[rodionx]

It only makes sense to explore stadium possibilities if there is some realistic chance of the budget becoming available to move the existing stadium. The odds of that happening are slim to none.

There's one possibility... the city could sell off Lansdowne for development, with the exception of the Aberdeen pavilion, then use the proceeds to fund the construction of a new stadium elsewhere. The location and design could be chosen through a competition.

It would be more cost efficient, however, to sell off just the unused lands at Lansdowne, and then use the proceeds to renovate the existing stadium. The city could just use straightforward tenders in that event - no need for a complicated waterfall deal.

[phil235]

There's one possibility... the city could sell off Lansdowne for development, with the exception of the Aberdeen pavilion, then use the proceeds to fund the construction of a new stadium elsewhere. The location and design could be chosen through a competition.

It would be more cost efficient, however, to sell off just the unused lands at Lansdowne, and then use the proceeds to renovate the existing stadium. The city could just use straightforward tenders in that event - no need for a complicated waterfall deal.

A possibility yes, but a political non-starter. I don't think the city can hope for public support of a sale of any part of Lansdowne.

[Franky]

A possibility yes, but a political non-starter. I don't think the city can hope for public support of a sale of any part of Lansdowne.

If it's to be a park, someone suggested selling or swapping part of the land for other land to the NCC.

[peteotown]

I realize I'm new around here, and maybe I'm a little naive, but why are we struggling to find our ~$150M, but Quebec City is confident it will secure $350M? If both federal and provincial infrastructure money is available in these quantities, does this change everything regarding location, scale of project, etc? I'm a supporter of developing Lansdowne, but think of what we could have if we had ~$400M available for this project!:D

Quebec City to attract NHL with $400M arena

BY MARIANNE WHITE, CANWEST NEWS SERVICEOCTOBER 16, 2009 11:02 AM

Quebec City Mayor Regis Labeaume. He announced Friday plans to build a $400-million NHL-sized arena in the hope of bringing back a professional hockey team to the city that was home to the Nordiques until 1995.
Photograph by: Mathieu Belanger, The Gazette
QUEBEC — Quebec City Mayor Regis Labeaume on Friday announced plans to build a $400-million NHL-sized arena in the hope of bringing back a professional hockey team to the city that was home to the Nordiques until 1995.

The mayor laid out plans to build the 18,000-seat arena, which will be used as a concert venue and a hockey arena.

"The current arena doesn't serve our ambitions anymore," said Labeaume, who is asking federal and provincial governments to invest $175 million each into the new arena through infrastructure programs.

"The population of Quebec City wants an NHL hockey club. "

Rumours that a NHL hockey club could make a return to the city have been fuelled in the past week with the news Labeaume and former Nordiques owner Marcel Aubut met with NHL commissioner Gary Bettman.

Bettman had said earlier this month he would look at a team for Quebec City if a new arena were built and a club were available for sale.

Labeaume on Friday said he received no assurances from the NHL on a return of a team to Quebec but stressed there is "no doubt" on league's interest.

NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly told a local radio station this week Quebec City would be "on top of the list" for future NHL expansion or relocation if it went through with plans to build a new arena.

A falling Canadian dollar and an aging arena led to the sale in 1995 of the Quebec Nordiques.

The team moved to Colorado to become the Avalanche and won the Stanley Cup the following year.

© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service

[Franky]

I realize I'm new around here, and maybe I'm a little naive, but why are we struggling to find our ~$150M, but Quebec City is confident it will secure $350M? If both federal and provincial infrastructure money is available in these quantities, does this change everything regarding location, scale of project, etc? I'm a supporter of developing Lansdowne, but think of what we could have if we had ~$400M available for this project!:D

How many projects do we have in Ottawa that have obtained federal and provincial funding? I can't think of many (any) recent ones - help me out.

[k2p]

The Congress Centre is the big one. New buildings at Carleton and UofO as well, plus cash for light rail.

[Franky]

The Congress Centre is the big one. New buildings at Carleton and UofO as well, plus cash for light rail.

$30M each for the congress centre, $200M promised for light rail, do Carleton and U of O count? Aren't they private enterprises now? Did we get money for water works - spills and swamps?

[Gitfiddler]

$30M each for the congress centre, $200M promised for light rail, do Carleton and U of O count? Aren't they private enterprises now? Did we get money for water works - spills and swamps?

THe universities are public. They might get funding from private sources for projects (the Desmarais building had some private funding), but they are still public schools.

[lrt's friend]

If the politicians had forseen what has happened with light rail, they would not have committed to that $400 M either.

For whatever reason, the citizens of this city cannot get behind any project without squabbling and then ripping apart every idea. It takes a very strong person to get us beyond this. Andy Haydon in the case of the Transitways and Jim Durrell for the new convention centre. Just remember how messed up the Congress centre project was until Jim Durrell got involved and without establishing a clear vision for that project, we would not have received funding for that either. A big tip of the hat to Jim Durrell for accomplishing what he has in such little time.

Also, remember that the city wanted nothing to do with ScotiaBank Place, and how they had to go to Kanata to get any sort of civic support. And then there was the casino, that the city could have placed on Sparks Street, except for all the squabbling over whether gambling is the right thing to do. Well, that may be true, but all that tourism and money ended up in Hull and Gloucester and Sparks Street remains a dead zone except at lunch time.

This city has no vision, few visionaries, and a whole bunch of complaining whiners.

[Ottawan]

If the politicians had forseen what has happened with light rail, they would not have committed to that $400 M either.

I do have to disagree with this statement as far as the Federal funding is concerned. Let us not forget that it was John Baird misrepresenting a legally binding contract as something that would require subsequent re-approval by a new Council in 2006 that a) potentially won Mayor O'Brian the election and b) certainly is the root cause of the City of Ottawa having to pay millions of dollars for nothing rather than paying not that much more, in the grand scheme of things, for a rail plan that would as of this moment be complete.

To summarize, it is the very possibility of committed federal funding being withdrawn that caused our problems with the original LRT plan.

[RTWAP]

I do have to disagree with this statement as far as the Federal funding is concerned. Let us not forget that it was John Baird misrepresenting a legally binding contract as something that would require subsequent re-approval by a new Council in 2006 that a) potentially won Mayor O'Brian the election and b) certainly is the root cause of the City of Ottawa having to pay millions of dollars for nothing rather than paying not that much more, in the grand scheme of things, for a rail plan that would as of this moment be complete.

To summarize, it is the very possibility of committed federal funding being withdrawn that caused our problems with the original LRT plan.

Maybe the city should wait until the funding is secured before signing the contract next time.

But they were in a great big rush to get it done in time for the election. Bad plan.

[RTWAP]

If it's to be a park, someone suggested selling or swapping part of the land for other land to the NCC.

Who said it is to be a park? Not anyone serious, I assure you.

Spending tens of millions to tear down buildings, millions more to landscape the whole area, and then hundreds of millions more to find new homes for football, hockey and trade shows ... all so that one neighbourhood can have another nice park, when they already live within easy walking distance of canal and arboretum, and a short drive to Vincent Massey.

Never.gonna.happen.

[k2p]

Today's Citizen story about Lansdowne:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Lansdowne+plan+hinges+sports+stadium/2117984/story.html

In it, Clive Doucet is quoted as saying: "We need to consider, one: whether or not we need a stadium; and two: where it will go”.

It's always been about the stadium. And it's a joke that a city the size of Ottawa is debating whether it needs one.

[bikegypsy]

Today's Citizen story about Lansdowne:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Lansdowne+plan+hinges+sports+stadium/2117984/story.html

In it, Clive Doucet is quoted as saying: "We need to consider, one: whether or not we need a stadium; and two: where it will go”.

It's always been about the stadium. And it's a joke that a city the size of Ottawa is debating whether it needs one.

I know.. I read the article 6 or 7 hours ago and kept re-reading that line over and over. I just couldn't believe he said that. That sentence symbolises the mud Ottawa has been stuck in. It's like there are two parallel Ottawas.

What Doucet should ask is rather "Do we need another park?"

[Franky]

We don't "need" a stadium, we "need" to fix our sewer problems and fix our transit system. We may "want" a stadium, but can't afford one, especially after we pay $37M for zero transit. That $37M would have taken us 1/3 of the way to a new stadium.

"But critics question whether the city should spend more than $100 million on a professional-calibre stadium with swanky corporate boxes, club seating, and a flashy electronic scoreboard." - I think cost is the issue. We do have an empty open-air baseball stadium we're still paying for.

[ajldub]

Here's my prediction: Lansdowne Live is never going to make it to shovel.

[Radster]

It's clear, Franky, that you don't know very much about the history of professional football in Ottawa, or about the CFL as a whole. Making generalized statements about a perceived lack of fan support is pretty ignorant, especially considering that the CFL currently has the 3rd highest average attendace of any league in North America (After the NFL and MLB), and the sixth highest in the world. That's pretty damn impressive if you ask me.

Its actually the 7th highest average attendance in the world for the CFL. Still, I had no idea the CFL was ranked so high avg. attendance-wise, thats impressive!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attendance_figures_at_domestic_professional_sports_leagues

[Franky]

Its actually the 7th highest average attendance in the world for the CFL. Still, I had no idea the CFL was ranked so high avg. attendance-wise, thats impressive!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attendance_figures_at_domestic_professional_sports_leagues

Of the leagues with teams and outdoor sports, they are 25th in attendance per team with 262,502 per year.

[O-Town Hockey]

Today's Citizen story about Lansdowne:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Lansdowne+plan+hinges+sports+stadium/2117984/story.html

In it, Clive Doucet is quoted as saying: "We need to consider, one: whether or not we need a stadium; and two: where it will go”.

It's always been about the stadium. And it's a joke that a city the size of Ottawa is debating whether it needs one.

What a freakin' joke! Our council already debated this point and the people of Ottawa have voiced the same opinion; we do need a stadium! Now, if we're talking about dollars and cents, there is no question that a stadium at Lansdowne subsidized by the Lansdowne Live development is the cheapest way for us to get said stadium. So the debate is over....unless, of course, this is just Doucet's way of delaying things at the last minute just the way he tried to do with LRT. Our council is a farce and I don't think that councillors who are not seeking re-election should be allowed to take part in city-changing, long-term decisions whose ramifications will be felt for generations to come. I still have faith that this will happen, but it's gonna be a close vote.

[O-Town Hockey]

Of the leagues with teams, they are 25th in attendance per team with 262,502 per year.

Come on man, now you're just nitpicking. Average attendance is what reflects how much support our cities have for their CFL franchises. The total just shows that we don't have very many teams, which we all knew already. You can't compare total attendance in a Canadian league (30M people) to those in the USA (300M people) or India (over 1B people).

[Franky]

Come on man, now you're just nitpicking. Average attendance is what reflects how much support our cities have for their CFL franchises. The total just shows that we don't have very many teams, which we all knew already. You can't compare total attendance in a Canadian league (30M people) to those in the USA (300M people) or India (over 1B people).

No, this number is per team. basically, we are building a $130M stadium for about 250k spectator viewings per year. Yes, the stadium can be used for other events but will it? The empty Ottawa Baseball stadium isn't being used for other events.

[Radster]

Not only that, but the CFL teams don't play many matches each season (around 10?), whereas professional baseball, hockey, basketball, and even soccer teams play exponentially more matches per season. You can have a league with low avg. attendance but way higher total attendance as they play close to 100 matches in a season. This is why the avg. attendance numbers are more effective as statistical figures to show the size of a league's fanbase.

[Mille Sabords]

We don't "need" a stadium, we "need" to fix our sewer problems and fix our transit system. We may "want" a stadium, but can't afford one, especially after we pay $37M for zero transit. That $37M would have taken us 1/3 of the way to a new stadium.

"But critics question whether the city should spend more than $100 million on a professional-calibre stadium with swanky corporate boxes, club seating, and a flashy electronic scoreboard." - I think cost is the issue. We do have an empty open-air baseball stadium we're still paying for.

You are one bitter dude, aren't you. We need all of those things. A great city is much more than its sewers. We need a subway. We need a stadium. We need a concert hall. And what's wrong with a flashy electronic scoreboard? They're awesome! What's wrong with wanting something that represents who we are as a city? We are a city that wants to be part of the major leagues of the pro sports that define us as a nation.

[Mille Sabords]

Today's Citizen story about Lansdowne:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Lansdowne+plan+hinges+sports+stadium/2117984/story.html

In it, Clive Doucet is quoted as saying: "We need to consider, one: whether or not we need a stadium; and two: where it will go”.

It's always been about the stadium. And it's a joke that a city the size of Ottawa is debating whether it needs one.

Hey man, Clive is the only one debating this, with his little clique of fanatics. The fact that he gets a platform to air his view is part of being in a democracy.

[Radster]

No, this number is per team. basically, we are building a $130M stadium for about 250k spectator viewings per year. Yes, the stadium can be used for other events but will it? The empty Ottawa Baseball stadium isn't being used for other events.

Add to that the USL-1 team, which could add another 250K spectator viewings per year. Add university football teams. Add concerts.

It could be in the 1 million spectator viewings per year range if Ottawa surpasses the average attendance in CFL (which is did in the past), USL-1 etc..

[bikegypsy]

Hey man, Clive is the only one debating this, with his little clique of fanatics. The fact that he gets a platform to air his view is part of being in a democracy.

Yep, that's the way I see it to. It would appear that most pitchforks have been stored away for the winter.

There's this guy who started an online petition to "get this city council out now" stemming from the LL deal. He got a total of 69 signatures in about a month, nearly a quarter are anonymous and nothing in two weeks.

[Franky]

Add to that the USL-1 team, which could add another 250K spectator viewings per year. Add university football teams. Add concerts.

It could be in the 1 million spectator viewings per year range if Ottawa surpasses the average attendance in CFL (which is did in the past), USL-1 etc..

So why can't this many people float a stadium? Why is it such a money-losing proposition? Something isn't right in this equation. Where does the money go?

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

No, this number is per team. basically, we are building a $130M stadium for about 250k spectator viewings per year. Yes, the stadium can be used for other events but will it? The empty Ottawa Baseball stadium isn't being used for other events.

For the Love of God, yes, it WILL be used for other events!!! >_<

Seriously, do you EVER take a proper look at the city you live in? Not only do they want to have football AND soccer going on, but there will be concerts as well as Championships. Grey Cup, FIFA U-20 come to mind for those things that will use the field when our teams aren't playing.

And the Ottawa Baseball Stadium is an entirely differently animal. First, no one gives a crap about baseball in this city. Second, it's smaller than Lansdowne and as far as venues go, people can do better/want to do better.

[Gitfiddler]

So why can't this many people float a stadium? Why is it such a money-losing proposition? Something isn't right in this equation. Where does the money go?

It is very rare for a stadium of this size to turn a profit by itself in any market. Even many NFL stadiums lose money. The stadium is subsidized by the events that take place within it, including revenues for sporting events/trade shows/etc.

An NHL type arena can make money because of the greater number of uses it has. The Civic Centre also can make money because it has more applicable uses.

But a stadium generally needs to be subsidized by the owner. In this case, the city is the owner. In other places it could be the football team that is the owner, or a third party.

You'll find that a great number of large outdoor stadiums are municipally owned simply because they present little opportunity for a private company to make money off of them, unless said company also owns major tenants for the facility. Obviously the city is not going to sell the stadium or the land to a private company.

Actually, a really good parallel to what OSEG is trying to do is Charles Wang's Lighthouse project in Long Island. Essentially, Wang owns the Isles, but not the building. The Isles can't make money playing in the building as it is (it's a crap hole. I've been there). His plan is to invest in renovations in the Veterans Memorial Coliseum to bring it up to NHL standards and build additional developments such as retail/hotels/condos and office. There's a lot of similarities between the two.

The end result is that the Islanders can't make money on their own as an NHL franchise. Because Wang doesn't own the arena, he needs some other means to subsidize the money lost by the team. In other markets, owning the arena makes up for this.
The flip side of how this relationship between venue and franchise works is Atlanta - the Thrashers and Hawks both lose money hand over fist. However, Atlanta Spirit LLC makes money, because not only does it own both franchises, but also Phillips Arena. The Arena makes money. The franchises are the raison d'etre for the arena to exist. They are the anchor tenants and their existance allowed for the funding to flow to build the arena.

OSEG is essentially in Wang's position, except that whereas an NHL/NBA generally makes money independent of it's franchises, a stadium does not. That, however, does not make it inessential for a metro area of Ottawa's size.

[Franky]

It is very rare for a stadium of this size to turn a profit by itself in any market. Even many NFL stadiums lose money. The stadium is subsidized by the events that take place within it, including revenues for sporting events/trade shows/etc.

An NHL type arena can make money because of the greater number of uses it has. The Civic Centre also can make money because it has more applicable uses.

But a stadium generally needs to be subsidized by the owner. In this case, the city is the owner. In other places it could be the football team that is the owner, or a third party.

You'll find that a great number of large outdoor stadiums are municipally owned simply because they present little opportunity for a private company to make money off of them, unless said company also owns major tenants for the facility. Obviously the city is not going to sell the stadium or the land to a private company.

Actually, a really good parallel to what OSEG is trying to do is Charles Wang's Lighthouse project in Long Island. Essentially, Wang owns the Isles, but not the building. The Isles can't make money playing in the building as it is (it's a crap hole. I've been there). His plan is to invest in renovations in the Veterans Memorial Coliseum to bring it up to NHL standards and build additional developments such as retail/hotels/condos and office. There's a lot of similarities between the two.

The end result is that the Islanders can't make money on their own as an NHL franchise. Because Wang doesn't own the arena, he needs some other means to subsidize the money lost by the team. In other markets, owning the arena makes up for this.
The flip side of how this relationship between venue and franchise works is Atlanta - the Thrashers and Hawks both lose money hand over fist. However, Atlanta Spirit LLC makes money, because not only does it own both franchises, but also Phillips Arena. The Arena makes money. The franchises are the raison d'etre for the arena to exist. They are the anchor tenants and their existance allowed for the funding to flow to build the arena.

OSEG is essentially in Wang's position, except that whereas an NHL/NBA generally makes money independent of it's franchises, a stadium does not. That, however, does not make it inessential for a metro area of Ottawa's size.

If a shopping mall and office towers make money, why even bother to lose money on a stadium/franchise? The idea that a shopping mall on Lansdowne Park is in any way dependent on the stadium or the team is silly. All this is is an excuse to use public land for private gain and the CFL and stadium are simply bait.

Maybe, along this line of thinking, putting the stadium in Kanata makes sense. It WILL draw people out there where there normally would be little traffic. Anything else built at Bayview or Lansdowne will work independent of whether a stadium is there or not.

[Gitfiddler]

If a shopping mall and office towers make money, why even bother to lose money on a stadium/franchise? The idea that a shopping mall on Lansdowne Park is in any way dependent on the stadium or the team is silly. All this is is an excuse to use public land for private gain and the CFL and stadium are simply bait.

And to bring something to the community that it's lacking.

Sure, developers are in it to make money. But anyone who gets into sports ownership to make a profit is not making a very smart investment at all. Outside of the NFL and some of the "sure bet" pro franchises like the Leafs, Yankees and Lakers, sports ownership is a highly risky investment. That's something you clearly don't understand. There's probably 25 teams or more in each of the NHL, NBA and MLB that can't guarantee a profit on a yearly basis, and probably at least a half dozen or more in the NFL. No owner in the CFL or MLS can guarantee a profit year over year.

It's well documented that sports ownership as an investment is a pretty crappy idea. Yet, there are still 30 owners in the NHL, MLB, NBA, 32 in the NFL, 8 in the CFL . . . I'd be surprised if 30% of them were making money off their sports investments.

When someone wants to bring a pro sports franchise to a city, very rarely is it about making money. It's about civic pride and giving something to the people who live there. And if the developers ask for something to help them offset the losses and allow them to make some money, then I don't see why anyone should have a problem with that.


Maybe, along this line of thinking, putting the stadium in Kanata makes sense. It WILL draw people out there where there normally would be little traffic. Anything else built at Bayview or Lansdowne will work independent of whether a stadium is there or not.

Like I said before - SBP works in spite of it's location, not because of it. It's a good arena in a horrible locale. That's pretty much the consensus of every pundit, prognasticator, player and fan and has been since it opened.

It makes no sense. There would be nothing else there except a stadium. From an urban planning standpoint that's absolutely the antithesis of sound strategy. Moving key pieces of city infrastructure further and further away from the core leads to added suburbanization, promotes the car culture and moves so far away from the ideal of what Ottawa strives to be. That is to say, doing something like moving the stadium to Kanata runs counter to any type of goal of having a vibrant downtown core worthy of a national capital/major metro area.

As for the whole retail portion of the proposal - I can appreciate that a business owner in the Glebe might be apprehensive about added retail. That's competition, and competition is an issue for businesses. That's fair.


However - what gives the businesses in the Glebe (or the residents) the absolute right to dictate on a development that benefits the whole city? They want another frikkin park. That's an absolute joke. Know why? Because nobody but Glebeites will use it. As opposed to a facility that everyone will use, let's just hand it over to them for their use and let the taxpayers pay for that? How's that a better deal for me than something I'll actually use?

Certain things about certain neighbourhoods need to be preserved. But the mentality of opposing development because it makes things slightly inconvenient or you actually have competition in your line of business is just backwards thinking. This is about the people and businesses in the Glebe trying to hold onto a ridiculous notion of a small town neighbourhood in the midst of the 4th largest city in Canada. Common sense and progress say that's not a mentality that can last much longer if the city is to develop and move forward in any meaningful way.

They act like they are Blackburn Hamlet for crying out loud. The difference is that Blackburn actually is a small town in the midst of a city. The Glebe is just another neighbourhood. It's no more and no less special than any of the others. The sooner they figure that out, the sooner something progressive might actually happen in Ottawa.

[Franky]

And to bring something to the community that it's lacking.

Sure, developers are in it to make money. But anyone who gets into sports ownership to make a profit is not making a very smart investment at all. Outside of the NFL and some of the "sure bet" pro franchises like the Leafs, Yankees and Lakers, sports ownership is a highly risky investment. That's something you clearly don't understand. There's probably 25 teams or more in each of the NHL, NBA and MLB that can't guarantee a profit on a yearly basis, and probably at least a half dozen or more in the NFL. No owner in the CFL or MLS can guarantee a profit year over year.

It's well documented that sports ownership as an investment is a pretty crappy idea. Yet, there are still 30 owners in the NHL, MLB, NBA, 32 in the NFL, 8 in the CFL . . . I'd be surprised if 30% of them were making money off their sports investments.

When someone wants to bring a pro sports franchise to a city, very rarely is it about making money. It's about civic pride and giving something to the people who live there. And if the developers ask for something to help them offset the losses and allow them to make some money, then I don't see why anyone should have a problem with that.


Benevolence?! Come on. How about helping the starving instead? Yes, equally thin.


Like I said before - SBP works in spite of it's location, not because of it. It's a good arena in a horrible locale. That's pretty much the consensus of every pundit, prognasticator, player and fan and has been since it opened.

It makes no sense. There would be nothing else there except a stadium. From an urban planning standpoint that's absolutely the antithesis of sound strategy. Moving key pieces of city infrastructure further and further away from the core leads to added suburbanization, promotes the car culture and moves so far away from the ideal of what Ottawa strives to be. That is to say, doing something like moving the stadium to Kanata runs counter to any type of goal of having a vibrant downtown core worthy of a national capital/major metro area.



Yet we have SBP and Kanata is a thriving satellite city (as I see it). The greenbelt model is now upset by the amalgamation of the former cities beyond the boundaries of the city. I agree, it does promote sprawl and a car culture, but that's what many (most?) people want. They want cars, and they want houses with white picket fences. It will take more than an OP to change their minds. So linking the satellites with "green", efficient transit makes some sense.

Ottawa's downtown core is vibrant in it's own stately way because it IS the nation's capital. Even without a stadium.



As for the whole retail portion of the proposal - I can appreciate that a business owner in the Glebe might be apprehensive about added retail. That's competition, and competition is an issue for businesses. That's fair.


However - what gives the businesses in the Glebe (or the residents) the absolute right to dictate on a development that benefits the whole city? They want another frikkin park. That's an absolute joke. Know why? Because nobody but Glebeites will use it. As opposed to a facility that everyone will use, let's just hand it over to them for their use and let the taxpayers pay for that? How's that a better deal for me than something I'll actually use?


I don't think it should be a greenspace only park either, so we agree here. I think some sort of revenue generating (other than a shopping mall or office space - we don't need more of that).

The Glebe is probably the best model of a livable, walkable city we have and now councillors want to mess with it. Bad idea.



Certain things about certain neighbourhoods need to be preserved. But the mentality of opposing development because it makes things slightly inconvenient or you actually have competition in your line of business is just backwards thinking. This is about the people and businesses in the Glebe trying to hold onto a ridiculous notion of a small town neighbourhood in the midst of the 4th largest city in Canada. Common sense and progress say that's not a mentality that can last much longer if the city is to develop and move forward in any meaningful way.


Lots of regrettable mistakes are made in the name of "progress". LL would be one of those.



They act like they are Blackburn Hamlet for crying out loud. The difference is that Blackburn actually is a small town in the midst of a city. The Glebe is just another neighbourhood. It's no more and no less special than any of the others. The sooner they figure that out, the sooner something progressive might actually happen in Ottawa.

I disagree with your opinion here. The Glebe area is about the only area with enough disposable income to sustain small shops and a walkable community. Most of us can only afford to shop at Walmart or Costco and we drive there. The Glebe also has enough lawyers to keep their area the way they like and want it.

[k2p]

Ottawa's downtown core is vibrant in it's own stately way because it IS the nation's capital. Even without a stadium.

It's neither stately nor vibrant. Those minor quibbles aside, an excellent post.

[m0nkyman]

I disagree with your opinion here. The Glebe area is about the only area with enough disposable income to sustain small shops and a walkable community.

Umm. Which downtown neighbourhood doesn't have small shops and a walkable community? I've walked Elgin St. Bank St, Gladstone Ave, Preston St, Montreal Rd, Beechwoord Ave, Somerset St. W, Rideau St, Richmond Rd, Wellington, Laurier Ave. E. and Main St.

The Glebe is unique, but so are all of the city core neighbourhoods.

[k2p]

Yet we have SBP and Kanata is a thriving satellite city (as I see it). The greenbelt model is now upset by the amalgamation of the former cities beyond the boundaries of the city. I agree, it does promote sprawl and a car culture, but that's what many (most?) people want. They want cars, and they want houses with white picket fences. It will take more than an OP to change their minds. So linking the satellites with "green", efficient transit makes some sense.

This kind of nonsense is what drives me nuts.

It's incoherent to both decry the car culture and oppose LL. First off, don't mistake demand for supply. People live in sprawling places because that's what gets built, and what folks can afford. The solution isn't to throw hands up in despair. It's to build sustainable, walkable alternatives. That's peeve number one.

Of course, the very same NIMBYs who love the Glebe's walkability oppose intensification. They're all for sustainability. As long as its theirs. So, in the name of walkability or environmentalism, they decry pedestrian-friendly, shops as a mall.

The stadium? Not enough parking. Restaurants or retail to help bring more pedestrian, after-hours traffic to Bank and the canal? Unsuitable privatization. All in the name of walkability, vilifying the car culture, craving that one extra park that'll make Ottawa tick.

So to get back to Franky's latest moving target of a point, the reason there's a car culture isn't demand. It's supply. Because whenever something as pedestrian and non-car friendly as LL comes along, it's fought. And sometimes beaten, leaving the sprawl to provide the only alternative going.

What drives me crazy is the sneering superiority of the Doucets of council, who do everything they can to protect often sterile urban places, and in so doing repeatedly block the kind of city they laughably pretend to want.

So please spare us the bleating about how all anyone wants is a three-car, white picket fence outside the Greenbelt -- while blocking people from buying apartments and townhomes on an urban space of land crying out for something to really help bring the city alive.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

The Glebe is probably the best model of a livable, walkable city we have and now councillors want to mess with it. Bad idea.



So then how does introducing more greenspace, more pedestrian walkways, fountains, restaurants, shops and events at a renovated stadium detract from that?

[Franky]

This kind of nonsense is what drives me nuts.

Actually, your nonsense drives me nuts too.

It's incoherent to both decry the car culture and oppose LL. First off, don't mistake demand for supply. People live in sprawling places because that's what gets built, and what folks can afford. The solution isn't to throw hands up in despair. It's to build sustainable, walkable alternatives. That's peeve number one.


It not "incoherent" - different stokes for different folks.

You mean to tell me that most families would choose a condo over a large single detached house further away from the city core given the chance? I don't buy it.


Of course, the very same NIMBYs who love the Glebe's walkability oppose intensification. They're all for sustainability. As long as its theirs. So, in the name of walkability or environmentalism, they decry pedestrian-friendly, shops as a mall.


I'm not for building over our green spaces, so...



The stadium? Not enough parking. Restaurants or retail to help bring more pedestrian, after-hours traffic to Bank and the canal? Unsuitable privatization. All in the name of walkability, vilifying the car culture, craving that one extra park that'll make Ottawa tick.


??? Again, what are you going on about? Both Rapid transit AND parking are lacking at Lansdowne. So it's a bad location no matter what.



So to get back to Franky's latest moving target of a point, the reason there's a car culture isn't demand. It's supply. Because whenever something as pedestrian and non-car friendly as LL comes along, it's fought. And sometimes beaten, leaving the sprawl to provide the only alternative going.


Don't believe this. LL is not an example of a walkable community, it's a shopping mall on public land.



What drives me crazy is the sneering superiority of the Doucets of council, who do everything they can to protect often sterile urban places, and in so doing repeatedly block the kind of city they laughably pretend to want.


LL is not an example of this.



So please spare us the bleating about how all anyone wants is a three-car, white picket fence outside the Greenbelt -- while blocking people from buying apartments and townhomes on an urban space of land crying out for something to really help bring the city alive.

Conclusion doesn't follow. Building condos on public space and other green space in the city isn't the right answer.

[jeremy_haak]

I'm not for building over our green spaces, so...

You know, this debate should really be tied into the other important issues this city is facing, such as the plans to build over that wonderful open space at 150 Elgin, or any other of these oases in the central part of the city which provide respite from the hulking concrete and cement structures which are gradually infesting downtown. Of course, the worst offender is the NCC, slowly turning the emerald jewel of our capital, Lebreton Flats, symbol of our city, and envy of the nation, into a paved, concrete wasteland. Obviously Franky is right. Look below. Once that beautiful park is gone, as well as the other examples above, where are our children going to play, where are people going to picnic, where are people going to reacquaint themselves with nature? Those are the true values of Ottawa, and that's why we must preserve Lansdowne's essential, and irreplaceable landscape.

http://m2jlstudio.com/images/2009/MOOT/MOOT-20090902-12.jpg

[O-Town Hockey]

Great posts everybody.

Yet we have SBP and Kanata is a thriving satellite city (as I see it). The greenbelt model is now upset by the amalgamation of the former cities beyond the boundaries of the city. I agree, it does promote sprawl and a car culture, but that's what many (most?) people want. They want cars, and they want houses with white picket fences.

This statement couldn't be farther from the truth and is just you pushing your views and values onto other people. I grew up in Kanata and now live downtown, just like many of my friends. People don't move to Kanata because they want to, but because they have to. If they could afford a similar-sized house in the Glebe, Westboro, or even further out neighbourhoods within the Greenbelt, they would live there! There is a whole generation, my generation, of young people who want more out of life than moving to the 'burbs and making babies. We value walkable communities (the absolute opposite of Kanata), human interaction, and keeping entertainment/recreation/retail facilities within these dense urban environments. Lansdowne Live incorporates all of those values and it disheartens me that our city might go any other direction with such a prime piece of land.

[O-Town Hockey]

http://m2jlstudio.com/images/2009/MOOT/MOOT-20090902-12.jpg

It should be mandatory to use this shot in every newspaper article regarding Lansdowne Live to remind people what we're talking about here. First, to remind them how crappy the site currently is, how it has never been a park in our lifetimes, and what a shame it is that Aberdeen is surrounded by such garbage as opposed to being the centrepiece of a redevelopment plan.

The second thing people should notice is how little the space actually is where the dedicated retail strip will go. Comparing it to big box centres such as Kanata Centrum or Barhaven Town Centre is absolutely ridiculous and borderlines delusional. The retail development will be completely within the scale of surrounding Glebe structures and will bring new stores (not just competition) to the limited scope of what's currently there.

[O-Town Hockey]

Looks like someone else shares my view (or writes about it at least). I really like the Get Smart analogy.

Note to council: Time to get something done

By Michael Polowin, Citizen Special
October 20, 2009 10:45 AM

From Merriam-Webster's online dictionary: Chaos a) a state of things in which chance is supreme; especially: the confused, unorganized state of primordial matter before the creation of distinct forms; (b) the inherent unpredictability in the behaviour of a complex natural system; (c) a state of utter confusion; and, (d) a confused mass or mixture.

By any measure, and by any definition, city hall is chaos. Not Kaos, mind you. That was the evil, though bumbling, organization countered by Maxwell Smart, in the television and movie series Get Smart. Our city hall is not evil, though it clearly is bumbling -- at a standard that would make both Agent 86 and his nemesis, Siegfried, seem efficient by comparison.

We are already clearly in the midst of silly season. The next election is just a little more than 12 months away. The grandstanding has begun, and the business of the city has begun to suffer even more than usual, as initiatives both great and small fall victim to the pull of the microphone and the need of councillors to be seen to be doing something. While they are seen to be doing something, at least individually, collectively they accomplish nothing, as each flings himself upon his horse and rides madly off in all directions.

Witness the last two council meetings, in which each has had a major development proposal attract much attention, due to neighbourhood opposition at least facilitated, if not fomented, by one city councillor. In the end, from an electoral perspective, the outcome almost matters not to the councillor involved, Rick Chiarelli (in both cases the developments were approved by council). The councillor was seen to be defending the rights of his constituents, and political gain accrued regardless of the outcome.

Chiarelli is not unique in this. As the weeks go on, we will see less and less co-operation and leadership around the table (as if that were even possible) and chaos will reign supreme. The next 12 months will be reminiscent of the late, lamented Seigfried's words "This is Kaos. We don't (do anything) here."

Lansdowne Live is a perfect example. Let's get a few facts straight here. The partners of the Lansdowne Sports and Entertainment Group are not doing any of this as a business venture. The proof is that as a development, any of the companies headed by the LSEG partners could do this alone. They don't need each other to make this happen. The projected financial return on this to the group is small. They're not in it for the money or the glory, such as it is. None of these people are happy in the spotlight -- they generally keep their heads down and do their work. They certainly don't need some of the abuse and suggestions of ulterior motive that have been heaped upon them by both mike-happy councillors and the organized opposition.

This is not a land-grab. This started as a community service, and an answer to the question: How do we bring professional football back?

As some might remember, I spent three years as legal adviser to the Glieberman family in the early '90s, in their first shift as owners in Ottawa. I know about the poor economics of football in Ottawa. The bottom line is that the traditional formula of stadium rent to the city, and reliance on gate and shared-league revenues will not work, and football fails. So how do you correct that? The answer has always been clear -- strong local ownership, and sound finances for the team, including other sources of revenues. This proposal accomplishes that, in spades.

So LSEG spends the entire spring and summer negotiating with city staff to formulate a proposal that meets the direction of council. The only major deviation from council directive is that there is some housing. The rest meets the requirements, and the housing meets the Official Plan requirements. The result? Chaos. Councillors don't trust their own staff, and begin riding madly off in all directions, everyone looking for a microphone. Plans B, C and D. Here's the bottom line, from my perspective:

We don't need another park. As I look out my window, I see only green and leafy canopy. The only people looking for another park live in the Glebe. We have one stadium, and one place for junior hockey. No-one is building another, not in Bayview or anywhere else. Why does anyone get to destroy the facilities my tax dollars built, and no-one will replace. Too much retail? That's what the people of Westboro said before the big Loblaws was built. What happened there was a study in the revitalization of a street and a neighbourhood. Lansdowne Live will do that for Bank Street, and remove the ugly scar that is the current Lansdowne.

Councillors, I beg of you. Step away from the microphones. Bring order out of chaos. Get a few things done (Lansdowne and LRT would be a good start) before you ask us all to send you back for four more years. Don't come to our doors telling that "you missed it by that much."

Michael Polowin practises municipal and commercial real property law. E-mail: mpolowin@hotmail.com

[Franky]

You know, this debate should really be tied into the other important issues this city is facing, such as the plans to build over that wonderful open space at 150 Elgin, or any other of these oases in the central part of the city which provide respite from the hulking concrete and cement structures which are gradually infesting downtown. Of course, the worst offender is the NCC, slowly turning the emerald jewel of our capital, Lebreton Flats, symbol of our city, and envy of the nation, into a paved, concrete wasteland. Obviously Franky is right. Look below. Once that beautiful park is gone, as well as the other examples above, where are our children going to play, where are people going to picnic, where are people going to reacquaint themselves with nature? Those are the true values of Ottawa, and that's why we must preserve Lansdowne's essential, and irreplaceable landscape.

http://m2jlstudio.com/images/2009/MOOT/MOOT-20090902-12.jpg

I know you mean well, but I was not referring to LL when I mentioned intensification often means building over green space. I think it was clear from the flow of dialogue, if not I'll just make it clear now. The objection to LL is erosion of a large public space by allowing private buildings on public land making it smaller and generally less useful.

[Franky]

Great posts everybody.



This statement couldn't be farther from the truth and is just you pushing your views and values onto other people. I grew up in Kanata and now live downtown, just like many of my friends. People don't move to Kanata because they want to, but because they have to. If they could afford a similar-sized house in the Glebe, Westboro, or even further out neighbourhoods within the Greenbelt, they would live there! There is a whole generation, my generation, of young people who want more out of life than moving to the 'burbs and making babies. We value walkable communities (the absolute opposite of Kanata), human interaction, and keeping entertainment/recreation/retail facilities within these dense urban environments. Lansdowne Live incorporates all of those values and it disheartens me that our city might go any other direction with such a prime piece of land.

Nothin' wrong with making babies! :) I agree with you here, Kanata's probably not the best place to be single, but if you want a large house close to shopping (and usually work) with a yard for your kids to play in, it's pretty good. Isn't the image of football usually a family heading out to see a game? Is "family entertainment" their demographic.

[Gitfiddler]

I know you mean well, but I was not referring to LL when I mentioned intensification often means building over green space. I think it was clear from the flow of dialogue, if not I'll just make it clear now. The objection to LL is erosion of a large public space by allowing private buildings on public land making it smaller and generally less useful.

You know, because it`s been so incredibly useful over these past few years.

[Franky]

Looks like someone else shares my view (or writes about it at least). I really like the Get Smart analogy.

I like the Get Smart reference too and it's pretty accurate. Things ran a lot smoother when Larry was away. Now we're getting zero done.

The narrative that OSEG is some sort of saviour for a decrepit park is so fallacious. In fact a design competition was put aside to entertain a sole sourced bid to build a shopping mall on public land.

[matty14]

Franky, if there is one (and ONLY one) thing I admire about you, it is your unwavering steadfastness in your stance and views, as flawed and nonsensical as they may be.

First of all, I don't see how this could be any more of a walkable community. Someone living in one of the condos or in a nearby townhouse, could conceivably do their grocery shopping, go out for lunch or have a picnic in the park, go to work, go to a movie, and go to a football/hockey/soccer game ("entertainment"... not sure if you Glebites are familiar with such a term) all without walking more than a few hundred metres.

Second of all, cut this "shopping mall" crap. Because I have loads of time on my hands, I decided I would superimpose all the 'doom and gloom' big-box shopping malls in the city (Centrum, South Keys, Rideau Centre, Bayshore, St. Laurent, Train Yards, even Pinecrest, Merivale, and Carlingwood for heaven's sake) onto a picture of Lansdowne and guess what? Now, hold onto your hat, cuz this may shock you... but every single one of them is nearly the size of the ENTIRE LANSDOWNE PROPERTY. The more you call this retail development a "shopping Mall" the less and less credible I find your views and the more and more I laugh at your pithy stubbornness. It has been repeated time and time again that the retail will be similar to the scale of Bank Street and will be pedestrian friendly so one could take the bus and walk through the retail and the other stores along Bank Street.

You are acting as if this so-called "shopping mall" is a greedy business venture by a group of Mr. Burns-like characters looking to swim in their piles of money when the retail and sports teams make money. They are building retail and housing, etc. to offset costs for both them and the city. Do you think this "design competition" you fantasize about (which was actually a Rights to Development competition - that's right, we were looking for groups of Monty Burns's to help revitalize this land... the horror!) would have brought anybody looking to revitalize Lansdowne by not adding some sort of retail or housing to offset costs? Sorry to say, but this "competition" would not have yielded any investors begging on their knees to spend millions and millions of dollars to rejuvenate this public land without having some sort of revenue-generating venture to offset their costs. OSEG was considered because they are local, and are offering the best deal we can find right now. Investors are in the business of making money, and the fact that this group won't see any "profit" (i.e. revenue above their original investment) for years to come is pretty respectable. They could have easily said, after all this abuse from council and the Glebe minions, "F*** you Ottawa, rebuild Lansdowne yourself." I certainly would have. Then again, I guess the Glebites would get what they want for considerably less in a couple decades, as we won't have to spend any money tearing down Frank Clair for their wet dream of a "Central Park"; it will do it for us when it collapses. The developers don't have to put up with this sort of hogwash after spending months trying to create a plan that is financially viable for everybody and respects the wishes and needs of everybody in the City. You are acting as if they sat on their asses for six months and spat out a business plan designed to make them millions of dollars and not assume any risk.

You act as if Lansdowne is going to magically refurbish itself for absolutely free. I'd love to live in the dream world you do. Maybe LRT will build itself for free and our sewage problem will fix itself too.

[Radster]

Franky, wasn't the design competition running for something like 8 months, and NO ONE submitted anything? Sometimes a competitive process is not the best route to take. Furthermore, once council votes to go ahead with the current proposal, RFPs will be launched for the construction aspect of the project. Lastly, with regards to all the whining from the Glebe business community, I wanted to point out the fact that surely there are some aspiring entrepreneurs living in the Glebe just waiting for new commercial space to become availabe so they can start up their business. Competition is good for business, is good for consumers. Sure, some Bank street businesses might close shop, others might relocate to a new space in Lansdowne, but with Bank street becoming a busier street pedestrian, car and bus traffic-wise, it is silly to think that these newly vacated commercial spaces on Bank will remain empty. Ottawa is a growing city, and Bank is one of the main streets. Short term it might be affected by LL, but long-term LL will actually complement Bank street. Its common business sense.

[migo]

... Sure, some Bank street businesses might close shop, others might relocate to a new space in Lansdowne, but with Bank street becoming a busier street pedestrian, car and bus traffic-wise, it is silly to think that these newly vacated commercial spaces on Bank will remain empty. Ottawa is a growing city, and Bank is one of the main streets. Short term it might be affected by LL, but long-term LL will actually complement Bank street. Its common business sense.

Oh NO, NO NO!! As Franky stated on December 7 1941 after playing SimCity 4: "I disagree with your opinion here. The Glebe area is about the only area with enough disposable (diapers) to sustain small shops and a walkable community. Most of us can only afford to shop at Walmart or Costco and we drive there. The Glebe also has enough lawyers to keep their area the way they like and want it...Maybe they'll want to go see a movie at the new Cineplex building in Landsowne..." Ooops, sorry! Franky didn't say the last part.

[Franky]

Franky, wasn't the design competition running for something like 8 months, and NO ONE submitted anything? Sometimes a competitive process is not the best route to take. Furthermore, once council votes to go ahead with the current proposal, RFPs will be launched for the construction aspect of the project. Lastly, with regards to all the whining from the Glebe business community, I wanted to point out the fact that surely there are some aspiring entrepreneurs living in the Glebe just waiting for new commercial space to become availabe so they can start up their business. Competition is good for business, is good for consumers. Sure, some Bank street businesses might close shop, others might relocate to a new space in Lansdowne, but with Bank street becoming a busier street pedestrian, car and bus traffic-wise, it is silly to think that these newly vacated commercial spaces on Bank will remain empty. Ottawa is a growing city, and Bank is one of the main streets. Short term it might be affected by LL, but long-term LL will actually complement Bank street. Its common business sense.

"The report concludes that a competition which follows a “Rights to Development” approach will harness creativity and deliver a practical and doable new vision for Lansdowne Park in a timely matter. This approach includes the requirement that proponents provide a detailed pro forma that ensures the design can be built as envisioned so as to increase public confidence in the deliverability. The report provides a proposed schedule for a “Rights to Development” competition and shows the process running from the end of November 2007 to the beginning of December 2008, but notes that this one-year time frame is possible but remains extremely tight."
http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/occ/2007/11-28/pec/ACS2007-PTE-POL-0067.htm

So not only was the competition ended after less than 6 months (on May 16th), but it was on a short time frame to begin with.

[jchamoun79]

The objection to LL is erosion of a large public space by allowing private buildings on public land making it smaller and generally less useful.

Yes, because refurbishing the dilapidated buildings that are currently there, and ADDING more uses for the site on what is now a giant parking lot makes the site less useful.

As opposed to the dream scenario of LL opponents - turning the whole thing into a giant park, which we all know has a thousand different uses, and will have people coming to Lansdowne in droves from all over the city, to marvel at all that useful greenspace.

[RTWAP]

If a shopping mall and office towers make money, why even bother to lose money on a stadium/franchise? The idea that a shopping mall on Lansdowne Park is in any way dependent on the stadium or the team is silly. All this is is an excuse to use public land for private gain and the CFL and stadium are simply bait.

Maybe, along this line of thinking, putting the stadium in Kanata makes sense. It WILL draw people out there where there normally would be little traffic. Anything else built at Bayview or Lansdowne will work independent of whether a stadium is there or not.

You want to make this just about dollars and cents? OK. Why not turn the entire site into a high end cultural and shopping district, with massive amounts of rent and property taxes flowing to the city? That would be the most beneficial approach from a dollars and cents standpoint.

But no, that's not what you want. You'd prefer the city spend money on a facility (park) of limited use to most Ottawans.

Your problem with this isn't really the money, it's the specific limited use. But there is broad support for the city to maintain a professional football stadium and arena at Lansdowne. There isn't broad support for a nature park.

I don't find your position or tactics reprehensible, just wrong.

[Franky]

You want to make this just about dollars and cents? OK. Why not turn the entire site into a high end cultural and shopping district, with massive amounts of rent and property taxes flowing to the city? That would be the most beneficial approach from a dollars and cents standpoint.

But no, that's not what you want. You'd prefer the city spend money on a facility (park) of limited use to most Ottawans.

Your problem with this isn't really the money, it's the specific limited use. But there is broad support for the city to maintain a professional football stadium and arena at Lansdowne. There isn't broad support for a nature park.

I don't find your position or tactics reprehensible, just wrong.

I don't want just a "green" park at Lansdowne, so stop misrepresenting my position. That's what's "wrong" here. Instead of believing hearsay, try getting facts from original sources.

----

Glebe group vows to fight Lansdowne Live plan
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Glebe+group+vows+fight+Lansdowne+Live+plan/2125693/story.html

[k2p]

I don't want just a "green" park at Lansdowne, so stop misrepresenting my position. That's what's "wrong" here. Instead of believing hearsay, try getting facts from original sources.
----
Glebe group vows to fight Lansdowne Live plan
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Glebe+group+vows+fight+Lansdowne+Live+plan/2125693/story.html

Perish the thought you'd just want a green park. What you've consistently said is you want revenue raised without residential, retail or a stadium. Something vibrant, but not too vibrant. A city-wide people place that doesn't attract enough people from across the city to warrant more transit. And something fun that doesn't in any way change Bank Street or compete with a single Bank Street business.

In other words, you oppose every possible use apart from another lawn, with just enough wiggle room to say "I don't want another park."

That link, by the way, is full of people who do want a park and nothing but a park. And you've defended them to the hilt now for months, all while claiming not to want what they clearly do: one more sterile park.

[Franky]

Perish the thought you'd just want a green park. What you've consistently said is you want revenue raised without residential, retail or a stadium. Something vibrant, but not too vibrant. A city-wide people place that doesn't attract enough people from across the city to warrant more transit. And something fun that doesn't in any way change Bank Street or compete with a single Bank Street business.

In other words, you oppose every possible use apart from another lawn, with just enough wiggle room to say "I don't want another park."

That link, by the way, is full of people who do want a park and nothing but a park. And you've defended them to the hilt now for months, all while claiming not to want what they clearly do: one more sterile park.

I don't buy the idea that a shopping mall or residential is the only money-making proposition possible for Lansdowne Park. The design competition might have at the very least shown that we did not get any proposals (maybe) and we could proceed from there. Right now, it's just speculation to say "it can't be done".

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I don't support the idea of making (all of) Lansdowne into a greenspace Park, but I do support the rejection of a sole sourced deal for a design competition. I just posted the link because it's the latest news, nothing to do with the rest that's why I put the "-------" between.

[phil235]

I don't buy the idea that a shopping mall or residential is the only money-making proposition possible for Lansdowne Park. The design competition might have at the very least shown that we did not get any proposals (maybe) and we could proceed from there. Right now, it's just speculation to say "it can't be done".

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I don't support the idea of making (all of) Lansdowne into a greenspace Park, but I do support the rejection of a sole sourced deal for a design competition. I just posted the link because it's the latest news, nothing to do with the rest that's why I put the "-------" between.

The "news article" notes that Glebe Community Association unanimously decided to oppose Lansdowne Live at the meeting. That is not quite the case). The notice for the meeting that ran in the Glebe Report (which I received yesterday afternoon) included the following statement "Make no mistake. The GCA has already voted to oppose Lansdowne Live on the basis of flawed process." Given that the critical decision was made prior to consulting the community, I didn't bother with their meeting. I'm sure others with dissenting views did the same. It seems funny that the group levelling the loudest criticism at the city's public consultations decides to vote on the critical issue before even beginning formal neighbourhood consultations. Sounds like the end justifies the means in some cases. Just depends on which side you are on.

[Franky]

The "news article" notes that Glebe Community Association unanimously decided to oppose Lansdowne Live at the meeting. That is not quite the case). The notice for the meeting that ran in the Glebe Report (which I received yesterday afternoon) included the following statement "Make no mistake. The GCA has already voted to oppose Lansdowne Live on the basis of flawed process." Given that the critical decision was made prior to consulting the community, I didn't bother with their meeting. I'm sure others with dissenting views did the same. It seems funny that the group levelling the loudest criticism at the city's public consultations decides to vote on the critical issue before even beginning formal neighbourhood consultations. Sounds like the end justifies the means in some cases. Just depends on which side you are on.

The article says "More than 200 people attended a meeting at the Glebe Community Centre to discuss how the neighbourhood group should voice its opposition to the Lansdowne Live plan." - to discuss how, not if.

[Davis137]

The greenspace will have plenty of uses...more locations for narcotics transactions to take place, more places for the homeless to sleep, urinate and defficate, more places for skateboarders to loiter and vandalize, more places for people to get mugged, etc.

Sounds great to me...

What a friggen GONG SHOW. The whole thing.

[phil235]

The article says "More than 200 people attended a meeting at the Glebe Community Centre to discuss how the neighbourhood group should voice its opposition to the Lansdowne Live plan." - to discuss how, not if.

And how exactly is that better? Bottom line, the neighbourhood association decided to oppose the plan prior to conducting any neighbourhood consultation. And this is the group complaining about the deficiencies in the city consultation process.

Reporting the fact that opposition was unanimous is ridiculous. Of course opposition is unanimous if you tell people before the consultation that you have already decided to oppose the plan and the meeting is only to decide how to oppose.

I also note that 200 people is half of what they were expecting, and a fraction of the turnout for the GCA consultations held before the plan was announced when the GCA had not taken a position on Lansdowne. Democracy in action.

[Gitfiddler]

I don't want just a "green" park at Lansdowne, so stop misrepresenting my position. That's what's "wrong" here. Instead of believing hearsay, try getting facts from original sources.

----

Glebe group vows to fight Lansdowne Live plan
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Glebe+group+vows+fight+Lansdowne+Live+plan/2125693/story.html

It's pretty hilarious to keep begging not to have your position misrepresented when you boldly misrepresent what LL is. Or more precisely, what it is not - a shopping mall. You can't realistically expect anyone to take you seriously in a discussion if you can't talk about the proposal in a meaningful way.

To say that LL is a shopping mall is essentially to say that what already exists on Bank Street or in the Market constitutes a shopping mall.

[Davis137]

The LL crew came up with a proposal, and a boatload of money which they are practically allowing OTHER people that don't have it themselves tell them HOW to spend it, which is ridiculous.

Sure, the LL proposal may not be perfect for everyone, but it's a lot better than nothing, or arbitrating over different plans for a long time.

[Franky]

And how exactly is that better? Bottom line, the neighbourhood association decided to oppose the plan prior to conducting any neighbourhood consultation. And this is the group complaining about the deficiencies in the city consultation process.

Reporting the fact that opposition was unanimous is ridiculous. Of course opposition is unanimous if you tell people before the consultation that you have already decided to oppose the plan and the meeting is only to decide how to oppose.

I also note that 200 people is half of what they were expecting, and a fraction of the turnout for the GCA consultations held before the plan was announced when the GCA had not taken a position on Lansdowne. Democracy in action.

Oh I see, it's the Conservative party defence... You're caught doing something wrong and you try and find other doing something similar which is supposed to make it all OK...

Are you seriously comparing a bunch of volunteers trying to make their community better to council sole sourcing and ramming through a deal without public consultation?

[k2p]

Are you seriously comparing a bunch of volunteers trying to make their community better to council sole sourcing and ramming through a deal without public consultation?

Clive Doucet voted for the first design competition that included a stadium. The "community volunteers" (aka NIMBYs) are utterly opposed to council's transparent, democratic decision. One bemoans, in that link you posted, that "this is a plan for stadium revitalization."

After not one, but two votes, the LL process began. Doucet calls this "utterly corrupt."

Then, after hijacking the public consultations you say didn't happen with outrageous attacks at staff implementing council's own decisions, the Glebe Community Association holds its own meeting to repeat its own points to itself. This is the second consultation in the Glebe. Perhaps thinking they're already been to one, staff don't show up. Resident labels this "pathetic."

Am I comparing council's decisions to this cabal of insular, snobby village people? No. They are worse. Their voluntarism, as you put it, is seen elswehere: in New Edinburgh, fighting a four-storey building awarded a city urban planning award; in Centretown, fighting anything above 12 storeys; in Hintonburg, fighting a six-storey building; and in Westboro, fighting Loblaws instead of working to better integrate it.

Save us from ascribing altruism to these people. And should LL fail, good luck convincing any other ward to pony up for their park.

[k2p]

Bottom line, the neighbourhood association decided to oppose the plan prior to conducting any neighbourhood consultation. And this is the group complaining about the deficiencies in the city consultation process.

Reporting the fact that opposition was unanimous is ridiculous. Of course opposition is unanimous if you tell people before the consultation that you have already decided to oppose the plan and the meeting is only to decide how to oppose.

This, too.

Funny that Doucet has held zero consultations in the other part of his ward, down by Heron Park. You'd think they'd be up in arms, too, what with all the traffic coming their way. Then again, there might be a few down-market sports fans in there and we wouldn't want them having a voice or anything.

[Franky]

Clive Doucet voted for the first design competition that included a stadium. The "community volunteers" (aka NIMBYs) are utterly opposed to council's transparent, democratic decision. One bemoans, in that link you posted, that "this is a plan for stadium revitalization."

After not one, but two votes, the LL process began. Doucet calls this "utterly corrupt."

Then, after hijacking the public consultations you say didn't happen with outrageous attacks at staff implementing council's own decisions, the Glebe Community Association holds its own meeting to repeat its own points to itself. This is the second consultation in the Glebe. Perhaps thinking they're already been to one, staff don't show up. Resident labels this "pathetic."

Am I comparing council's decisions to this cabal of insular, snobby village people? No. They are worse. Their voluntarism, as you put it, is seen elswehere: in New Edinburgh, fighting a four-storey building awarded a city urban planning award; in Centretown, fighting anything above 12 storeys; in Hintonburg, fighting a six-storey building; and in Westboro, fighting Loblaws instead of working to better integrate it.

Save us from ascribing altruism to these people. And should LL fail, good luck convincing any other ward to pony up for their park.

Twisted. There would have been no "public consultation" were it not for public outrage at the process!

The province called the deal sole sourced. I also call it sole sourced. Many councillors call it sole sourced (except the ones backroom dealing it).

[Mille Sabords]

Twisted. There would have been no "public consultation" were it not for public outrage at the process!

The province called the deal sole sourced. I also call it sole sourced. Many councillors call it sole sourced (except the ones backroom dealing it).

Oh for God's sake. So you really mean to convince us that there would've been NO public consultation? I think you've just painted a clear portrait of your credibility in this whole debate.

As for the province - who are they, again? Parties to this project? No, I didn't think so. Rather, one has-been Mayor, now cabinet minister, with delusions of a triumphant return, spiking pepper on whatever he can. Politicians will say a lot of things.

For the last time. This was not sole-sourced. There were two proposals: Kanata and Lansdowne. Lansdowne won.

[k2p]

Twisted. There would have been no "public consultation" were it not for public outrage at the process!

You're incredible. A few posts ago, you said there was no public consultation. Now, it turns out, there was.

The province called the deal sole sourced. I also call it sole sourced. Many councillors call it sole sourced

OMG! This thing is sole sourced? Why has this not been mentioned until now?

[Gitfiddler]

Twisted. There would have been no "public consultation" were it not for public outrage at the process!

The province called the deal sole sourced. I also call it sole sourced. Many councillors call it sole sourced (except the ones backroom dealing it).

And yet they've changed the proposal significantly as a result of said "outrage," and offered to change more if necessary. As for the "outrage," I think you vastly over estimate how much their is. The vast majority of people I know/work with/have talked to, don't live in the Glebe, and quite frankly could care less what Glebites have to say about it. The general thinking is that there's a football stadium there, lets fix it up. /story

And the province didn't call it sole sourced. Jim Watson did. The province didn't call it anything because it has absolutely nothing to do with them.

[RTWAP]

Oh I see, it's the Conservative party defence... You're caught doing something wrong and you try and find other doing something similar which is supposed to make it all OK...

Are you seriously comparing a bunch of volunteers trying to make their community better to council sole sourcing and ramming through a deal without public consultation?

Neither the city nor OSEG have ever pretended that support for their proposed partnership is unanimous. The Glebites have claimed that. It's a lie. It ruins their credibility. They're not offering constructive criticism. They're engaging in a PR war and are willing to win at any cost. It's pathetic.

Twisted. There would have been no "public consultation" were it not for public outrage at the process!

The province called the deal sole sourced. I also call it sole sourced. Many councillors call it sole sourced (except the ones backroom dealing it).

The city always has information sessions for major things like this. And they capture the feedback and present it to council. The city also provided an online forum for debate among citizens. What the city would not have had is a poorly structured "public debate" where the few and the loud can try to create the appearance of a groundswell of opposition sweeping over the city. The 70% of the city that thinks this is a good idea are mostly going to stay home and expect it to get approved. The 27% who are somewhat opposed will do the same, and the 3% who see their precious dream of a football-free Lansdowne slipping away are storming the barricades and trying to substitute the volume of their passion for paucity of their reason.

This is deal is sole-sourced in the sense that nobody else was offering a deal like this, but that's not the conventional meaning of sole-sourced in contracting. The city didn't review all the available competitors and then pick one to present an offer. The available competitors didn't exist, and the one that did exist had advantages so significant and valuable to what the city hoped to accomplish that a pretend competition wouldn't have accomplished anything except additional delay and expense. That's the real reason why Clive now regrets ending the competition. Something might actually get done.

[waterloowarrior]

Facts fail to support criticism of CFL by Doucet: commissioner

By Don Campbell, The Ottawa CitizenOctober 21, 2009 10:02 PMBe the first to post a comment (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:jumpToAnchor%28%27#PostComment%27%29)

CFL commissioner Mark Cohon came out swinging at comments by Ottawa Councillor Clive Doucet on the weekend that the CFL is a “fading sport.”

Cohon fired off an open letter to the people of Ottawa, saying they deserved to see real facts and “not misinformation” when considering a new stadium as part of the Lansdowne Partnership Plan.

Cohon wrote that, “Doucet is wrong when he suggests that the Canadian Football League is a fading sport” as he told the Citizen Sunday.

“The fact is the CFL is averaging 28,572 spectators per regular-season game this season,” Cohon said. That figure is down only slightly from its average attendance of 28,916 in 2008. “We’re on pace to reach a total attendance mark of two million for the eighth straight season, a feat accomplished only once before (1976-83) in the long history of our league.

“The fact is Ottawa’s closest CFL neighbour, the Montreal Alouettes, celebrated their 94th consecutive sellout this past weekend, and they plan to add 5,000 seats next year to accommodate demand.

“The fact is this year’s Grey Cup in Calgary sold out in record time, 12 weeks in advance of the game.

“The fact is, since Sept. 1, when Nielsen introduced a new television ratings system, the CFL on TSN has averaged a national audience of 791,000 viewers per game, second only to the NHL in this country.”

Doucet, perhaps the most outspoken of opponents of the Lansdowne Live plan, continues to question whether the city should become involved in a partnership with three Ottawa businessmen to redevelop the park and bring CFL football back to Ottawa.

“We need to consider, one, whether or not we need a stadium; and two, where it will go,” Doucet said in an article in Monday’s Citizen. “CFL football is a fading sport. It’s a very, very risky investment.”

Cohon said the CFL is not unlike any enterprise that will continue to face its share of challenges.

However, he said the league’s appeal is indicated in Moncton adding 10,000 temporary seats to its 10,000-seat stadium to accommodate a Atlantic Canada’s first CFL game in September and that seven of eight CFL teams are planning new, expanded or improved stadium facilities.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen



0fXOxRFlkeE

"This isn't about football"

[Gitfiddler]

Yeah. I was gonna mentioned something about that comment. If nothing else, Doucet saying the CFL is fading pretty much says everything that needs to be said about his credibility on the issue.

TV ratings are way up for the CFL, and despite an economic downturn that`s affecting pro leagues around the world, attendance remains strong.

Winnipeg is building a new stadium, renovations are being done (or have recently been done) to BC Place, Percival Molson, Ivor Wynne, McMahon and Taylor Field. Saskatchewan and Hamilton are exploring options for a new stadium, Moncton, Halifax and Quebec City are all exploring options on how to attract an expansion franchise.

The Alouettes, as the Commissioner pointed out, are on a 94 game sellout streak. Even the Argos are seeing decent crowds at Rogers Centre despite the fact that the team couldn`t beat a peewee team, and RC is a horrible football venue.

I mean, saying that the CFL is a dying sport is a pretty big statement. Every single stat about viewership and attendance indicates otherwise. To say such a thing is not only patently false, but also insulting to all of the CFL fans across the country. How anyone listens to Doucet is beyond me. I find that even when I agree with him on something (rarely), I automatically realize I`m wrong because that`s how out to lunch the guy is.

F*ck that arrogent, knuckle-dragging idiot inbred.

[matty14]

First (U-20 World Cup) he applauded the idea of spectators parking at satellite parking lots and taking a shuttle bus to big events.

Next, he characterizes such a solution as "war footing".

First he makes a VERY big statement saying CFL is a "fading sport".

Then he comes out and makes a ludicrous and laughable promotional video reminiscing about the "good ol' days" of the CFL and how he's just as big a football fan as the next beer-swindling hooligan (bulls**t) and how this is "not about football" despite him making a strong statement about the CFL leading me to believe that this IS about football.

Not that he had much credibility to begin with, but whatever was left of it is completely out the window. I cannot stand this douchebag and I can do nothing but point and laugh at the minions who take his word as gospel.

And Doucet said unto them,
- Thou shalt not sole-source.
- Thou shalt refer to any retail as a shopping mall even if it actually isn't.
- Thou shalt not have sports in thy city.
- Thou shalt change the focal point when thy points have been proven false.
- Thou shalt not have any urban development in the Glebe.
- Thou shalt not "steal" "our" (= Glebites) land.
- Thou shalt not covet the goods of other cities thy size.

PRAISE CLIVE!!!!

</sarcasm>

[Franky]

Neither the city nor OSEG have ever pretended that support for their proposed partnership is unanimous. The Glebites have claimed that. It's a lie. It ruins their credibility. They're not offering constructive criticism. They're engaging in a PR war and are willing to win at any cost. It's pathetic.


The GCA is a group of people who give their time and make decisions for the "GCA". THEY voted unanimously to oppose LL. That's all. No lie.


The city always has information sessions for major things like this. And they capture the feedback and present it to council. The city also provided an online forum for debate among citizens. What the city would not have had is a poorly structured "public debate" where the few and the loud can try to create the appearance of a groundswell of opposition sweeping over the city. The 70% of the city that thinks this is a good idea are mostly going to stay home and expect it to get approved. The 27% who are somewhat opposed will do the same, and the 3% who see their precious dream of a football-free Lansdowne slipping away are storming the barricades and trying to substitute the volume of their passion for paucity of their reason.


The "public consultation" that is nothing but a sales job by the proponents doesn't allow for ANY discussion, only comments which go largely ignored. Councillors don't ignore the press.

Are the reports out yet? Where did you get those numbers? Councillors have reacted (supposedly to public input) before having seen the results of their public consultations and survey.



This is deal is sole-sourced in the sense that nobody else was offering a deal like this, but that's not the conventional meaning of sole-sourced in contracting. The city didn't review all the available competitors and then pick one to present an offer. The available competitors didn't exist, and the one that did exist had advantages so significant and valuable to what the city hoped to accomplish that a pretend competition wouldn't have accomplished anything except additional delay and expense. That's the real reason why Clive now regrets ending the competition. Something might actually get done.

It's sole sourced in the sense that everybody else expected to have a fair process. Instead, the process is interrupted and a single proposal is entertained, then rammed down our throats.

[Franky]

Soccer is the second most played sport in Canada, after hockey. This means that in 10..20 years, soccer will probably be very popular in Canada, more than football.

By 1995, 8 teams failed including the Rough Riders, most were expansion teams - no expansion teams since then, the remaining 8 were founded before 1954! If that's not stagnation...

Yes, TSN ratings for CFL increased by 6% in 2008 over 2007 (ratings tanked in 2006, so it's all relative) but NHL ratings increased 17%!

[waterloowarrior]

That video is from august 09. So before the latest statements on football. Still, how can you say "it's not about football" and talk about your love of the game, then a couple months later deride it and call it a fading sport

[k2p]

Soccer is the second most played sport in Canada, after hockey. This means that in 10..20 years, soccer will probably be very popular in Canada, more than football.

And so the argument against locating a soccer stadium in Ottawa's traditional stadium location is...

By 1995, 8 teams failed including the Rough Riders, most were expansion teams - no expansion teams since then, the remaining 8 were founded before 1954! If that's not stagnation...

Just so you know, I've been to one CFL game, ever, in Ottawa. I'm not a football fan, but love soccer and think cities need stadiums.

But you just do not know what you're talking about. Those teams that folded were American. And the CFL has, in fact, expanded since then: to Montreal.

Using your idiot logic, hockey is also a dying sport in Canada because Winnipeg and Quebec left. Sensible people would look at attendance and conclude the CFL isn't, in fact, fading.

Yes, TSN ratings for CFL increased by 6% in 2008 over 2007 (ratings tanked in 2006, so it's all relative) but NHL ratings increased 17%!

You are so bad for my blood pressure.

First off, that ratings did or didn't tank in 2006 isn't really relevant, when hauling out those stats about the increase from 2007 to 2008.

Second, if the CFL managing a meagre 6% is fading, I'd love if my RSPs faded that much. Doucet's point was that it's fading. Not that it's only growing at a third of the NHL's rate. By no stretch of even your imagination (I, no doubt, will be proven wrong on that) can the CFL be called "fading". Lord, I hope LL goes through if only to see your kind's head explode.

[phil235]

Oh I see, it's the Conservative party defence... You're caught doing something wrong and you try and find other doing something similar which is supposed to make it all OK...

Are you seriously comparing a bunch of volunteers trying to make their community better to council sole sourcing and ramming through a deal without public consultation?

Yes, that is exactly what I said - that if the city consultations are deficient, that's ok because the GCA didn't consult either. And you really don't see why people find your way of approaching this frustrating? (rhetorical question)

For the record, the GCA is more than a bunch of volunteers. It is a community association with broad membership that purports to speak for the community as a whole on important community issues. On that basis, it has demanded a role in the Lansdowne process as a stakeholder. It also a group that has taken a strong stand on the issue, supposedly on the principle that community decisions require proper consultation. Yet it did so without even consulting its members. And let's be clear - the GCA membership, which includes me and everyone else who lives in the Glebe - did not vote to oppose Lansdowne Live. The members of the GCA board voted, and they did so before consulting the membership, a membership that is far more diverse than the small group that runs the GCA. So contrary to what is reported, there is nothing unanimous about the opposition of the GCA.

My point is that it is hard for an organization to maintain a position based on principle when the executive of that organization is clearly prepared to discard that principle to further their own personal views. And yes, I do know that expecting you to concede even such an obvious point would be far too much to ask.

So moving beyond this particular issue, I will just say that there were no angry protests about the state of Lansdowne, nor were there wandering troubadours singing protest songs until someone actually proposed to fix it up. Why does that matter? Well, if Lansdowne truly is a "jewel" and "part of our soul" as the GCA asserts, then the GCA and particularly the councillor who has represented the area for 10+ years deserve as much blame as anyone for allowing it to deteriorate under their watch, and become lost to an entire generation of local residents. If they were at least lobbying for improvements I could accept that, but what we heard was a deafening silence for years and years. As such, they should be careful in the accusations that they are levelling at others. But I suppose in your view, the GCA are volunteers and therefore immune to receiving criticism.

Contrary to what the GCA asserts, there is no moral issue here, nor is there "good", or "bad" as you regularly brand the proposal in your clever and nuanced way. There are simply varying views on the best way to proceed and the benefit to the city that would arise from this proposal. And any claims of unanimity among a broad community group are simply nonsense.

[phil235]

I don't buy the idea that a shopping mall or residential is the only money-making proposition possible for Lansdowne Park. The design competition might have at the very least shown that we did not get any proposals (maybe) and we could proceed from there. Right now, it's just speculation to say "it can't be done".

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I don't support the idea of making (all of) Lansdowne into a greenspace Park, but I do support the rejection of a sole sourced deal for a design competition. I just posted the link because it's the latest news, nothing to do with the rest that's why I put the "-------" between.

I have no doubt that you do honestly believe that there are other money-making propositions for Lansdowne. But even you must admit that it is unlikely a design competition will lead to a completely new, revenue-producing use that has never been tried anywhere else in the world. On that premise, can you provide any examples of uses that have been tried elsewhere (not involving residential or retail) that would bring in the kind of profit that would be required not just to cover their construction and operating costs, but also tear down the stadium, refurbish the Civic Centre, build underground parking and convert the remaining portion of the existing parking to greenspace or community uses (for argument's sake, let's assume this would approach $100 million)? Or if not, make it clear that your concept involves an infusion of public money.

However, in order to present a coherent argument for an alternative, your challenge is more than that. Not only do you have to suggest a use that will bring in that kind of revenue, but it also needs to be a use that has a chance of winning broad community support for the use of valuable public land (I hear that it is part of our soul). And I'm afraid neither ferris wheels nor water parks come close to meeting either criteria, so you're going to have to dig a bit deeper.

I'm open to the possibility that other ideas exist, but if you can't come up with even a single idea that has been tried elsewhere and fits the bill, then the argument is just not going to be convincing.

[migo]

...in 10..20 years, soccer will probably be very popular in Canada, more than football.


I heard/read that same BS statement 10 ..20 years ago.

Stop supporting your conclusions with speculative/probability statements and stick to facts in order to support your conclusions...will ya?!!!

[Franky]

But you just do not know what you're talking about. Those teams that folded were American. And the CFL has, in fact, expanded since then: to Montreal.


# ^ The CFL considers the current Montreal Alouettes franchise (founded in 1994 as the Baltimore Stallions, moved to Montreal and renamed the Montreal Alouettes in 1996) to be a continuation of the original Montreal Alouettes (founded 1946, played in the CFL 1958-1981) and Montreal Concordes (founded 1982, renamed the Montreal Alouettes in 1986, folded just before the 1987 season).[43]
- wiki

This is a 30 year deal. The question is: will the CFL still be around for the duration? I don't think it's cut and dry to say either way. I would not bet any money on the Rough Riders surviving 30 years based on their record.

[Franky]

I heard/read that same BS statement 10 ..20 years ago.

Stop supporting your conclusions with speculative/probability statements and stick to facts in order to support your conclusions...will ya?!!!

Funny. I'd like to see you predict the outcome of the next game even without using "speculative/probability statements" - impossible.

[O-Town Hockey]

This is a 30 year deal. The question is: will the CFL still be around for the duration? I don't think it's cut and dry to say either way. I would not bet any money on the Rough Riders surviving 30 years based on their record.


Well, it's a good thing that LL will bring CFL football, USL soccer, CIS football, and many other sporting and non-sporting events to Lansdowne.

Lansdowne Live good for Glebe business: developers' consultant
The Ottawa Citizen October 22, 2009 4:02 PM Comments (20)

OTTAWA — The redevelopment of Lansdowne Park will provide a shopping experience that will draw in thousands of people to the Glebe and open up new opportunities for area businesses, says a consultant hired by the developers behind the Landsown Live project.


Consultant James Tate, speaking at a Thursday press conference, said far from closing, Glebe businesses will be able to expand. By 2013 non-food sales in the area will rise seven per cent while food sales will drop 10 per cent. Overall there will be a sales increase, he said. Tate was hired to assess the retail impact of the development project.


"There's more than ample demand to support retail at Lansdowne," he said. "Sales are not going to decline in the Glebe."

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen


Another consultant telling Glebe residents and businesses how it is and yet another news article filled with Glebe residents denying these facts in the comments section. Eventually, there's going to be too many expert opinions and these naysayers are going to start looking like blithering idiots.

[aesthetic]

Another consultant telling Glebe residents and businesses how it is and yet another news article filled with Glebe residents denying these facts in the comments section. Eventually, there's going to be too many expert opinions and these naysayers are going to start looking like blithering idiots.

Going to start?

[k2p]

:previous:
Yeah, exactly.

# ^ The CFL considers the current Montreal Alouettes franchise (founded in 1994 as the Baltimore Stallions, moved to Montreal and renamed the Montreal Alouettes in 1996) to be a continuation of the original Montreal Alouettes (founded 1946, played in the CFL 1958-1981) and Montreal Concordes (founded 1982, renamed the Montreal Alouettes in 1986, folded just before the 1987 season).

Thanks for the hair-splitting clarification.

The point, surely, is that the CFL returned to Montreal after a lengthy absence. And that, along with higher attendance numbers and growing television audiences, makes a mockery of Doucet's drivel that the CFL is a "fading sport."

[migo]

Funny. I'd like to see you predict the outcome of the next game even without using "speculative/probability statements" - impossible.

I'll cheer for a team in the hopes that they'll win a game, however, what's the point of speculating/predicting the outcome of a game (unless you're playing PRO*LINE?

Here...speculate:
"People going to the stadium will not be stopping at shops along Bank St. for the most part and the lack of parking and crowds will keep customer away..."

Here...speculate again:
"Surely, the reasonable people of Bayview won't make a peep and will embrace the changes to their neighbourhood."

Here...you're on a roll:
"Just consider that some long-existing businesses will likely fail and sure, they'll be replaced by other tenants in time, but the area probably will not be as vibrant as before. Much of the character of the Glebe can be lost. The only two things we know are going into Lansdowne retail are a supermarket and movie theatres, both of which will likely kill established businesses in the Glebe."

There's more, but...ad nausea, for you have delusions of righteousness when many of your posts are really chalk full of your bull (opinion), ei:

Lansdowne is the wrong place for the stadium - that's clear. There little parking and no transit access.

Effectively giving away our public land for a shopping centre, residential developments etc... Is wrong.

Entertaining a single possibility when many are available is wrong.

[O-Town Hockey]

from www.cfra.com

Not 'Feasible' to Delay Lansdowne Plan: Greenberg
Josh Pringle Thursday, October 22, 2009

One of the businessmen behind the Lansdowne Live plan suggests a call to delay a vote on the Lansdowne Partnership Plan until March could transform the debate into an election issue.

Councillor Diane Deans suggests the city postpone a vote on the plan until March, while the city secures a deal for a permanent home for trade shows.

But Minto CEO Roger Greenberg says if the debate "drags into the next year," it will probably delay a decision for "16 or 18 months."

Greenberg adds it wouldn't be "feasible" for the group of businessmen to delay a decision by 18 months.


Pushing the decision into an election year when there's no hope of a big decision ever happening, doesn't that sound convenient for LL haters. Let's make a decision now and stop screwing around!

[Franky]

I'll cheer for a team in the hopes that they'll win a game, however, what's the point of speculating/predicting the outcome of a game (unless you're playing PRO*LINE?

Here...speculate:
"People going to the stadium will not be stopping at shops along Bank St. for the most part and the lack of parking and crowds will keep customer away..."

Here...speculate again:
"Surely, the reasonable people of Bayview won't make a peep and will embrace the changes to their neighbourhood."

Here...you're on a roll:
"Just consider that some long-existing businesses will likely fail and sure, they'll be replaced by other tenants in time, but the area probably will not be as vibrant as before. Much of the character of the Glebe can be lost. The only two things we know are going into Lansdowne retail are a supermarket and movie theatres, both of which will likely kill established businesses in the Glebe."

There's more, but...ad nausea, for you have delusions of righteousness when many of your posts are really chalk full of your bull (opinion), ei:

Lansdowne is the wrong place for the stadium - that's clear. There little parking and no transit access.

Effectively giving away our public land for a shopping centre, residential developments etc... Is wrong.

Entertaining a single possibility when many are available is wrong.

I think you take these quotes (you added emphasis) out of context. This is often the problem when people jump in. They haven't been following the thread. I'm one of the few people who adds links to support my views. Many of the post here are just plain fiction or blatant lies.

Many of the posts are simply attacks on people - Glebe residents, Doucet, anyone who opposes their view. This in no way advances the discussion as to why the LL sole sourced deal is worth doing.

Your opinion (bull) is no more valid - the idea that a stadium should be a priority, that Lansdowne Park can be pissed away to satisfy that whimsy.

[RTWAP]

I think you take these quotes (you added emphasis) out of context. This is often the problem when people jump in. They haven't been following the thread. I'm one of the few people who adds links to support my views. Many of the post here are just plain fiction or blatant lies.

Wow. All I can say is that your perception of your posting content, and my perception are very much at odds. I have seen you repeatedly contradict known facts that are inconvenient to your position.

Many of the posts are simply attacks on people - Glebe residents, Doucet, anyone who opposes their view. This in no way advances the discussion as to why the LL sole sourced deal is worth doing.

Many of the opponents have either engaged in dishonest debate, or based their position on inaccurate statements. Calling them on it is not a personal attack.

Your opinion (bull) is no more valid - the idea that a stadium should be a priority, that Lansdowne Park can be pissed away to satisfy that whimsy.

The city identified that as a priority, after conducting polling that indicated it was a priority to the citizens of the city.

[Franky]

Wow. All I can say is that your perception of your posting content, and my perception are very much at odds. I have seen you repeatedly contradict known facts that are inconvenient to your position.


Which "known facts"? Those I would like to see.


Many of the opponents have either engaged in dishonest debate, or based their position on inaccurate statements. Calling them on it is not a personal attack.



What, like wanting a (greenspace) park? Or not wanting a sole sourced deal? Or realizing that a stadium along a rapid transit would make more sense?



The city identified that as a priority, after conducting polling that indicated it was a priority to the citizens of the city.

Not at Lansdowne necessarily. Talk about twisting facts. And maybe not ahead of fixing, say the sewer system, Rapid Transit or other priorities. It may be something we want, but not necessarily a top priority.

[O-Town Hockey]

Lansdowne group proposes compromise of downsizing
By Mohammed Adam, The Ottawa Citizen October 23, 2009

OTTAWA — The Ottawa group trying to redevelop Lansdowne Park is talking with the city to find a compromise that will meet council approval, says leading partner Roger Greenberg.


At a news conference in Ottawa Thursday, Greenberg said the discussions involve reducing the retail component and, in exchange, bringing forward construction of a hotel and office building that would have come in later. As part of the compromise, the overall retail footprint of the project would be reduced to 300,000 square feet, down from the 408,000 in the proposal.


- The main retail portion, made up of non-food stores, will be scaled down to between 150,000 and 160,000 square feet, from 200,000.


- “Ancillary” services such as stores for haircuts, audio and video will occupy another 52,000 square feet.


- A cinema complex will take 47,000 square feet.


- A supermarket will occupy another 41,000 square feet.


To make up a revenue shortfall from the reduction in retail, the hotel and office building would be built at the same time as the stadium.


As well, changes to the Aberdeen Pavilion, which would have housed the restaurants, and the Horticultural Building, which was to be the permanent home for the Ottawa Farmers’ Market, would be delayed until the second stage of redevelopment. The Horticultural Building will still move to a different location, Greenberg said. He promised there will be no big-box stores.


“What we’ve been talking about with the city, what we are proposing, is reduce the size of the retail and the office, the cinema and food store stay exactly the same … and start the hotel and start the office and residential,” Greenberg said.


“This is the concept of how we can perhaps bridge the gap between what we and city staff proposed at the beginning of September … and some of the concerns that have been expressed.”


Greenberg was at a news conference where the group’s consultant unveiled a study that says Lansdowne Live would not hurt Glebe businesses; instead, it would open up new opportunities. James Tate said the Glebe is so “understored” that by 2013, non-food businesses will grow seven per cent from 2009 levels, while food-sector revenues will shrink 10 per cent. Overall, he said, business revenues will grow because of thousands of new customers who would flock to the area because of Lansdowne Live.


“Sales are not going to decline in the Glebe, they will increase,” Tate said.


But neither Greenberg’s scaled-back development nor Tate’s rosy report is likely to convince opponents of the development.


In what’s shaping up to be a duel of consultants, the Glebe Business Improvement Area released a report earlier this month that said the area can only absorb an additional 60,000 square feet of retail over the next five years. On Thursday, Glebe BIA executive director Catherine Lindquist was still reading through the Tate report. “I’m in a catching-up mode.”


However, she added that the report reinforced the Glebe BIA’s stance that people like the Glebe the way it is. The report found “the reason people come here is our independent, unique character stores.”


Lindquist says the Tate report states that people dislike the shortage of parking, cost of parking and traffic congestion. The Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group’s proposal does nothing to address that, she said.


The owners of the Mayfair Theatre have also waded in, saying Lansdowne Live, with its 10-screen cinema, would “cripple and, in all likelihood, kill” the Mayfair.


“The Lansdowne Partnership Plan uses public funds to subsidize a mall to be filled with large-scale, chain retailers based outside of Ottawa,” the owners said in a statement. “It is, in spite of all claims to the contrary, bringing big-box stores with it. What is a 10-screen cinema if not big box. How big does a box have to be before we can call it big box?”


More comrpomises and, surprise surprise, Glebites are still unhappy. It's unfortuanate that the critics of this plan will not be happy until the stadium, and any hope of this site being a development for the entire city and not just a single neighbourhood, is demolished. This and LRT are going to be the biggest tests that our dysfunctional council will have to face. This is their chance to show they can see things from a whole city perspective instead of just listening to what every wingnut in their riding tells them.

Proponents of a design competition somehow fail to realize that, if the competition had come to fruition, we would be stuck with whatever hair-brained plan came out on top with no hope for compromise.

WE WILL NEVER, EVER GET A GROUP OF DEVELOPERS FOR LANSDOWNE WILLING TO ADAPT AND COMPROMISE WITH THE WHINERS OF THE GLEBE THE WAY OSEG IS DOING NOW!

[matty14]

Just a quick question, let's say hypothetically that this went back to a "design competition" (or, rather, the Rights to Development competition that was originally planned), and OSEG was strong and steadfast enough to plow through it and they offer their solution as part of the competition. Now, let's say OSEG won the competition. Does anybody think these NIMBYs complaining about this "unfair, sole-sourced deal" would suddenly be in favour of the plan, or would they just find something else to nitpick about?

[Ciemny]

They would still find something to nitpick about. Especially if OSEG won the competition again. Calls of fraud, cheating or something along those lines would emerge even if not based in any facts.

[RTWAP]

Which "known facts"? Those I would like to see.
EDIT: I had a long list of your misdeeds in this thread, but I've come to the conclusion that it's irrelevant.

I agree with the next post.

[Umpaidh]

I'm sure most of you are familiar with the term 'troll', but still...

This thread would be a much interesting read if people stopped wasting time on Franky's half baked ideas/complaints, and focused more on Lansdowne Live itself.

[RTWAP]

I'm sure most of you are familiar with the term 'troll', but still...

This thread would be a much interesting read if people stopped wasting time on Franky's half baked ideas/complaints, and focused more on Lansdowne Live itself.

I'm glad this forum has an ignore feature.

[RTWAP]

Kelly Egan of The Citizen weighs in on Lansdowne Live.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/columnists/Build+something+they+come+Glebe/2142943/story.html

Build something and they may come to the Glebe

Lansdowne Live would give outsiders reason to visit area

By Kelly Egan, The Ottawa Citizen
October 25, 2009 4:06 AM



If you didn't live there, why would you ever go to the Glebe?

This is not a snide backslap, but an honest question. It is also an attempt to distill the essence of competing studies about the impacts of retail expansion envisioned by Lansdowne Live.

One predicts harm, the other prosperity, each using a lot of numbers. But, truthfully, is it not as clear as this: Are there currently a goodly number of stores and restaurants in the Glebe that regularly attract visitors/shoppers/diners from all across the city?

Well, a) Not really and b) Should anything be done about it?

The current situation may be well and good. There is nothing wrong with an eclectic retail strip serving the roughly 30,000 residents who live in what is termed the "trade area." If this is all we ever want on that section of Bank Street, then make no change -- save tinkering here and there with parking and banners and benches. Keep your boutiques and bead emporiums and the rest of the city can continue racing down freeways to mall-land.

But if you want to generate new business and buzz, you need to generate new reasons to come -- you need to put the destination in destination shopping. Please, pretend for a moment. Is that not, after all, the stage we're at in this endless debate?

If Mountain Equipment Co-op moved into the Glebe -- smartly anchoring the new Lansdowne retail hub -- if Apple had a flagship there with all its smiley staff and iGems, if LCBO had a gleaming outlet with kitchens and Scotch-tasting and entire wards for the wine maniac, if HomeSense or The Gap or Brooks Brothers or Widget&Fitch had a tasteful storefront, if Granola World had a mix-your-own room, if Bridgehead opened a coffee museum -- are we to believe these things would be both bad for the Glebe, overall, and detrimental to the existing stores?

It is all so cuckoo-nutso. The people of the Glebe, a moneyed, over-achieving demographic, would be storming the doors. Is it not so?

I hate to say 'look at Westboro' because it's getting so clichéd and tiresome but, you know, 'look at Westboro.' The presence of MEC and the Real Canadian Superstore have done more to wake up Richmond Road than all the city planning and streetscaping in the world. One simple reason: they attract the right people with the right wallets; the rest looks after itself.

It is as though the Glebe is afraid of something.

The study done for the Glebe BIA is interesting. It found that 71 per cent of 400 shoppers surveyed came from the central area.

Their top destinations were: Metro (18.8 per cent), followed by Starbucks, LCBO, the Ottawa Farmers' Market and Bridgehead (all in the five- to seven-per-cent range).

Generally, stores did not attract a lot of customers from outside the Glebe, with some exceptions (Glebe Emporium, La Strada, Brio among several). Population growth in the catchment area, meanwhile, is going to be modest: maybe one per cent a year. So, it is understandable that the study concludes the Glebe can only absorb 60,000 square feet of new retail in the next five years.

But here's a thought. What if you tried retailing in a way that appeals to 900,000 people and not 30,000?

The case of the cinemas is instructive. One of the most lamentable trends in the last 20 years in Ottawa has been the exodus of movie theatres to the suburbs. And what horrible outfits most of them are. Surely it is a positive step to see a proposal for a new movie theatre in the Lansdowne plan? Would this not create a new dinner-and-movie crowd? And, somehow, this would be bad?

The BIA study points to parking and congestion as major obstacles to growth. "If not resolved," reads the interim executive summary, "more of the existing businesses can be expected to become marginal in terms of total sales, go bankrupt or leave Bank Street."

I don't buy it. Parking has been tricky in the Glebe for ages. Parking is tricky in Westboro. Shoppers still find a way, just as people have found a way to attend events at Lansdowne for decades, though it is poorly served by parking and transit.

Look at the Ottawa Farmers' Market. It is the perfect example of how one bright idea, almost overnight, can attract thousands of shoppers to a moribund piece of asphalt. Imagine what might happen if we actually built something with a roof on it, containing product the public would hanker -- would travel -- to buy?

Contact Kelly Egan at

613-726-5896, or by e-mail, kegan@thecitizen.canwest.com
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[Gitfiddler]

If you didn't live there, why would you ever go to the Glebe?

I pretty much agree with this 100%.

There is only one store I ever go to there, and at that maybe once every two month. I'll go to the Ottawa Folklore Centre. I've had a beer or two at the Royal Oak, and I've played an open mic at Quinn's.

But, really, the Glebe offers me nothing special.

Like I said before, it's really not as special as it likes to think it is.

Get a football and/or soccer team along with the 67's and I'd be there much more often. I'd go to a movie theatre there. I'd shop there if the stores weren't all pretentious boutiques that sell very little I want and nothing I can't get cheaper elsewhere.

[matty14]

Kelly Egan of The Citizen weighs in on Lansdowne Live.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/columnists/Build+something+they+come+Glebe/2142943/story.html

Oh no. Look out Kelly, the NIMBYs are lickin' their chops over this one, just wait.

[Franky]

EDIT: I had a long list of your misdeeds in this thread, but I've come to the conclusion that it's irrelevant.

I agree with the next post.

Whatever.

[Mille Sabords]

What, no Franky comment on Kelly Egan's article? Come on Franky, I'm looking for some entertainment here.

[Franky]

What, no Franky comment on Kelly Egan's article? Come on Franky, I'm looking for some entertainment here.

OK, but just 'cause I like ya...

The idea of importing people to shop in a walkable area just seems silly. Big Box mentality at work.

The promise that all retail will be fitting was broken with the intent to put in a grocery store and cinemas. It's up there with "The cheque is in the mail" and "I promise I won't c*m in your mouth".

The Westboro Real Canadian Superstore is exactly an example of what not to do.

Taking pot shots at Glebe residents has become a municipal pastime (some people need to find better things to do with their time).

Have a nice day. :)