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, 05:36 PM
  #101
wjhl2009fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 9,044
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellogs View Post
But that is pure speculation from your part, while you misrepresented the park alternatives as being more costly than the proposed stadium. So far you haven't shown any source to indicate that any of the ideas that were being presented during the public consultation phase the city had prior to entering into exclusive negotiations with the OSEG would cost more than the city has currently committed into building a stadium.



Read what I said previously. Studies have been done on sports franchises and the "trickle down" effects (or lack thereof) to the economy. On a short term basis, people's incomes remain relatively fixed, and the local economy doesn't grow significantly, which means when a sports team arrives in town, people don't magically have more money to spend on going to the games and going to the bars/restaurants around the stadium, they simply shift whatever disposable income they had around from another type of leisure activity to ones related to the sports team and surrounding businesses of the area.

The only time this doesn't hold true is if you have people coming from out of town to attend the games which infuses money into the local economy, or if people choose to re-allocate money they would have spent on something like a vacation outside Ottawa on the sports team thus keeping money in the local economy. So while it's true the city benefits greatly from big events like the World Juniors, those are far from guaranteed.
With out a major rink ottawa would not host many if any major concerts people would go to montreal and toronto and spend money there the end result not keeping there money in the ottawa economy.Just look at it this way if there were no senators no 67s are people as a rule would go to montreal to watch the habs or to watch the major jr eating at resturants etc so in alot of ways taking money out of the ottawa economy and investing it places such as montreal.Now does the economy grow significantly no of course not the same can be said about festivals etc its all gambles and some times they pay off.As i said before with the aprk private citizens have said they would like a hyde park did they make a offer no as there just citizens with wishes just as some wanta new library et people have thigns they wanta nd thats fine i am just pointing it out.

wjhl2009fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 05:39 PM
  #102
wjhl2009fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 9,044
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smithy View Post
World class cities use effective urban planning. This project does not. The proposal for a truly outstanding park along the Canal that gets so much flak around here would be much more in line with what you call a "world class" city than the overcongested development currently being planned. Take off the CFL-tinted glasses.

That said, I am all for intensification and building a new stadium. But Lansdowne is not the place to do it. We are investing $2.1b in new transit infrastructure and should be making the most of it. The stadium should go somewhere accessible. There are other more logical uses for the Lansdowne site.
Then what should be done with landsdown?

wjhl2009fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 06:12 PM
  #103
Kellogs
G'night Sweet Prince
 
Kellogs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,062
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjhl2009fan View Post
With out a major rink ottawa would not host many if any major concerts people would go to montreal and toronto and spend money there the end result not keeping there money in the ottawa economy.
That is correct, but that doesn't mean that it should be the tax payer that funds it. If building a major arena to host a sports team, concerts and events is truly a money maker, then no taxpayer dollars should be required to build it. A smart businessman/woman/group should be able to convince enough investors in the community to finance the construction of the facility so that they can all profit from it. Ottawa already has a major rink, it's called Scotiabank place, and an insignificant amount of taxpayer money went to build it, on top of the overpass they had to pay for. Meanwhile, the OSEG is getting the city to pay the entire cost of a stadium that they will profit from, while allowing them to build developments that they will also profit from on prime real estate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wjhl2009fan View Post
Just look at it this way if there were no senators no 67s are people as a rule would go to montreal to watch the habs or to watch the major jr eating at resturants etc so in alot of ways taking money out of the ottawa economy and investing it places such as montreal.
You assume much. How many "regular" people now can actually afford to go to the ACC? How many people actually would go to games in Montreal as often as they would go to Ottawa? The fact is, if the Senators disappeared tomorrow, the majority of the money that is spent to go to the games, buying Senators merchandise etc..., would simply be spent somewhere else in the city, thus creating no significant change in the local economy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wjhl2009fan View Post
Now does the economy grow significantly no of course not the same can be said about festivals etc its all gambles and some times they pay off.As i said before with the aprk private citizens have said they would like a hyde park did they make a offer no as there just citizens with wishes just as some wanta new library et people have thigns they wanta nd thats fine i am just pointing it out.
They can gamble, but they shouldn't do it with taxpayer money.

Kellogs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 06:16 PM
  #104
Do Make Say Think
Soul & Onward
 
Do Make Say Think's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 17,320
vCash: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjhl2009fan View Post
Then what should be done with landsdown?
That's council's job.

This is how I see the whole debacle: something needs to be done with Landsdowne. If council went with this proposal they're supposed to know what they're doing: far from perfect but if it's the best option available then go for it!

Turns out that council didn't know what they are doing.

Do Make Say Think is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 06:35 PM
  #105
wjhl2009fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 9,044
vCash: 500
Kellogs
While i agree tax payer money should not go to help build sports stadiums and arenas i aslo don't think tax payers money should be going to festivals etc if your saying sports should get no funding but festivals etc should get funding.As for moeny would be spent in other areas of the city yes to a degree but you still would see a fair mount of people go to montreal for some its a shorter distance to montreal then kanata.

wjhl2009fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 06:49 PM
  #106
Do Make Say Think
Soul & Onward
 
Do Make Say Think's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 17,320
vCash: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjhl2009fan View Post
Kellogs
While i agree tax payer money should not go to help build sports stadiums and arenas i aslo don't think tax payers money should be going to festivals etc if your saying sports should get no funding but festivals etc should get funding.As for moeny would be spent in other areas of the city yes to a degree but you still would see a fair mount of people go to montreal for some its a shorter distance to montreal then kanata.
Seems to me that he was saying that it's wrong for the city to pay for the entire stadium while OSEG reaps all the profits all the while not paying for the actual construction.

Do Make Say Think is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 07:30 PM
  #107
BK201
Registered User
 
BK201's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Guy View Post
You don't seem to realize what the FoL group is taking the city to court over: it has nothing to do with the design...
No I understand. I wasn't talking about what they are taking them to court over.

BK201 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 07:48 PM
  #108
Kellogs
G'night Sweet Prince
 
Kellogs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,062
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjhl2009fan View Post
Kellogs
While i agree tax payer money should not go to help build sports stadiums and arenas i aslo don't think tax payers money should be going to festivals etc if your saying sports should get no funding but festivals etc should get funding.As for moeny would be spent in other areas of the city yes to a degree but you still would see a fair mount of people go to montreal for some its a shorter distance to montreal then kanata.
We're not talking about festivals, we're talking about sports stadiums. Canadian Guy got exactly what I meant, and it's even worse in that they'll also get to profit by building on land in which they haven't paid market value for, while they will turn around and charge market value for the sale of condos, or the leasing of retail space at a premium.

And on top of that, the city has shown itself to be negligent in the way it has handled this deal, first when an exclusive clause in terms of building new stadium for the duration of the contract by any competitors, and now with the amount of revenue the city will get back to the amount of $60 million dollar. The only reason we know about the former is because the media did some digging and found that information, and the only reason we know of the former, is because it came out during the trial when the city had known about it for a whole month.

Kellogs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 08:21 PM
  #109
pepty
Registered User
 
pepty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 10,150
vCash: 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellogs View Post
And on top of that, the city has shown itself to be negligent in the way it has handled this deal, first when an exclusive clause in terms of building new stadium for the duration of the contract by any competitors, and now with the amount of revenue the city will get back to the amount of $60 million dollar. The only reason we know about the former is because the media did some digging and found that information, and the only reason we know of the former, is because it came out during the trial when the city had known about it for a whole month.
What does that even mean? The building of the stadium will go to tender.

.The Friends of Lansdowne are the quintessential " Not in My Back Yard group", and its funny in a way that anyone at all is buying the nonsense they're selling.

Council and the city have done their job on this one, I doubt any project has had the painstaking reviews that this one has.

The Conservancy is a joke, but then its not expected to be seriously considered but is a means to delay and derail the real project.

I look forward to the day there is football back and soccer a well as hockey at Lansdowne, and some life in this city.

pepty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 09:01 PM
  #110
Kellogs
G'night Sweet Prince
 
Kellogs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,062
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepty View Post
What does that even mean? The building of the stadium will go to tender.

.The Friends of Lansdowne are the quintessential " Not in My Back Yard group", and its funny in a way that anyone at all is buying the nonsense they're selling.

Council and the city have done their job on this one, I doubt any project has had the painstaking reviews that this one has.

The Conservancy is a joke, but then its not expected to be seriously considered but is a means to delay and derail the real project.

I look forward to the day there is football back and soccer a well as hockey at Lansdowne, and some life in this city.
It means they agreed to a deal that would see $120+ million of tax payer dollars being spent (mostly by taking on debt) without doing their due diligence on what they were signing and were later "surprised" with the news that the deal involved an exclusive clause where the city wouldn't be allowed to fund any other major projects of this kind. Again, we find out that the city didn't realize that there was a calculation mistake in how much of the tax payer's money they would get back as part of the deal by a total of $60 million, leaving a margin of only $13 million in terms of how much money the city will make.

While there's no doubt the main opponents who are fighting this are a classic case of NIMBYers, it doesn't mean that none of their objections are invalid. Every major projects like this will have its opponents who will use whatever means possible to stop it from happening (such as with Scotiabank Place). At least with SBP, it was entirely funded by private investments leaving the entirety of the risks at the hands of the people who stood to profit from it (and they nearly sank because of it). Now the city carries a large amount of risk related with the construction of the stadium, while having shown to be sloppy with the numbers already. And that doesn't take into account the fact that as reported in the independent auditing of the deal, there are many risks to the construction costs that are not included into the costing of the project, and suddenly that $13 million margin could very easily evaporate.

Kellogs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 09:42 PM
  #111
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,279
vCash: 500
I remember those old Rider games or even parking at the 'ex as kids, and the Glebe was gridlock. But thousands of people approaching the stadium on foot from south and north on bank street, somehow we found a way, messy as it was.

But its hard to think of Landsdowne as 'Downtown" anymore. Developing it as a farmers and artisans market, junior hockey team home, secondary minor trade show location, and great park seems more suited to the spot in what seems more suburbia than downtown to me. Big league 25-30k fan nights at at a stadium maybe should get a better home.

Although its hard to say tax money shouldnt go to sports teams, given all the tax write offs, dubious depreciation allowances for players, entertainment expenses used for much of the platinum seats and boxes, real estate tax write downs so they can be competitive, and on and on, if we were to strictly enforce no tax funds to pro sports teams of any kind, or forgoing of tax collection of any kind, then the salary cap would probably have to drop to $20 mil due to their vastly lowered revenues.

--
I keep thinking that it would be really nice if the proponents of the Landsdowne plan were selling it positively, as this beautiful new vision for making Ottawa a great city, showing us how wonderful it will be, the best of everything, a focus on quality and making a statement. How we are spending money to create the most beautiful place possible that will increase property values and make a statement about the city.

Instead of suggesting that Minto, the master of cheap development, is throwing up some high density profit maximizing, condos next to a walmart and a mcdonalds while running a football team on free money with taxpayers covering all their risk is better than nothing. Why not let these land developers make millions at taxpayers expense, they are giving a small part of that back by running the team as long it is profitable arent they. And if the team fails no one loseds money except tazpayers, its the perfect plan. The only reason anyone could be against it is because Glebe has the highest concentration of lawyers of any community in Canada.


Phrased and sold that way, it just makes me wonder. I dont know whats best, but something smells funny.

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 10:13 PM
  #112
Apaharn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,389
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smithy View Post
World class cities use effective urban planning. This project does not. The proposal for a truly outstanding park along the Canal that gets so much flak around here would be much more in line with what you call a "world class" city than the overcongested development currently being planned. Take off the CFL-tinted glasses.

That said, I am all for intensification and building a new stadium. But Lansdowne is not the place to do it. We are investing $2.1b in new transit infrastructure and should be making the most of it. The stadium should go somewhere accessible. There are other more logical uses for the Lansdowne site.
So what you are saying is you are for development, but just Not In Your BackYard?

You are most likely a troll/alt account given that 5 out of your 6 posts have been in this thread, but I'll play.

First, I couldn't give two farts and a greasy dump regarding the CFL. I guess in your world anyone who supports Lansdowne Live must be a CFL supporter.

Second, the park suggestion is laughable. I have read numerous posts (not in this thread, nor in this site) where FoL/Conservancy supporters wants to change the present location to a "truly outstanding park". I also have read posts by the same faction that mention this future park in the same air as Central Park and Boston Common. Now I must admit that it has been three years since I have been to both locations, but I doubt that the quality of these two locations have degraded to such a point that is equivalent quality-wise to demolishing Frank Clair stadium and turfing it over with sod and grass. In any case, Glebites must be creaming over themselves that they could potentially have their own dog-walking lawn on their backyard.

Apaharn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 10:29 PM
  #113
smithy
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apaharn View Post
So what you are saying is you are for development, but just Not In Your BackYard?

You are most likely a troll/alt account given that 5 out of your 6 posts have been in this thread, but I'll play.

First, I couldn't give two farts and a greasy dump regarding the CFL. I guess in your world anyone who supports Lansdowne Live must be a CFL supporter.

Second, the park suggestion is laughable. I have read numerous posts (not in this thread, nor in this site) where FoL/Conservancy supporters wants to change the present location to a "truly outstanding park". I also have read posts by the same faction that mention this future park in the same air as Central Park and Boston Common. Now I must admit that it has been three years since I have been to both locations, but I doubt that the quality of these two locations have degraded to such a point that is equivalent quality-wise to demolishing Frank Clair stadium and turfing it over with sod and grass. In any case, Glebites must be creaming over themselves that they could potentially have their own dog-walking lawn on their backyard.
Okay... so if not CFL, what do you like about the proposal? The city handing off its most valuable land asset to a bunch of developers for free? Whole Foods? The soccer team that is going to fold in a year?

(Also, since when is walking your dog an elitist activity?)

You are totally wrong about the park thing. It really could be something outstanding, not just "sodded over pavement." There is already a dog walking park immediately next to the current Lansdowne site. That's not what people are talking about when they propose a park at Lansdowne. They are talking about a national attraction. Something the whole country can be proud of.

Also, I can see why you would think I'm an alt account but actually I'm just a lurker. And no I'm not trolling. I honestly think Lansdowne Live is a stupid idea.

smithy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 11:26 PM
  #114
pepty
Registered User
 
pepty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 10,150
vCash: 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellogs View Post
It means they agreed to a deal that would see $120+ million of tax payer dollars being spent (mostly by taking on debt) without doing their due diligence on what they were signing and were later "surprised" with the news that the deal involved an exclusive clause where the city wouldn't be allowed to fund any other major projects of this kind. Again, we find out that the city didn't realize that there was a calculation mistake in how much of the tax payer's money they would get back as part of the deal by a total of $60 million, leaving a margin of only $13 million in terms of how much money the city will make.

While there's no doubt the main opponents who are fighting this are a classic case of NIMBYers, it doesn't mean that none of their objections are invalid. Every major projects like this will have its opponents who will use whatever means possible to stop it from happening (such as with Scotiabank Place). At least with SBP, it was entirely funded by private investments leaving the entirety of the risks at the hands of the people who stood to profit from it (and they nearly sank because of it). Now the city carries a large amount of risk related with the construction of the stadium, while having shown to be sloppy with the numbers already. And that doesn't take into account the fact that as reported in the independent auditing of the deal, there are many risks to the construction costs that are not included into the costing of the project, and suddenly that $13 million margin could very easily evaporate.
The city already has a stadium at Lansdowne, they will pay for the refurbishment of that stadium which will still belong to the city.

OSEG will pay the cost of running the stadium and all cost overruns
They will provide the major tenants a CFL team and a soccer team.

OSEG are paying a large share of the money that is going into the project as a whole and assume a lot of the risk.

It is not a one sided deal at all.,

It is relatively common to have a clause in such a public/private partnership that, having agreed to rebuild a stadium with one group of partners they will not immediately upon completion agree with another group of partners to build another stadium in competition with the first, nothing nefarious about that.

Regarding the "miscalculation, it did not figure into the final amounts presented to council as has been explained to but ignored by the friends.

The auditing of the deal by the firm hired by the Friends was shown in court to be anything but independent, in fact the firm that was retained by the friends was given figures, arguments and charts etc wholesale by the lawyer of the FoL and any argument that they were independent has been completely discredited.

The city used Price Waterhouse and even hired a firm recommended by Ian Lee, one of the Friends who is strongly opposed to the project. It has been vetted and signed off by them and by other well respected organizations

The city walked the extra mile, but it seems the foL are determined to get rid of the stadium and anything that will bring people and life back to Lansdowne

pepty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2011, 05:03 AM
  #115
wjhl2009fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 9,044
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smithy View Post
Okay... so if not CFL, what do you like about the proposal? The city handing off its most valuable land asset to a bunch of developers for free? Whole Foods? The soccer team that is going to fold in a year?

(Also, since when is walking your dog an elitist activity?)

You are totally wrong about the park thing. It really could be something outstanding, not just "sodded over pavement." There is already a dog walking park immediately next to the current Lansdowne site. That's not what people are talking about when they propose a park at Lansdowne. They are talking about a national attraction. Something the whole country can be proud of.

Also, I can see why you would think I'm an alt account but actually I'm just a lurker. And no I'm not trolling. I honestly think Lansdowne Live is a stupid idea.
You may think landsdown is a stupid idea and thats fine but at the same time when people start talking about a national attraction on paper that sounds good and money a side it could mean the end to the 67s there are youth and adult teams that use the civic we could lose a concert venue my point is when people talk about a park it makes me a bit nervus.Now with that said i am not aginst a mixed use venue where yu have a park along with a stadium and arena we don't need retail and condos buta park with a brand new arena and a new soccer/football stadium would work.

wjhl2009fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2011, 05:06 AM
  #116
wjhl2009fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 9,044
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellogs View Post
We're not talking about festivals, we're talking about sports stadiums. Canadian Guy got exactly what I meant, and it's even worse in that they'll also get to profit by building on land in which they haven't paid market value for, while they will turn around and charge market value for the sale of condos, or the leasing of retail space at a premium.

And on top of that, the city has shown itself to be negligent in the way it has handled this deal, first when an exclusive clause in terms of building new stadium for the duration of the contract by any competitors, and now with the amount of revenue the city will get back to the amount of $60 million dollar. The only reason we know about the former is because the media did some digging and found that information, and the only reason we know of the former, is because it came out during the trial when the city had known about it for a whole month.
So its fine for festivals etc to get funding but not sports is that your point?

wjhl2009fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2011, 06:35 AM
  #117
Stylizer1
BoomBapOriginalRap
 
Stylizer1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,000
vCash: 50
Seriously, I wish the plan was to tear down the stadium and buil a new one. Refurbished stuff sucks.

Stylizer1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2011, 07:43 AM
  #118
DukeNukem
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 263
vCash: 500
I'm all for taxpayers ponying up somewhat for the redevelopment of any major project. It is a stadium for the people of the city after all, with a chance of some fiscal recovery. If a stadium where to go somewhere else, the taxpayer would still be required to give something towards it. That's just the way of the world. Get over it.
As for FOL, what is their gain? It take a lot of money to buck heads with developers. What's in it for them? I smell a rat.

DukeNukem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2011, 09:02 AM
  #119
corksens
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 766
vCash: 500
Quote:
Again, those studies have taken these things into account. These events are great, and if they are going to bring in so much money, why does the government have to get involved to pay the capital cost of a stadium? If great money is to be made, why aren't private investors jumping at the opportunity to build these things using 100% of their own money?
This post bothers me.

When the WJC came to Ottawa it wasn't Melnyk and the Scotia Bank place that raked it in (although I'm sure they didn well from the concession costs and parking rates), it was the local economy that thrived. Hotels, bars, restaurants, shops, ect. all had an increase in traffic and therefor sales.

This is why public money is often invested into major capital outlays such as stadiums. Both parties ultimately win.

corksens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2011, 09:06 AM
  #120
corksens
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 766
vCash: 500
Quote:
Studies have been done on sports franchises and the "trickle down" effects (or lack thereof) to the economy. On a short term basis, people's incomes remain relatively fixed, and the local economy doesn't grow significantly, which means when a sports team arrives in town, people don't magically have more money to spend on going to the games and going to the bars/restaurants around the stadium, they simply shift whatever disposable income they had around from another type of leisure activity to ones related to the sports team and surrounding businesses of the area.
Post the "studies".

And even if those studies were perfectly accurate, name one reasonably sized city which doesn't have a major sports facility in or immediately beside it's downtown core.

corksens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2011, 09:11 AM
  #121
corksens
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 766
vCash: 500
Quote:
That is correct, but that doesn't mean that it should be the tax payer that funds it. If building a major arena to host a sports team, concerts and events is truly a money maker, then no taxpayer dollars should be required to build it. A smart businessman/woman/group should be able to convince enough investors in the community to finance the construction of the facility so that they can all profit from it. Ottawa already has a major rink, it's called Scotiabank place, and an insignificant amount of taxpayer money went to build it, on top of the overpass they had to pay for. Meanwhile, the OSEG is getting the city to pay the entire cost of a stadium that they will profit from, while allowing them to build developments that they will also profit from on prime real estate.
I love how this rationale is only applied to sports teams and general entertainment.

Do you agree with Federal defunding of the arts? How about the elimination of the publically funded CBC? Face it, there are countless examples of public/private partnership to help build a better overall environment.

Personally I don't want 2.1b spent on light rail. I spent more money on my home in central Ottawa and will likely never use the damn thing, but I'm okay with money going towards it because it contributes to a greater good.

The redevelopment of Landsdowne is a GOOD thing for the city. Period. The Glebites might hate it, but the rest of the city is all for a new stadium, shopping centre and entertainment facility. This is entirely a "not in my back yard" case.

corksens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2011, 09:18 AM
  #122
corksens
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 766
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smithy View Post
You are totally wrong about the park thing. It really could be something outstanding, not just "sodded over pavement." There is already a dog walking park immediately next to the current Lansdowne site. That's not what people are talking about when they propose a park at Lansdowne. They are talking about a national attraction. Something the whole country can be proud of.
Good god, what world do you live in? "Something outstanding". "Something the whole country can be proud of".

Are you out of your mind? No one in the rest of the country cares if we have a really sweet park beside the Glebe. Ottawa is the capital of the country, if we want to make the most of the downtown space we need to think bigger than a ****ing park.

Is everyone from the Glebe drinking from the canal?

corksens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2011, 09:33 AM
  #123
John Holmes*
Spuds MacLean™
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,214
vCash: 87
It's not like there is a shortage of parks in Ottawa. Drive across the river.

The problem is that people that live in the Glebe have money. Politicians listen to people with money.

As for transit, Ottawa absolutely needs to get away from buses. Maybe a subway is impossible because of the cost and the terrain, but there should definitely be a high speed way of getting from east to west through the downtown core.

Lots of cities are able to manage this.

Major hubs at the airport, Place D'Orleans, SBP and The Rideau Centre makes sense to me.

John Holmes* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2011, 10:03 AM
  #124
BonkTastic
"Small Sample Size!"
 
BonkTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jakarta, IDN
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Holmes View Post
It's not like there is a shortage of parks in Ottawa. Drive across the river.

The problem is that people that live in the Glebe have money. Politicians listen to people with money.

As for transit, Ottawa absolutely needs to get away from buses. Maybe a subway is impossible because of the cost and the terrain, but there should definitely be a high speed way of getting from east to west through the downtown core.

Lots of cities are able to manage this.

Major hubs at the airport, Place D'Orleans, SBP and The Rideau Centre makes sense to me.
I'll give credit where credit is due, John Holmes pretty much sums up my feelings 100% on this one.

I'm going to check the weather forecast in hell, see if they're expecting any snow this afternoon. BRB.

BonkTastic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2011, 10:48 AM
  #125
Cowen Time
Registered User
 
Cowen Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 3,072
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepty View Post
The city already has a stadium at Lansdowne, they will pay for the refurbishment of that stadium which will still belong to the city.

OSEG will pay the cost of running the stadium and all cost overruns
They will provide the major tenants a CFL team and a soccer team.

OSEG are paying a large share of the money that is going into the project as a whole and assume a lot of the risk.

It is not a one sided deal at all.,

It is relatively common to have a clause in such a public/private partnership that, having agreed to rebuild a stadium with one group of partners they will not immediately upon completion agree with another group of partners to build another stadium in competition with the first, nothing nefarious about that.

Regarding the "miscalculation, it did not figure into the final amounts presented to council as has been explained to but ignored by the friends.

The auditing of the deal by the firm hired by the Friends was shown in court to be anything but independent, in fact the firm that was retained by the friends was given figures, arguments and charts etc wholesale by the lawyer of the FoL and any argument that they were independent has been completely discredited.

The city used Price Waterhouse and even hired a firm recommended by Ian Lee, one of the Friends who is strongly opposed to the project. It has been vetted and signed off by them and by other well respected organizations

The city walked the extra mile, but it seems the foL are determined to get rid of the stadium and anything that will bring people and life back to Lansdowne
Great post, ergo FOL folks are ignoring it. The Ian Lee part is a tough one for them to explain away.

If Landsdowne is not a go, and no stadium, as a tax payer I will demand that the city put the land up for sale for residental development, which includes a green space allocation appropriate for the new housing units that will go up there. After all, the city plan calls for housing intensification inside the Greenbelt, and this is a premium piece of land for a nice mix of garden homes, townhouses, and and some stand alone houses. Surely the Glebe folks will not have an issue with combating urban sprawl beyond the greenbelt.

Cowen Time 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 05:18 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.