Lansdowne Park Redevelopment Phase 1 | Completed
 

A:

http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/publi...ges/a_1of7.jpg

B:

http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/publi...ges/b_2of7.jpg

C:

http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/publi...ges/c_1of7.jpg

D:

http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/publi...ges/d_2of7.jpg

E:

http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/publi...ges/e_2of7.jpg

Please take your time to check them out in more detail before voting:

http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/publi.../index_en.html

Why build a footbridge so close to the Bank Street Bridge when the need for a pedestrian and cycling bridge has been studied and documented to be between Clegg Street in Old Ottawa East and Fifth Avenue in the Glebe. The City of Ottawa is presently doing an environmental assessment.
Isn't a bridge located over Pig Island more to accomodate street parking in the Rideau Garden area than for school childen and the elderly to cross the Canal safely?

I'm so glad to see several designs have a bridge from Avenue Rd right into the heart of the park, as well as the currently-under-study Fifth Ave - Clegg St Bridge. This will further help knit these neighbourhoods together with a smaller scale crossing from Old Ottawa South that is more pedestrian- and bike-friendly. (Which reminds me how much I enjoyed some of the typos: e,g, Fifth St, Homewood.) Anyway, if the Avenue Rd Bridge is aligned with one across the Rideau River, all of the sudden Riverside Hospital becomes the closest Transitway stop.

I liked D best: really attractive combination of modern urban with bucolic "natural" into a dynamite park design. B was pretty good silver choice (but I'm guessing might have been one of the pricier options).

Ditto. Some of the other designs just have too much lazy greenspace. The ribbon and the path to the canal in D I find make it accessible and create a nice balance between park and path. If I had to tweak it, I would make the ribbon longer to have it go to Bank and I would connect the Canal with the pond, but I'm not sure if the topography would make it possible to do so without significantly changing the design or water level of the pond.

:)

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.

I like A, B, and C the best out of the group, but I chose B because I like it's look and style. On top of that, The way they try to "sculpt" the landscape reminds me of the nice feel and organization of the Arboretum and gardens at the Experimental Farm.

I chose All Roads Lead to Aberdeen (D) because there's very little separation of grades, the spaces all seem quite versatile, and there are clearly-defined gathering spots and private spots that are both easily visible from other spaces, thus providing natural surveillance. It also balances out Bank Street, Aberdeen, and the Rideau Canal as equally important focal points.

I don't consider the Bank Street bridge to be very cycling or pedestrian friendly. I was there yesterday and the other cyclists I saw were walking their bikes on the sidewalk rather than use the roadway. I did a hook turn to Echo Drive rather than be in the left lane as cars came over the crest of the bridge. The connection from Avenue Road will also be welcome. I'm with McC, I welcome this connection in addition to the Fifth/Clegg connection (which some teams have also shown just off-site).

I chose option B. I think, from the renderings at least, it seems to have the most greenspace of all the proposals. I think this is important to balance out the much more urban fabric of the retail portion of Lansdowne as well as to apease the Glebites. The wide pedestrian bridge makes it very pedestrian friendly but I worry that design features like new islands/inlets/canals make some less feasible than others. One thing that I think is important in the project that has been ignored in many of the renderings is the much-needed connection between Bank and QE. Without this connection, traffic within Lansdowne will not flow and Bank Street will have to absorb all of the retail traffic rather than splitting it between the two roads. To be honest, I would love to see any of these designs, but a big consideration needs to be cost and keeping things simple is often the best choice.

I like bits of each.

The south seating of A.
The residential and greening of B.
The jagged path of D.
The general layout of E and the water feature.
Definitely the extended atrium of E.

I think they've all done a fairly good job at retaining the 'genetics' of the park while bringing in a modern flair. Because I had to choose to vote - I chose E.

I passionately oppose a pedestrian bridge at this time. It is a good idea in principle, and convenient, but would not add enough value to the park. Perhaps in the future, but not right now.

I wish the designs would take into account that the canal is drained for 6 months of the year. A lot of these pools and ponds will look like crap from Oct-April.

I prefer the general approach of option C.

But (surprise surprise) I'd like to make changes.

I'd incorporate some of the other elements from other proposals, and add a few of my own.

Taking C as the baseline, I'd reconfigure Sylvia Holden park to restore the baseball diamonds.

From option A I'd incorporate the toboggan hill and above ground parking buried under hills and landscaping. This saves money and introduces some interesting variation to the site. It would be great if the top of the hill had a view onto the stadium field. Bring a blanket, binoculars and a picnic, and try to follow along with the crowd.

From option B I liked the Lansdowne Island, and associated programming. The curling court was a nice touch. And the Beacon art element was interesting.

From option C I especially liked the uses of the Aberdeen Pavilion and surrounding area. I wouldn't devote as much surface area to water though. The site is already on the canal, the only water I want inside the boundaries is frozen stuff in the winter. I really like their art pieces, both in scale and content. The shoreline was nice, with the boardwalk, barges and restaurants. And the dual footbridges are a plus.

From option D I wouldn't take anything. I couldn't find anything to like. I tried. I strained to come up with a plus and all I got was that it looks nature-ish. It has lots of water, but doesn't connect to the Canal. It breaks the space up into long slim pieces that feel small, like a collection of incongruous skinny parks.

From option E I would take the location of the water taxi/shuttle location, and the programming idea for an Algonquin Canoe Building Centre.

For my own ideas, I would have a portion of the plaza east of the Aberdeen Pavilion have a large stormwater containment reservoir underneath, and then lower the entire section in the winter to create space for a skating area level with the canal. I would also have a pedestrian (skatestrian?) tunnel to connect the canal with Aberdeen. It would be sealed whenever the canal is not lowered for the winter, and would have skylights and such to make it a bright and airy connection between Canal and Park.

When I think of how animated the site would be in winter with skaters skating right up to the Pavilion, walking around in their skates on rubber mats in the Farmers Market, or slipping into a cafe for a warm cocoa, it just seems so obvious that winter is the best time to directly connect the two realms.

My other idea is for a family picnic area and farmers market extension south of the Aberdeen Pavilion (as in design C), where each stall is configured with squared off U shaped metal tables with benches that flip up out of the way under the table. When in use as a farmers stall the farmer stands in the middle and sells their wares. When in use as a picnic stall a number of families could retract the benches and sit on the inside and outside of the table. Even during active market periods, this would allow a variable number of vendors to use a portion of the stalls and others to sit and eat, with each use intermixed throughout the area. Each such stall could have a metal-supported cloth roof, providing some protection from the elements.

Voted 'A', as it seems to be the closest to how people use parks in the real world. Also it doesn't have a pedestrian bridge, and as an advocate of a bridge a bit further north, I suspect having a pedestrian bridge as part of the redevelopment will kill that bridge.

They need an option to simply add grass, trees and fields of play, a fountain, and a grass ampitheatre.

Keep all the buildings except the stands, retain the site revenue and return the site to a beautiful place.

My park includes all of it and keeping the Ex, the trade shows and the agricultural heritage.

And you certainly don't need to spend $33M to $80M for landscaping.

People make a park.

Dude, since you hijacked the other Lansdowne thread I've stopped posting in there. Please keep your negative and baseless comments out of this thread as this is a place to discuss the re-development of Lansdowne. No one asked for your opinion regarding some long lost Lansdowne Park that never existed. Either you are 110 years old or you have never seen a Lansdowne without a significant stadium and I hope you never will. We have plenty of beautiful greenspace and nature areas within Ottawa's boundaries and don't need any more of them. If it turns out that your motive for this rabid opposition is that you live in the Glebe then I suggest your move because this is going to pass and it will be spectacular!

jemartin
Ottawa has over 800 parks in this city is not in any way lacking in parks.What ottawa is lacking is arenas and sports fields.I am not aginst parks but at the same time you can't turn everything into parks which some seem to want.

I've avoided getting into an argument with you about this because it is apparent that you have no wish to listen to the other side of a debate. Please don't quote me again unless you actually have a point to make either in disagreeing with a point or agreeing. Landscaping is more expensive than you think unless your goal is to replace the stadium with a barren and windswept field in the winter and an empty field of burnt and unwatered grass in the summer. That may be your goal. It is not mine.

So far, it's "D" for me. Like others have said, I think its blend of urban and bucolic spaces is the right one. The sweeping line that becomes the footbridge is spectacular, although I would give it a Clegg Street end as well, or replace the alignment with Clegg-Fifth. Most of all, I think that design really brings all of Lansdowne's elements together, from Bank Street right through to the water. I am very impressed with the market stands that can be opened or closed for different seasons and double as screens or stage backgrops. Love the idea! As for the water feature, I like the variety of edges: some are naturalized (marsh-like) and offer real potential for contact-with-nature teachings, others are urban edges with a boardwalk, each at the right place. The water also defines the park's spaces better than the other designs, I think, by clearly demarcating areas that have their own flavour, look and function. The promenade from Aberdeen to the canal would be a breathtaking public space.

The only potential downside to wetlands would be mosquitoes. Have they come up with anything to prevent them from laying eggs?

:)