Originally Posted by jaydog0212
The issue is what people see is sensible is different some think spending millions and millions on a park that maybe 20% would use some see the current plan is the right thing then some see just leaving as it is the best thing to do.
There remains no doubt the site at Lansdowne Park will be developed.
Policy is in place to see it through. The P3 model is the one that makes sense for two reasons:
1. The City does not want the burden of managing the site and
2. The City has established it will go that direction.
However the City has created a situation that by every appearance will make the current P3 arrangement impossible to implement.
Firstly the mandate to develop the site at Lansdowne Park is governed by the condition that the site will "be developed respecting the scale and character of the neighbourhood and the public nature of the site
" and "without private homes
" and " without large format commercial
Secondly the City has established that the development must be affordable, specifically revenue neutral. By all accounts the current proposal does not come close.
Thirdly, the purpose of developing the site, aside from following a directive to do so, is to make it a space that is well used, attractive, easily accessed and logistically functional.
One mistake that has a habit of being repeated in this City, is that subsequent councils spend most of their time covering up the mistakes of previous councils.
As stated before, the development being proposed in the current negotiations involves 850,000 sqft GLA, just over 600 underground paid public parking spaces with limited entrance and exit options, no rapid transit and no major roadway.
One has to ask, "will this solve a problem or create multiple new ones?
The Billings Bridge Comparison
By comparison Billings Bridge has a GLA of about 480,000 sqft, over 1,500 free public surface parking spots with multiple evacuation/entrance options, adjacent to the Transitway, adjacent to a major parking free boulevard ( Riverside drive ) and accessible by exit/entrance ramps from another major artery ( Bronson ).
Common sense dictates that the current developer proposal for the site at Lansdowne Park in comparison with Billings Bridge is not going to decrease problems for the City for present and future councils for the following reasons:
1. roughly double the GLA
2. less than half the parking ( underground and paid not free )
3. no major arterial access
4. no rapid transit
Investment or or ongoing expense?
The City has an opportunity to make an investment at the site that makes more logistic and financial sense for the long term.
The message is simple: New management structure, less density.
Previous posts have demonstrated, with supporting numbers from the City, that slightly over 100,000 sqft of GLA is all that is required to make the site work, pay off all costs ( including mortgage ) and be profitable. Logistically and financially speaking a site with a stadium and roughly 100,000 sqft of density without taxpayer cost and profitable makes greater sense than a site with a stadium and 850,000 sqft and literally hundreds of millions of lost taxpayer dollars.
Examining new management offers under a P3 model simply makes good sense.
No councilor or mayor wants this to turn into a long term mess with ongoing fiscal, traffic and social headaches.
In addition to good sense, and more importantly, examining where better to relocate high density ( closer to rapid transit as well known developers are currently engaged in
) and examining different P3 management models for the site at Lansdowne Park, makes for smart politics.
Come September/October the decision will become clearer.