HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Downtown & City of Ottawa


View Poll Results: Which of the designs would you like to see become the new Lansdowne 'Front Lawn'?
Option A: "One Park, Four Landscapes" 12 11.88%
Option B: "Win Place Show" 23 22.77%
Option C: "A Force of Nature" 14 13.86%
Option D: "All Roads Lead to Aberdeen" 16 15.84%
Option E: "The Canal Park in Ottawa" 18 17.82%
None of the above. Please keep my ashphalt. 18 17.82%
Voters: 101. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #661  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2010, 3:03 AM
aesthetic's Avatar
aesthetic aesthetic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 59
jemartin, the mods were kind enough to create a thread for your Conservancy proposal. Please stop spamming this thread with posts about your project. You're coming across as very overbearing and it's making this thread unreadable. Thank you.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #662  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2010, 12:31 PM
jemartin jemartin is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 499
I find it odd that under a thread of Lansdowne Park Revitalization the moderator deletes valid replies, not spam, replies to questions on a viable alternative.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #663  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2010, 1:00 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 23,490
Moderator: Could you not rename this thread "Landsdowne Live" to end this continued sniping? It is not pleasant.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #664  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2010, 1:44 PM
jemartin jemartin is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 499
Message to Moderator

The development at Lansdowne is about discussion on the future development on the site.

Renaming it to Lansdowne Live is firstly incorrect and would be contrary to the copyrighted "Live" designation owned by an American firm.

All discussion relating to the proposed development of the site should be under one heading so that all viewpoints are included.

Last edited by jemartin; Sep 21, 2010 at 1:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #665  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2010, 2:22 PM
Ciemny's Avatar
Ciemny Ciemny is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 130
The development at Lansdowne is about discussion on the future development on the site.

"All discussion relating to the proposed development of the site should be under one heading so that all viewpoints are included." - You have a viewpoint in your own specific thread.


The discussion in this thread relates to the current redevelopment approved by council, the one with actual plans, rezoning, funding and a solid plan.

You have a fantasy redevelopment that has been given a cool welcome by council...twice...they just don't give a damn about it. Thinking, praying and hoping they do cause you think your plan is superior will not make it a reality.
Please stick to you own conservancy thread since HARLS will end up wiping out a good portion of the thread like before because of this Conservancy idsiocy poluting this thread again.
__________________
War - A Continuation of Politics by Other Means.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #666  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2010, 2:28 PM
jemartin jemartin is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 499
A preliminary Executive Summary can be seen at:

http://lpc-cpl.ca/images/pdf/ot-park-sept13.pdf

The complete proposal will be officially entered under procurement rules to the City of Ottawa within a few weeks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #667  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2010, 3:00 PM
phil235's Avatar
phil235 phil235 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 3,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by jemartin View Post
A preliminary Executive Summary can be seen at:

http://lpc-cpl.ca/images/pdf/ot-park-sept13.pdf

The complete proposal will be officially entered under procurement rules to the City of Ottawa within a few weeks.
Ajldub, if you want to read about a massive gamble without an anchor tenant, you should try this link.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #668  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2010, 3:39 PM
jemartin jemartin is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 499
Quote:
Originally Posted by phil235 View Post
Ajldub, if you want to read about a massive gamble without an anchor tenant, you should try this link.
There are more than enough retailers willing to vie for the 70,000 sq ft above ground space in the remodeled Horticulture Building, Coliseum Building and the new pavillion adjacent to the heated 50 meter mineral water pool as well as 30,000 feet inside the North Stands.

The CFL franchise would play at the new stadium as outlined in the contract with the CFL, which states simply that the City is to provide a suitable stadium.

There is no precedent to link football at Lansdowne with a right to develop.

Nothing wrong with developing the park, but not at the expense of land for all citizens of Ottawa and particularly not at the expense of destroying green space for children on Holmwood.

Fighting for a developer led initiative leaves one to wonder at the motivation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #669  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2010, 5:24 PM
phil235's Avatar
phil235 phil235 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 3,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by jemartin View Post
There are more than enough retailers willing to vie for the 70,000 sq ft above ground space in the remodeled Horticulture Building, Coliseum Building and the new pavillion adjacent to the heated 50 meter mineral water pool as well as 30,000 feet inside the North Stands.

The CFL franchise would play at the new stadium as outlined in the contract with the CFL, which states simply that the City is to provide a suitable stadium.

There is no precedent to link football at Lansdowne with a right to develop.

Nothing wrong with developing the park, but not at the expense of land for all citizens of Ottawa and particularly not at the expense of destroying green space for children on Holmwood.

Fighting for a developer led initiative leaves one to wonder at the motivation.

Ah, the veiled accusations of ulterior motives. Always the hallmark of a strong argument.

For the record, I am in favour of this initiative because I think that on balance it is good for a city which has been content to let this land decay for over three decades. I think it respects the various interests at stake with a financially realistic plan to revitalize critical facilities. I think it is the only viable option that has been presented and is likely to actually be implemented before a fourth decade of neglect is upon us. I think it respects planning principles. And I think that the people involved actually have a legitimate claim to know what they are doing.

Despite claims that the CFL franchise would play at Lansdowne under other circumstances, there is absolutely nothing to support that claim. You have no ability to promise a football team, a soccer team or any other team.

And the more recent fight to protect the 15-foot wide band of grass on Holmwood is particularly ridiculous. That bare strip of grass between the chain link fence and the road is only of any value to those immediately adjacent to it, and under the current plan, it will be replaced by a far bigger park which will be of use to far more people. You have to be pretty myopic to think that protection of that grass at the expense of a much larger real park is in the common good.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #670  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2010, 5:38 PM
jemartin jemartin is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 499
You are correct, it is presently the only option with a stadium that has so far been presented.

That is about to change in the very near future.

And if you think that grass area isn't important go and have a talk with all the young families on the street.

Sacrificing that strip is not necessary and to suggest otherwise shows a particular callousness.

If the CFL franchise is pulled if a different group builds the stadium then clearly you know it was never about football.

With respect to where you locate intensification have a look at the Master Plan.

None other than George Dark, leading jurist on the design panel for the grass area, contributed to the implementation of the plan that outlines intensification is to take place on the transit corridor of LeBreton to Bayview, coincidentally where DCR Phoenix is placing a 1,000,000 sq ft development on the smallest developable area of the Bayview Somerset Development Area.

As for your belief that the sole sourced developer proposal is good financially, I have to agree, for the developers.

Very simply if were to care about your fellow citizen you would support open competition.

If the current proposal has any merit it would withstand a simple RFP.

Lastly, this sad refrain of "we'll never get anything done if we don't take this now" truly is poor argument.

The competing proposal has a timetable that meets and exceeds City requirements.

Sensible development does not come from behind closed doors and is open to a challenge.

I see no plausible defense for towers, private homes and box stores.

Bring football by all means, many have done so across our country for years, and without any right to develop.

Keeping the park public for all and have all the site revenue surplus re invested back into the park and the City.

Last edited by jemartin; Sep 21, 2010 at 5:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #671  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2010, 6:32 PM
phil235's Avatar
phil235 phil235 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 3,711
I'm not sure how saying that it is reasonable to replace what is currently a really poor park with a much larger park accessible to many more people makes me callous, but whatever you say. I suppose that if the poor children of the south-east Glebe have to walk another 100 metres to get to their new park, then we should call the whole thing off. Perhaps one day you will realize that such weak put-downs do nothing to help your credibility.

Incidentally, the argument for homes and offices on the site (there are no box stores, that is more empty rhetoric) is that the Glebe has suburban densities in many areas and this is a prime opportunity to incorporate significant density into the neighbourhood with relatively low impact to existing residents. All as per the official plan that you like to refer to so often. The mixed-use development meets any number of the principles associated with smart growth. To refuse to acknowledge as much strikes me as only justifiable if your sole goal was to prevent intensification on a site in your neighbourhood.

As I said before, I can understand the arguments that the land should be kept public on principle, and that another major park would be a nice addition to the central area of the city. What I don't understand is the absolute refusal of opponents to acknowledge any benefits of the current plan whatsoever, such as the creation of an exciting new park (albeit on just part of the site), such as the inclusion of a classic live/work/play mixed-use component which will do almost all the right things from an environmental perspective, such as the opportunity to use design to create a landmark gateway to an important central neighbourhood or such as a real chance to have football and soccer teams in the city within a couple of years. And on top of that, there is very little willingness to look at the history and recognize that getting anything done on the site is clearly a monumental challenge, so saying no to a viable plan represents a real risk of continued decay.

Instead it is more and more rhetoric about the great tragedy of this development which, did you hear, is to be built by evil developers who want to make money? Conspiracies, closed doors, poor parkless children etc. Never any thought of acknowledging advantages and disadvantages and making nuanced arguments about the possible alternatives available.

Why would anyone trust a plan from a proponent who can't recognize that this is a complex decision, each option has its pros and cons, and that no matter what goes forward, you will have to sacrifice in some areas to make gains in others? Why would anyone give credibilty to someone who casts aspersions and uses insults in responding to those who disagree with him on development issues? If a person can't acknowledge the complexities of the issue, or the validity of competing arguments, how can we have any faith that they have any ability to come up with a good and balanced solution?

Finally, whether I do or don't care about my fellow citizens is not particularly pertinent to the question of whether a competition would be helpful here. Personally I don't think a competition is in our best interests because a) I don't believe that there are actually multiple proponents out there waiting to make credible competing bids on the site; (b) competitions work best for the procurement of generic services or to select a design for a defined purpose, but not for large complex undertakings like this one; (c) it is almost impossible to devise criteria to compare the current multi-faceted initiative with a park conservancy plan that includes numerous "bonus" elements that may or may not be what the people want; and (d) a competition will cost a lot of money, take a lot of time, and no doubt be challenged in court after the fact by people such as yourself, whose proposals are not selected, meaning more stagnation for little discernable benefit.

Last edited by phil235; Sep 21, 2010 at 7:03 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #672  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2010, 6:42 PM
jemartin jemartin is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 499
..........
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #673  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2010, 6:49 PM
jemartin jemartin is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 499
Quote:
Originally Posted by phil235 View Post
I'm not sure how saying that it is reasonable to replace what is currently a really poor park with a much larger park accessible to many more people makes me callous, but whatever you say. I suppose that if the poor children of the south-east Glebe have to walk another 100 metres to get to their new park, then we should call the whole thing off. Perhaps one day you will realize that such weak put-downs do nothing to help your credibility.

Incidentally, the argument for homes and offices on the site (there are no box stores, that is more empty rhetoric) is that the Glebe has suburban densities in many areas and this is a prime opportunity to incorporate significant density into the neighbourhood with relatively low impact to existing residents. All as per the official plan that you like to refer to so often. The mixed-use development meets any number of the principles associated with smart growth. To refuse to acknowledge as much strikes me as only justifiable if your sole goal was to prevent intensification on a site in your neighbourhood.

As I said before, I can understand the arguments that the land should be kept public on principle, and that another major park would be a nice addition to the central area of the city. What I don't understand is the absolute refusal of opponents to acknowledge any benefits of the current plan whatsoever, such as the creation of an exciting new park (albeit on just part of the site) and the inclusion of a classic live/work/play mixed-use component which will do almost all the right things from an environmental perspective. Or such as the opportunity to use design to create a landmark gateway to an important centra neighbourhood. And on top of that, there is very little willingness to look at the history and recognize that getting anything done on the site is clearly a monumental challenge, so saying no to a viable plan represents a real risk of continued decay.

Instead it is more and more rhetoric about the great tragedy of this development which, did you hear, is to be built by evil developers who want to make money. Conspiracies, closed doors, poor parkless children etc. Never any thought of acknowledging advantages and disadvantages and making nuanced arguments about the possible alternatives available.

Why would anyone trust a plan from a proponent who can't recognize that this is a complex decision, each option has its pros and cons, and that no matter what goes forward, you will have to sacrifice in some areas to make gains in others? Why would anyone give credibilty to someone who casts aspersions and uses insults in responding to those who disagree with him on development issues? If a person can't acknowledge the complexities of the issue, or the validity of competing arguments, how can we have any faith that they have any ability to come up with a good and balanced solution?
You have summed yourself up very clearly in your first paragraph.

The competitive model that balances fiscal needs with public sensitivity will be presented in early October.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #674  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2010, 6:58 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,823
I really have my doubts that placing retail in the existing scattered set of buildings would be successful. There needs to be better continuity and critical mass and sidewalk facing operations to make it successful especially in an environment where we are depending on pedestrian traffic to generate business. This is a major key to a successful rejuvination of the location and supported by the Lansdowne Live proposal. If there is to be a retail presence, we need to fill in the gaps in an appealing manner to make it worthwhile to visit the various existing scattered buildings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #675  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2010, 7:09 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by jemartin View Post
You have summed yourself up very clearly in your first paragraph.

The competitive model that balances fiscal needs with public sensitivity will be presented in early October.
I think I am a member of the public too. Why should local over sensitivity trump the wishes of the general public on what has always been city-wide facility? As it stands, the Glebe is going to have access to an outstanding location, something that few, if any other neighbourhoods in the city will be so blessed. I think that the Lansdowne Live proposal does take into consideration local needs and it is offensive that the rest of city should be expected to give in to all local demands.

If we are so concerned with the historic use of the park, then lets rebuild the horse and cow barns on the site of the park along Holmwood Avenue. Also, lets clear out the park down near 5th avenue and the driveway and rebuild all the buildings that used to be there and allow the Ex to have their kiddy rides at that location, which was the way it was when I was a kid.

There are too many double standards being used in the various arguments being presented.

Last edited by lrt's friend; Sep 21, 2010 at 7:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #676  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2010, 7:24 PM
jemartin jemartin is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 499
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
I think I am a member of the public too. Why should local over sensitivity trump the wishes of the general public on what has always been city-wide facility?

If we are so concerned with the historic use of the park, then lets rebuild the horse and cow barns on the site of the park along Holmwood Avenue. Also, lets clear out the park down near 5th avenue and the driveway and rebuild all the buildings that used to be there and allow the Ex to have there kiddy rides at that location, which was the way it was when I was a kid.

There are too many double standards being used in the various arguments being presented.
The statement was public sensitivity, not local sensitivity, though that is a component.

Public sensitivity comes with caring that the taxpayer is not burdened with too high a bill and preserving the space for the public.

Public sensitivity means keeping it in a human scale and the several towers and 10 story buildings will not create an open inviting space, but in fact present an enormous fortress with very difficult access.

This incredible public space has not been in private hands for well over 100 years, when a large part of it was deeded for "the public use and enjoyment of the citizens" by the Royal Botanical Society and the balance purchased off the Muchmor Family by the City, again for public use.

Paving it over is what killed the site, returning the open space to a beautiful area is all that is required to make it work. Adding a vibrant retail mix in the existing buildings and providing features for the public to use free of charge will ensure it is sustainable.

Balance is what the new proposal is all about and a place that will attract tourism due to its unique features, something we will all be able to be proud of and take full advantage of.

There will be plenty of opportunity to debate the features of the new proposal when it is released, not the least of which is the preservation of the space for the public under a self sustaining financial model.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #677  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2010, 7:35 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,823
To be honest, I really don't understand the proposal anymore because it keeps changing. How can we take it seriously? Why wasn't this done 10 years ago, 5 years ago, 2 years ago, even 1 year ago? This is an act of desparation and even obstruction. The only reason why this is happening is because another plan is already on the table and has been approved by City Council. No plan can be perfect and that is always the argument, that we can do better. Of course, another more perfect plan is always possible. And the argument can be made, that if we accept a 'new' perfect plan, another more even perfect plan will be presented again. Ultimately, inaction becomes a very real possibility.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #678  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2010, 7:43 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,823
Quote:
Paving it over is what killed the site,
I don't get this comment. Old photos showed that there were paved roads all over the site and what wasn't paved was either grass or mud. How long ago are we talking about? 1900? What wasn't pavement was likely mud and horse sh*t back then. You cannot have an Exhibition Grounds and have pristine grass and landscaping. It never was and never will be.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #679  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2010, 8:14 PM
phil235's Avatar
phil235 phil235 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 3,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by jemartin View Post
You have summed yourself up very clearly in your first paragraph.

The competitive model that balances fiscal needs with public sensitivity will be presented in early October.
Well, I did what I could - laid out what I think are good reasons to support the current proposal and suggested that you not resort to insults to make your points. This is your response. Thank you for that - very thoughtful.

Rather than stick around to receive the benefit of your lectures on what is in the public interest, I'm going to go ahead and retreat back to the sweet haven of the ignore button. Good luck with your consensus building.
T
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #680  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2010, 8:30 PM
jemartin jemartin is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 499
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
To be honest, I really don't understand the proposal anymore because it keeps changing. How can we take it seriously? Why wasn't this done 10 years ago, 5 years ago, 2 years ago, even 1 year ago? This is an act of desparation and even obstruction. The only reason why this is happening is because another plan is already on the table and has been approved by City Council. No plan can be perfect and that is always the argument, that we can do better. Of course, another more perfect plan is always possible. And the argument can be made, that if we accept a 'new' perfect plan, another more even perfect plan will be presented again. Ultimately, inaction becomes a very real possibility.
Actually I was very supportive of the Design Competition.

As far as I can see the only thing obstructionist has been a sole source bid (charged to be illegal and before the courts)that stopped a democratically voted open competition dead in its tracks.

The new proposal is a balance of what everyone has been asking for, but will be submitting under several sections of the procurement By-Laws, not the least of which a call for open competition.

Being realistic the City will naturally block that request so two other doors, which are much harder to close will be entered.

Who is to say that this is desperate? Typically large design firms do not enter into projects that don't have a good chance at winning.

What I find desperate is zoning for a project that has not submitted a final plan or blocking open tender competitions.

This is not about inaction, this is about an alternative, with costing, with timetables and with the backing of internationally recognized stadium/park and project management specialists.

Nor is this re-inventing what has been asked for, namely:

1. Stadium
2. Green Space
3. Self supporting financial model with attractive retail opportunities and
4. Relieving the City of the responsibility of managing the park.

What it is presenting is a competitive alternative that will be responsible to the taxpayer, heritage, the greater community and the local community.

And there is nothing wrong with that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Downtown & City of Ottawa
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:04 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.