more. This should be one of the busiest location in the city.

[RuralCitizen]

Originally Posted by daud

@otskyline I like the idea of an amphitheater but really want to revisit what happened with Nepean Point. I was biking a few years ago and went up there. It needed some repair to the seating, a fresh coat of paint but otherwise, it was still an absolutely beautiful location.

I just had to ask myself, how did we just all collectively forget about this spot? Why was nobody doing programming there? The spot did not need a major overhaul, it needed to be maintained and it needed programming. That's it. The view is specatular from there. We build stuff then we let it go and forget about it far too often.

The area is kind of secluded, it will remain unpopular to visit until they build a bridge that makes it a normal continuation of Major's Hill park and nearby bike paths.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by RuralCitizen

I understand and agree with your point for a car museum, we don't have any link to car factories or car history. We have more link to paper and wood mills.

But why would Ottawa be a weird location for an aquarium? the Ottawa river has more than 85 indigenous fish species, this isn't counting the other kind of aquatic animals and plants. Ottawa is full of water but we barely interact with it. An aquarium would be a great tool to teach the locals about it. Of course we aren't a tropical or sea coast location, but that argument would also apply to the Toronto aquarium with its different species of shark and tropical fishes.

A freshwater acquarium, perhaps?

[RuralCitizen]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

A freshwater acquarium, perhaps?

Any types of aquarium would be a nice addition to the city, I would definitely visit a few times a year.

[lrt's friend]

There will be other chances to build luxury infrastructure - arenas, Ferris wheels, water fountain shows.

Where? This is too valuable a location to be only residential. I am fully supportive that people should live there and there should be affordable housing, but if we don't make this a special location for everybody, we will regret our decisions for decades to come.

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by JayBuoy

I'm not really for an arena. I find it noxious, offensive, that the feds razed a (poor) neighbourhood and are still fumbling to build an arena 70 years later. The right thing to do is rebuild a neighbourhood.

I don't think an arena should be a priority when we are in the midst of a massive housing crisis. There will be other chances to build luxury infrastructure - arenas, Ferris wheels, water fountain shows. The focus has got to be on building a cohesive, affordable neighbourhood, that is effectively integrated with the rest of the city. Fingers crossed, but my expectations are low.

DEFINITELY the wrong location for a cohesive affordable neighbourhood of housing. There are many many many better locations for that. This is the heart of our city now, not the working class neighbourhood it used to be, and it deserves spectacle and entertainment. You can't force it to be what it was because it never will be again, the city has evolved far far beyond what it was when that housing was torn down.

[SL123]

Originally Posted by Harley613

DEFINITELY the wrong location for a cohesive affordable neighbourhood of housing. There are many many many better locations for that. This is the heart of our city now, not the working class neighbourhood it used to be, and it deserves spectacle and entertainment. You can't force it to be what it was because it never will be again, the city has evolved far far beyond what it was when that housing was torn down.

Totally agree! Lebreton is our 1 chance to truly create a downtown in Ottawa. If your interest is in a cohesive affordable neighbourhood with access to public transit than Gladstone Village is your project. Lebreton Flat is so much more.

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by SL123

Totally agree! Lebreton is our 1 chance to truly create a downtown in Ottawa. If your interest is in a cohesive affordable neighbourhood with access to public transit than Gladstone Village is your project. Lebreton Flat is so much more.

Gladstone Village is close, but in 2017 Ottawa Public Housing bought the huge Oak Street Lands parcel a three minute walk from Lebreton Flats with big plans in motion for a mixed income community. Lebreton Flats would be a stupid place to build an affordable housing community for many reasons, but the fact that one is already being built practically next door has to be the stupidest one of all.

[SL123]

Originally Posted by Harley613

Gladstone Village is close, but in 2017 Ottawa Public Housing bought the huge Oak Street Lands parcel a three minute walk from Lebreton Flats with big plans in motion for a mixed income community. Lebreton Flats would be a stupid place to build an affordable housing community for many reasons, but the fact that one is already being built practically next door has to be the stupidest one of all.

isnt Gladstone village and the Oak Street Land the same project?

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by SL123

isnt Gladstone village and the Oak Street Land the same project?

It is. I thought Gladstone Village was the name of the ongoing Rochester Heights affordable housing re-development, which is also along Gladstone.

[SL123]

Originally Posted by Harley613

It is. I thought Gladstone Village was the name of the ongoing Rochester Heights affordable housing re-development, which is also along Gladstone.

Ok I was definitely talking about the big parcel of land along the trillium line near Gladstone/Corso Italia station in my earlier comment

[Williamoforange]

I'm confused now:

I've always known the land next to the trillium line as "gladstone Village", which will have Market rate units, Affordable units, and Subsidized units

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...sing-1.4129597

and that other project never really got a name put to it, other then possibly Rochester Village, which will consist solely of subsidized units

https://www.och-lco.ca/rochester-heights-redevelopment/

Also, isn't the land directly south of Albert street east of city centre ave some form of affordable housing/Co-op/subsidized housing?

[Harley613]

When you look at at all the growth happening (and planned) from Zibi South to Dow's Lake I think we are building a great mix of housing all together. Luxury, Mid Market, Affordable, Student Housing. Lebreton is where mostly high end high residential density and an interesting variety of mixed use venues truly belong in this equation.

[lrt's friend]

Is it ever a good idea to build 'affordable' housing neighbourhoods these days? Past experience has indicated that these areas tend to develop crime problems. We are better to integrate a wide variety of income levels together.

[DTcrawler]

Originally Posted by spotlight

I think you're right, but i think the NCC and the city really are forgetting something quite important.

To be clear i am by no means a fan of Melnyk and i hope with everything inside of me that he sells the team today or tomorrow at the latest.

But whether it's Melnyk or a new owner, there's not an owner out there that would want just an arena on the site and nothing else, and frankly just an arena on the site does nothing for the city, An arena there needs to have things surrounding it (that most owners will want to be able to control or have a share of) such as, hotel or hotels (likely a high end brand) retail, restaurants, bars, clubs. An arena needs to be part of an entertainment district, like they did in Edmonton, Detroit, Toronto etc.. All these owners own or share in the surrounding elements, some of them include real estate on site, but the base of the real estate has retail that they control in part.

I have no faith really in the NCC in understanding this, so even if they build an arena on the site without the backing of Melnyk or another owner, they won't build all of this surrounding it.

There's a reason why Rendez-vous Lebreton was proposed the way it was, because it included all these things.

I fear the NCC will build it the way the NCC typically build things and we'll be left with an arena that has no surrounding support structure and this will make it difficult to have this turned into a destination beacon for the city and to also attract sporting events. music events, large events etc...

Fully agree with the point you're trying to make but I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be possible for any current/future owner of the Sens to achieve what you suggested.

The vision for the "anchor attraction" should draw the land adjacent to the future arena into the broader scope of of proposal. Per the the master concept plan, the Albert District is slated for "mixed use, including shops and services along Albert St." Surely you could tie some condo towers and commercial real estate into the proposal, thus making it financially appealing to any potential bidder.

On top of that, just to the northeast is the Aqueduct District, which is envisioned to be a "vibrant cultural hub and entertainment district" and certainly suggests the possibility of another cash-generating venture for the arena bidder.

The NCC just has to be a collaborative and open minded business partner and understand the needs of the bidder while also remaining true to the master plan. From what I can see, there is plenty of opportunity for a mutually beneficial outcome as long as both sides play fair.