Yesterday (May 27) there was a presentation by architects about the lovely buildings that could be built at Lansdowne Park. Mayor O'Brien said he had told the architectural team that he wanted people to shout out "WOW!" on seeing the ideas presented.
Actually no one stood up and shouted wow. Some of us thought that if we were about to be given a big gift by the city we also would take the time to draw some pretty pictures.
No one mentioned at the event that it is proposed the city's taxpayers pay 100% of the cost of the sinuous stadium. No one noted that the city is to kick in millions to provide parking for the shoppers in the stores at Lansdowne.
As usual, no one asked the obvious questions. Here is a little question for everyone to puzzle over. The public is invited to comment on the lovely pictures between June 1 and June 13. But on June 9, the staff report (plus all the other outstanding reports???) is to be tabled for consideration leading to the eventual Council discussion. So the question is -- why would anyone submit a comment between June 9 and June 13 since the comment will obviously be disregarded? In fact, why comment at all, since the conclusion of the staff report has already been written and staff are now hard at work searching their thesaurus for words of praise to apply to the so-called Lansdowne Partnership Plan. [Maybe "divinely inspired" would be too much but "approaching heaven on earth" might strike the right tone.]
If someone gave me land to build a house, chances are I could build a nicer house than if I had to pay for the land. Isn't that all the pretty pictures show?
Incidentally, from talking to architects, I gather the technical term for what was displayed yesterday is "eye candy".
Bob, I am pleasantly surprised to see you entering this race (I thought you had previously said that you would not run). I think that you are intelligent and tend to be balanced in your commentary on the issues.
ReplyDeleteMy one reservation is with respect to your position on Lansdowne. I have not found the Friends of Lansdowne Park to be balanced in their approach to the revitalization of the Park. Now that the plan has been approved in principle, and assuming that it is passed by Council at the end of June, what would your approach be going forward?
Thanks.
Sorry Bob, I didn't see your position paper when I posted my comment. My issues with your approach are the following.
ReplyDeleteOne of the reasons that spectator sports have not succeeded at Lansdowne is the inadequacy of the stadium. Simply patching up the current stadium to determine support will not change that fact. We would not be getting a good sense of the support the soccer and football teams could expect in a proper modern stadium. I can't see how putting sports teams at a disadvantage from the start makes much sense.
Secondly, if you want to keep using the stadium and arena, and break up the asphalt at the same time, you will still need to build an underground parking structure, at a cost of $20-40 million. You would also need to rebuild the south side stands. So it would appear that you are proposing a $40 to 80 million dollar expenditure for a sub-par stadium and not much else. That does not seem to be money well spent.
I'm pleased to receive Phil's comments. I am not sure that the quality of the stadium is such an important determinant in the success or failure of professional sports, but I am willing to be corrected.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I still wonder why, if your interest is football, you still need to build a grocery store first. Nor do I understand why parking is such a big issue when we are told again and again that the FIFA games went so well when there was absolutely no parking on the site.
As I said, the purpose of this blog is to get people talking.....
Bob
Thanks for the response. I think experience in other cities has shown that stadium quality can be quite an important factor. For instance, soccer in Montreal and Toronto was always on shaky ground until both of those cities got new facilities. Now it is a runaway success in both cases.
ReplyDeleteOn parking, I'm of too minds. I wouldn't use it myself, but this is Ottawa, land of the endless sprawl, and practically speaking, some people will drive to the site. If we don't have parking at all, we'll need a very good transit plan.
Personally I think mixed-use development including some retail is the way to go. From your comments on the main street, I think you agree to some extent. I wonder how some of those railing against big box stores would react if they were told that the anchor store would be Mountain Equipment Co-op for instance.
In my view, a Whole Foods would be a very nice complementary addition to the neighbourhood, so I don't see that as a problem per se, provided it is not too monolithic in design. I also have no problem with the condos and offices(perhaps we can work in some social housing), which will help animate the space. Taller towers reduce the footprint of the development, and leave more public space.
All in all, I do like the design and think it is a vast improvement over what is there now. If this initiative gets derailed, I have my doubts that we will see any political will to tackle Lansdowne for years to come. And the status quo does a huge disservice to the city.