[phil235]

OK, you're going off the rails. Lansdowne is one of the few large pieces of land left in the area and I don't want to see it reduced to a tiny postage-sized parcel of land. I don't want to see more of the same shopping and residential on this public land.

These other attributes you ascribe are pure fantasy. I'm for development in the right place. The stadium should be near rapid transit.

I do want this city to grow, but dumping a design competition to solely entertain a ridiculous proposal is not the was to get the best growth for the city.

I'm done with this as well. There is no point in having a discussion with someone that insists on calling the proposal "ridiculous" despite knowing that there are many rational people who strongly believe this is a strong proposal that is good for the city. Some minds just don't have the capacity to entertain other points of view.

I wish you luck in your quest to protect your quiet and green town.

[bikegypsy]

I love Lansdowne Live.

There!

I'm sure I got the last word since everyone else has deserted this thread... Right?

[Ryersonian]

OK, you're going off the rails. Lansdowne is one of the few large pieces of land left in the area and I don't want to see it reduced to a tiny postage-sized parcel of land. I don't want to see more of the same shopping and residential on this public land.

These other attributes you ascribe are pure fantasy. I'm for development in the right place. The stadium should be near rapid transit.

I do want this city to grow, but dumping a design competition to solely entertain a ridiculous proposal is not the was to get the best growth for the city.

Franky, I think your heart is in the right place, but you have this all wrong...there is a critical fact that you need to understand...we are where we are and we can't turn back the clock...The City Manager should not have called off the design competition...I agree...but it's done, dead and over...move on!

If it is not LL nothing will happen at Landsdowne for the next ten years...a developer would never touch it if these Ottawa boys fail...The design competition while a great way to get great ideas never guaranteed feasibility...

Stop dismissing the opportunity we have with unqualified, unsupported ridiculous opinion.

Bayview is a brownfield....you clearly have no idea the cost involved in cleaning that up...totally infeasible...facts, numbers, dollars this is what real people use in the real world to get real things done...Go play sim city or something...

[Umpaidh]

Franky, have you read the report available on the Ottawa.ca website about Lansdowne Live?

[Franky]

Franky, I think your heart is in the right place, but you have this all wrong...there is a critical fact that you need to understand...we are where we are and we can't turn back the clock...The City Manager should not have called off the design competition...I agree...but it's done, dead and over...move on!

If it is not LL nothing will happen at Landsdowne for the next ten years...a developer would never touch it if these Ottawa boys fail...The design competition while a great way to get great ideas never guaranteed feasibility...

10 years. Where did that number come from? The city was already in the process of looking for a stadium location.

Stop dismissing the opportunity we have with unqualified, unsupported ridiculous opinion.

That's how I see it.


Bayview is a brownfield....you clearly have no idea the cost involved in cleaning that up...totally infeasible...facts, numbers, dollars this is what real people use in the real world to get real things done...Go play sim city or something...

This study, commissioned by the city and done by The Corporate Research Group Ltd. shows quite clearly that Bayview is the best site for a stadium and it includes the fact that the land is contaminated.
http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2009/02-24/8-ACS2009-ISC-CCS-0013-Document%201.htm

[lrt's friend]

As I recall, some city councillors were very displeased that a stadium site study was performed and made public, because it was going to further confuse the issue. Obviously, it has. Of course, that study did not address the big one, the cost of relocation versus Lansdowne renovation. This should have been included in rating the various locations studied.

[m0nkyman]

Ottawa is clean, quiet and green and we live here because we like it and want to keep it that way.

No. I live in the downtown core of a city of over a million people. I live in a downtown residential area that has almost no green space (Centretown). I live on a busy city street less than two blocks from several large nightclubs and bars. It's not clean, it's not quiet, and I love it. I live in a fricking city, not a small town.

[Ryersonian]

10 years. Where did that number come from? The city was already in the process of looking for a stadium location.

That's how I see it.


This study, commissioned by the city and done by The Corporate Research Group Ltd. shows quite clearly that Bayview is the best site for a stadium and it includes the fact that the land is contaminated.
http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2009/02-24/8-ACS2009-ISC-CCS-0013-Document%201.htm

Who would pay for this? Seriously dude, what are you talking about? DOLLARS, PROPERTY TAX REVENUE, DEMOLITION COSTS, CONSTRUCTION COSTS, MAINTENANCE COSTS....$$$.

You make no sense...you live in a dream world...I'm out...this is pointless...

[Franky]

As I recall, some city councillors were very displeased that a stadium site study was performed and made public, because it was going to further confuse the issue. Obviously, it has. Of course, that study did not address the big one, the cost of relocation versus Lansdowne renovation. This should have been included in rating the various locations studied.

Let's not confuse the issue with facts...

"Acquisition, Anticipated Cost of " and "Site & Facility Development Costs" are taken into account. Bayview scores 3 and Lansdowne 5 on those points.

Ottawa's population: 812,129 (2006 census)

[matty14]

So are you implying that because our city doesn't actually have one million residents we are still a small green town? That's ridiculous and so are you.

Honestly I can't wait till this project is approved. Don't worry franky maybe we can have a desing competition to determine what to name our soccer team.

[bikegypsy]

This thread had become the most entertaining of all SSP.

[lrt's friend]

Let's not confuse the issue with facts...

"Acquisition, Anticipated Cost of " and "Site & Facility Development Costs" are taken into account. Bayview scores 3 and Lansdowne 5 on those points.

Ottawa's population: 812,129 (2006 census)

I stand corrected, however, costs will determine what gets built and what doesn't. Given a choice between a $125M reno and $250M build from scratch, which choice will you make? Remember, the second choice may add $750 to your property tax bill.

As I recall, there is a second city which is part of the metropolitan area. Nice try!

[Ryersonian]

This thread had become the most entertaining of all SSP.

I know eh...this is classic...I decided to laugh after Frank said this:

"Let's not confuse the issue with facts..."

Ya, let's not do that...hilarious...

[rodionx]

Glebe residents keep saying Bayview is a better choice for a stadium because it is on the transitway; however, Bluesfest is on the transitway and people still drive in in large numbers. They park deep into Centretown and Hintonburg, blocking driveways and sidewalks and creating the usual disruptions. Moving the stadium from the Glebe to Bayview would just move the parking problems from one neighbourhood into another neighbourhood. But then for Glebe residents that's just the point, isn't it?

[Richard Eade]

I stand corrected, however, costs will determine what gets built and what doesn't. Given a choice between a $125M reno and $250M build from scratch, which choice will you make? Remember, the second choice may add $750 to your property tax bill...
Hmm, when you put it like that, I think of my car: Would I rather take my ten-year old car and spend $7,500 on fixing the brakes, repairing the holes in the body and giving it a new paint job, or would I rather spend $15,000 on a brand new car, which will come with all the latest improvements and efficiencies? I think the new car sounds better to me; but this might not be your answer. For me, a ten-year old car is still a ten-year old car, even if it has a new paint job: There are too many other parts of the car which are still ready to fail.

You might also want to think about how the Civic Centre is currently over 40-years old. Was it built to a much higher standard than the many Federal Government buildings which the Feds are now trying to unload since they are nearing their end of life? Recently the Board of the Congress Centre decided to completely remove their old building (which was younger than the Civic Centre) and replace it with something new.

We know that the south stands need to be completely removed before being re-built. We have an estimate of what it will cost to make the Civic Centre usable. But what will the Civic Centre be like in 30 years; at 72-years old? What condition would a new stadium be in after the next 30 years; at the age of 28-year old? (I am assuming 2-years for construction.)

I haven't decided if I am for or against the Landowne Live plan yet, but you have brought up a very good point. It might be better to build a new stadium somewhere. Maybe the Civic Centre could be refurbished on a gradual basis, the south stands removed, and ten open soccer fields added to the area where the paving is. The rental of the fields would help pay for the renovations.

As for the addition to Franky's tax bill, you should be asking if Franky is willing to pay the additional difference between the two options, spread out over many years. So an additional $350 over, say, 10 years.

[Cre47]

Probably less then one million in Ottawa but add at least another half a million with the surroundings and it is close to 1.3-1.4 million. Probably by the next census it will show the metro as close to 1.5 million.

It is ridiculous that a metro area of close to 1.5 million people (and the capital of a G8 to make it more embarrassing for this city) have no adequate outdoor stadium. Many smaller cities in Canada have far better sporting venues then here.

Basically, there are too much small-town minded politicians in this city council. (i.e Wilkinson, Hunter, Qadri to name a few.) I don't want to turn the thread in politics mode though so I will stop the rant.

[migo]

OK, you're going off the rails. Lansdowne is one of the few large pieces of land left in the area and I don't want to see it reduced to a tiny postage-sized parcel of land. I don't want to see more of the same shopping and residential on this public land.

These other attributes you ascribe are pure fantasy. I'm for development in the right place. The stadium should be near rapid transit.

I do want this city to grow, but dumping a design competition to solely entertain a ridiculous proposal is not the was to get the best growth for the city.


Fortunately your opinion begins & ends on this forum. Your opinion about LL has no more value than those who's opinion flavours it.

[Franky]

Glebe residents keep saying Bayview is a better choice for a stadium because it is on the transitway; however, Bluesfest is on the transitway and people still drive in in large numbers. They park deep into Centretown and Hintonburg, blocking driveways and sidewalks and creating the usual disruptions. Moving the stadium from the Glebe to Bayview would just move the parking problems from one neighbourhood into another neighbourhood. But then for Glebe residents that's just the point, isn't it?

Tunney's pasture's parking lot was mentioned in the LL proposal as a shuttle-bused parking location. That's already on rapid transit and very close to Bayview.

[Franky]

I stand corrected, however, costs will determine what gets built and what doesn't. Given a choice between a $125M reno and $250M build from scratch, which choice will you make? Remember, the second choice may add $750 to your property tax bill.

As I recall, there is a second city which is part of the metropolitan area. Nice try!

So, who says shopping centres and residential units can't be built at the Bayview site to support the stadium? This area could probably use some sort of shopping centre and a tower overlooking the river would probably have good development potential for residential units. The stadium side could be a hotel if noise is an issue. The city could be making money on the deal.

[Davis137]

I've lost interest in this thread.

Make a decision City Council, and get this "GONG SHOW" of yours overwith.

[m0nkyman]

Let's not confuse the issue with facts...
"Generally the theories we believe we call facts, and the facts we disbelieve we call theories." ~ Felix Cohen
(http://www.quotes.net/authors/Felix+Cohen)

"Acquisition, Anticipated Cost of " and "Site & Facility Development Costs" are taken into account. Bayview scores 3 and Lansdowne 5 on those points.

With higher points being better and 5 being the maximum.

Ottawa's population: 812,129 (2006 census)


1,130,761 (http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/hlt/97-550/Index.cfm?TPL=P1C&Page=RETR&LANG=Eng&T=205&RPP=50) unless you arbitrarily decide that Gatineau residents don't count for anything...

[Franky]

"Generally the theories we believe we call facts, and the facts we disbelieve we call theories." ~ Felix Cohen
(http://www.quotes.net/authors/Felix+Cohen)

Someone wrote:
"As I recall, some city councillors were very displeased that a stadium site study was performed and made public, because it was going to further confuse the issue."
To which I responded:
"Let's not confuse the issue with facts..."

I was highlighting the silliness of the councillors' statement, not saying we should ignore the facts, quite the opposite.


With higher points being better and 5 being the maximum.


Yes.



1,130,761 (http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/hlt/97-550/Index.cfm?TPL=P1C&Page=RETR&LANG=Eng&T=205&RPP=50) unless you arbitrarily decide that Gatineau residents don't count for anything...


Well, they don't pay taxes in Ottawa and so won't be on the hook for a stadium and if you lump in Gatineau's population, it would be nice to include that land in the picture, otherwise it makes the population density look higher than it really is.

Population (2006)[1][2]
- City 812,129 (4th)
- Density 305.4/km2 (791/sq mi)
- Metro CMA: 1,130,761 (4th) NCR: 1,451,415
- Metro Density 219.8/km2 (569.3/sq mi)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa

Metro population density is actually lower than for Ottawa proper.

Not that any of this relates to LL much...

[waterloowarrior]

Well, they don't pay taxes in Ottawa and so won't be on the hook for a stadium and if you lump in Gatineau's population, it would be nice to include that land in the picture, otherwise it makes the population density look higher than it really is.

Population (2006)[1][2]
- City 812,129 (4th)
- Density 305.4/km2 (791/sq mi)
- Metro CMA: 1,130,761 (4th) NCR: 1,451,415
- Metro Density 219.8/km2 (569.3/sq mi)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa

Metro population density is actually lower than for Ottawa proper.

Not that any of this relates to LL much...

should we be suprised that adding places like Pontiac and Russell (also part of the CMA) and other rural municipalities will lower the density?

Gatineau is actually "denser" than Ottawa at 662 ppl/ sq km

but in any case they are both amalgamAted cities that include former rural townships so the density numbers are pretty meaningless.

[O-Town Hockey]

I know I signed off on this thread, but here's a message from the organizers of a rally this Monday at Lansdowne:

Subject: Public Consultations! Come out on Monday!

From the Hunts:

Rally Time to Keep Lansdowne Standing!!!!

It’s time for the offence to take the field! Rally with us, Monday night at 7 PM in front of the Civic Centre, to show your support for Ottawa’s return to the CFL.

It will only happen if City Council knows you want it to, and the best way to do that is to rally for football at their public consultation meeting on Monday at 7 PM. Meet Jeff Hunt and the Team-1200's Glen Kulka. Take 5 minutes, show your colours, be there! Details are posted on the City website… http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/lansdowne_partnership/index_en.html

If we’re supported by a silent majority, who’s to know? Take a stand and keep Lansdowne standing.

Unfortunately, I'm working in Niagara Falls this month, but I will be there in spirit. I encourage anyone who's excited about the possibility of CFL back in Ottawa and Lansdowne not being a piece of crap anymore to head down for this rally.

[Franky]

Unfortunately, I'm working in Niagara Falls this month, but I will be there in spirit. I encourage anyone who's excited about the possibility of CFL back in Ottawa and Lansdowne not being a piece of crap anymore to head down for this rally.

CFL doesn't depend on Lansdowne and it will be fixed no matter what, but whatever...

[O-Town Hockey]

CFL doesn't depend on Lansdowne and it will be fixed no matter what, but whatever...

Yes it does and, if you can find another local ownership group willing to put their money where their mouth is, then you can tell me different. But you can't so please don't. All your criticisms of Ottawa CFL franchises have related to their folding teams over the years. This was due to terrible management and foreign (U.S.) ownership that didn't give a crap about Lansdowne, Ottawa, or even football (as it turns out). Our only hope for a viable CFL franchise is local ownership and we have that with the LL proposal. I'm not willing to turn my back on probably the only wealthy Ottawa businessmen capable of pulling off such a plan. Signing off once again since this thread makes me angry. Go Lansdowne Live! :banana:

[Suzie]

There's an article in the Citizen today that touches on the financial aspect of this deal -- http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Risks+rewards+Lansdowne+Live/2038835/story.html

Suzie, I understand the general concern about sole-sourcing, but you have to remember that the procurement policy allows for this type of negotiation in the circumstances. There are reasons for that. This isn't a procurement of office supplies, it is a complex partnership arrangement. Considerable one-on-one negoitiations with the proponents are going to be necessary for any deal of this nature.

Second, a competitive process isn't the be all and end all that it is being made out to be. That type of process is rigid to the extent that it severely limits public input, and the results are going to be entirely dependent on the criteria that were set (in the case of Design Lansdowne with minimal public input). On the other hand, the negotiation process can be more responsive to the needs of various stakeholders, public input etc. Also, it provides the opportunity for a fixed-price deal, which is important to a cash-strapped city.

A competitive process, whether for a public-private partnership or a project procured through traditional means, is the best one for transparency and value for money reasons.

The retail, office, hotel and residential parts of the plan can and should be separated from the stadium portion. The only overlap is with respect to parking and I'm sure some sort of agreement could easily be worked out. Given its prime location, there would be many bidders and there is every reason to expect that the City would get a better deal (certainly, a no-worse one). Proceeds would be obtained up-front and go towards refurbishing the stadium. And this could be done with an appropriate level of public input.

With regard to the stadium, is OSEG the only entity out there that can manage the refurbishment of the facility and operate it through a long-term concession? I doubt it. If the City does not want to do this itself (e.g., through the newly-created “City Corp”), this part of the plan should also be put up for bid in order for us to get the best possible deal. The City could bundle the parking or have it done separately. Long-term leases would be signed with OSEG (or some of its members) so that the CFL franchise could use the stadium and the Ottawa 67s play in the arena.


In answer to your questions, you are not looking at the finances of the deal as a whole. OSEG is assuming the risk of all cost overruns in the reconstruction, which is a huge benefit to the city. It also assumes responsibility for maintenance and upkeep of the stadium for 30 years, which is another huge cost you are not acknowledging. And as the stadium is not a money-making proposition, it assumes operating costs over that period. The revenue from the commercial development allows it to do so, and saves the city enormous costs over the long term.

OSEG contributes very little to the project, yet gets a return that is almost guaranteed. The City, on the other hand, contributes a lot, yet gets little back.

For the first 30 years after completion of the stadium improvements, net cash flow from the stadium, the parking, and the rents from the retail, office and hotel components would be distributed by order of priority as follows:

1. A reserve fund for lifecycle replacements and major repairs related to the stadium, the parking and the Aberdeen Pavilion.
2. Payments to OSEG for its minimum equity contribution of $30M. This minimum equity contribution would include the amount paid by OSEG to acquire and establish a CFL team as well as the cost of purchasing the Ottawa 67s (a non-arms length transaction).
3. Payments to OSEG for the “additional equity” it contributes.
4. Payments to the City for the “deemed equity” that it has contributed (essentially the land used by the retail, office and hotel development – not the cost of refurbishing the stadium and building the parking).
5. 50/50 sharing between the City and the OSEG of any residual.

I have no issues with the first priority. It’s the right thing to do. However, the cash in the reserve will eventually be needed in the future and it would be irresponsible to use it to pay down the debt associated with the stadium and the parking.

The next two priorities are for OSEG. Unless Ottawa gets hit by a series of cataclysmic events, the OSEG will earn a steady, guaranteed return (at least 8%) on its investments. Not bad for a couple of sport franchises, with the CFL one being particularly risky.

The City finally comes in at number four. The figures in the City’s report (presumably from an unpublished financial model) suggest that the City would earn a $48M return on its “deemed equity”. While this may sound impressive, it is not since this would be back-loaded (i.e., payments to start in 2029). In present value terms, the amount would be much less (probably less than $20M) and a drop in the bucket compared to the costs incurred up-front by the City to refurbish the stadium (anticipated to be up to $110M) and pay its share of the parking ($19M). In fact, it would probably not be enough to pay for just the parking.

With regard to priority #5, there will be little money left over by the time the 30-year period comes to an end, at least according to the City’s report. Only $8.4M in payments over the final few years is expected. In net present value terms, that’s nothing.

As an aside, outside of this closed system ‘waterfall’, the City would receive an estimated $4.4M from the residential development.

Now suppose there is a cost overrun on the stadium. If this is due to “pre-existing environmental conditions” (this is undefined but I would be interested in funding out what this covers), it will be the City's responsibility. If it is caused by other factors, then the OSEG will have to pay for it (unless, of course, this risk was not transferred to the builder). In all likelihood, it will do so by providing “additional equity” to the project. “Additional equity” from the OSEG is third on the priority list and, if provided, it will claim its share of the net cash flow. This, in turn, will eat into the payments to priority 4 (i.e., to the City) and priority 5 (50/50). In reality, most of the cost will be passed onto the City, since it will reduce and delay its payments. Steady operating losses at the stadium would have a similar impact.

Plus OSEG puts up to $5 million into the development of greenspace on the site.

I’m not sure where your $5M figure comes from. The Memorandum of Understanding states that the capital cost of the ‘Front Lawn’, to a maximum of $5M, will be provided 50% by OSEG and 50% by the City. Anything above $5M would be paid for by the City. The amount of the capital paid by OSEG includes all cash-in-lieu of a park dedication from the retail component that would be required from OSEG in connection with the project.

[waterloowarrior]

Green theme for Lansdowne
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Green+theme+Lansdowne/2041156/story.html
Proponents tout garden-like ‘jewel on the Rideau,’ but critics say plan is too flexible on parking

BY KATE JAIMET, THE OTTAWA CITIZENSEPTEMBER 27, 2009 11:42 PM


OTTAWA — A lush expanse of lawns and gardens, stretching from the heritage Rideau Canal to the Victorian domes of the Aberdeen Pavilion: That’s the vision expressed by developers and city officials, who say they want to turn the dilapidated southeast portion of Lansdowne Park into a verdant “jewel on the Rideau.”

But critics say that emerald jewel is flawed by the inclusion of a one hectare open area for outdoor events — designed to double as a 380-car overflow parking lot.

Graham Bird, a consultant hired by the city to work on the Lansdowne proposal, said the open, grassy area would only become a parking lot on rare occasions, perhaps once or twice a year. He said the parking would not often be necessary, as the park’s operators would aggressively promote public transit.

“If we had Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones, a case like that, you’ve got a very rare event,” Bird said. “For some specialty parking, that could be used for those very special events.”

But Bay Councillor Alex Cullen, chairman of the transit committee and a critic

of the Lansdowne Live plan, says the Lansdowne site — with 1,600 regular parking spots for its proposed 24,000-seat football and soccer stadium, 10,000-seat hockey arena, 10-screen movie theatre, restaurants and retail stores — would inevitably end up using the open area for patrons’ cars during routine events.

“I think it would be a lot more frequently, because the pressure for parking is going to be immense,” he said.

“It’s greenspace until it’s used for parking, and then it’s not greenspace anymore. A park is not a park when it’s used as a parking lot.”

The greenspace proposal is part of the overall plan for Lansdowne being pitched by the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group, a partnership composed of Ottawa 67’s owner Jeff Hunt and developers Roger Greenberg, William Shenkman and John Ruddy.

City staff are collaborating with the business group to refine the plan and bring it forward for public consultations, but the development will not go ahead unless and until it is approved by city council.

Although other parts of the park would be used for the stadium, hockey arena, Ottawa Farmers’ Market, and commercial development, the southeast corner, cradled in the curve of the Rideau Canal between the Bank Street Bridge and Fifth Avenue, would be an enclave of water and greenery, created at a cost of $5 million, to be financed equally by the business group and the city.

“From the canal side, it has to be this graceful, beautiful park … We’ve got to make it green, a place where (you) feel like you can come for a picnic, come for lunch, come and enjoy concerts. That’s the feel that has to happen here,” said Bird.

Lansdowne’s new greenspace, called the “front lawn” in the Lansdowne Live plans, would encompass approximately four hectares, or about one-quarter of the total 16-hectare Lansdowne site. The chainlink fence that runs around the perimeter of Lansdowne would be torn down and the proposed lawn would blend seamlessly with the grass, trees, shrubs and flower beds of the NCC land along the Queen Elizabeth Driveway, creating an 8.4-hectare expanse of verdure.

The contentious one-hectare open area at the centre of the front lawn would be primarily used for hosting outdoor events such as concerts, art shows, Winterlude and Tulip Festival activities, said John Smit, manager of development review in the city’s urban services branch. The city and the NCC would decide on the programming while the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group would manage the events for a fee. The city would reap any profits and absorb any losses from the events.

“The focus of that open space will be a green theme. The theme is not a parking lot,” Smit said. “The emphasis is on refocusing Lansdowne so that it focuses on the canal environment, and in embracing the canal environment, making sure that this is one of those key sites where we can in fact have venues and accommodate programming and activities associated with the multitude of festivals and events that we have within the city.”

In an interview with the Citizen Thursday afternoon, Smit said the open area would be a “hard-surfaced area, but not a paved area, rather a green area,” likely covered in “turfstone,” a concrete grid interspersed with tufts of grass. He said the hard surface was necessary so that the ground would not be turned into a field of mud, trampled under the feet of thousands of concertgoers. It is also necessary to hold the weight of vehicles when the area is used for parking.

Capital Councillor Clive Doucet, who, like other councillors, had been told at a briefing that the area would be turfstone, commented: “What it looks like is asphalt with weeds in it.”

In a follow-up interview with the architectural firm contracted to design the front lawn, project manager Ann Parrott of IBI Architects told the Citizen that her team considered the idea of turfstone, but rejected it in favour of a different solution known as “grass pavers,” which it is recommending to the city.

“What you see with grass pavers is grass. You don’t see concrete. There’s no concrete involved at all,” Parrot said.

The grass pavers consist of a flat sheet of hard-plastic rings, joined together by plastic ties. The sheet is laid out beneath the surface of the ground and covered in a soil-like planting material, which is then seeded with grass or other ground cover, like clover. The resulting lawn is soft enough for kids to play on, yet hardy enough to bear the weight of parked cars or masses of people, she said.

“We did look at turfstone earlier on, and then we found this, and we said this looks so much better. We’re enthused about it,” she said. “I think the client is very much on board with this. I don’t think they’re thinking at all of turfstone anymore.”

Besides the one-hectare open area, the four hectare green space will include man-made ponds that Smit said will add an aesthetic link to the canal, and may be used for skating in the winter. Their hidden, but ecologically important, function will be to hold rainwater runoff, which will be filtered to reduce road salts and other contaminants before it is discharged either into the canal or into the city’s sewer system. This will be an improvement over the existing situation at Lansdowne, where stormwater washes over the park’s dirty asphalt expanse and directly into the canal.

The front lawn could also be integrated, at its northeast end, with more greenspace: an existing city park just south of Fifth Avenue that features two baseball diamonds and a children’s playground.

But Doucet, who represents the ward where Lansdowne is situated and is perhaps the project’s most tenacious and vocal opponent, said there is not enough greenspace in the proposed plan. He is offering an alternative proposal, which would involve tearing down the football stadium and turning the entire southern half of Lansdowne into open park areas and playing fields, including an outdoor theatre. The northern part of the park would also have substantial greenery, dotted with small-scale retail shops and restaurants, and a farmers’ market.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[ajldub]

Wow. To anybody with any inkling of financial sense this deal is a scam. A total scam. I hope they are going to sell shares of Lansdowne Live because this is going to be one sweet money pot. Any councillor that votes for spending taxpayer money on this is incompetent to do his job or getting wads of cash under the table, in my opinion. What a ripoff.

That article really depressed me on Ottawa. We botched the O-train, elected a crook and now are bending over for the biggest financial screwing yet, one which two generations of Ottawans will be paying for. What is going on at city hall?

[blackjagger]

[QUOTE=ajldub;4478032]Wow. To anybody with any inkling of financial sense this deal is a scam. A total scam. [QUOTE]

Can you describe to me what you believe financial sense is? Because I believe that I have some and yet see this as a great opportunity for Ottawa if it is executed well.

I don’t' know how often you go down to Lansdowne and would not suggest that you do not visit. But I go as often as I can. I was down there once again for the farmers market on Sunday. And I have to say that walking across a sea of asphalt with a run down stadium in view only added to my belief that so much more can be brought out of the site.

I am also going to provide an opposing view on the financial structure of the deal. As a recent article in the Citizen provide, the debt servicing cost for the city will be around $7.1 million every year. With property tax revenue of $2.8 million and a savings of$3.8 million for upkeep, the difference would be $500,000 ($6.6M-$7.1M). So already we are talking about a small number in the comparison of Ottawa’s budget. This also excluded any possible revenue sharing from the property.

I seem to keep hearing over and over again how OSEG will just write off all sorts of expenses and hide revenue sources, in essence that OSEG will do what ever it can to make money and cheat the city. My comments to that are you might as well go hide your head under a rock somewhere, because if you thing that every company is “evil” and trying to cheat you than what is the point in even trying to get by in this world. There will be external an internal audit proceeds, with agreed upon revenue recognition standards, which will most likely match international and Canadian tax law, because they have to file taxes. I not saying that the world is perfect and that no corporation tries to make money in an unethical way, all I’m saying is that due to the private/public nature of this agreement there will be considerable checks and balances in place by external entities to make sure that we get a return on our tax dollar.

Cheers,
Josh

[Ryersonian]

Wow. To anybody with any inkling of financial sense this deal is a scam. A total scam. I hope they are going to sell shares of Lansdowne Live because this is going to be one sweet money pot. Any councillor that votes for spending taxpayer money on this is incompetent to do his job or getting wads of cash under the table, in my opinion. What a ripoff.

That article really depressed me on Ottawa. We botched the O-train, elected a crook and now are bending over for the biggest financial screwing yet, one which two generations of Ottawans will be paying for. What is going on at city hall?

Personally I just want to use Lansdowne in my life time...With that said we all have a real opportunity to shape this thing... I urge you all to attend the sessions...I want Mainstreet style angled parking on all interior roads and mixed market housing...those are my demands...To shift gears and make this more productive:

What are the demands of the rest of you based on the concept as it stands now for Lansdowne??

Can we still have meaningful on topic discussions in this thread?

[Richard Eade]

I think it is a bit of a stretch to talk about relaxing and having a picnic on the expence of grasscrete that will be the over-flow parking:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/82/211203615_86128f2054.jpg?v=0

It doesn't look very comfy to me. And don't fall if you decide on a pick-up game of soccer or frisbee after lunch.

I see that they are actually more enthusiastic about the plastic pavers now.

http://www.elmich.com.au/images/turfpave/turfpave_picindex.gif

These simply replace the asphalt layer; all of the road-bed must be beneath the plastic. Thus, there is only a couple of inches of soil for the grass to grow in, and gravel under that. Unless the grass is constantly irrigated, it will be brown all summer long. Also, I don't really care if it is plastic; it will still be hard on the knees if a person falls on it.

And the ponds are just storm water management ponds? So all the crud from the parking lots will be in the ponds? Those will be inviting for people. It sounds as if the ponds are simply there because they are a cheap way to handle the run-off. I originally thought they would be charged by free-flowing pipes to the canal, but I guess their level will need to be maintained by pumps. I don't know, this is starting to sound like there will be high on-going operating costs.

[waterloowarrior]

The E-consultation site is up. (http://lansdowne.econsultation.ca/) There are good summaries of some of the background information. They have a handy breakdown of the 400k sq ft commercial space that has been talked about.

The office, retail and service component of the Lansdowne redevelopment would total approximately 395,000 square feet. This breaks down as follows:

77,000 sq. ft. dedicated to office space;
199,000 sq. ft. for retail and services;
41,000 sq. ft. for a unique food store;
15,000 sq. ft. within the Aberdeen Pavilion will be used for specialty restaurants;
47,000 sq. ft. for a cinema; and,
16,000 sq. ft. in the Horticulture Building will become the home of the Ottawa Farmers’ Market.

[waterloowarrior]

What are the demands of the rest of you based on the concept as it stands now for Lansdowne??


I hope there will be good cycling parking facilities, if it's made convenient, secure, and cheap (even free), I think a lot of people will opt to ride their bikes to games (given the location right along the canal bike paths). Here's a good example from San Fransisco.
http://www.sfbike.org/?giants

[ajldub]

Josh:
One of the oldest tricks around is to give a largely silent investor a slice of the profit, not a slice of the revenue. When you have operational control of the investment, you cook the books in a way that yields very little profit overall. By the time the fourth round of profit payouts comes, there's nothing. I appreciate the fact that lansdowne currently sucks, and that it's expensive to keep it that way. But to let ourselves get ripped off because we want it to change as quickly as possible doesn't make sense.

[ajldub]

Ryersonian:
I agree, this thing needs to be redeveloped. After having read that article about the financial structure I really hope and pray that LL won't go forward. City hall really struggles with large-scale projects; witness the $37 million we paid to stare at the tea leaves regarding light rail. Before we do a deal with LL that we then expensively reneg on, or just plain get ripped off on, I think we should invite bids from all developers worldwide, with a list of things we agree as a city we would prefer to see there. As far as I can see, the reason why people are taking LL seriously is because we want something done as quickly as possible, and because we aren't interested in what developers around the world would be willing to offer, both in terms of product and price. Neither of these arguments really make sense.

Rushing a project of this magnitude is a rookie mistake. While Lansdowne has been underused for my lifetime, it is really only in the last one or two years that we have seriously started talking about totally revamping the place. I think the best thing would be to invite LL to make a bid in an international request for proposals. The NCC and the City could have done the same for Lebreton Flats; we'll never know what could have been there because the only offer we got was from Claridge.

[blackjagger]

Josh:
One of the oldest tricks around is to give a largely silent investor a slice of the profit, not a slice of the revenue. When you have operational control of the investment, you cook the books in a way that yields very little profit overall. By the time the fourth round of profit payouts comes, there's nothing. I appreciate the fact that lansdowne currently sucks, and that it's expensive to keep it that way. But to let ourselves get ripped off because we want it to change as quickly as possible doesn't make sense.

And I understand what you are saying. But the largely silent investor in this case is a public entity, which is has to answer to the public. Due to the nature of this project there will be an intense audit of the operational aspect of the project to determine profit and how it is to be distributed. There is always the argument that through accounting "tricks" a $4M profit can be turned into a $2M loss. But we are not talking about GAAP standards or Canadian tax law, which were written to provide a blanket so as to allow professional discretion. There will be tighter rules on revenue recognition, operation costs realization, amortization, and write downs in the contract. Just because the city does not have direct control of the operational side of this project does not mean that anything will go.

Cheers,
Josh

[ajldub]

Josh:
I'm not sure I understood you exactly in your last post but let me make my argument as plain as possible. The proposed financial structure leaves the City exposed to the possibility of receiving little, if any cash from LL. Once this thing is up and running it would be bad business practice for LL to not squeeze as much cash as it could from it. Or maybe it sells it for a whopping profit to somebody who is much less scrupulous. If the City leaves itself open to being screwed, odds are somebody will screw it. Call me pessimistic but there is really no reason, or excuse, to negotiate an awful deal.

[bikegypsy]

Franky 2

[Dado]

What are the demands of the rest of you based on the concept as it stands now for Lansdowne??

Can we still have meaningful on topic discussions in this thread?

What does it matter what we want? Council has decided to delegate that to its own staff and OSEG; with the design competition at least people could have voiced opinions as to which proponent's design they most preferred and smart designers would have held public consultation sessions to solicit ideas in advance of coming up with their own final designs.

We've basically been reduced to talking about bicycle parking provisions, grass pavers vs concrete turf and what plants and fishes to put in the ponds.


If you read the first post of this thread and then think about what has happened since you should be able to figure out why a meaningful discussion is impossible.

http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/lansdowne/index_en.html

Let the ideas flow.

Try the link...

[Dado]

I see that they are actually more enthusiastic about the plastic pavers now.

http://www.elmich.com.au/images/turfpave/turfpave_picindex.gif

These simply replace the asphalt layer; all of the road-bed must be beneath the plastic. Thus, there is only a couple of inches of soil for the grass to grow in, and gravel under that. Unless the grass is constantly irrigated, it will be brown all summer long. Also, I don't really care if it is plastic; it will still be hard on the knees if a person falls on it.

See also:
http://www.elmich.com.au/images/turfpave/turfpave_inst_pic.gif
http://www.elmich.com.au/turfpave/installations.php

That looks like a full layer of sod on top of the plastic - do you really think it would be hard on the knees? I'm surprised there isn't a layer of landscape fabric between the plastic and the roadbed.


And the ponds are just storm water management ponds? So all the crud from the parking lots will be in the ponds? Those will be inviting for people. It sounds as if the ponds are simply there because they are a cheap way to handle the run-off. I originally thought they would be charged by free-flowing pipes to the canal, but I guess their level will need to be maintained by pumps. I don't know, this is starting to sound like there will be high on-going operating costs.

Aren't the parking lots underground? So that would entail pumping water out from below and into the ponds.

I had sort of solved the water problem by taking the water from Brown's Inlet, which serves as some of the drainage for the Glebe (groundwater drainage). Its water level is maintained by a syphon connected to the Rideau Canal, so all that would be needed is to remove that syphon, connect it to the ponds instead and add in a final syphon to the Canal.

[ajldub]

Hey Bikegypsy do you pay taxes? Because I do and the now defunct Siemens contract cost me about $40. I want to see something awesome on Lansdowne. I'm not going to say I'm an urban planner and I know what's best to go there. But I am a resident of Ottawa and I want to know that the city got the best proposal it could out of the deal, and I want to know that it's financially a good deal too. Really, that's all you can expect from your average Ottawa resident, isn't it?

One day when you have graduated from high school, stopped calling people names, gotten a job and started paying taxes you'll understand why this deal is a ripoff.

[Ryersonian]

Franky 2

WOW! That's the biggest insult I've seen on this page...seriously...that is an F-Bomb of a whole other colour....:haha:

[waterloowarrior]

Regarding stormwater you can read about existing and preliminary proposed systems here
http://ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/lansdowne_partnership/due_diligence.pdf

[ajldub]

...something about meaningful discussion, Ryersonian?

[Franky]

WOW! That's the biggest insult I've seen on this page...seriously...that is an F-Bomb of a whole other colour....:haha:

Looks like a compliment to me. :)

The waterfall model means that the city will be investing money in the first year, paying interest until the stadium is built, then OSEG puts in some more money on the franchise and recovers any profits right away (and/or includes paying interest on debt first - either way), meanwhile, the city is still carrying $125 million debt, $6 million per year in interest. Now, IF (big if) the CFL manages to survive long enough to pay off the OSEG investment and the retail component managed to make some profit (with "boutiques that do not infringe upon other businesses on Bank St.") the city will start seeing some "profit" Really, we have to repay all those years of deficit before we see a real profit. It's just silly. If the thing fails soon after OSEG gets it's money, the city is left holding part of bunch of worthless properties clogging up prime public land.

[blackjagger]

Looks like a compliment to me. :)

The waterfall model means that the city will be investing money in the first year, paying interest until the stadium is built, then OSEG puts in some more money on the franchise and recovers any profits right away (and/or includes paying interest on debt first - either way), meanwhile, the city is still carrying $125 million debt, $6 million per year in interest. Now, IF (big if) the CFL manages to survive long enough to pay off the OSEG investment and the retail component managed to make some profit (with "boutiques that do not infringe upon other businesses on Bank St.") the city will start seeing some "profit" Really, we have to repay all those years of deficit before we see a real profit. It's just silly. If the thing fails soon after OSEG gets it's money, the city is left holding part of bunch of worthless properties clogging up prime public land.

Remind me again how if OSEG fails soon after it gets it money how the properties are worthless? IF the worst case situation happens, Ottawa has a refurbished stadium, refurbished rink, additional park land, new properties to tax, commercial buildings on their land, and the end of an eye sore.

To me none of that is worthless. But I guess I just don’t see the financial side of it as clearly as you.
PS to help you out if you ever have some worthless buildings or other property around I'll give you a few dollars for them.

Cheers,
Josh

[waterloowarrior]

Why would OSEG contribute tens of millions of dollars developing land they won't even own and assume almost all of the risk if they weren't going to get their money back and make a profit? They are running a business, not a charity. An 8% return is very low in the land development industry, especially with all the risk involved.

[Franky]

Remind me again how if OSEG fails soon after it gets it money how the properties are worthless? IF the worst case situation happens, Ottawa has a refurbished stadium, refurbished rink, additional park land, new properties to tax, commercial buildings on their land, and the end of an eye sore.

To me none of that is worthless. But I guess I just don’t see the financial side of it as clearly as you.
PS to help you out if you ever have some worthless buildings or other property around I'll give you a few dollars for them.

Cheers,
Josh

If it fails, it means there aren't enough tenants for the shopping mall that fit the "boutique and not like other Bank St. businesses" model. People don't fill the theatres, CFL fails - again. Lots of empty building with interest payments on them and nobody willing to take them off the city (and creditor's) hands (at least not with the caveats in place). OSEG will make their money, they are the first in the list. The City may not see any money and any money they may see comes so far in the future, the interest payments will overshadow any "profits".

In any case, putting shopping malls and residential units on public space/land is a bad idea. These things get built without the giveaway. Things like stadiums and parks, not so much.

[waterloowarrior]

In any case, putting shopping malls and residential units on public space/land is a bad idea. These things get built without the giveaway. Things like stadiums and parks, not so much.

It's extremely common to redevelop public land for housing and shops. In a Ottawa few current examples are LeBreton Flats, Bayview, Longfields neighbourhood, Deerfield Village, and Rockcliffe CFB. In Toronto, East Bayfront, West Donlands, Parc Downsview Park, Exhibition Grounds .. in Vancouver False Creek, UBC etc. All these proposals include greenspace and public space, just like Lansdowne Live does. Those are just a few examples, around the world you can public land redevelopments (including stadium areas) worth billions of dollars. There are lots of examples throughout Canada done by CMHC/Canada Lands.

[bikegypsy]

Hey Bikegypsy do you pay taxes? Because I do and the now defunct Siemens contract cost me about $40. I want to see something awesome on Lansdowne. I'm not going to say I'm an urban planner and I know what's best to go there. But I am a resident of Ottawa and I want to know that the city got the best proposal it could out of the deal, and I want to know that it's financially a good deal too. Really, that's all you can expect from your average Ottawa resident, isn't it?

One day when you have graduated from high school, stopped calling people names, gotten a job and started paying taxes you'll understand why this deal is a ripoff.

Sure I pay taxes.. everyone pays taxes. Even my kids pay taxes.
Sorry about your $40 going to Siemens. This is not my fault.... Really, I swear.
I also want something awesome at LL.... a pro soccer match. ALRIGHT!!! Woo Hoo!!

Well, ajldub, like I said, I have kids to support so the high school bit doesn't work... either. But hey, it would sure be fun to be back there don't you think?

I'm sorry that I've offended you. It's just that recently this thread has gone to the shits, at least according to a few here. Your tone just for instant ressembled some other poster's. He used to go on and on about this and about that.. How LL was terribly unfair. Maybe he was stuck, really like a robot, and it eventually literally grinded everybody to total boredom.

Anyways, it's starting to feel lonely in here. But not for you I guess. Worst comes to worst, you and Franky could still hold a discussion even if no one else was here.

But then again, that would be a monologue.

[Franky]

It's extremely common to redevelop public land for housing and shops. In a Ottawa few current examples are LeBreton Flats, Bayview, Longfields neighbourhood, Deerfield Village, and Rockcliffe CFB. In Toronto, East Bayfront, West Donlands, Parc Downsview Park, Exhibition Grounds .. in Vancouver False Creek, UBC etc. All these proposals include greenspace and public space, just like Lansdowne Live does. Those are just a few examples, around the world you can public land redevelopments (including stadium areas) worth billions of dollars. There are lots of examples throughout Canada done by CMHC/Canada Lands.

And rice must be the best food, a billion people can't be wrong... "Common" doesn't mean "best for the city". The "LeBreton Flats" Claridge "box" is a good example of a bad outcome, the War museum, a good outcome.

Ajldub, name calling is what they do when good arguments can't be found - don't sink to their level. Claiming the thread is "boring" is also a way to try to discredit a thread that doesn't match their particular bias.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Looks like a compliment to me. :)

That's because you're delusional. :) :P

"Ajldub, name calling is what they do when good arguments can't be found - don't sink to their level. Claiming the thread is "boring" is also a way to try to discredit a thread that doesn't match their particular bias."

That's hilarious coming from you, Franky. :haha:

Our bias? What about yours? We've offered nothing but good arguments, you just fail to even acknowledge them. I'm sigging that quote of yours for good measure.

[O-Town Hockey]

Those of you in favour of Lansdowne Live better get down to the city's website. I think if our voices are not heard, the very vocal Glebe contingent will drown out any sense of reason in this debate. Comments go here: http://lansdowne.econsultation.ca/

[ajldub]

Interesting looking at those posts on that website. It looks like public opinion is split almost halfway between those against sole-sourcing and those who want to see something there right away. It will be very interesting and telling to see how this one turns out.

[waterloowarrior]

Hundreds turn out for park talk
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Hundreds+turn+park+talk/2044486/story.html
First in series of public consultations begins in Lansdowne’s home turf

BY CHRISS COBB, THE OTTAWA CITIZENSEPTEMBER 28, 2009 11:29 PM

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.ottawacitizen.com/hundreds+turn+park+talk/2044486/2044487.bin


Glenn Kulka (L) of the Team 1200 and pro Lansdowne Live plan and Diane Girouard (R) argue with Glebe resident Marion Moritz (middle) at a public consultation about the Lansdowne Live plan, September 28, 2009.
Photograph by: Jean Levac , The Ottawa Citizen

OTTAWA-It was a polite, civilized affair — until the anger and resentment seething beneath the surface burst forth in a sudden, spontaneous act of defiance.

The Glebe, hostile territory for the Lansdowne Live proposal, was the first stop in a week-long public consultation process — a travelling road show of colourful drawings and plans and a host of developers, retail experts, city experts and assorted supporters on hand to convince taxpayers why their proposed transformation of this jewel of Ottawa real estate deserves the people’s support.

The several hundred Glebeites crammed into an Ottawa Civic Centre basement salon seemed unimpressed both by the plan and the process that led to it.

The most vocal were clearly furious that the “public consultation” offered no platform for public debate.

For the first 90 minutes or so, people shuffled from display to display, occasionally challenging the hosts and listening politely to the responses.

But even in the early going, there was an emerging chorus of disapproval.

“It’s a bit of a sham isn’t it?” said Glebe resident Kerry Johnston. “I thought there was going to be a chance to debate.”

Retailer Arthur McGregor, proprietor of the Ottawa Folklore Centre, said he was shocked that the City of Ottawa logo was embossed on all the plans.

“I object to that,” he said. “The city should be neutral at this point and giving support to all sides of the argument. I don’t like the proposal. It will create a separate community within a community. Once private housing gets inside Lansdowne Park, we’ve lost it.”

The proposal, from the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group, includes a first phase of sprucing up Frank Clair Stadium with the promise of new CFL and professional soccer franchises. Phase 1 would also include an underground parking garage, green space and 408,000 square feet of retail space. Phase 2, proposed for 2013, would include a hotel, residential development and office space.

Ottawa 67’s owner Jeff Hunt, part of the development consortium, clutched a Tim Hortons coffee and bantered with the locals.

“If the action at my booth is any indication,” he said, “we’re getting a lot of support. We knew Clive Doucet’s people would be out in force, but they have been overwhelmed here by supporters of the plan. But I’m not saying it’s been all high fives.”

City councillor Doucet, a vocal critic of Lansdowne Live, says the plan amounts to nothing more than a shopping centre with landscaping. He wants a new process with open bidding and public involvement and is scheduled to launch his “Ask Me” campaign today.

The consultation format, said Hunt, was preferable to a town hall.

“At a town hall you would just hear from a couple of loudmouths,” he said, “and it would turn into a circus.”

Shortly afterwards, resident Louis Helbig appeared with a megaphone, jumped on a chair and to cheers from the floor, told the room what he thought.

“I am a citizen of Ottawa,” he shouted. “This is not what we do in a democracy.”

More speakers followed.

“This is a fake. There is no consultation.”
“The city promised consultation and they are giving us stage-managed propaganda.”
“Who has the nerve and authority to reduce the size of the park?”
“This is not my public park. It’s a fancied up place for box stores.”
“This isn’t a vision. It’s a lack of vision.”

Helbig offered the megaphone to Lansdowne Live supporters, but only one took the opportunity.

Build high and wide at Lansdowne, he said, and save the Greenbelt.

Helbig said his “hunting down” the megaphone was spontaneous.

“This is an abomination of public process,’ he said.

Former Ottawa Rough Rider and now Team 1200 radio host Glenn Kulka listened to the speakers after spending the previous hour telling anyone who would listen what a great plan Lansdowne Live is.

“They’re being selfish and myopic,” he said.

“The city hasn’t touched this place since 1967. This is the first viable plan we’ve had and I think we should welcome it and have some trust in the developers. If we waited for the city to redevelop Lansdowne Park we would be waiting another 10 or 20 years.”

Outside, a Glebe community musical ensemble strummed guitar and banjo and harmonized lyrics adapted from Woody Guthrie for the occasion.

“This land is our land,” they sang. “From Bank and Holmwood to the heritage water — this land was made for you and me.”

And borrowing some double negatives from a ’60s classic:

“We don’t want no shopping mall.
“We shall not be moved.
We don’t want no big box stores
We shall not be moved …”

It’s likely that the first night for the public consultation process will prove the toughest for supporters of Lansdowne Live.

It continues this evening at the Ron Maslin Playhouse in Kanata

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[matty14]

Hundreds turn out for park talk
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Hundreds+turn+park+talk/2044486/story.html
First in series of public consultations begins in Lansdowne’s home turf

BY CHRISS COBB, THE OTTAWA CITIZENSEPTEMBER 28, 2009 11:29 PM

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.ottawacitizen.com/hundreds+turn+park+talk/2044486/2044487.bin


Glenn Kulka (L) of the Team 1200 and pro Lansdowne Live plan and Diane Girouard (R) argue with Glebe resident Marion Moritz (middle) at a public consultation about the Lansdowne Live plan, September 28, 2009.
Photograph by: Jean Levac , The Ottawa Citizen

OTTAWA-It was a polite, civilized affair — until the anger and resentment seething beneath the surface burst forth in a sudden, spontaneous act of defiance.

The Glebe, hostile territory for the Lansdowne Live proposal, was the first stop in a week-long public consultation process — a travelling road show of colourful drawings and plans and a host of developers, retail experts, city experts and assorted supporters on hand to convince taxpayers why their proposed transformation of this jewel of Ottawa real estate deserves the people’s support.

The several hundred Glebeites crammed into an Ottawa Civic Centre basement salon seemed unimpressed both by the plan and the process that led to it.

The most vocal were clearly furious that the “public consultation” offered no platform for public debate.

For the first 90 minutes or so, people shuffled from display to display, occasionally challenging the hosts and listening politely to the responses.

But even in the early going, there was an emerging chorus of disapproval.

“It’s a bit of a sham isn’t it?” said Glebe resident Kerry Johnston. “I thought there was going to be a chance to debate.”

Retailer Arthur McGregor, proprietor of the Ottawa Folklore Centre, said he was shocked that the City of Ottawa logo was embossed on all the plans.

“I object to that,” he said. “The city should be neutral at this point and giving support to all sides of the argument. I don’t like the proposal. It will create a separate community within a community. Once private housing gets inside Lansdowne Park, we’ve lost it.”

The proposal, from the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group, includes a first phase of sprucing up Frank Clair Stadium with the promise of new CFL and professional soccer franchises. Phase 1 would also include an underground parking garage, green space and 408,000 square feet of retail space. Phase 2, proposed for 2013, would include a hotel, residential development and office space.

Ottawa 67’s owner Jeff Hunt, part of the development consortium, clutched a Tim Hortons coffee and bantered with the locals.

“If the action at my booth is any indication,” he said, “we’re getting a lot of support. We knew Clive Doucet’s people would be out in force, but they have been overwhelmed here by supporters of the plan. But I’m not saying it’s been all high fives.”

City councillor Doucet, a vocal critic of Lansdowne Live, says the plan amounts to nothing more than a shopping centre with landscaping. He wants a new process with open bidding and public involvement and is scheduled to launch his “Ask Me” campaign today.

The consultation format, said Hunt, was preferable to a town hall.

“At a town hall you would just hear from a couple of loudmouths,” he said, “and it would turn into a circus.”

Shortly afterwards, resident Louis Helbig appeared with a megaphone, jumped on a chair and to cheers from the floor, told the room what he thought.

“I am a citizen of Ottawa,” he shouted. “This is not what we do in a democracy.”

More speakers followed.

“This is a fake. There is no consultation.”
“The city promised consultation and they are giving us stage-managed propaganda.”
“Who has the nerve and authority to reduce the size of the park?”
“This is not my public park. It’s a fancied up place for box stores.”
“This isn’t a vision. It’s a lack of vision.”

Helbig offered the megaphone to Lansdowne Live supporters, but only one took the opportunity.

Build high and wide at Lansdowne, he said, and save the Greenbelt.

Helbig said his “hunting down” the megaphone was spontaneous.

“This is an abomination of public process,’ he said.

Former Ottawa Rough Rider and now Team 1200 radio host Glenn Kulka listened to the speakers after spending the previous hour telling anyone who would listen what a great plan Lansdowne Live is.

“They’re being selfish and myopic,” he said.

“The city hasn’t touched this place since 1967. This is the first viable plan we’ve had and I think we should welcome it and have some trust in the developers. If we waited for the city to redevelop Lansdowne Park we would be waiting another 10 or 20 years.”

Outside, a Glebe community musical ensemble strummed guitar and banjo and harmonized lyrics adapted from Woody Guthrie for the occasion.

“This land is our land,” they sang. “From Bank and Holmwood to the heritage water — this land was made for you and me.”

And borrowing some double negatives from a ’60s classic:

“We don’t want no shopping mall.
“We shall not be moved.
We don’t want no big box stores
We shall not be moved …”

It’s likely that the first night for the public consultation process will prove the toughest for supporters of Lansdowne Live.

It continues this evening at the Ron Maslin Playhouse in Kanata

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

It's the actual kumbaya crowd we were talking about!

[Radster]

What does it matter what we want? Council has decided to delegate that to its own staff and OSEG; with the design competition at least people could have voiced opinions as to which proponent's design they most preferred and smart designers would have held public consultation sessions to solicit ideas in advance of coming up with their own final designs.




This, is where the anti LL people are mistaken. They think that a design competition would have yielded various options, which they would then be able to vote on, or give opinions on. This mentality stems from a general misunderstanding of what a design competition (in other words, a solicitation process) is about!

It would not have been the people (Ottawa, Glebe residents), it would have been city council who would have chosen their preferred proposal. (was it Ottawa residents who voted on the now cancelled O-train plans and subsequent Siemens contract???) And in order for it to be a fair and transparent competion (solicitation process), the city would of had to come up with pre-determined mandatory and rated requirements which would form the basis of the proposal evaluation process. Ideally, the city would of held public consultation meetings to hear from the public what they want to see in Lansdowne, from these meetings, they would then come up with the criteria for the design competition. Was this done when the city announced the design competion? If I read correctly a few pages ago, they had some criteria already before the design competition was cancelled. I don't know how they came up with the criteria, but if I remember correctly, the stadium staying was one of the criteria, right?

Also, in a solicitation process, most of the time it is not the lowest priced proposal that wins, often price is but a small factor in the total score. In the end, via a fair, transparent, democratic design competition, there is no guarantee that we would have ended up with a better, less costly proposal. We might have ended up with a bigger park/greenspace, less commercial space, a renovated stadium, but at a way higher cost, and less opportunity to reap a profit from the site down the road due to the lack of commercial & residential space on site. This is what people don't get when they cry about this cancelled design competition.

[waterloowarrior]

Lansdowne Live plan not green enough, Doucet argues
  
THE OTTAWA CITIZENSEPTEMBER 29, 2009 1:02 PMCOMMENTS (3)

OTTAWA — The claim that the new Lansdowne Park will consist of more than 40 per cent "new green parkland and open space," is a deception, Capital Councillor Clive Doucet charged at a press conference Tuesday.

"I contest it. I think it's completely misrepresenting what any normal human being would regard as green, open space," the Capital ward councillor said.

Doucet said the proposal that has been negotiated between the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group and city manager Kent Kirkpatrick will result in just over 10 per cent of the park's being converted into green space, and he presented his own proposal which would bump that amount up to 73 per cent.

Doucet added that the proponents of the Lansdowne plan are misrepresenting reality through their drawings presented to the public, which do not depict any cars on the roads running through the site.

The first public consultation on the plan turned heated Monday night; it was at the park itself and attracted nearby residents who dislike the Lansdowne Live proposal. Another consultation is planned for Tuesday night at the Ron Maslin Playhouse in Kanata, beginning at 6 p.m., with more to follow around the city in the coming week.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Lansdowne+Live+plan+green+enough+Doucet+argues/2046868/story.html

[O-Town Hockey]

I think that guy who stole the megaphone from the anti-LL people said it best: "Build Lansdowne high and wide, and leave our Greenbelt alone!"

I don't think this needs to be limited to the Greenbelt, but it can be a general comment on urban sprawl. We will be setting a really bad precident if Lansdowne Park becomes 73% greenspace without any retail or residential component. We are basically telling developers to not bother with the inner city because NIMBYs have the power in Ottawa. "Take your development to the suburbs and leave our stale central neighbourhoods for the select few that happen to already live there!". This is not right and I'll debate anyone who says otherwise.

[Franky]

I think that guy who stole the megaphone from the anti-LL people said it best: "Build Lansdowne high and wide, and leave our Greenbelt alone!"

I don't think this needs to be limited to the Greenbelt, but it can be a general comment on urban sprawl. We will be setting a really bad precident if Lansdowne Park becomes 73% greenspace without any retail or residential component. We are basically telling developers to not bother with the inner city because NIMBYs have the power in Ottawa. "Take your development to the suburbs and leave our stale central neighbourhoods for the select few that happen to already live there!". This is not right and I'll debate anyone who says otherwise.

I don't agree Lansdowne should be 73% greenspace necessarily. I think we should have a design competition to see what could be there. Shopping malls and residential are at the bottom of my list though.

[waterloowarrior]

Alternate proposals stir tension as Lansdowne road show reaches Kanata
 
 http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Alternate+proposals+stir+tension+road+show+reaches+Kanata/2048117/story.html
BY CHRIS COBB, THE OTTAWA CITIZENSEPTEMBER 30, 2009 6:27 AM

OTTAWA — The travelling public relations campaign to sell Ottawa taxpayers on the Lansdowne Live project hit a couple of tense moments Tuesday when disgruntled city officials attempted to block two interlopers from showing alternate designs.

“Why are you trying to stop me talking?” asked an indignant John Martin, rebuffing city communications chief Denis Abbott’s claims that he was disrupting efforts by the Lansdowne Live experts to get their message across.

Under the glare of TV lights and cameras, a hasty compromise was reached as a story of confrontation threatened to overtake the relatively sedate second night of city-sponsored public consultations.

Session one at the Lansdowne site was emotionally-charged, hijacked in spontaneous protest by angry Glebe residents armed with a communal megaphone.

Session two, in the tight confines of the lobby of Kanata’s Ron Maslin Theatre, was more controlled — packed, but with fewer people and with less of the emotional investment than at the project’s epicentre in the Glebe.

Martin, a computer specialist, wants the process sent back to the drawing board to “attract the best minds in finance and design.’ He favours redeveloping the Bayview site at Scott Street in concert with making Lansdowne into a state-of-the-art, environmentally-friendly facility.

“We are the nation’s capital,” he said. “Why are we limiting ourselves?”

Martin, selling his ideas alongside retired architect Lester Johnson and his own alternate designs, attracted a significant amount of media and public attention — and ultimately the attention of Abbott. The tension was defused by Johnson and Martin lowering their plans from a ledge at eye level to the floor.

“They are trying to suppress a citizen from talking freely,” protested Martin. “It shows a certain depth of paranoia.”

Glebe resident Louis Helbig, who produced the megaphone that altered the course of Monday’s meeting, said the presence of news media at the Kanata venue had prevented alternate opinion from being suppressed and had produced meaningful discussion.

“Yesterday, we saw a lot of people fixed in their views,’ he said. “Tonight we are seeing people who are here to learn, and that’s good. Thanks to the cameras, we have people of opposing views who are engaging in an open exchange of opinion. It’s the kind of open process we should have had from the start.”

Stittsville resident Stephen Croucher said he arrived at the meeting “70 per cent” convinced that Lansdowne Live is good for the community and was leaving “100 per cent” convinced. “It makes sense to me. “It’s a local solution to a local problem.”

Kanata resident Dwight Brown agreed and said he likes the idea of a family-oriented development and a major sporting and concert venue in the heart of the city.

“You can’t call yourself a major city if you can’t host an event for 20,000 people,” he said.

The consultations continue this evening at Ottawa City Hall.

30

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
 

[waterloowarrior]

http://letsgetitright.ca/ ......

[Franky]

Alternate proposals stir tension as Lansdowne road show reaches Kanata


They kinda tipped their hand by disallowing actual discussion. Yes, it's a sales job (and a done deal in their eyes).

[waterloowarrior]

They kinda tipped their hand by disallowing actual discussion. Yes, it's a sales job (and a done deal in their eyes).

It sounds like this format is more conducive to productive discussion and gives people an opportunity for one on one coversations with staff and proponents. A large town hall or open mic can be full of shouting/jeering and is very intimidating for people who support a project or are looking for more information. It sounds like some people were upset they couldn't yell/rant (until someone brought a megaphone)

[Franky]

It sounds like this format is more conducive to productive discussion and gives people an opportunity for one on one coversations with staff and proponents. A town hall or open mic can be full of shouting/jeering and is very intimidating for people who support a project or are looking for more information. It sounds like some people were upset they couldn't yell/rant (until someone brought a megaphone)

Interesting spin - you must have hear Councillor Bob Monette speak on the news. Did you know that only one person took up the megaphone bringer on his offer? I would not qualify this as people wanting to yell/rant. One on one means the proponents can tell you whatever they want and nobody will know if they make "mistakes" or embellish the truth. In an open mike format where everyone hears the answer to questions, it's a little harder to make misleading claim such as Lansdowne is costing $4-$5M/year without mentioning it brings in about $4-$5M/year. Someone in the audience would challenge such a misleading statement.

To disallow public input on the project as they did shows they don't really want to hear what people have to say. It shows they've made up their minds. It shows their hand - that this truly is a sole sourced sweetheart deal that would not stand up to competition.

[migo]

Interesting spin - you must have hear Councillor Bob Monette speak on the news. Did you know that only one person took up the megaphone bringer on his offer? I would not qualify this as people wanting to yell/rant. One on one means the proponents can tell you whatever they want and nobody will know if they make "mistakes" or embellish the truth. In an open mike format where everyone hears the answer to questions, it's a little harder to make misleading claim such as Lansdowne is costing $4-$5M/year without mentioning it brings in about $4-$5M/year. Someone in the audience would challenge such a misleading statement.

To disallow public input on the project as they did shows they don't really want to hear what people have to say. It shows they've made up their minds. It shows their hand - that this truly is a sole sourced sweetheart deal that would not stand up to competition.

More blah blah boo hoo bs from Hanky-Franky...

[Radster]

It shows their hand - that this truly is a sole sourced sweetheart deal that would not stand up to competition.

No, it shows its a very good sole sourced deal, that would blow all competition away. Others could have submitted ideas too (nothing stopped them from doing so!), but they didn't, because they knew they could not match this one in terms of quality and cost.

[Dado]

I think what we're seeing is larger than just Lansdowne Live. It looks to be a growing frustration with the entire consultation process, which gets piled on to the sole-source agreement.

The essential fact of the matter is that this was not a consultation - it was an information/sales session (someone called it a trade fair, and that sounds about right). Just like prior "consultations" - e.g. Interprovincial crossings, the TMP, every transit event - nothing the public submits ever gets incorporated, in part because the "consultations" are too late in the process for changes of any significance. Unlike the TMP, a lot of people - and not just Glebites - care about Lansdowne. What's more, with Lansdowne, City staff have been stripped of any notional impartiality they might enjoy with something like the TMP (they weren't impartial there either, but too few people would actually know that) because of their advocacy of a sole-source deal, and, with that veil of impartiality gone the floodgates of frustration just opened up. The entire thing has now degenerated into a circus, but they brought that on themselves, and, quite frankly, the more of a circus it becomes the better. If that's what it takes to get the City out of its consultation stupor then so be it. Maybe this episode will be the catalyst for some actual change in the way things are done. Reading some of the comment letters on David Reevely's blog posting shows that a good number of people have had it with the entire consultation process used in Ottawa. There are letters from people who don't mind the plan itself but dislike the way it came about.

OSEG and the City should have realized that once they went to a sole-source they were in a compromised position yet they proceeded as if it was any other kind of business arrangement. Instead, the FIRST thing they should have done was to hold a consultation session and get some ideas out of the public (a letter writer in the Citizen today had it right - the public is treated as a nuisance rather than a source of ideas). Granted, you're not going to be able to incorporate them all or make everyone happy, but at least you could demonstrate that you were trying. But this late-stage "consultation" is clearly a farce and everyone knows it.

As I said, I hope this leads to a change in the way the City as well as its consultants do public consultations. They need to start consulting far earlier in the process and solicit ideas from the public rather than carrying on in the "we know best" method that has been used for years. That goes for developing criteria as well.

[Franky]

No, it shows its a very good sole sourced deal, that would blow all competition away. Others could have submitted ideas too (nothing stopped them from doing so!), but they didn't, because they knew they could not match this one in terms of quality and cost.

Really? If you saw that council was already sold on a particular proposal, why would you bother investing time and money? (amazingly some have, only to be brushed aside). This whole thing is a real mess.

[matty14]

Really? If you saw that council was already sold on a particular proposal, why would you bother investing time and money? (amazingly some have, only to be brushed aside). This whole thing is a real mess.

Yeah, it's too bad that those proposals came along LONG after the City had decided to negotiate with LL. Where were these proposals a year ago when they could have been more helpful in re-starting the competition process? LL was unsolicited, why couldn't their's have been? These new proposals are just to get one's name in the media (Mr. Martin) and to play off the frustrations of the nimbys.

"Hey I can make a pretty picture, hey look at this! Nothing but parkland and the AP, just what the nimbys wanted! Hey look at me! Look at this proposal! I don't care how it's paid for, it's a fancy drawing and now the nimbys are on my side! Look it even gets rid of all the sports hooligans and pesky automobiles that destroy their quaint little neighbourhood!"

Ok, where's the funding coming from? What's the city going to have to pay (rip up asphalt, tear down the Stadium, COMPLETELY refurbish the Civic Centre (somebody even suggested building a new one at the old baseball stadium... how much do you think THAT will cost?), place all the grass and trails, maintenance, the list goes on and on), where is all the revenue coming from to repay for all that?

The city NEEDS a stadium. That's clear. So you don't want to see a huge tax bill to pay for refurbishing Frank Clair, but you are perfectly ok with an even bigger tax bill to build a brand new stadium at a marginally better location?

Hey, as long as it's not in the Glebe though right?

[Franky]

Yeah, it's too bad that those proposals came along LONG after the City had decided to negotiate with LL. Where were these proposals a year ago when they could have been more helpful in re-starting the competition process? LL was unsolicited, why couldn't their's have been? These new proposals are just to get one's name in the media (Mr. Martin) and to play off the frustrations of the nimbys.



Staff/councillors could dream up some scheme like they did for the LL proposal. The original LL proposal was quite outlandish. Though the current one is still out there. They're "paying" for part of the stadium through directed property taxes (which is silly) without accounting for the services these property taxes require on top of it all. Plus there doesn't seem to be any lease for the land this retail component is built on.

[lrt's friend]

I am going to agree again with Dado on the consultation process. This really burned me about the LRT plan, when the decisions were essentially already made before their was a public consultation. There should be a public consultation for all these major projects right at the beginning so that the public can share their dreams. Obviously, many will not be incorporated, but it is still early enough to include some of those ideas. This will be perceived as being more democratic and easier to sell the resulting plan to the public. You can actually point out. This and this and this was requested by the public and has been included.

To be fair, OSEG did listen to the public to some degree. That's why there were so many changes from the initial proposal. We also have to remember that we had 2 unsolicited competing plans. Both were very credible and financially backed. Both had perceived deadlines. The private sector does not like extensive delays. They want to get their projects off the ground as soon as it is financially feasible. With sports franchises behind both of them, there were very specific deadlines, with only so much flexibility. Other plans may have been presented but have no financial backing. As it stands, they are worth not much more than the paper that they are printed on. Anybody can design something, but if they came with financial backing, then they are much more worthy of consideration. I am waiting? I think the big risk of going back to a design consultation is that we will lose one or both very credible plans. That could leave the city in a much worse position.

When I hear of the Glebe BIA concerns, I chuckle. Where have I heard that before? Its deja vu. Just dial back the clock a few years to the almost insurrection in Westboro over the Loblaws Superstore. The sky was falling is all we heard. As it turned out, the Loblaws Superstore actually has stimulated Westboro and drawn in more shoppers into the community. Westboro's retail community has never thrived as much as at present. Yet, with this experience, all we hear is doom and gloom of the impending retail catastrophe. Come on! Adding shopping and linking Ottawa South and the Glebe more effectively together is going to make this a bigger shopping draw than it is today. It will offer more choice of shops and types of merchandise than we presently have. Also, the whole strip will be anchored by a convenient parking garage. At present, the existing shopping is too remote from Lansdowne to consider it for parking so you are left with only on street parking.

I agree that the consultation process needs to be improved but it is too late for LL. It is time to get on with it. Bailing out on this will leave us not at square one, but more likely behind square one, with little hope of actually getting anything done with Lansdowne or a stadium in the next 10 or 20 years. Please do not put me in a 'I told you so' situation in a few years time.

[waterloowarrior]

For those who don't like the financials of the partnership, how would you structure it differently and how much should OSEG put in and get out of the deal?

[waterloowarrior]

Civic Centre to be rebranded as The Urbandale Centre
The Ottawa CitizenSeptember 30, 2009 4:03 PMBe the first to post a comment (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:jumpToAnchor%28%27#PostComment%27%29)
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Civic+Centre+rebranded+Urbandale+Centre/2051552/story.html

OTTAWA — Property developer Urbandale, the company that won the Civic Centre naming rights promotion, has decided to brand the building The Urbandale Centre, the Ottawa 67's announced on Wednesday.

The hockey club said re-branding efforts were already under way and would be completed in the coming weeks.

Re-branding design efforts are already underway and will be completed in the coming weeks.

The Urbandale Centre brand will be visible on the Lansdowne marquis on Bank Street, an in-ice ad, all 67’s print ads, and all audio and video ads and programs involving references to where the 67’s play their home games.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen


Good timing! :D

[Franky]

I agree that the consultation process needs to be improved but it is too late for LL. It is time to get on with it. Bailing out on this will leave us not at square one, but more likely behind square one, with little hope of actually getting anything done with Lansdowne or a stadium in the next 10 or 20 years. Please do not put me in a 'I told you so' situation in a few years time.

I'm sure there is nothing to worry about since it's a done deal, but something would need to done pronto because of the state of the stadium. It's sad that we'll miss the opportunity to place the stadium on rapid transit and that Lansdowne will be denigrated to hosting a shopping mall.

[blackjagger]

I'm sure there is nothing to worry about since it's a done deal, but something would need to done pronto because of the state of the stadium. It's sad that we'll miss the opportunity to place the stadium on rapid transit and that Lansdowne will be denigrated to hosting a shopping mall.

Yeap a shopping mall just like the Byward Market, damn I hate that shopping mall. You know lots of small boutique style shops, small bistros and resturants just like you would find at any St. Laurent, Bayshore, Eaton Centre, Vaughan Mills.

Cheers,
Josh

[ajldub]

Wow what a mess. So many unhappy people in the news over this thing. I still fail to see the urgency of developing this now with the unsourced deal on the table. LL will probably go ahead, for better or for worse...

[Franky]

For those who don't like the financials of the partnership, how would you structure it differently and how much should OSEG put in and get out of the deal?

Is it too much to ask that the stadium tenants cover the expenses? Or, to equate the LL deal, half of the debt servicing cost + operating costs? So, bring in CFL, MLS, concerts, parking revenue, rent the field out to amateur sports - whatever it takes. If this can't be done, we have to consider whether the costs outweigh the benefits.

[Franky]

Yeap a shopping mall just like the Byward Market, damn I hate that shopping mall. You know lots of small boutique style shops, small bistros and resturants just like you would find at any St. Laurent, Bayshore, Eaton Centre, Vaughan Mills.

Cheers,
Josh

Is there supposed to be a street down Lansdowne with parking on either side? Those places are fine. The city didn't have to give a free lease on the land for that to happen or put in a large amount of capital on a stadium next to them either. It's also not land considered a "jewel" next to a UNESCO world heritage site.

No need to get upset, council will ram this deal through no matter what.

[Suzie]

For those who don't like the financials of the partnership, how would you structure it differently and how much should OSEG put in and get out of the deal?

You make it as simple as possible.

As I have said previous posts, the retail/residential/office/hotel portion of the project (10 acres?) should be separated from the stadium portion and put up for bid (I don’t care if it’s outright sale or a long-term lease). Given its prime location and zoning to reflect its intended use, many developers would bid, and the City would get fair market value for its land and its money up-front. The proceeds would be used to lower the amount the City needs to borrow to refurbish the stadium and to build the parking. Now, there would still be opposition from some Glebe residents. But at least one would be confident that the City (and taxpayers) would not be taken advantage of. The number of critics of the project would go down and those that remain would be in a weaker position.

With regard to the stadium (and most of the parking), either have this City Corp manage it, including the refurbishment, or have the private sector do it through a long-term concession. If it’s the latter, make sure it is a competitive process. Irrespective, leases would be signed with the owners of the new CFL franchise and the 67s. The terms of the leases would be consistent with those of similar franchises.

This, by the way, is similar to option 2 on slide 23 of Ian Lee’s presentation:

http://files.friendsoflansdownepark.ca/ian-lees-lansdowne-presentation-city-hall-sep

With regard to OSEG, they could bid on both components. They might win or they might not. The competitive process would ensure that the winner(s) would not be expected to earn excess profits. With regard to the two franchises, their profitability would depend on how successful they are in drawing fans and generating their own revenue, instead of privileged access to the revenues from the retail/residential/office/hotel portion of the project.

[waterloowarrior]

Interesting Suzie, I`ll take look at that link

Looks like they changed the format tonight and had a Q&A session
http://ottawa.ca/temp/lansdowne_qasession_en.html
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Lansdowne+Live+meetings/2052241/story.html

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.ottawacitizen.com/news/lansdowne+live+meetings/2052241/2052383.bin?size=620x400

[waterloowarrior]

Heated critics of Lansdowne are in the wrong place, councillor says
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Heated+critics+Lansdowne+wrong+place+councillor+says/2051251/story.html
By Patrick Dare , The Ottawa CitizenSeptember 30, 2009Comments (10) (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:jumpToAnchor%28%27#Comments%27%29)

[Dado]

I am going to agree again with Dado on the consultation process. This really burned me about the LRT plan, when the decisions were essentially already made before their was a public consultation. There should be a public consultation for all these major projects right at the beginning so that the public can share their dreams. Obviously, many will not be incorporated, but it is still early enough to include some of those ideas. This will be perceived as being more democratic and easier to sell the resulting plan to the public. You can actually point out. This and this and this was requested by the public and has been included.

Exactly. Even if your own ideas didn't make it, at least you could see that some other people's ideas did.


When I hear of the Glebe BIA concerns, I chuckle. Where have I heard that before? Its deja vu. Just dial back the clock a few years to the almost insurrection in Westboro over the Loblaws Superstore. The sky was falling is all we heard. As it turned out, the Loblaws Superstore actually has stimulated Westboro and drawn in more shoppers into the community. Westboro's retail community has never thrived as much as at present.
This is going off-topic but I was really ticked off with the reaction to Loblaws here in Westboro. I still blame the Westboro Community Association for the flaws that store now has - its Richmond Road frontage is basically a wall of windows. There are no entrances currently in use and the floor is not even at sidewalk level (it's 3-4 feet higher). We could have insisted that Loblaws place all its mini-store things (the camera store, the winery, the eatery, the PC Financial, the pharmacy, etc) along Richmond and provided access to each and every one of them from both Richmond as well as inside but the Community blew all its powder on fighting the very existence of the store itself, going all the way to the OMB, so it couldn't argue for actual improvements when the store came. Now things like the dry cleaner are very inconveniently located and do nothing to create a mainstreet environment on Richmond. All of this we could have worked on with Loblaws, rather than fighting them tooth and nail. The Westboro Loblaws is a pretty good example of what not to do as a community.

Anyway...



I agree that the consultation process needs to be improved but it is too late for LL. It is time to get on with it. Bailing out on this will leave us not at square one, but more likely behind square one, with little hope of actually getting anything done with Lansdowne or a stadium in the next 10 or 20 years. Please do not put me in a 'I told you so' situation in a few years time.

I agree. It's basically too far gone for Lansdowne, and the land use plan itself is pretty good. The finances could always be improved I suppose but the basic problem with changing course now is who else would want to touch it now?

That said I don't think the ride should be made easy for the City or OSEG either. I hope to see lots more people providing feedback via megaphone, crashing their 'consultations', singing protest songs, punting them into court, getting outraged at them claiming expert assistance, and so on. It's all very entertaining (a lot more so than football, I might add) but more to the point they have to emerge from this so scarred, battered and bruised that they'll be saying to themselves "Never are we going to go through this kind of thing again. There's got to be a better way."

[waterloowarrior]

Here's the latest Citizen story

City bows to Lansdowne Live criticism

Public gets chance to ask questions about redevelopment plan

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/City+bows+Lansdowne+Live+criticism/2052453/story.html

By CHRIS COBB and PATRICK DARE, The Ottawa CitizenSeptember 30, 2009 11:22 PM

OTTAWA-Following two days of angry criticism that public consultation on the Lansdowne Live re-development plan was deliberately gagging taxpayers who oppose the project, city officials changed course late Wednesday.

The third session of the campaign to win support for Lansdowne Live arrived at city hall with sagging credibility over accusations that the week-long sessions had been deliberately constructed to shut out criticism.

City manager Kent Kirkpatrick said “public feedback” and several councillors had persuaded him to open the process. A city press release issued shortly before the start of last evening’s session announced a 90-minute question-and-answer period.

And Mayor Larry O’Brien, absent from the previous two sessions, appeared briefly for a media scrum and accused some “fanatics” of setting out “to create chaos.”

O’Brien, a supporter of Lansdowne Live, hinted that the process had not run as smoothly as he hoped.

‘If we were all perfect,” he said, “it would have been perfect from Day 1.”
O’Brien said he wouldn’t be taking part in the questions and answers because he wanted to keep a low profile and wait for the official report from the sessions.

“I want to hear what people have to say,” he added.

But the city’s new-found willingness to answer questions and hear criticism, wasn’t extended to John Martin who city communications chief Denis Abbott had attempted — and failed — to exclude from the second session in Kanata the evening before.

Martin, one of two people whose alternate designs attracted significant attention at the sessions, arrived at City Hall and was immediately slapped with a notice “under the Trespass to Property Act” and barred from the building or its grounds until today.

The notice, signed by the city’s head of “corporate security and integrated public safety” accused Martin of refusing to “cease and desist behaving in a matter that is disruptive to official city proceedings.”

Despite the ban, Martin was allowed to set up his drawings in the hall next to the official proceedings.

“What can I do?” he said. “They told me they would bring in the police if I don’t do as they say.”

The Lansdowne Live project is a proposed partnership between the city and four businessmen to: rebuild the failing football stadium into a multi-use stadium that would house pro football and soccer teams; renovate the Civic Centre; build stores, restaurants, a theatre complex, some office space and housing; and replace acres of asphalt parking with greenspace between the Aberdeen Pavilion and the Rideau Canal.

Despite the late notice, the question and answer session was standing room only.

Participants were warned beforehand that only one question each would be allowed and Kirkpatrick would not be debating.

“A lot of people are looking for a debate,” he said. “The debate will happen at council.”

Questions, preceded in most cases by pointed expressions of opinion, varied from concerns over the sole-source process that led to the Live plan and the viability of another CFL team in a city with a history of failed franchises.

Under the proposal, taxpayers would be footing a bill in excess of $120 million to upgrade Frank Clair Stadium and the Civic Centre.

“What guarantee do we have the we will not be left with another white elephant?” asked one man, referring to the empty Lynx stadium on Coventry Road.

“At what point do we have to pay a financial penalty if this (project) doesn’t go ahead?” asked another, referring to the $36.7 million bill that hit taxpayers after city councillors cancelled the light rail project in 2006.

“We’re a long way from that,” said Kirkpatrick. “There’s a lot more work needs to be done.”

“How old will I be when we stop paying for this?” asked Phoebe Cullingham, 15.

A sudden skirmish between Orléans Councillor Bob Monette and Councillors Clive Doucet, Diane Deans and Diane Holmes ended with Monette storming out of the chamber of what he perceived as the trio’s affronts to Kirkpatrick’s integrity.

There are fissures on council over why and how the Lansdowne Live proposal apparently gained favour so rapidly at the expense of what opponents say should have been a more competitive process.

Earlier Wednesday, Councillor Rick Chiarelli urged opponents of the Lansdowne Live project to “turn down the heat” at the open houses being held across the city until next Tuesday.

Chiarelli says that opponents will have their chance to publicly question the controversial $250-million project at two committee meetings next week but the public information sessions are not the appropriate platform.

“They’re looking for a place to have their fight,” said Chiarelli.
Bay Councillor Alex Cullen disagreed.

Cullen, who is chairman of the city's transit committee and opposes the project, said the strong public reaction at the open houses was predictable, given the traffic problems the development would create for Glebe residents.

Cullen said the fact that the project is a sole-source deal with the business partnership “just adds fuel to the fire” for upset residents.

The financial numbers and business arrangements in the proposed project will be scrutinized beginning Tuesday morning at a public meeting at Ottawa City Hall.

Two days later, there will be a joint meeting of council’s transit and transportation committees to look at all of the transportation issues of the project.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[Dado]

One has to wonder about these guys' collective wisdom at times... could they time this any better? How long has the Civic Centre been the 'Civic Centre'? And they're going to do this bit of corporate rebranding right now? Who's handling their PR?


Civic Centre to be rebranded as The Urbandale Centre
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Civic+Centre+rebranded+Urbandale+Centre/2051552/story.html
THE OTTAWA CITIZEN SEPTEMBER 30, 2009

OTTAWA — Property developer Urbandale, the company that won the Civic Centre naming rights promotion, has decided to brand the building The Urbandale Centre, the Ottawa 67's announced on Wednesday.

The hockey club said re-branding efforts were already under way and would be completed in the coming weeks.

Ottawa 67's owner Jeff Hunt held the contest, which drew 134 bids of $1,000 each to get naming rights for the Civic Centre.

"Urbandale has been a proud supporter of the Ottawa 67’s since the 1970’s and we are pleased to continue this support,'' said company president Lyon Sachs. Re-branding design efforts are already underway and will be completed in the coming weeks.

The Urbandale Centre brand will be visible on the Lansdowne marquis on Bank Street, an in-ice ad, all 67’s print ads, and all audio and video ads and programs involving references to where the 67’s play their home games.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[waterloowarrior]

One has to wonder about these guys' collective wisdom at times... could they time this any better? How long has the Civic Centre been the 'Civic Centre'? And they're going to do this bit of corporate rebranding right now? Who's handling their PR?

:D Well it is only temporary (until July 2010 i.e. the end of the season), and the timing is because the season just started and the winner was announced at the home opener on the 25th, but really funny that of all companies in the draw they picked a developer

Randall Denley had a column about it in July
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/story_print.html?id=1795260&sponsor=

[Proof Sheet]

A sudden skirmish between Orléans Councillor Bob Monette and Councillors Clive Doucet, Diane Deans and Diane Holmes ended with Monette storming out of the chamber of what he perceived as the trio’s affronts to Kirkpatrick’s integrity.


This I would have loved to see...somehow, I can't see a meeting of the minds between one of the 'folks' like Monette versus the self-righteous Holmes...

[waterloowarrior]

This I would have loved to see...somehow, I can't see a meeting of the minds between one of the 'folks' like Monette versus the self-righteous Holmes...



Monette wigs out a bit (http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/greaterottawa/archive/2009/10/01/monette-wigs-out-a-bit.aspx)



By David Reevely (http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/members/David-Reevely/default.aspx) Thu, Oct 1 2009 COMMENTS(2) (http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/greaterottawa/archive/2009/10/01/monette-wigs-out-a-bit.aspx#comments) Greater Ottawa (http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/greaterottawa/default.aspx)
Filed under: Lansdowne Park (http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/greaterottawa/archive/tags/Lansdowne+Park/default.aspx), Bob Monette (http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/greaterottawa/archive/tags/Bob+Monette/default.aspx)


Orléans Councillor Bob Monette fired off this press release late Wednesday night, apparently livid over the way the open house/town hall on Lansdowne Live went at City Hall. Besides the bold and underlining and italics and so on, there's some type in red and in blue that I'll have to add later.

Councillor Monette, Frustrated at another example of lack of respect.

For Immediate Release
October 1, 2009

OTTAWA - At a consultation meeting held last night at city hall the opponents of Landsdowne Live again showed a complete lack of composure and respect towards the staff of the city of Ottawa.

“I was very encouraged that our city manager decided today to open up two hours of the consultation process and have the residents given the opportunity to ask questions on the Landsdowne Live proposal.”

“During an hour and a half, I listened to attacks on credibility directed to Kent Kirkpatrick, staff, developers, consultant, mayor and council. It was very clear that the only intent tonight was to attack the city at every opportunity.”

The meeting deteriorated when Councillor Doucet decided to speak when it was not his turn at that time he decided to rile up the crowd by making allegations and taking personal attacks to the city managers credibility in public.

Our city manager has been upfront and honest throughout this whole process and I will not sit by and condone the personal attacks on one of the best managers in Canada andI will no longer sit back and let the developers and the consultant continue to be treated as if they are devious, crooks and underhanded.

Shenkman, Minto, Trinity, and Hunt have been major philanthropists in this city and honest families who have built communities across this city. They were invited to help the city to do something about the decrepit state of Landsdowne Park and today they are being publicly slandered on a continuous basis.

The consultant was also hired by the city with council direction to get all of the components together so that we could have a finalized proposal put on our table. Graham Bird has been a very respectful representative of this city and he is also being attacked and unfairly slandered on a regular basis.

I left tonight when not only councillor Doucet was attacking our city manager but the people in attendance decided that the city manager was fair game.

They did not have blow horns but they acted as badly as the Mondays meeting I have come to the conclusion that they are not prepared to go through the process they prefer confrontation to consultation what a shame for the city of Ottawa!!!


Councillor Bob Monette
(613) 580-2471

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

These consultations are a total sham, and not for the reasons people like Franky think...

[O-Town Hockey]

Monette for mayor! :tup:

At least one councillor is calling a spade a spade. Someone needs to put these self-righteous, bitchy Glebites in their place. I have tons of friends that live in the Glebe and surrounding areas who are civil and present their opions in a clear and open-minded way but, as usual, it only takes a few to ruin the neighbourhood's reputation for everyone else.

[Franky]

Bob Monette is spinning it up:
"Jared

I was there last night, and observed the outburst that occurred first hand. The members of the public were well behaved 99% of the time, showing support by clapping and generally not booing unpopular statements(about 2 times the whole evening, and quickly stopped). Kent and the others were allowed to talk every time with no interruptions by the public and his answers were received as well as could be expected by the crowd(skeptically).

When Bob decided to get worked up about this and walk out on things, it really felt like political theater. People were asking questions to try to get a clear idea of the role Kent played in canceling the public bidding process and moving on getting details on the Live proposal. Many people feel that this was an arbitrary decision(and the impress Kent left with me was that it really was) on his part(Some wanted him to admit that the Mayor directed him to cancel it, but even if that was true, you will never hear Kent say that, so it is a moot point).

What really bothers me in the argument is that every time people start opposing this strongly, it's suddenly a personal attack. I remember the mayor responding to a presentation that was opposed based on facts and studies by saying it was a personal attack. This is not an argument, it's just a distraction. You work in politics, or you work for the city government, but either way you work for the people of Ottawa. Sometimes people are not going to like you, and that's just part of the job. If you do stuff like work on huge multi-million dollar projects, then people are going to hate you with a passion, no matter what decisions you make. If you cannot deal with this, then you are in the wrong job.

Other then the long windedness of some of the people asking questions, everything went smoothly last night. I would have liked to see more of city council there, but you can't have everything. I'm glad Bob showed up, but he needs to realize that in any passionate debate, some people are going to make it personal, and that is not a reason to just stop talking to the rest."
http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/greaterottawa/archive/2009/10/01/monette-wigs-out-a-bit.aspx

[matty14]

You make it as simple as possible.

As I have said previous posts, the retail/residential/office/hotel portion of the project (10 acres?) should be separated from the stadium portion and put up for bid (I don’t care if it’s outright sale or a long-term lease). Given its prime location and zoning to reflect its intended use, many developers would bid, and the City would get fair market value for its land and its money up-front. The proceeds would be used to lower the amount the City needs to borrow to refurbish the stadium and to build the parking. Now, there would still be opposition from some Glebe residents. But at least one would be confident that the City (and taxpayers) would not be taken advantage of. The number of critics of the project would go down and those that remain would be in a weaker position.

With regard to the stadium (and most of the parking), either have this City Corp manage it, including the refurbishment, or have the private sector do it through a long-term concession. If it’s the latter, make sure it is a competitive process. Irrespective, leases would be signed with the owners of the new CFL franchise and the 67s. The terms of the leases would be consistent with those of similar franchises.

This, by the way, is similar to option 2 on slide 23 of Ian Lee’s presentation:

http://files.friendsoflansdownepark.ca/ian-lees-lansdowne-presentation-city-hall-sep

With regard to OSEG, they could bid on both components. They might win or they might not. The competitive process would ensure that the winner(s) would not be expected to earn excess profits. With regard to the two franchises, their profitability would depend on how successful they are in drawing fans and generating their own revenue, instead of privileged access to the revenues from the retail/residential/office/hotel portion of the project.

Suzie, if all the naysayers were as constructive and factual as you are, there would be a lot less frustration amongst our group of proponents :D

[rodionx]

This is going off-topic but I was really ticked off with the reaction to Loblaws here in Westboro. I still blame the Westboro Community Association for the flaws that store now has - its Richmond Road frontage is basically a wall of windows. There are no entrances currently in use and the floor is not even at sidewalk level (it's 3-4 feet higher). We could have insisted that Loblaws place all its mini-store things (the camera store, the winery, the eatery, the PC Financial, the pharmacy, etc) along Richmond and provided access to each and every one of them from both Richmond as well as inside but the Community blew all its powder on fighting the very existence of the store itself, going all the way to the OMB, so it couldn't argue for actual improvements when the store came. Now things like the dry cleaner are very inconveniently located and do nothing to create a mainstreet environment on Richmond. All of this we could have worked on with Loblaws, rather than fighting them tooth and nail. The Westboro Loblaws is a pretty good example of what not to do as a community.


So true. The Loblaws there really is an example of a suburban, big box design dropped into a semi-urban area. It would have taken so little to make it pedestrian friendly, if only someone had asked.

In regard to the Lansdowne proposal, I think the big mistake the opponents made was to come come forward with a plan to remove the stadium altogether and put in a lawn. It was an act of breathtaking hubris that muddied the whole debate over the deal itself. And to boot, it's never going to happen.

[m0nkyman]

In regard to the Lansdowne proposal, I think the big mistake the opponents made was to come come forward with a plan to remove the stadium altogether and put in a lawn. It was an act of breathtaking hubris that muddied the whole debate over the deal itself. And to boot, it's never going to happen.

Quoted for truth.

Bottom line is that it makes more sense to try and make the deal in front of us work than it does to pretend that there is a fairytale prince out there somewhere that will pay the city for the privilege of fixing up a run down sporting complex/parking lot and then pay taxes on it.

The city needs a venue for 20-40,000 person events. That is as essential to culture as a library is. The city can't/won't afford to fix up the one that we have. The solution is to come up with a way to get a developer to do it for us. That is going to cost us in one way or another. In this case it's going to cost us a portion of the actual cost of fixing it up, plus a whole bunch of opportunity costs.

The debate should be about how to make this cost as little as possible while providing the maximum benefit to the city. The debate should not be about whether Landsdowne Park should be turned into a picnic site / birdwatching area. The latter just ain't going to happen.

[O-Town Hockey]

Lansdowne vote 'too close to call': CouncillorRob Snow
Friday, October 2, 2009

It will come right down to the wire.

With roughly one month to go before it comes before the full City Council for a final vote, some councilors admit to CFRA News the proposal to redevelop Landsdowne Park may not have the votes to pass.

While a vote to send the proposal to the public consultation phase, a contentious and often heated process that started this week, easily passed through the committee of the whole this summer, the same cannot be said for the final decision, expected in early November.

Speaking privately, some councilors said support for the Landsdowne Partnership Plan has eroded under the pressure of a well coordinated campaign by the project's critics.

"If it came up for a vote tomorrow, I don't think we'd have the votes", one councilor conceded. "We're just inundated with email from people who are against this, it's in the hundreds."

"There are those who were on the fence to begin with", another councilor said. "And this week hasn't helped."

Speaking on CFRA's Afternoon Edition, Orleans Ward Councilor, Bob Monette said he was worried the project could go down to defeat, because of a fear campaign spear-headed by Capital Ward Councilor, Clive Doucet. Lansdowne Park sits in Doucet's ward.

"I'm very nervous, especially with all the antics that have been going on at all the consultation meetings. There are some councilors that are working very hard at getting people riled up. They're trying to intimidate people and get councilors to change their positions. It's not a done deal, that's for sure", Monette said.

The fate of the plan rests with several "swing votes".

These are councilors that supported the idea to send the project to the public consultation phase, but still hold serious reservations about its merits.

These councilors include Peter Hume, Diane Deans, Glenn Brooks, Maria McRae and Marianne Wilkinson. At least two of these councilors would need to support the proposal, or it's likely the plan will be defeated.

Proponents of the plan expect it will be difficult to bring Hume, Deans and McRae onside, but are optimistic Brooks and Wilkinson can be persuaded to support the project.

In the meantime, Councilor Monette said he is hoping residents that favour a revitalized Landsdowne Park will make their voices heard. "I hope that the residents that do support this plan come out and become a bit more vocal."


Public consultations will resume next week. A session will be held at the Tom Brown Arena on Bayview Road Monday evening and at the Shenkman Art Centre in Orleans on Tuesday. Both sessions run from 6 to 9 p.m.

* Where they stand:

Yeas

Rob Jellett

Rainer Bloess

Jan Harder

Bob Monette

Doug Thompson

Rick Chiarelli

Steve Desroches

Gord Hunter

Shad Qadri

Eli El-Chantiry

Mayor Larry O'Brien

Total 11

Nays

Christine Leadman Clive Doucet

Michel Bellemare

Jacques Legendre

George Bedard

Peggy Feltmate

Diane Holmes

Alex Cullen

Total 8

Swing Votes

Maria McRae

Glenn Brooks

Peter Hume

Marianne Wilkinson

Diane Deans

Total 5

**Needed to pass - 13 ***Tie (12-12) and the motion is defeated


Looks like council is beginning to buckle under the NIMBY pressure. This will be a test to see if our council really cares what the majority of the city wants or if they will cater to the needs of the vocal minority. It's an embarrassing time to be from the nation's capital.

[Franky]

Looks like council is beginning to buckle under the NIMBY pressure. This will be a test to see if our council really cares what the majority of the city wants or if they will cater to the needs of the vocal minority. It's an embarrassing time to be from the nation's capital.

It's just a bad proposal, anyone can see that. No rapid transit, a shopping mall on one of the city's most valued sites and a sole sourced sweetheart deal to boot.

[blackjagger]

It's just a bad proposal, anyone can see that. No rapid transit, a shopping mall on one of the city's most valued sites and a sole sourced sweetheart deal to boot.

Sweeping statements about how everyone agrees with your point of view are obliviously false based on the feedback you get here.

As for sole sourced, good for OSEG. They have convinced a group of elected officials, which have a fiduciary responsible to the residents of Ottawa, to entertain the thought and now negotiate a deal , which still has to be democratically voted on ,to development as you say "one of the city's most valued sites". OSEG will take on risk that the city does not what to take, employee citizens that the city can't/won't, pay taxes on the money earned with goes back to Canada, and elevate Ottawa back to the national and international state again in football and soccer. And this plan will include a relatively short time frame for development.

Probably the worst news to hit Ottawa in a long time eh?

[Acajack]

It's just a bad proposal, anyone can see that. No rapid transit, a shopping mall on one of the city's most valued sites and a sole sourced sweetheart deal to boot.

“Most valued sites”... this and other comments about the sacred character of Lansdowne remind me of St. Peter’s Square in Rome. Or the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

Yes, it is true that it is a prime piece of real estate, but there are plenty of other prime pieces of real estate in Ottawa that no one is developing (Bayview, near Hurdman Station, etc.), or are developing excrutiatingly slowly (Lebreton).

There is, it is a true, a reasonably healthy demand for centrally-located land in Ottawa, but let’s not get carried away and imply that it’s midtown Manhattan for God’s sakes...

[Ciemny]

This will seriously set us back if the proposal gets defeated. If it hapens I see the same happening with the LRT project since some councillors are already musing about the escalating costs.

It is going to be embarasing to be from Ottawa a city that a). "Fun Forgot" and b). Nothing significant gets done.

Lets build on LeBreton and take the 20-30 years to get everything organized Franky. That is if some NIMBY group does not spoil it either. As a G8 capital its a shame.