Lansdowne Park Revitalization | N/A | N/A | Proposed

[ajldub]

:previous:
:previous:

In my opinion, and I think most architects would agree, you could fit a fair-sized gallery into the convent building quite nicely. There is a U-shape at the back that could be glassed over in a ROM-crystal kind of way to create a sunlit atrium that would be a great centrepiece. The yards could be landscaped for outdoor art.

Regarding economics, this city can afford to maintain a gallery if they decide it's important. The financial details could be negotiated.


I am really enjoying reading about the different ideas coming forward for lansdowne in the paper the last few days. This was the kind of attitude I wanted the city to take to the proposal as a whole. How awesome would it be if we had a selection of a dozen or so really competitive and varying proposals from a bunch of urban planners all over the world? Instead we have OSEG waxing philosophical about inviting Dan Ackroyd to the table. Oh well I guess it's how we do business here.

[umbria27]

Overtures made to House of Blues
By SUSAN SHERRING, CITY HALL BUREAU
Last Updated: May 11, 2010 10:40pm

The famous House of Blues — closely associated with local boy Dan Aykroyd — is being courted to be a key venue at Lansdowne Park.



If the Ottawa House of Blues went anywhere but Barrymore's it would be a travesty. Surely local boy Dan Aykroyd knows that!

[reidjr]

Millwall?... you'd think they could at least get a Championship team... lol

edit: Not that there's anything wrong with bringing over the team, and they did make the playoffs this year.... but when I read a soccer team from London, England I pictured a grand opening of the stadium featuring the likes of Fulham or Tottenham ;)

To be fair i beleave one of the people with the landsdown live group is the owner or co-owner of the millwall team.

[Proof Sheet]

Millwall?... you'd think they could at least get a Championship team... lol

edit: Not that there's anything wrong with bringing over the team, and they did make the playoffs this year.... but when I read a soccer team from London, England I pictured a grand opening of the stadium featuring the likes of Fulham or Tottenham ;)

Good call Waterloo Warrior....here in Ottawa I know of only one Millwall fan and he is originally from that part of London. Millwall fans, rightly or wrongly, have a terrible reputation for hooliganism, so they may be able to do some urban re-generation in the Glebe:banana:

Tottenham or Fulham would be a great team to watch...however not as good as the team from the Theatre of Dreams.

[Acajack]

Good call Waterloo Warrior....here in Ottawa I know of only one Millwall fan and he is originally from that part of London. Millwall fans, rightly or wrongly, have a terrible reputation for hooliganism, so they may be able to do some urban re-generation in the Glebe:banana:

Tottenham or Fulham would be a great team to watch...however not as good as the team from the Theatre of Dreams.

Millwall are not even in the Premier League, though a friendly between Millwall and either Toronto FC or Montreal at Lansdowne might be fun...

[waterloowarrior]

To be fair i beleave one of the people with the landsdown live group is the owner or co-owner of the millwall team.

that explains it... Mr. Shenkman owns 7.27% of the team
http://www.millwallholdingsplc.co.uk/shareholder_information.htm

[phil235]

Millwall?... you'd think they could at least get a Championship team... lol

edit: Not that there's anything wrong with bringing over the team, and they did make the playoffs this year.... but when I read a soccer team from London, England I pictured a grand opening of the stadium featuring the likes of Fulham or Tottenham ;)

Fulham would be unbelievable. And with their devastating loss in the Europa Cup final yesterday (they were robbed), they will have some free time on their hands the next couple of years.

[waterloowarrior]

Good call Waterloo Warrior....here in Ottawa I know of only one Millwall fan and he is originally from that part of London. Millwall fans, rightly or wrongly, have a terrible reputation for hooliganism, so they may be able to do some urban re-generation in the Glebe:banana:

Tottenham or Fulham would be a great team to watch...however not as good as the team from the Theatre of Dreams.

Ha! I'm having trouble picturing hooliganism and "soccer" riots in Ottawa... we seem like a pretty mild-mannered bunch!

I was thinking the Blues, but the second best team wouldn't be so bad either... haha :whip:

[isaidso]

Overtures made to House of Blues
By SUSAN SHERRING, CITY HALL BUREAU
Last Updated: May 11, 2010 10:40pm
http://www.ottawasun.com/news/columnists/susan_sherring/2010/05/11/13914246.html

One of the biggest issues now being looked at is honouring Ottawa’s heritage and history.

That could very likely lead to something like a public square honouring 19th century Ottawa inventor Thomas Ahearn or Glebe community activist Sylvia Holden.

How about honouring the Ottawa Football Club, established in 1876. It was easily one of the oldest football teams in America and existed for 120 years before folding in 1996. The only teams older were other football teams in Ontario and Quebec. The Ottawa Football Club was one of the most historically significant and storied teams in the sports world due to its role in the development of gridiron. What better place to honour it than at Lansdowne Park.

Do these 'historians' have no respect for/knowledge of history? This should be a no-brainer.

[Cntrtwnr]

hmmm...no action on this thread for awhile....wouldn't Landsdowne be a great spot for a Casino...or Bayview. Keep those gambling addicts dollars in Ottawa.

[reidjr]

hmmm...no action on this thread for awhile....wouldn't Landsdowne be a great spot for a Casino...or Bayview. Keep those gambling addicts dollars in Ottawa.

The probleam is ottawa needs a stadium and arena.

[Cntrtwnr]

True...just trying to stir it up a bit on a quiet Friday aft.

[Ottawan]

hmmm...no action on this thread for awhile....wouldn't Landsdowne be a great spot for a Casino...or Bayview. Keep those gambling addicts dollars in Ottawa.

Not to go too off-topic, but I've always thought putting a Casino on Sparks Street would be the best way to revitalize it.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

I've always thought the best place for a Casino in Ottawa would be near the baseball stadium.

[waterloowarrior]

Word from the Sun is that the hotel has been scrapped and may be replaced with condos

[Proof Sheet]

Ha! I'm having trouble picturing hooliganism and "soccer" riots in Ottawa... we seem like a pretty mild-mannered bunch!

I was thinking the Blues, but the second best team wouldn't be so bad either... haha :whip:

Actually I believe that then 2nd best team are playing some team that play in green and white at the Rogers Centre post World Cup...although the core of the team who will be at the World Cup won't be there.

[Proof Sheet]

hmmm...no action on this thread for awhile....wouldn't Landsdowne be a great spot for a Casino...or Bayview. Keep those gambling addicts dollars in Ottawa.

I actually think that Landsdowne Park would be a great place for a Shoppers Drug Mart:tup: and maybe a Tim Horton's with a drive-thru...the rest just leave as surface parking..perfect plan. I'll bill the City now for my services...no need for design charettes and the like.

[Kitchissippi]

Not to go too off-topic, but I've always thought putting a Casino on Sparks Street would be the best way to revitalize it.

God forbid, I hope they never put a casino anywhere close to downtown Ottawa. Those things are the worst things to have in the name of urban "revitalization". Windsor is a case in point. They are best built in former gravel pits, out of the way islands, honky tonk beaches and in the middle of deserts where they can shine in their pathetic pretentious tacky glory.

[waterloowarrior]

Actually I believe that then 2nd best team are playing some team that play in green and white at the Rogers Centre post World Cup...although the core of the team who will be at the World Cup won't be there.

Also AC Milan will be in Montreal in June, bringing Ronaldinho. I guess there probably aren't any teams clamoring to play in our decaying stadium until it gets rebuilt.

[waterloowarrior]

I actually think that Landsdowne Park would be a great place for a Shoppers Drug Mart:tup: and maybe a Tim Horton's with a drive-thru...the rest just leave as surface parking..perfect plan. I'll bill the City now for my services...no need for design charettes and the like.

Nice... positive cash flow for the budget guys, it's a "mixed use" development (drugs and donuts) so the planners will be happy, lack of a stadium and plenty of extra parking will please the residents ... I think we have a winner here.

[Proof Sheet]

Nice... positive cash flow for the budget guys, it's a "mixed use" development (drugs and donuts) so the planners will be happy, lack of a stadium and plenty of extra parking will please the residents ... I think we have a winner here.

Who do I send my consulting bill to...Doucet's office....an invoice with a dodgy looking Ontario numbered company on the letterhead may send him into fits of having the City in cahoots with the 'evil' private sector.

I knew it would only take a few minutes to tick all of the boxes required for a development of this magnitude.

[waterloowarrior]

Cntrtwnr: re the thread being dead - I believe next week we get to see the five park designs so things should pick up. What's amazing is that this is by far our busiest project thread and the project hasn't even been approved yet.

[Ottawan]

God forbid, I hope they never put a casino anywhere close to downtown Ottawa. Those things are the worst things to have in the name of urban "revitalization". Windsor is a case in point. They are best built in former gravel pits, out of the way islands, honky tonk beaches and in the middle of deserts where they can shine in their pathetic pretentious tacky glory.

Fair enough critique, but I was thinking something much smaller than that, and of a much smaller scale even than the Casino du Lac Leamy. Something more of the size (but hopefully more upclass) as what can be found in downtown Las Vegas, as opposed to the strip.

It could even be something yet smaller. When I was last in Europe, I noticed that it was quite common for there to be retail-store-sized gambling joints. I just think it's a use that would get people there at night, exactly what the street needs.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

If you want people to be on Sparks St. any time after 5pm, here's what needs to happen:

1. More people living in the immediate area. Thankfully, this will sorta be happening with the "re" development, but I hardly think those people will go out onto Sparks unless...

2. Significant businesses start to exist on Sparks St. such as pubs, pool halls, nightclubs, etc.

3. Have the proposed streetcar(which is supported by many Sparks St. businesses) run through the area and run from LeBreton/Bayview to Rideau/Byward Market.


If those three conditions are met, you will have a much livelier Sparks Street that helps make Ottawa more lively. This will also be a net boon for downtown Ottawa since with more people living in that area, there will be a need for more business and later business hours. Ottawa can't have later hours of operation unless they have the population to support it. Hopefully, we're seeing this positive change occurring.

[RTWAP]

Not to go too off-topic, but I've always thought putting a Casino on Sparks Street would be the best way to revitalize it.

I agree. A nice classy boutique casino would be great. Something about a third the size of the one in Hull.

[Acajack]

I agree. A nice classy boutique casino would be great. Something about a third the size of the one in Hull.

In North America at least, experience has shown that it is extremely difficult if not impossible to make a casino a "classy" destination. When the Casino de Hull/du Lac-Leamy first opened, it had a relatively strict dress code (even "no jeans" if I recall), but this has been progressively dumbed down over the years.

Many people like to think of James Bond in a tux in Monte Carlo when they think of casinos, but the reality on the ground is that casinos rely a lot on the bingo hall demographic in order to survive. A lot of these people don't have the money or the desire to dress up when they go gambling.

[Mille Sabords]

In North America at least, experience has shown that it is extremely difficult if not impossible to make a casino a "classy" destination. When the Casino de Hull/du Lac-Leamy first opened, it had a relatively strict dress code (even "no jeans" if I recall), but this has been progressively dumbed down over the years.

Many people like to think of James Bond in a tux in Monte Carlo when they think of casinos, but the reality on the ground is that casinos rely a lot on the bingo hall demographic in order to survive. A lot of these people don't have the money or the desire to dress up when they go gambling.

That's very true. I'm not a gambler but I went to check out the Casino de Hull when it first opened and my bussies and I dressed in suits to make sure we'd be allowed in. I was shocked to see that most of the public there was of the sad-looking chainsmoking one-arm-bandit addicts, lost in that droning noise with empty eyes, and the ching-ching-ching noise every few seconds. Maybe I missed something but it kinda turned me off the whole casino scene.

[AuxTown]

That's very true. I'm not a gambler but I went to check out the Casino de Hull when it first opened and my bussies and I dressed in suits to make sure we'd be allowed in. I was shocked to see that most of the public there was of the sad-looking chainsmoking one-arm-bandit addicts, lost in that droning noise with empty eyes, and the ching-ching-ching noise every few seconds. Maybe I missed something but it kinda turned me off the whole casino scene.

Agreed. This is not the place for a casino. I think central Ottawa could REALLY use a decent sized modern movie theatre. So, for me, this is a very promising part of the proposal. I would prefer it be even more central like in Centretown or part of the (hopefully) future Rideau Centre expansion. I imagine this will happen eventually and is all a part of Ottawa growing up, however slowing this growing is occurring.

[AuxTown]

An article from www.ctvottawa.ca


Designers want Lansdowne to mimic the Byward Market
Updated: Mon May. 17 2010 6:11:33 PM

ctvottawa.ca

CTV Ottawa has learned new details about the retail plans for Lansdowne Park, including a new road linking Bank Street to Queen Elizabeth Driveway, making the park more accessible.


"It's a civic space so it has to be returned to public realm. It is hugely important and that doesn't mean simply taking the fence down. It means creating a place people want to go to," said Ritchard Brisbin, one of the designers.


The two designers say they are drawing inspiration from the Byward Market, with courtyards nestled among retail buildings. However, there won't be a big box store.


The plans also include a boutique-sized hotel and underground parking for 1,300 vehicles.


There will also be residential housing on Holmwood Avenue along the park's northwest edge, which will be a combination of flats and townhouses.


"The whole notion is to create a new internal circulation system, which allows the car to come in, and functions like a village. And as a village you can walk everywhere, you can take your car in for special events," said Barry Hobin, the second designer working on the project.


The designers say the most important part of a village is a lot of small stores and restaurants, not few large ones.

City council will vote on the plan to redevelop Lansdowne Park in June.


With a report from CTV Ottawa's Kate Eggins


Well, you can't say that the Lansdowne Live guys aren't doing everything possible to win public support and get this thing passed at council. I can't wait to see the final designs and I can't wait to see the looks on the naysayers' faces when they realize there's nothing they can say to bring this thing down. I just hope this stadium gets built a little faster than our light rail infrastructure.

[jemartin]

An article from www.ctvottawa.ca



Well, you can't say that the Lansdowne Live guys aren't doing everything possible to win public support and get this thing passed at council. I can't wait to see the final designs and I can't wait to see the looks on the naysayers' faces when they realize there's nothing they can say to bring this thing down. I just hope this stadium gets built a little faster than our light rail infrastructure.

From the sounds of the CTV description they have just sealed the fate of the current proposal, it will never pass.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

An article from www.ctvottawa.ca



Well, you can't say that the Lansdowne Live guys aren't doing everything possible to win public support and get this thing passed at council. I can't wait to see the final designs and I can't wait to see the looks on the naysayers' faces when they realize there's nothing they can say to bring this thing down. I just hope this stadium gets built a little faster than our light rail infrastructure.

I hope so, but knowing the NIMBY's they'll still find something to bitch- er, complain about in the proposal. I'm gonna wait until it actually passes AND shovels are in the ground.

From the sounds of the CTV description they have just sealed the fate of the current proposal, it will never pass.

And your basis for this is...?

[harls]

Brisbin and Hobin's design will be revealed to the public on May 27, I heard.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Brisbin and Hobin's design will be revealed to the public on May 27, I heard.

Yep, that's what I heard as well. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that around the same time jemartin plans to reveal his "proposal"?

[jemartin]

Yep, that's what I heard as well. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that around the same time jemartin plans to reveal his "proposal"?

JEMartin is not submitting a proposal.

The Lansdowne Park Conservancy - Conservation Parc Lansdowne will be submitting a proposal, at the discretion of the Board.

JEMartin is a coordinator for the Conservancy.

[RTWAP]

In North America at least, experience has shown that it is extremely difficult if not impossible to make a casino a "classy" destination. When the Casino de Hull/du Lac-Leamy first opened, it had a relatively strict dress code (even "no jeans" if I recall), but this has been progressively dumbed down over the years.

Many people like to think of James Bond in a tux in Monte Carlo when they think of casinos, but the reality on the ground is that casinos rely a lot on the bingo hall demographic in order to survive. A lot of these people don't have the money or the desire to dress up when they go gambling.

The problem isn't with North America, it's with the casino operators. They just can't seem to bring themselves to turn away the slot machine junkies clothed in Kmart sweats. But what if they had a lot fewer slots compared to the gaming tables?

[blackjagger]

JEMartin is not submitting a proposal.

The Lansdowne Park Conservancy - Conservation Parc Lansdowne will be submitting a proposal, at the discretion of the Board.

JEMartin is a coordinator for the Conservancy.

Wonderful a self appointed board, with a self determined mandate, trying to take power away from a municipal authority, governed by an elected body. If we really wanted to see that happen we would have asked the NCC to handle it, at least they have money.

Cheers,
Josh

[phil235]

I'll wait to see the plans before passing judgment, but I've got to say, I'm not overly keen on the idea of a new road between Bank and the Driveway. I understand the need to integrate the site into the surrounding neighbourhood, but do we need to dedicate that much space to a road?

[jemartin]

Wonderful a self appointed board, with a self determined mandate, trying to take power away from a municipal authority, governed by an elected body. If we really wanted to see that happen we would have asked the NCC to handle it, at least they have money.

Cheers,
Josh

While you have assumed Conservancy models take over parks, you are incorrect.

Read up on the model at centralparknyc.org.

The LPC-CPL follows the same principle. Starting revenues are just under $5M.

In fact the Lansdowne Park Conservancy/Conservation Parc Lansdowne will work as a partner with the City, take over all management of the Park, including all costs and revenues, and pay an annual fee to the City.

A Board of Advisors, including the City of Ottawa, Community Associations, NCC/CCN, Parks Canada, Federal, Provincial, Trade, Arts, Sports, Agricultural/Horticulture,etc... will be consulted on all projects within the Park.

Unlike any plan talked about with just the NCC/CCN that you referenced, the City of Ottawa (and her citizens) retain ownership of the property.

Each year the Conservancy Board takes on a new improvement project and increases the property value at no charge. All capital will be raised through its patrons, endowments and membership.

If you would like to learn more about the conservancy directly the information will be public by June at www.lpc-cpl.ca

Or, in the meantime, see the "About" section at www.centralparknyc.org

[Ottawan]

JEMartin is not submitting a proposal.

The Lansdowne Park Conservancy - Conservation Parc Lansdowne will be submitting a proposal, at the discretion of the Board.

JEMartin is a coordinator for the Conservancy.

"a coordinator" implies more than one. "Board" also implies that this is something being put forward by more than one individual, something that I am currently skeptical of. Who are the other coordinators/members of the board?

[spotlight]

While you have assumed Conservancy models take over parks, you are incorrect.

Read up on the model at centralparknyc.org.

The LPC-CPL follows the same principle. Starting revenues are just under $5M.

In fact the Lansdowne Park Conservancy/Conservation Parc Lansdowne will work as a partner with the City, take over all management of the Park, including all costs and revenues, and pay an annual fee to the City.

A Board of Advisors, including the City of Ottawa, Community Associations, NCC/CCN, Parks Canada, Federal, Provincial, Trade, Arts, Sports, Agricultural/Horticulture,etc... will be consulted on all projects within the Park.

Unlike any plan talked about with just the NCC/CCN that you referenced, the City of Ottawa (and her citizens) retain ownership of the property.

Each year the Conservancy Board takes on a new improvement project and increases the property value at no charge. All capital will be raised through its patrons, endowments and membership.

If you would like to learn more about the conservancy directly the information will be public by June at www.lpc-cpl.ca

Or, in the meantime, see the "About" section at www.centralparknyc.org

If you think for a second that the NCC, parks Canada, provincial govt, federal govt... are going to even care much less attend or contribute on a board for a rather small piece of land you are dreaming in colour.

Just one more example that shows that you have absolutely no credibility or sense of reality in this whole affair.

I will admit that at first glance your "idea" is interesting .. but that is at first glance (a very quick glance) the second you try to look past the idea and really look at it and all that it implies and all that it assumes and all of the ways of operation you talk about .. you realize that this is absolutely asinine and baseless.

you don't understand how a city works, or what a city needs to be a great liveable city.

also i suggest reading up on the concept of economy .. you seem to have a lack of understanding of the subject.

[jemartin]

If you think for a second that the NCC, parks Canada, provincial govt, federal govt... are going to even care much less attend or contribute on a board for a rather small piece of land you are dreaming in colour.

Just one more example that shows that you have absolutely no credibility or sense of reality in this whole affair.

I will admit that at first glance your "idea" is interesting .. but that is at first glance (a very quick glance) the second you try to look past the idea and really look at it and all that it implies and all that it assumes and all of the ways of operation you talk about .. you realize that this is absolutely asinine and baseless.

you don't understand how a city works, or what a city needs to be a great liveable city.

also i suggest reading up on the concept of economy .. you seem to have a lack of understanding of the subject.

The NCC/CCN and Parks Canada are already partnered with the City on the current proposal. Whoever the City partners with by default works with those two bodies due to the National Importance of the location.

The Lansdowne Park Conservancy - Conservation Parc Lansdowne would simply be the partner with the best and most affordable ideas.

If you believe that Central Park Conservancy, the model upon which this Conservancy plan follows, has no merit than there would be no convincing you.

[jemartin]

"a coordinator" implies more than one. "Board" also implies that this is something being put forward by more than one individual, something that I am currently skeptical of. Who are the other coordinators/members of the board?

You are quite correct, the Lansdowne Park Conservancy - Conservation Parc Lansdowne will be run by a board.

Some details may be released in a few days, but as mentioned before the presentation will go public in June.

[Acajack]

The problem isn't with North America, it's with the casino operators. They just can't seem to bring themselves to turn away the slot machine junkies clothed in Kmart sweats. But what if they had a lot fewer slots compared to the gaming tables?

I think that North Americans (with exceptions in certain regions) do tend to dress rather badly. But you are also right about the people who run the casinos: they can't say no to money - any money. I guess when you consider the business they are in, asking them not to be that way is like asking a fish not to swim.

I also wanted to make the point that if you go to the casino in Monaco (for example), you might be surprised at how casually people are dressed. James Bond mythology aside, it's not much of a step up from the Casino du Lac-Leamy.

Europeans also seem to be dressing increasingly shabbily, unfortunately.

[waterloowarrior]

NCC is OK with moving Queen Elizabeth Driveway if it needs to

Historic road is barrier to creating a doorway to canal from Lansdowne

BY DON BUTLER , THE OTTAWA CITIZEN MAY 19, 2010 COMMENTS (1)
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/with+moving+Queen+Elizabeth+Driveway+needs/3044517/story.html

The National Capital Commission is open to realigning the historic Queen Elizabeth Driveway as part of the plan to revitalize Lansdowne Park, a senior official said Tuesday.

François Lapointe, the NCC’s executive director of capital planning, said the commission will consider re-routing the Driveway through the park if the winning entry in the design competition for Lansdowne’s proposed urban park calls for that.

“It’s a possibility,” he acknowledged in an interview.

Lapointe said the area between Lansdowne and the Rideau Canal is “not that comfortable. It’s very narrow.

“If we want to create a new experience, a new meeting place and activity space, it’s clear we’ll need to create a more comfortable zone in that area. That may include pushing the parkway further away from the canal.”

The urban park designs submitted by the five finalists will be made public Thursday.

According to the competition’s terms of reference, the urban park — which would encompass the eastern part of Lansdowne Park and lands along the Driveway and canal owned by the NCC and Parks Canada — should “create a door” to the canal.

But the Driveway is a physical barrier to that objective. As a result, it's expected that most of the landscape architects will advocate realigning the roadway. The Driveway, which dates to 1905, was originally routed through Lansdowne Park, but shifted to its current alignment along the canal in the 1920s.

Another alternative would be to sink the Driveway below grade near Lansdowne, with pedestrian overpasses linking the park and the canal.

But that isn’t the NCC’s first choice, Lapointe said. “In that area you have great views. So you would lose that.”

Sorting out how the Driveway fits with the Lansdowne redevelopment is a balancing act, he said. “The balancing act there would be to create this marvellous space. Our goal is really to adapt while preserving the legacy.”

.................... (rest of article is linked above)




Great news that the NCC may be more flexible than they previously appeared.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Great news that the NCC may be more flexible than they previously appeared.

True. I wonder what the NIMBY's think of the NCC moving the parkway onto Lansdowne. :haha:

Also, am I the only one who noticed this?

Another alternative would be to sink the Driveway below grade near Lansdowne, with pedestrian overpasses linking the park and the canal.

But that isn’t the NCC’s first choice, Lapointe said. “In that area you have great views. So you would lose that.”

Talk about car-centric mentality.

[Aylmer]

People often forget that people drive cars.

:)

[Ottawan]

Also, am I the only one who noticed this?

Another alternative would be to sink the Driveway below grade near Lansdowne, with pedestrian overpasses linking the park and the canal.

But that isn’t the NCC’s first choice, Lapointe said. “In that area you have great views. So you would lose that.”

Talk about car-centric mentality.

Haha... I thought the EXACT same thing when I read the article earlier today. Not that I think it would be helpful to sink the driveway, but the thought-process is so 1950s car-centric.

[Ottawan]

You are quite correct, the Lansdowne Park Conservancy - Conservation Parc Lansdowne will be run by a board.

Some details may be released in a few days, but as mentioned before the presentation will go public in June.

You did not answer my question, which makes it pretty clear that there are no other backers of this proposal. If there are no other members of the board, then it is not a board. If there is no board, there is no Conservancy. Sir, please stop pretending to be something you are not.

[waterloowarrior]

: City to unveil proposed designs for urban park at Lansdowne
Ottawa – Councillor Peter Hume, Chair of the Planning and Environment Committee, will welcome Jean-François Trépanier, Executive VP Operations of the National Capital Commission and Don Marrin, Superintendent of the Parks Canada Agency to present the five proposed designs for a new urban park at Lansdowne.

Date: Thursday, May 20, 2010
Time: 3 p.m.
Location: Ottawa City Hall, Andrew S. Haydon Hall, 110 Laurier Avenue West

[Mille Sabords]

I've heard that they look awesome.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

: City to unveil proposed designs for urban park at Lansdowne
Ottawa – Councillor Peter Hume, Chair of the Planning and Environment Committee, will welcome Jean-François Trépanier, Executive VP Operations of the National Capital Commission and Don Marrin, Superintendent of the Parks Canada Agency to present the five proposed designs for a new urban park at Lansdowne.

Date: Thursday, May 20, 2010
Time: 3 p.m.
Location: Ottawa City Hall, Andrew S. Haydon Hall, 110 Laurier Avenue West

I might just have to see that.

[TransitZilla]

You can see the designs here:

http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/lansdowne_partnership/urban_park/proposed_designs/

[canadave]

:previous: I think A and B are my favourites, at a glance. Really, though, I think even the worst of those plans would be a tremendous addition to the site. You can tell they really pulled out all the stops on these.

[AuxTown]

I went by city hall on the way home from work and I'm really impressed with all the designs. One of my favorite aspects is that most of the proposals include a pedestrian bridge over the canal. My favorites are B and E for their simplicity, the presence of a pedestrian bridge, and the focus on the Aberdeen. I don't like the one that proposes the addition to the Aberdeen as I find it looks a bit tacky.

[eemy]

I went by city hall on the way home from work and I'm really impressed with all the designs. One of my favorite aspects is that most of the proposals include a pedestrian bridge over the canal. My favorites are B and E for their simplicity, the presence of a pedestrian bridge, and the focus on the Aberdeen. I don't like the one that proposes the addition to the Aberdeen as I find it looks a bit tacky.

Wasn't E the one that proposed the telescopic Aberdeen Pavilion? Was there another which proposed an addition to it? I have to say, I'm overall very impressed by the designs.

[Aylmer]

From favourite to least:

D
B
C
E
A

:)

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Edit: Nevermind, it was just for the actual document, but not to see the designs themselves. :P

I like A, B and C the most out of the group but if I had to choose, Design B would be my choice.

[Ottawan]

Funny... I liked them all, but thought C was head and shoulders above the rest. Guess it just goes to show what a success this competition was that we each came up with different favourites.

[rodionx]

I'm throwing down for C. At first, I was leaning toward A for the way it brought in the canal, but from the point of view of creating space for massive gatherings, C stands out. The big water feature in A kind of breaks things up too much. Then again, in winter A would be very cool. Hmmm... it would be either A or C for me.

[jcollins]

It's either B or C for me. Initially I was leaning towards B, but after looking at it more, I think I'd go with C.

But like rodionx said, the way the canal is integrated in A is really cool. Just not cool enough to sway me. Needless to say, all the designs are great!

[phil235]

I'm throwing down for C. At first, I was leaning toward A for the way it brought in the canal, but from the point of view of creating space for massive gatherings, C stands out. The big water feature in A kind of breaks things up too much. Then again, in winter A would be very cool. Hmmm... it would be either A or C for me.

I think C stands out as well, but I'm just not sure about eliminating the baseball diamonds from Sylvia Holden Park to put in an "urban farm". Seems a bit unnecessary. For that reason alone, I think I like B better.

[Ottawan]

In terms of canal integration, I actually feel that E does a better job than A.

[jemartin]

At a price tag of $32M to $88M for landscaping the farthest this will go are the drawing boards and web sites.

You don't need fantastic firms and a design competition to add grass and trees.

[Aylmer]

I really like the paths and ribbon of D. It makes the area look modern and open.

:)

[Ottawan]

At a price tag of $32M to $88M for landscaping the farthest this will go are the drawing boards and web sites.

You don't need fantastic firms and a design competition to add grass and trees.

That's the problem. Some people want this to be great. You want grass and trees.

[McC]

One thing about all of the designs: there's definitely a lot of public "park" space, of one sort or another, for all kinds of different (in many cases multiple) uses.

[harls]

At a cursory glance, I'd say B impresses me the most. The pedestrian bridge would be an interesting landmark.

[phil235]

At a price tag of $32M to $88M for landscaping the farthest this will go are the drawing boards and web sites.

You don't need fantastic firms and a design competition to add grass and trees.

Wasn't Central Park designed by one of the foremost landscape architects of its time?

[Aylmer]

Wasn't Central Park designed by one of the foremost landscape architects of its time?

But Central Park is much more than just trees and grass.

At a cursory glance, I'd say B impresses me the most. The pedestrian bridge would be an interesting landmark.

I love the bridge too, but It's the only thing I like about B...

:)

[reidjr]

jemartin
Thats the probleam very few want just trees and grass a fair amoutn want a central park type design which would costs millions of dollars.

[kwoldtimer]

At a price tag of $32M to $88M for landscaping the farthest this will go are the drawing boards and web sites.

You don't need fantastic firms and a design competition to add grass and trees.

I was waiting for it. So now there should not only be no stadium, no retail and probably no residential but probably no creative urban park space as well. I am sorry but unless opponents have plans to put the site for the Second Coming into Landsdowne, I am at a loss to understand what they DO want to do with the site.

[TransitZilla]

Re-post of my comments from the poll thread:

I voted for C, because it has the best plan for the Aberdeen pavilion, it integrates the canal well with the docks, and it features a number of canal-side restaurants and cafes. The biggest problem with C, however, is that it seems to be the only one that completely removes the existing ball diamonds in Sylvia Holden Park. I though one of the requirements was that these could be re-located, but not removed.

My runner-up is E: I really like the idea of the island created by the inlet, and the waterfront and docks is dealt with very well in E.

A certainly has the biggest inlet, but I find the treatment of the shoreline somewhat lacking.

[umbria27]

I like aspects of all of them, but B was the winner for me. It included a pedestrian bridge and kept Sylvia Holden intact. I liked the new island as well as the more rectangular layout, which made it more formal and urban to my mind.
Bringing the water into the park is a good idea, but most of the other proposals featured too much water. There's no need to duplicate Dow's Lake. A narrow extension of the canal in line with Aberdeen would be enough. Make it canal-like with stone walls rather than natural banks and put open cafe seating alongside it.

[lrt's friend]

I like what I am seeing but I haven't made up my mind yet which I like the most.

My biggest concern is the cost and will any of it actually happen? Or will we start making all kinds of compromises and eliminate a bunch of things and end up with a second or third class mess? How much is the average taxpayer willing to pay? I guess this has to be part of the debate. I like Option ? but it costs $?M. If that is too expensive, maybe I will go with a cheaper second choice. There is lots to debate here.

It is interesting where they are locating the foot bridge. This will encourage people to park in that part of Ottawa South, actually where I always park for Lansdowne events. I can see the Ottawa South Nimbys trying to kill the bridge idea to keep all us parkers out of the neighbourhood. I always thought they wanted to put the foot bridge at 5th Avenue but that is a particularly wide part of the canal. Don't get me wrong, I am all for more foot bridges and I will not be joining in with any Nimbys.

As I have said, my biggest concern is the cost and the great possibility that whatever is chosen will be watered down in the name of budget constraints.

Did we have a budget for this part of the Lansdowne Live Project?

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

At a price tag of $32M to $88M for landscaping the farthest this will go are the drawing boards and web sites.

You don't need fantastic firms and a design competition to add grass and trees.

Ah, trees and grass. You missed your calling working for the NCC.

[McC]

Damn democracy, can't you people see that my prefered choice (D) is unassailably best? ;-)

If compelled, I could compromise on B.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Damn democracy, can't you people see that my prefered choice (D) is unassailably best? ;-)

If compelled, I could compromise on B.

I'm surprised more people don't like B. It preserves Sylvia Holden Park(which I've loved and had fun times at from childhood until now), will keep kids going there which creates a local draw to the area, it completely stylizes itself with the new South Side stands and will grace the canal, it creates more of a garden park feel than huge fields with some token trees, it provides a "lawn" where people can play, gather, host concerts, events, yoga, etc. They even show a night time lighting plan that helps give you a feel of the park and it turns the Parkway and road to the Aberdeen Pavillion into a honest-to-God boulevard.

[umbria27]

At a price tag of $32M to $88M for landscaping the farthest this will go are the drawing boards and web sites.

You don't need fantastic firms and a design competition to add grass and trees.

John,
I hate to pile on here, but this sort of comment isn't helping your cause. More than most people on this board, I sympathize with your opposition to OSEG. I'm no fan of the process that we're following. I've been critical of the retail designs from the start and I'm wary of financial implications. Without a competitive process, critical voices like yours are important. I think pressure groups have done much to improve the original OSEG proposals.
But when you make flippant remarks like this, it undermines your credibility. People contribute to this site because we are fans of design and architecture. We know that buildings are more than steel and concrete and parks are more than grass and trees. I believe you do to, but you are letting your distaste for all things OSEG cloud your judgment.

[TransitZilla]

I'm surprised more people don't like B. It preserves Sylvia Holden Park(which I've loved and had fun times at from childhood until now), will keep kids going there which creates a local draw to the area, it completely stylizes itself with the new South Side stands and will grace the canal, it creates more of a garden park feel than huge fields with some token trees, it provides a "lawn" where people can play, gather, host concerts, events, yoga, etc. They even show a night time lighting plan that helps give you a feel of the park and it turns the Parkway and road to the Aberdeen Pavillion into a honest-to-God boulevard.

I really like the island and bridge in B, but I find the overall landcaping much too formal; the rows of trees seem to act like a hedge to block off the park from the canal.

[AuxTown]

I really like the island and bridge in B, but I find the overall landcaping much too formal; the rows of trees seem to act like a hedge to block off the park from the canal.

I actually don't think that's such a bad thing. As nice as the new South stands are going to be, it's still going to be a stadium, and a little curtain dressing along the canal would only add to the wood/nature/river motif of the stadium design. There will be ample views into Lansdowne down the street between Bank and QE so it might be nice to keep other portions of it separate from the roadway with some natural barriers (i.e. trees).

[RTWAP]

I'm throwing down for C. At first, I was leaning toward A for the way it brought in the canal, but from the point of view of creating space for massive gatherings, C stands out. The big water feature in A kind of breaks things up too much. Then again, in winter A would be very cool. Hmmm... it would be either A or C for me.

I'd like to see C with a lowerable plaza that becomes water filled and skateable for the winter, with a direct connection to the canal. Bring those skaters right into the park, without losing the surface area to water during the summer.

[RTWAP]

I really like the island and bridge in B, but I find the overall landcaping much too formal; the rows of trees seem to act like a hedge to block off the park from the canal.

Yah. There are some nice things in B, but I have criticisms too.

- The scale of the SE footbridge is way too large
- Too many tall trees blocking sitelines at ground level in many parts of the park. It might look good at model scale on a table, but not at ground level in reality.
- The Screen art element seems gimicky and obtrusive.

[lrt's friend]

- The scale of the SE footbridge is way too large

You mean the airplane taxiway. I was thinking the same thing.

Are there any thoughts about sinking the football field down a bit so that south side stands don't have to be as high above ground level?

I really like how Option A brings the canal and therefore pedestrians, bikers, boats and skaters right into the centre of Lansdowne Park where the action will be.

[jemartin]

John,
I hate to pile on here, but this sort of comment isn't helping your cause. More than most people on this board, I sympathize with your opposition to OSEG. I'm no fan of the process that we're following. I've been critical of the retail designs from the start and I'm wary of financial implications. Without a competitive process, critical voices like yours are important. I think pressure groups have done much to improve the original OSEG proposals.
But when you make flippant remarks like this, it undermines your credibility. People contribute to this site because we are fans of design and architecture. We know that buildings are more than steel and concrete and parks are more than grass and trees. I believe you do to, but you are letting your distaste for all things OSEG cloud your judgment.



I stand by my remarks on the ridiculous cost for landscaping as deadly serious and not flippant at all.

And you are also wrong in your belief that I am anti OSEG. I am in fact very pro OSEG, I know Roger, John, Jeff and Kevin
and like them all as i believe they like me.

I just happen to believe that a stadium tied development should be at Bayview or at LeBreton where it follows the Master Plan
and naturally have expounded that whenever I see them.

The argument on process has nothing to do with OSEG, it is against the City, and that is before Superior Court.

The remarks on landscaping are about as factual as you can get. You do not need so much "gun for the hunt". This is a huge
amount of unnecessary distraction and wasteful spending. That is a fact that is undeniable. It does not take a genius or massive
borrowing to lift asphalt, put down dirt, grass and trees and return the site to its pre-1967 expansion condition.

Adding extra playing fields and a grass amphitheater are examples of basic and solid park design components.

There is also nothing wrong with Sylvia Holden Park, you do not need to re-invent it.

There is nothing wrong with the site other than the stadium and the associated asphalt parking lot. The stadium expansion was
an historical mistake that killed the site. The evidence of that fact is before us.

Returning the site to the open space it was prior to the Stadium expansion is in fact the only logical outcome,
and that has everything to do with design.

The four remaining structures would be Coliseum, Horticulture, Aberdeen, and the Arena with
underground trade space


What is truly lacking from all this lofty talk about this plan or that plan is common sense.

And if you are a fan of architecture, aside from Budget, the site must be human in scale and space, and must
not sacrifice a single square inch of the public trust to private interests.

Do you not think that every firm in the competition wished the stadium and associated development was the
heck out of there?

Essentially the entire current process is a three legged stool balanced on the false notion the stadium must stay.

It is becoming more and more clear that the other answer to the question on the stadium is to simply take it down
for the good of the Park.

And with that the three legged stool falls over.

[isaidso]

Wasn't Central Park designed by one of the foremost landscape architects of its time?

Yes, the same one who designed Montreal's Mont Royal.

[isaidso]

Wasn't Central Park designed by one of the foremost landscape architects of its time?

Yes, the same one who designed Montreal's Mont Royal. Our nation's capital deserves no less. That goes for a first rate stadium as well.

Eventually, I'd prefer the north stands torn down and a duplicate set of stands built to match the 2 tiered stands to be built on the canal side.

[jemartin]

Yes, the same one who designed Montreal's Mont Royal. Our nation's capital deserves no less. That goes for a first rate stadium as well.

Eventually, I'd prefer the north stands torn down and a duplicate set of stands built to match the 2 tiered stands to be built on the canal side.

Sorry to disappoint you but Frederick Law Olmstead passed about 100 years ago.

Should he be alive today I sincerely doubt he would corroborate your notion of a stadium in a Park.

Top rate stadium designers would also agree that best stadiums are accessible and on rapid transit.

Development tied stadiums naturally require a lot of land. Lansdowne is severely limited in that regard and Bayview, the number one choice, has five to ten times the development potential.

And if you want best price for a stadium you build new.

The real question in all of this of course is is this City led development or Developer led development?

At the moment I think we all know the answer to that one.

[ajldub]

I like A, but I'd like to see another footbridge across the canal incorporated into the plan. Bringing the canal up to Aberdeen is great, and is one of the few features of any of the designs that will be useful all four seasons.

[RTWAP]

Are there any thoughts about sinking the football field down a bit so that south side stands don't have to be as high above ground level?

I believe that was mentioned as a strong possibility, or high on the wish list of the stadium architects.

[jemartin]

I believe that was mentioned as a strong possibility, or high on the wish list of the stadium architects.

Good luck next to a canal.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Good luck next to a canal.

Hey, would you look at that! There already WAS a stadium next to a canal. What's that? They wanna keep it there? Well I'll be damned!



Seriously John, you're just being a bitter man now.

[Uhuniau]

Good luck next to a canal.

Oh right. That water-filled thingie.

I guess that'll be another reason to never tunnel under downtown Ottawa, either. After all, the technology to keep water out of stuff hasn't made its way from Montreal yet.

[canadave]

Oh right. That water-filled thingie.

I guess that'll be another reason to never tunnel under downtown Ottawa, either. After all, the technology to keep water out of stuff hasn't made its way from Montreal yet.

I really wish Montreal wouldn't horde that technology. After all, New York City needs it if they ever want to build a subway down there. :(

[jemartin]

Hey, would you look at that! There already WAS a stadium next to a canal. What's that? They wanna keep it there? Well I'll be damned!



Seriously John, you're just being a bitter man now.

Hey Jamaican mon,

No bitter here, just good mango. Although I am glad to see you are starting to use the past tense of "was" when referring to the stadium at Lansdowne.

The discussion was about a sunken bowl next to a water table. Aside from all the cute comments on subways going under rivers (and I am surprised they forgot the Chunnel). those are all encased in concrete and below, not immediately adjacent. However we are not talking an enclosed subway, we are talking an open bowl stadium under a water table. Every stadium architectural/engineering firm who I have spoken with steers clear of dipping below the water table for the obvious flooding issue.

The reason it was discussed was because that was part of the original design approach for Bayview. Rainstorms and runoff also pose a serious drainage issue since you would need a pumping station unless you do an incredible further excavation well below your already sunken bowl and create an absorption system but that would only be partially effective.

Additional confirmation is found from the underground parking at the Glebe Centre across the street from the old stadium. They could only go down a maximum of one floor due to same, and that was with concrete. (Take note on discussions of 1,100 underground parking spots).

All this to say that it is not impossible, but not financially practical, which brings me back to the original point.

[Aylmer]

Umm... When has the Canal -a controlled waterway- ever flooded?

:)

[jemartin]

Umm... When has the Canal -a controlled waterway- ever flooded?

:)

Ummmm,.....flooding from rain perhaps? Sunken bowl? Under a water table? Filling with with water from the sky? Poor drainage? Big grey clouds? High water summer seepage? Snow melt in Spring? :)

[reidjr]

Sorry to disappoint you but Frederick Law Olmstead passed about 100 years ago.

Should he be alive today I sincerely doubt he would corroborate your notion of a stadium in a Park.

Top rate stadium designers would also agree that best stadiums are accessible and on rapid transit.

Development tied stadiums naturally require a lot of land. Lansdowne is severely limited in that regard and Bayview, the number one choice, has five to ten times the development potential.

And if you want best price for a stadium you build new.

The real question in all of this of course is is this City led development or Developer led development?

At the moment I think we all know the answer to that one.

Your going to have a few probleams with your plan the biggest well there are 2 big ones but the first is your waiting to the last minute this likely is not going to go over very well.If you had released the details in jan or feb then your bid might have been taking a alot more serious.Waiting to the last minute like you are will not help your cause it will maker it look more of a glebe group trying anything to stall this project.Your other big probleam is comparing it to central park you can't landsdown is no where close to the size of central park and landsdown would not bring in the type of cash central park.Your other probleam which may not be as big as a issue as i have yet to see any details on your funding for both projects your looking at atleast $200 million you claim you don't need an money from the city i just hope your not thinking this is going to be cheap its not.Another probleam is yous eem to think landsdown is a park its not for over 100 years its been home to the stadium.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Hey Jamaican mon,

Don't do that please.

No bitter here, just good mango. Although I am glad to see you are starting to use the past tense of "was" when referring to the stadium at Lansdowne.

1. Yes, you are being bitter. It clearly comes across in several of your recent posts.

2. You misunderstood my usage of "was". When I said was, it was in referral to when it was still functioning and hadn't been partially demolished. Also, you clearly skipped over the part where I said: "they wanna keep it there". This just shows me what a selective reality you subscribe to.

The discussion was about a sunken bowl next to a water table. Aside from all the cute comments on subways going under rivers (and I am surprised they forgot the Chunnel). those are all encased in concrete and below, not immediately adjacent. However we are not talking an enclosed subway, we are talking an open bowl stadium under a water table. Every stadium architectural/engineering firm who I have spoken with steers clear of dipping below the water table for the obvious flooding issue.

Considering your past hesitation to list sources, I highly doubt that you've spoken to stadium architects/engineering firms. Furthermore, if you have indeed spoken to them, they aren't all the same. Believe it or not, there are architects out there who are trying to build sunken stadiums/theatres and even hotels completely below water. Some architect somewhere will surely be able to figure it out and if they don't, then it just means that the stadium won't be sunken. ;) :D

The reason it was discussed was because that was part of the original design approach for Bayview. Rainstorms and runoff also pose a serious drainage issue since you would need a pumping station unless you do an incredible further excavation well below your already sunken bowl and create an absorption system but that would only be partially effective.

Additional confirmation is found from the underground parking at the Glebe Centre across the street from the old stadium. They could only go down a maximum of one floor due to same, and that was with concrete. (Take note on discussions of 1,100 underground parking spots).

All this to say that it is not impossible, but not financially practical, which brings me back to the original point.

So essentially, we're no better off with the long shot that is Bayview? Excellent.

I'll leave the financial practicality up to the experts working on this project.

[Aylmer]

Ummmm,.....flooding from rain perhaps? Sunken bowl? Under a water table? Filling with with water from the sky? Poor drainage? Big grey clouds? High water summer seepage? Snow melt in Spring? :)

Don't get snippy with me because you aren't going get many friends here that way.

Now, the Canal does not overflow. It just doesn't.

If the water level gets too high, the locks are opened to lower it.
If the water level gets too low , the locks are closed to make it higher.

:)

PS:


Hey Jamaican mon,

No bitter here, just good mango.

Wow.

[aesthetic]

Hey Jamaican mon,

No bitter here, just good mango.

Really? :sly: