HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Ottawa Senators
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Lansdowne Redevelopment

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-21-2011, 10:18 AM
  #51
enbridgeFan
Registered User
 
enbridgeFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 116
vCash: 500
my two cents:

I love the area, it would be great to have a parc there. I'd much rather pay for light rail and the parc then a stadium.

enbridgeFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 10:24 AM
  #52
wjhl2009fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 9,043
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by enbridgeFan View Post
my two cents:

I love the area, it would be great to have a parc there. I'd much rather pay for light rail and the parc then a stadium.
So if a park cost more then a stadium you would be fine with that?

wjhl2009fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 10:27 AM
  #53
Shanny
Coming In Hot
 
Shanny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bytown
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjhl2009fan View Post
So if a park cost more then a stadium you would be fine with that?
A park also doesn't bring in money to the local economy, and doesn't create new jobs...

Shanny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 10:42 AM
  #54
Holdurbreathe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,965
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spensar View Post
Classic Ottawa debate. Rage on about the stadium being kept in the city in its historic location, but if it was moved out of the core, people would rage on about it being in the boonies, just like they do about SBP.
I totally agree with you, build a stadium or arena in the downtown core of Ottawa, and a professional team reduces it potential market by 30% at least. Build it on the fringe of the city, same issue.

So regardless of where a venue is located, there will be many dissatified fans.

Sporting venues utilized for professional sport need to be located near efficient and effective public transit and high volume, high speed road systems to maximize the market potential and provide convenient access for the fans.

Herein lies the problem, Ottawa doesn't have an effective transit system, nor can it provide an effective road system in the downtown core.

Maybe the LRT plan will be the basis of a better transit system, but that is years away. Until then, the complaints about the SBP location will soon be joined with complaints about Lansdowne.

Holdurbreathe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 10:44 AM
  #55
SenzZen
Unholy Masquerade
 
SenzZen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,541
vCash: 500
There are a number of very uninformed posters on here, but I'll just say that FOL is not putting up such a big fight because they don't want sports at Lansdowne Park. Stop blathering on about them only wanting greenspace on the site.

Also: try sprinkling a few more periods and commas in there, while you're at it.

SenzZen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 10:48 AM
  #56
wjhl2009fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 9,043
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenzZen View Post
There are a number of very uninformed posters on here, but I'll just say that FOL is not putting up such a big fight because they don't want sports at Lansdowne Park. Stop blathering on about them only wanting greenspace on the site.

Also: try sprinkling a few more periods and commas in there, while you're at it.
Its not blathering look at comments people make that are aginst it on other sites many want a hyde park or a central park they just don't want sports.As fol i don't have a huge issue with its some other people in the geleb that wanta hyde park type set up that who i have a issue with.

wjhl2009fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 10:50 AM
  #57
BK201
Registered User
 
BK201's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,913
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by enbridgeFan View Post
my two cents:

I love the area, it would be great to have a parc there. I'd much rather pay for light rail and the parc then a stadium.
Your options do not work they are pay for a stadium and light rail or pay for a stadium a parc and light rail.

This stadium is being built. There are slot of commitments surrounding it and sports franchises/events already.

BK201 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 11:20 AM
  #58
Kellogs
G'night Sweet Prince
 
Kellogs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,234
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjhl2009fan View Post
So if a park cost more then a stadium you would be fine with that?
Source for this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shanny View Post
A park also doesn't bring in money to the local economy, and doesn't create new jobs...
The effect of a professional sports team on the local economy is minute, and many of the jobs created are of the temporary kind (related to the construction) which would occur anyways by turning Lansdowne into a park.

Quote:
There are a number of very uninformed posters on here, but I'll just say that FOL is not putting up such a big fight because they don't want sports at Lansdowne Park. Stop blathering on about them only wanting greenspace on the site.

Also: try sprinkling a few more periods and commas in there, while you're at it.
This.

Kellogs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 11:24 AM
  #59
ben3001
Registered User
 
ben3001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,083
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenzZen View Post
There are a number of very uninformed posters on here, but I'll just say that FOL is not putting up such a big fight because they don't want sports at Lansdowne Park. Stop blathering on about them only wanting greenspace on the site.

Also: try sprinkling a few more periods and commas in there, while you're at it.
Yes unfortunately the rhetoric has cleverly been spun that way. Really, it's a brilliant exercise in the control and manipulation of the masses. It also unfortunately makes it appear that the people are too uneducated to understand the real issues at play when truly they are not being presented the true information and being manipulated on a visceral and emotional level.

The issue as a few people have stated in this thread is not the revitalization of the parc, the stadium nor the recreation of a new CFL franchise. It revolves around the basic that it is in part the right thing being done by the wrong people in completely the wrong way.

To sum it up.

1. The financial background around which the deal is being brokered is not favourable to the city nor to citizen tax payer. The city is basically giving away the land for free (1$ per year) to Minto and friends while the average household will see significant tax raises.

2. There are serious ethical issues involved in giving away for free public property to private development. This is part of the clear and widespread crisis of public spaces increasingly becoming privatized. Public space needs to remain public. We are quickly loosing this concept and furthermore revolving are activities around privatized spaces aimed at consumption.

3. The commercial activity/shopping mall that will take place in the new development will be doing so on free land. The developers will reel in the cash off of this and created totally unfair competition to the other businesses on Bank St...one of the only remaining striving "Main St.".

3. The developer will not be putting 1$ into the stadium. While nobody is against the stadium and sport franchise, they have to be accountable to paying a part of the stadium. Stadiums are money black holes and it is completely crazy that the city is going to be paying all of it.

4. Due to the way the deal was done, there is not a single drop of federal or provincial money being invested.

5. From a design point of view while the Stadium is beautiful, it is unacceptable that there was a not an international design competition for the overall scheme. (After public pressure there finally was for the parc however it was almost unnecessary in the end due to the excessive revisions to design scheme the developers imposed - basically toned it back down to their original intent)

6. Serious public transportation improvements are needed for the stadium to ever function properly. SBP is an aberration and it is simply ridiculous that people are ready to accept that condition and treat it as normal. There is no true mass transit proposal and the latest revised plan for Lansdowne already has a serious issue for bus drop off and pick up that will be a complete nightmare. Furthermore the planned parking is grossly insufficient.

7. The whole deal was done behind closed doors in unacceptable and non-ethical business model. It is a sole source development that had no open calls for submissions. At the end of the day, the city gave away 10 acres of public land for free to be developed in a grotesque and purely profit driven way by people who have created the worse city developments in recent years. Minto's track record speaks for itself.


Last edited by ben3001: 07-21-2011 at 11:31 AM.
ben3001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 11:25 AM
  #60
wjhl2009fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 9,043
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellogs View Post
Source for this?



The effect of a professional sports team on the local economy is minute, and many of the jobs created are of the temporary kind (related to the construction) which would occur anyways by turning Lansdowne into a park.



This.
No the cost of professions sports is not minute even look at the bell cup which is not pro but still it bring in each year $15 million each year into the local economy.As for the cost of a park just look at hyde park when it was built it did cost around $500 million and there are some that want that type of park in ottawa.

wjhl2009fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 11:30 AM
  #61
Shanny
Coming In Hot
 
Shanny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bytown
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellogs View Post


The effect of a professional sports team on the local economy is minute, and many of the jobs created are of the temporary kind (related to the construction) which would occur anyways by turning Lansdowne into a park.
Wasn't even including the jobs that would be created by the construction. The new retail space along with the brand spanking new stadium, plus the added public transit demand, added security and police officers etc. to the area, will be creating a number of new jobs.

Do you really think some of the bars and shops along Bank street will only see a slight increase in business during the summer?......look at the some of the businesses surrounding SBP, they heavily rely on event days.

Shanny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 11:38 AM
  #62
wjhl2009fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 9,043
vCash: 500
ben3001

Open Bids
This has been going on for about 25 years there has been open compeitions with little comming from it.

Stadium
While yes the city is paying for it oseg would pay for the up keep.

The commercial activity/shopping
While i don't really agree with this part of the complex at the same time i don't think bank street should have a monopoly on the area.

Traffic
While some aginst oseg say traffic would be brutel but then flip around and say a hyde park would attract far more people.

Overall
Is it it perfect no i would perfer no retail but at the same time this has been going on for so many eyars something needs to be done.

wjhl2009fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 11:41 AM
  #63
Shanny
Coming In Hot
 
Shanny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bytown
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ben3001 View Post
Yes unfortunately the rhetoric has cleverly been spun that way. Really, it's a brilliant exercise in the control and manipulation of the masses. It also unfortunately makes it appear that the people are too uneducated to understand the real issues at play when truly they are not being presented the true information and being manipulated on a visceral and emotional level.

The issue as a few people have stated in this thread is not the revitalization of the parc, the stadium nor the recreation of a new CFL franchise. It revolves around the basic that it is in part the right thing being done by the wrong people in completely the wrong way.

To sum it up.

1. The financial background around which the deal is being brokered is not favourable to the city nor to citizen tax payer. The city is basically giving away the land for free (1$ per year) to Minto and friends while the average household will see significant tax raises.

2. There are serious ethical issues involved in giving away for free public property to private development. This is part of the clear and widespread crisis of public spaces increasingly becoming privatized. Public space needs to remain public. We are quickly loosing this concept and furthermore revolving are activities around privatized spaces aimed at consumption.

3. The commercial activity/shopping mall that will take place in the new development will be doing so on free land. The developers will reel in the cash off of this and created totally unfair competition to the other businesses on Bank St...one of the only remaining striving "Main St.".

3. The developer will not be putting 1$ into the stadium. While nobody is against the stadium and sport franchise, they have to be accountable to paying a part of the stadium. Stadiums are money black holes and it is completely crazy that the city is going to be paying all of it.

4. Due to the way the deal was done, there is not a single drop of federal or provincial money being invested.

5. From a design point of view while the Stadium is beautiful, it is unacceptable that there was a not an international design competition for the overall scheme. (After public pressure there finally was for the parc however it was almost unnecessary in the end due to the excessive revisions to design scheme the developers imposed - basically toned it back down to their original intent)

6. Serious public transportation improvements are needed for the stadium to ever function properly. SBP is an aberration and it is simply ridiculous that people are ready to accept that condition and treat it as normal. There is no true mass transit proposal and the latest revised plan for Lansdowne already has a serious issue for bus drop off and pick up that will be a complete nightmare. Furthermore the planned parking is grossly insufficient.

7. The whole deal was done behind closed doors in unacceptable and non-ethical business model. It is a sole source development that had no open calls for submissions. At the end of the day, the city gave away 10 acres of public land for free to be developed in a grotesque and purely profit driven way by people who have created the worse city developments in recent years. Minto's track record speaks for itself.
I just love the whole ''sole source'' argument coming along every time this thing is brought up.......NO ONE ELSE SUBMITTED A BID.


..either way this thing is going to cost tax payers a lot already(I'm ok with that, as long as were not in the same position we are in now 4 years later), why waste more time and money debating this to the bitter end.....

Shanny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 11:45 AM
  #64
operasen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepty View Post
This is just one of the proposals pushed by the folks who want no sports, no football. soccer or junior hockey. at Lansdowne. and to keep it instead as a dead quiet stretch of empty grass or asphalt.
,
Absolutely not. I'm suggesting the the empty spaces in the Landsdowne current plan could be used, that's all. Parking is there and the permanent set up would be heaven for all the people who actually set-up and run the various music festivals. Acoustics would be set, sound boards centralized and hard wired, speaker array easily moved into place, rooms for performers, security, restaurants and pubs on site. Plus room for the thousands of attendees. It makes for a professional environment for serious festival goers - but we do need a transit connection for sure.

It is such a waste to spoil city Hall, Confederation Park and War Museum areas at a huge cost every season of the year. If you've ever been to a venue like Lanaudiere, Tanglewood, Saratoga you'd understand

operasen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 12:04 PM
  #65
Holdurbreathe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,965
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BK201 View Post
Exactly the fact of the matter is if we build a park there it will cost millions upon millions to redevelop land that has a stadium on it into a park and then millions and millions to redevelop forest land into a stadium.

I think really the city of Ottawa can't afford to do both and they can't afford to do nothing.

So really the only option we have is to fix the stadium were it lies now.

Clearly friends if landsdown are not friends of Ottawa tax payers.
The City of Ottawa has done virtually nothing with Lansdowne for decades, so obviously our municipal governments believed they could afford to do nothing!!!

The city will be spending $129.3M of taxpayers money to rebuild the stadium and add parking, plus at least another $3.8M annually (term of 40 years) to service this debt. As well they do assume additional financial risks.

While I don't agree with the approach or with all of the claims made by FoL, the group has tabled valid concerns for the taxpayers of Ottawa. Had the city managed the process in a truly open and transparent manner, not established OSEG as the sole source provider for reasons of expediency, I doubt the FoL would have had sufficient reason to initiate court proceedings.

Case in point, the city's lawyer, Doody, when responding to claims made by FoL that the city was in violation of the law, stated the city has no statutory obligation to have a procurement bylaw, and so there can't be a violation.

However: In December 2001, a new Municipal Act (Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, Chapter 25, hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) was passed by the Ontario Legislature... A new feature of the Act is the transparency/accountability provisions aimed at ensuring taxpayers can easily understand how their municipality operates. As part of this requirement, before January 2005, municipalities and local boards must develop policies – adopted by bylaw or in the case of local boards by resolutions – that will be used for procuring goods and services"

The truth is, Ottawa's muncipal governments have not been friends of Ottawa taxpayers, and to point the finger at the FoL is just ignoring reality.

Holdurbreathe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 12:04 PM
  #66
ben3001
Registered User
 
ben3001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,083
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shanny View Post
I just love the whole ''sole source'' argument coming along every time this thing is brought up.......NO ONE ELSE SUBMITTED A BID.


..either way this thing is going to cost tax payers a lot already(I'm ok with that, as long as were not in the same position we are in now 4 years later), why waste more time and money debating this to the bitter end.....
The amount of money that has been spent right now is marginal compared to what the city will be handcuffing itself into if it goes through. While I don't always agree with all of the FOL arguments, I welcome that they are at least forcing a debate and bringing forth the flaws in the plan.

I find it funny that some people feel so vehemently against the FOL. We do live in a democratic society and while the notion of debate is continuously being lost in the hyper polarized society we live in, I welcome their initiative in opening a debate that was closed at the start.

ben3001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 12:17 PM
  #67
wjhl2009fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 9,043
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ben3001 View Post
The amount of money that has been spent right now is marginal compared to what the city will be handcuffing itself into if it goes through. While I don't always agree with all of the FOL arguments, I welcome that they are at least forcing a debate and bringing forth the flaws in the plan.

I find it funny that some people feel so vehemently against the FOL. We do live in a democratic society and while the notion of debate is continuously being lost in the hyper polarized society we live in, I welcome their initiative in opening a debate that was closed at the start.
Its not that people are aginst fol its that this has been going on for so long some just want something to be done.

wjhl2009fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 12:26 PM
  #68
SenzZen
Unholy Masquerade
 
SenzZen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,541
vCash: 500
Arrrgh!!! To hell with the families in the Glebe and people sticking up for the city as a whole! Stop getting in the way of the uber-rich OSEG's plans to help me- the average citizen. I want to watch "run, pass, punt" 10 times a year! Well, 5 times, really. Twice for sure.

SenzZen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 12:28 PM
  #69
BK201
Registered User
 
BK201's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,913
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ben3001 View Post
The amount of money that has been spent right now is marginal compared to what the city will be handcuffing itself into if it goes through. While I don't always agree with all of the FOL arguments, I welcome that they are at least forcing a debate and bringing forth the flaws in the plan.

I find it funny that some people feel so vehemently against the FOL. We do live in a democratic society and while the notion of debate is continuously being lost in the hyper polarized society we live in, I welcome their initiative in opening a debate that was closed at the start.
Well I would have to agree with a lot your points.

Up until now I've basically just been trolling but to talk seriously I do think it is good somebody challenges the city. It needs to be done.

With that said One thing I'm not quite educated on: if the city fixes alot of these issues but changes nothing regarding the plans for landsdown are they going to keep fighting this development and if so what are they looking to remove and addfrom the developement.

BK201 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 12:29 PM
  #70
ben3001
Registered User
 
ben3001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,083
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjhl2009fan View Post
Its not that people are aginst fol its that this has been going on for so long some just want something to be done.
But this is classic short-sited'ness. This is a key part of our future as a city and things should not be rushed. I always find it fascinating to see the different in approaches to urbanism in Europe and in North America. Here decisions are made on ~5 year timelines and with clear impact seen as soon as possible while in Europe it is not rare to take 10+ years of speculative studies with a ~50 year timeline on a project. You simply do not rush off and give your most valuable piece of land in the city for free to developers with excruciatingly bad track records.

ben3001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 12:30 PM
  #71
SenzZen
Unholy Masquerade
 
SenzZen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,541
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjhl2009fan View Post
Its not that people are aginst fol its that this has been going on for so long some just want something to be done.
The need for "something" to be done means d**k. The best thing should be done.

This instant gratification will eventually wear off when 20 years from now you're pissed off about how much you're paying in taxes for a site that's ridiculously profitable.

SenzZen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 12:34 PM
  #72
wjhl2009fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 9,043
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ben3001 View Post
But this is classic short-sited'ness. This is a key part of our future as a city and things should not be rushed. I always find it fascinating to see the different in approaches to urbanism in Europe and in North America. Here decisions are made on ~5 year timelines and with clear impact seen as soon as possible while in Europe it is not rare to take 10+ years of speculative studies with a ~50 year timeline on a project. You simply do not rush off and give your most valuable piece of land in the city for free to developers with excruciatingly bad track records.
This has been going on for about 25 years we can't keep having debates for another 25 years with out doing anything.


Last edited by wjhl2009fan: 07-21-2011 at 12:41 PM.
wjhl2009fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 12:38 PM
  #73
Nachoman AlfieSavage*
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eating nachos up top
Posts: 2,245
vCash: 500
They should have had Eugene build the stadium out beside SBP for his soccer team and then a CFL team could have played there as well. Then they could have sold the land and used the money to pay for LRT out to Palladium Drive.

Nachoman AlfieSavage* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 12:38 PM
  #74
wjhl2009fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 9,043
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ben3001 View Post
But this is classic short-sited'ness. This is a key part of our future as a city and things should not be rushed. I always find it fascinating to see the different in approaches to urbanism in Europe and in North America. Here decisions are made on ~5 year timelines and with clear impact seen as soon as possible while in Europe it is not rare to take 10+ years of speculative studies with a ~50 year timeline on a project. You simply do not rush off and give your most valuable piece of land in the city for free to developers with excruciatingly bad track records.
Another thing this is not beeing rushed the debate etc of landsdown has been going on for about 25 years its not like this is somethign brand new that just came on to the market.The other thing is if they said ok were going to set a a 25 year timeline the city would have to spend millions of dolalrs to fix landsdown up so the rink at the very least can be sued as well as other buildings.

wjhl2009fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 12:42 PM
  #75
wjhl2009fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 9,043
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenzZen View Post
The need for "something" to be done means d**k. The best thing should be done.

This instant gratification will eventually wear off when 20 years from now you're pissed off about how much you're paying in taxes for a site that's ridiculously profitable.
No i would not be as it benifits the city.

wjhl2009fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:14 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.