Lansdowne Park Redevelopment Phase 1 | Completed

[jaydog0212]

alecz_dad
There is not going to be 45 min traffic jams

[citizen j]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

Uh, aren't we getting a little offside here with this discussion of the LRT?

As has been commented, the LRT is about trying to get out to the suburbs, and it ain't goin anywhere near Lansdowne, neither does the Transitway. Just two little bus routes to service it on Bank.

So I hope when you guys feel the urge to come buy your organic nose-hair freshener from Whole Foods, you guys enjoy the 45-minute long traffic jams to get from 417 to Lansdowne Lie and another half-hour circling the neighbourhood looking for street parking because the insufficient onsite parking is all full up.

Oh I see what you did there, taking the V out and turning it into "Lie." That's great. Anyway, don't worry, we won't circle the neighbourhood looking for parking; we'll just park on Holmwood in front of someone's driveway, or on the nearest available front lawn that isn't already covered with banners proclaiming "The Barbarians Are At The Gate!!!"

Ahem.

[alecz_dad]

Originally Posted by citizen j

Oh I see what you did there, taking the V out and turning it into "Lie." That's great. Anyway, don't worry, we won't circle the neighbourhood looking for parking; we'll just park on Holmwood in front of someone's driveway, or on the nearest available front lawn that isn't already covered with banners proclaiming "The Barbarians Are At The Gate!!!"

Ahem.

Well, after the first 20 or so arrive, you'll be out of luck. Oh, please don't worry about inconveniencing me by parking in front of my driveway, I'll have parking control and the towtruck on speeddial, so we'll be able to help you out of there in a jiffy!

The moneyed elite and their useful idiot slavering football fanatics may have convinced their quisling pols to give away the public space for a dollar a year, but for the moment I still have control over my own private property.

[Chris-R]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

Well, after the first 20 or so arrive, you'll be out of luck. Oh, please don't worry about inconveniencing me by parking in front of my driveway, I'll have parking control and the towtruck on speeddial, so we'll be able to help you out of there in a jiffy!

The moneyed elite and their useful idiot slavering football fanatics may have convinced their quisling pols to give away the public space for a dollar a year, but for the moment I still have control over my own private property.

Very dramatic. I do have little doubt that you've got 311 and the police on speed dial though. Too bad they're both staffed by "useful idiots". I think for your purposes we're far beyond your generous help here (all that pro-developer false consciousness or something; public sovereignty willingly given up for some cheap trinkets, shiny baubles, and a Jack Astor's AMIRITE?!?).

Maybe Gray's or Reevely's comment section will be more receptive to your concerns. Who knows? Maybe you can get Gray to write a column about Watson blocking you on Twitter.

[alecz_dad]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

I have these lovely things called "legs". They often get me to where I need to go and free of traffic. If I need to get somewhere faster, there are bikes, scooters, and skateboards to get me where I need to go.

I'm all for those methods of transportation that use the legs. Hey, that's one of the reasons I live in the Glebe.

However, Ottawa Citizen cycling blogger argues that the modal split for cycle use, for example, assumed in Lansdowne Lie's transportation plan is wildly optimistic, and frankly unrealistic, compared to other, comparable cities' stadiums:
http://alexbikes.wordpress.com/2011/...downe-compare/

The same can safely be assumed to be the case for public transit (since Lansdowne is nowhere near the Transitway or LRT) and pedestrians.

It is estimated that if all the facilities being crammed into the Lansdowne site were being built elsewhere, they would require as many as 10,000 parking spaces. And certainly will have the highest ratio of seats or sq/ft of retail, per parking space of any event venue or retail facility in the City:
http://www.oldottawasouth.ca/index.p...lansdowne-site

Now, if you can just convince the other 23,999 Ottawa Freeloaders football fans to walk, cycle, bus or carpool, then we're in business. Or the 2500 patrons of the Empire Theatres mega-cinema cycling through every 2.5 hours, trying to park in one of the 20 free parking spaces on my street, just up from the back door of the theatre. Or the xxxx thousand shoppers coming to the mall each day (how far are you really willing to lug that extra large bag of organic Basmati rice from Whole Foods to get it to your car?).

The critics of this plan have tried to use all kinds of reasonable arguments to point out why it is the wrong idea, in the wrong place. Hell, even Jim Watson thought it was a bad idea when he was a City Councillor back in the early-1990s (see 4:30 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz_X3CULRrU for one of his councillor's newsletters) and opposed a very similar redevelopment scheme. But the OSEG/City Lügenfabrik, with its near limitless PR, legal and other resources have been highly successful in marginalizing and disparaging their volunteer critics.

Nice going!

[S-Man]

I'm all for those methods of transportation that use the legs. Hey, that's one of the reasons I live in the Glebe.

Hey, that's awesome. Since you walk everywhere, and there's sidewalks and crosswalks everywhere, you'll have no problem getting about and won't have to worry about annoying cars filling the streets. It won't be an inconvenience at all.

Oh, and 'Ottawa Freeloaders'? I almost pooped my pants. ROFLMFAO

[alecz_dad]

Originally Posted by Chris-R

Very dramatic. I do have little doubt that you've got 311 and the police on speed dial though. Too bad they're both staffed by "useful idiots". I think for your purposes we're far beyond your generous help here (all that pro-developer false consciousness or something; public sovereignty willingly given up for some cheap trinkets, shiny baubles, and a Jack Astor's AMIRITE?!?).

Maybe Gray's or Reevely's comment section will be more receptive to your concerns. Who knows? Maybe you can get Gray to write a column about Watson blocking you on Twitter.

useful idiot, defined: In political jargon, useful idiot is a pejorative term used to describe people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they do not understand, who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause.

Considering that this scheme is being put forward by billionaires and millionaires, who propose that you, me and all the other NON-millionaire and NON-billionaire residents of Ottawa pay for the vast majority of this construction to facilitate their private football franchise, their private shopping mall, their private condo developments, and their private office buildings. Sounds like the textbook definition of useful idiots. (But not idiot, "Duh! Duh!, just dupes who are so beguiled by their desire for football, their animosity towards Glebe residents (including many very affluent local businesspeople, but they mostly live far enough away that they aren't directly affected), and so willing to believe the talking points that OSEG's PR flacks have been hammering home for 4 years.

I know that probably given the title and subject matter of this site, folks here are pre-disposed to being rah-rah about big building projects, and it would seem that those most interested because they are football supporters are also piling on.

However, it seems as though there is a blinkered view here that is impervious to any sort of questioning or reasonable arguments in opposition to OSEG's Lansdowne scheme, as it has been presented.

What would it take to shake some of your unswerving support for this project?
* A message from the future that this will indeed result in higher property taxes and cuts to other City services to pay the City's debt?
* Any number of books and articles outlining the voodoo economics involved in PPP stadium/sports team plans (a few examples: http://ow.ly/bzSwE http://ow.ly/bzSAL http://ow.ly/bzSFS http://ow.ly/bzSJE http://ow.ly/bzSNR)
* A picture of Larry O'Brien, Jim Watson and Roger Greenberg in a menage-a-trois on top of a pile of money?

Just wondering.

[alecz_dad]

Originally Posted by S-Man

Hey, that's awesome. Since you walk everywhere, and there's sidewalks and crosswalks everywhere, you'll have no problem getting about and won't have to worry about annoying cars filling the streets. It won't be an inconvenience at all.

Oh, and 'Ottawa Freeloaders'? I almost pooped my pants. ROFLMFAO

Didn't say I walk everywhere. Like most families we have a car - a decidedly unglamourous 13 year-old Civic - so we still need to be able to drive in, out and around our neighbourhood, as anybody else expects to be able to.

If you liked the "Freeloaders," you'll love the "Debt-Saddlers"? Keep up the old Riders' equestrian theme.

[alecz_dad]

Originally Posted by jaydog0212

alecz_dad
There is not going to be 45 min traffic jams

Doesn't take much to cause them now!

[alecz_dad]

Originally Posted by phil235

You are right -we are a little offside here. I just couldn't resist responding to a claim that it is somehow more cost-effective to provide transit service outside the greenbelt. There seems to be significant confusion between a commuter service and an urban transit system like the LRT. I will resist this time.

As for Lansdowne, I'll be walking there, thanks, as will any number of people in the adjacent neighbourhoods who no longer need to drive the suburbs to see a movie etc. Not sure about your claims of 45-minute traffic jams - that seems, well, quite made up. I don't really buy these doom and gloom traffic scenarios. Sure, there will be congestion at times, but access to the site will find its equilibrium as with any other major destination in the city (well, other than that hockey-related destination in Kanata that is "well-served" by highways and express buses).

Speaking of congestion, it is not necessary a bad thing. Modern urban planning theory is moving towards an understanding that congestion has significant benefits - getting more people to shift to more active and sustainable modes of transportation, safer for pedestrians etc. And for someone in the neighbourhood who doesn't need to drive, it's unlikely to be much of a nuisance to you at all.

Finally, on transit, I'm a little tired of hearing that Lansdowne is on "two little bus routes". Two routes are quite capable of servicing this project if managed properly. And more importantly, this is the neighbourhood's opportunity to make a case for better service after the recent cuts. Instead of continuing the 4-year tradition of repeating complaints about transit ad nauseum, why not get involved and help to push for increased and better service? Lemons from lemonade, you know?

You're right, Scotiabank Place should not have been built out in Kanata. There was talk about building it on Lebreton or the city-owned Bayview Yards site, immediately adjacent to the Transitway. But instead it was plunked down in the cornfields of Kanata, in large part because it opened up the area around it to development by the Firestone Corp., including the building of an exit there, courtesy of the then quisling Mayor, Jim Durrell (who had to resign after trying to be Mayor and President of the Sens franchise. OOPS! Conflict, anyone?)

I agree that the theory does state that congestion forces people to take other modes of transport. How about we start by putting a freeze on the hundreds of millions of dollars of road-widening planned throughout the City in the next few years? Then we could put that towards funding the stadium renovation and park building without going into debt and without having to give away a third of the site to private developers for $1 per year?

I think that all of the neighbourhoods along Bank Street have been making the case for better transit service for years. Doesn't seem to make much difference.

I'd love to set up my lemonade stand, but somebody came and dang cut down the lemon tree.

[Nepean]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

useful idiot, defined: In political jargon, useful idiot is a pejorative term used to describe people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they do not understand, who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause.

Considering that this scheme is being put forward by billionaires and millionaires, who propose that you, me and all the other NON-millionaire and NON-billionaire residents of Ottawa pay for the vast majority of this construction to facilitate their private football franchise, their private shopping mall, their private condo developments, and their private office buildings. Sounds like the textbook definition of useful idiots.

(snip rest of quote)

Let me begin first by giving you Kudos for laying out your argument. I respect people who engage with those that they disagree with, so I am glad that you are pushing the envelope on this site. That being said, I disagree with your point of view. Opponents of this project like to claim that they are fighting for the "public" interest against evil developers. But who is this mythical "public"? From my point of view, when the Friends of Lansdowne use the word "public" they are really referring to Glebe residents who don't want to share their neighbourhood with the rest of the city.

Is Lansdowne a place where all residents of Ottawa can go to, or is essentially a private park for the Glebe? Once we ask that question we start to see that the FOL are not noble fighters for the public interest.

The reality is that Lansdowne is an ugly sea of concrete that is an embarrassment to the city. If the FOL could present a realistic plan to transform this into a green gem then I would be all ears. Unfortunately, all the altenative "plans" are borderline delusional. For instance, John Martin is living in this fantasy world in which more than $100 million will suddenly fall into his lap, and magical workers will help build his proposal out of the goodness of their hearts. It ain't going to happen.

For all the faults of the redevelopment of Lansdowne, and there are many, the reality is that this so-called "evil" plan will transform large swaths of concrete into green space. It will also provide the city with a central location that will allow the entire city, and not just the Glebe, to come together.

Will there be commercial big box stores that I am not that crazy about, e.g. Jack Astor's? Yes there will be. However, it is also true that the end product will be a million times better than what is currently there, and is also much more realistic than any other plan that has been proposed.

It appears to me that your central complaint is that too many non-Glebe residents will come to your neighbourhood due to this plan, and not that the private sector is leading this project. I'm sorry, but Lansdowne belongs to all Ottawa residents, from Orleans to Kanata, and not just the lucky few (and often rich) people who happen to live in the Glebe.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

I'm all for those methods of transportation that use the legs. Hey, that's one of the reasons I live in the Glebe.

However, Ottawa Citizen cycling blogger argues that the modal split for cycle use, for example, assumed in Lansdowne Lie's transportation plan is wildly optimistic, and frankly unrealistic, compared to other, comparable cities' stadiums:
http://alexbikes.wordpress.com/2011/...downe-compare/

Somewhat true, but it fails to take into account that part of the purpose of this development is to encourage greater modal use of bikes. Not to mention the fact that the site is easily accessible from constantly-used bike paths along Queen Elizabeth Drive.

The same can safely be assumed to be the case for public transit (since Lansdowne is nowhere near the Transitway or LRT) and pedestrians.

True, but you seem to be conveniently forgetting that not only are the 1 and 7 some of the most frequent and well-travelled bus routes in the city, but they are also convenient and a short-distance (even walking distance, in my opinion) away from Billings Bridge, which IS on the Transitway. It would be faster for me to get on the 97 from Rideau, get off at Billings, transfer, and take a short bus ride north to Lansdowne. I've done it before and it's fast, frequent, comfortable, and accessible.

As for pedestrians, the implementation of the Clegg/Fifth Avenue bridge, and the proposed bridge that will connect Old Ottawa East with Vanier/Beechwood will also enable faster and more efficient pedestrian access.

It is estimated that if all the facilities being crammed into the Lansdowne site were being built elsewhere, they would require as many as 10,000 parking spaces. And certainly will have the highest ratio of seats or sq/ft of retail, per parking space of any event venue or retail facility in the City:
http://www.oldottawasouth.ca/index.p...lansdowne-site

Now this is definitely misleading because not only is Lansdowne Live's purpose to be more urban and encourage other modes of transportation by having (relatively) little parking, but the developments themselves are being done with an urban lifestyle in mind as opposed to the commuter lifestyle many Ottawans imagine.

Now, if you can just convince the other 23,999 Ottawa Freeloaders football fans to walk, cycle, bus or carpool, then we're in business.

LMAO. Now I know you're trolling.

Having been a long-time resident of the Glebe myself (lived on Adelaide, right next to Lansdowne), I can remember dozens of times where I saw 67's fans and Roughriders/Renegades fans walking to Frank Clair, or on the bus, or carpooling. Just because you might not do it or have seen it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Or the 2500 patrons of the Empire Theatres mega-cinema cycling through every 2.5 hours, trying to park in one of the 20 free parking spaces on my street, just up from the back door of the theatre.

Again, you're showing your car-centric ideology. If anything, the cinema will be a more local/central draw. Each of the Big Three suburbs have their own massive cinema complexes, and then there is Rainbow Cinema at St. Laurent, and Empire Theatre and the Rideau Centre Theatre downtown.

A LOT of the movie-goers to the new Glebe cinema are going to be kids from the surrounding schools, most notably Glebe Collegiate, Hopewell, Immaculata, and Glashan. Most of these kids will not be able to drive and if they do, the cars/suv's will be full, and many others will walk, bike, or take the bus. Same goes for kids from Centretown and around Billings Bridge.

Or the xxxx thousand shoppers coming to the mall each day (how far are you really willing to lug that extra large bag of organic Basmati rice from Whole Foods to get it to your car?).

Well, not only are there shopping carts, but many people DO buy minimal groceries and carry them on the bus. It's not an uncommon sight on the 1, 2, or the 7. Also, I've definitely lugged heavy groceries over 1km when I was living up north.

The critics of this plan have tried to use all kinds of reasonable arguments to point out why it is the wrong idea, in the wrong place. Hell, even Jim Watson thought it was a bad idea when he was a City Councillor back in the early-1990s (see 4:30 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz_X3CULRrU for one of his councillor's newsletters) and opposed a very similar redevelopment scheme. But the OSEG/City Lügenfabrik, with its near limitless PR, legal and other resources have been highly successful in marginalizing and disparaging their volunteer critics.

Nice going!

Not only should you NOT trust what politicians say (case in point, Jim Watson now supports this plan), but virtually all of LL's critics have been a handful of vocal NIMBY's from the Glebe. You are clearly no different.

The city needed a solution, and OSEG helped provide it. Hell, even the Court of Appeal ruled that there was nothing wrong with how the City behaved with regards to Lansdowne.

[jaydog0212]

alecz_dad
Most even those that don't support Oseg bid do agree we need a new stadium and arena so if its not at Landsdown it will have to be some where.

[alecz_dad]

Originally Posted by jaydog0212

alecz_dad
Most even those that don't support Oseg bid do agree we need a new stadium and arena so if its not at Landsdown it will have to be some where.

Agreed.

Let it be somewhere else. Although I would support restoring Frank Clair (minus the mall), it just makes sense to have something that will regularly draw tens of thousands of people to it, adjacent to a major public transit hub and/or a highway.

Demand that the billionaires and millionaires of OSEG put up their own money to repair Frank Clair/Civic Centre, or else build a new one elsewhere. I'm tired of the 1% expecting everyone else to pay for their schemes.

[jaydog0212]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

Agreed.

Let it be somewhere else. Although I would support restoring Frank Clair (minus the mall), it just makes sense to have something that will regularly draw tens of thousands of people to it, adjacent to a major public transit hub and/or a highway.

Demand that the billionaires and millionaires of OSEG put up their own money to repair Frank Clair/Civic Centre, or else build a new one elsewhere. I'm tired of the 1% expecting everyone else to pay for their schemes.

Then you agree the city should not build a central park if Landsdown does not happen?

[gjhall]

alecz_dad:
I too respect your argumentation on this, as Nepean wrote earlier.

However, 2 things:
1) The free parking on "your" street is not yours, but the City's, for the use of whomever, based on whatever restrictions are placed on it. If you want it removed or by resident permit, talk to your Councillor to see if it can be changed. Ultimately, I am in favour of using on-street parking, as adding more of something undesirable (paved surface areas for automobile storage) while leaving existing spaces off-limits seems counter-intuitive.
2) The calamity of congestion you argue, and many others have discussed on this and many other projects, will not sustain itself. Humans are self-adjusting in their behaviour. If I can never find parking to shop at Whole Foods, I won't continue to bother myself by driving around like a deranged person until I'm red in the face. I will either shop at a different time, not drive, or not come anymore. Others will do the same. So even if the traffic is horrendous on day one, week one, month one, it won't last because people generally do not do things that annoy themselves repeatedly. And finally, while modal shares may be optimistic, the idea behind this project is to NOT be a suburban big box mall in a sea of parking. There's a saying "Everyone wants to go to heaven but no one wants to die." Well, if we want true urban development that has better modal shares, we won't get there unless we try to build that. Adding more parking, or moving the stadium, retail and housing to more remote locations that allow more parking won't get us to a better Lansdowne or City.

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by McC

of course it was. It was just pre-emptive to crisis point by a few decades. If the Old City of Nepean had stayed forever with their "pay as you go" policy, then the replacement cost of every piece of infrastructure owned by the Old City of Nepean would have been an "unfunded liability," (their cash reserves could never have been large enough to pay such costs). With amalgamation, all of these unfunded liabilities were transferred to the City of Ottawa, and the burden of them was spread across the entire population/economy of the former RMOC. It's no different than when the US Treasury bought up all that "asset-backed paper" from the banks, and spread the liability across the entire US population/economy in order to bail out those banks that were on the brink.

I don't understand this.

What was the average age of infrastructure in Nepean vs. Ottawa? Remember, younger is better.

The City of Ottawa also had unfunded liabilities to replace their much older infrastructure, and Nepean residents became responsible for a share of it. And Nepean had a much larger reserves per capita, paid for by Nepean residents, that was then shared with the entire region.

To me this bashing of Nepean only works if you assume that Nepean wasn't paying its fair share of costs for the city. That may be true. Amalgamation was much too big a change to be justified by that simple problem.

That said, I'm in favour of amalgamation. We need to make decisions, plans, and compromises as an entire city, not one part versus another. If the province decided that Nepean had freeloaded off Ottawa for services then losing the reserve during amalgamation might have been a deliberate attempt to address it. Or maybe it was just too hard to figure out anything else to do.

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by JeffB

This really does seem like a case for the idiom "They can't see the forest for the trees."

They don't want any development on the site at all - unless it was to get rid of the buildings and replacing it with more local parkland. So we shouldn't be surprised at this reaction.

I'm convinced that many locals saw the steady deterioration as a sign the city didn't care about Lansdowne and it would all become a park. It was so close they could almost taste it. No visitors from other neighbourhoods. No big facilities to attract traffic. Just a neighbourhood park on mega-steroids.

And then those bad men came and proposed finally fixing it and improving it and their dreams were dashed. Since then there has been a succession of counter-proposals, each one less like a pure park than the one before.

[McC]

Originally Posted by RTWAP

The City of Ottawa also had unfunded liabilities to replace their much older infrastructure, and Nepean residents became responsible for a share of it. And Nepean had a much larger reserves per capita, paid for by Nepean residents, that was then shared with the entire region.

But the difference is that Nepean's were "ufundable" because of their commitment to never take on debt. I'm not bashing Nepean, and I'm certainly not arguing that the old City of Ottawa or the RMOC were some model of municipal government (Lordy no, just look at transit!). What I'm "bashing" would be the attitude common in some parts that "debt-free and pay-as-you-go" was some perfect governance model that was abandoned with amalgamation, when I believe that the only reason the model was even possible in the short term was because of the (debt-financed) capital responsibilities of the RMOC (I think the "freeloading" was more on the Region than on the old City of Ottawa, but I'm open to correction on that point) and over the medium term was because of the possibility to continue expanding (the need to always have new buyers to sustain the ponzi scheme) and the relative youth of their infrastructure. In the long term.... well, in the long term, we're all dead.

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by alecz_dad

...

Let it be somewhere else.

...

NIMBY much?