Revisiting Old Battles

Mayor Watson came in for a huge dump of criticism for the design and rebuild of Lansdowne Park. But his vision was right, he withstood the onslaught, and the resulting urban fabric is quite nice.

When I tell people I like Lansdowne, I get one of those twisted face emoticons of dislike almost automatically. So I always follow up by asking if they’ve been there recently.

Usually, the answer is a “wouldn’t be caught dead there” claim, followed by an admission that they were in fact there “but not regularly” and that it was still awful. Or at least underwhelming.

I get the same response to LeBreton Flats.

Get out of your air conditioned house and car now that cooler walking and cycling weather is here, a go walk about both places. I covered a bit of LeBreton a few weeks back: https://www.westsideaction.ca/wandering-around…-to-claridgeland/

On Saturday past, I went to Lansdowne. It was busy with real people doing real things:

img_8762

There were a number of pleasantly busy outdoor patios with permanent gazebos and patio amenities, special events to draw in non-locals, and despite what I had heard, not every tree was dead:

img_8763

The landscaped ped areas looked bleak last year, but now the shrubs have grown in and the gardens look inviting and totally world class:

img_8759

img_8764

And yes, I have been there mid-week when it was a lot quieter, and the streets looked still too wide. Presumably some of this is due to some space not being occupied yet. And I don’t expect a large project like this to fill out to maturity instantly. Some tenants will move in, move out. Some businesses will fail. But it won’t be the colossal failure that our bureaucrats made of urban renewal in the 60’s and 80’s.

I couldn’t but help looking at this view and wondering if it wouldn’t be better if that squat black building in the empty centre …

img_8760

… was the podium for a 20 or 40 storey pencil-thin condo tower.

Before you send me hate mail, do recall that the much-lauded Distillery District in big Toronto has some super tall residential towers right tight in amongst the low rise, to generate  daily activity to the space so it doesn’t become just a special-events place or tourist check point.

 

distillery-grist-mill-lane-pointy-bldg

Mayor Jim would feel right a home here… with conspicuous overhead wiring we won’t bury because it might reduce the profits sucked out of the local electrical utility, rising energy poverty levels be dammed:

img_0821

At Lansdowne, the playground was innovative and busy. The green grassy slope was entertaining kids at an even cheaper cost. The park benches and intensely planted green spaces are every bit as nice as NYC’s High Line but without the billion dollar price tag.  The shops appeared as busy as Bayshore did the previous evening when I ventured out there.

So, an A for Jim Watson on Lansdowne Park, for placemaking, for converting a shit-ugly parking lot with urban fabric, with the presumption that it will get even better as more spaces are occupied and the place becomes a regular stop in our life cycle.

12 thoughts on “Revisiting Old Battles

  1. I would give it a B+. Could have used some affordable housing. The City should have allocated some of the land (a public good) for that. Going to spend all coming weekend there for Folkfest.

  2. I was there with friends last weekend. 9pm on a Saturday it was very, very lively. All the patios you mention were packed. I actually thought to myself, “this is the new Market”.

  3. There are 3 issues that arise from your comments about the new Lansdowne Park development:
    (1) Jim Watson’s role in this project;
    (2) the privatization of public space;
    (3) the design of this space.

    First, the re=development of Lansdowne Park is not one of Mayor Watson’s achievements (unless you count ribbon-cutting to open the facility). This properly belongs to Mayor Larry O’Brien – it was his Council (through his leadership) that adopted the project and got the design, financing and approvals in place.

    Second, while you may appreciate the urban design of Lansdowne, the privatization of public space is, in my view, a travesty. City Council bought into the proposal by Ottawa Sports & Entertainment Group (representing the CFL football franchise and the Ottawa 67s Jr. A hockey club) that OSEG needed ongoing financial support to render their franchises viable (i.e. return a profit) through developing commercial & residential uses on the City’s land at Lansdowne. In the end the City provided $170 million in financing to rebuild the stadium, turned the operation of both the stadium (now TD Place) and the Civic Centre (where the 67s play) to OSEG, and permitted the construction of condo towers and commercial stores by OSEG on the City’s land without compensation. This is a VERY sweet deal for OSEG, independent of whether you like the design or not. Indeed, one of the prices OSEG demanded was the moving of the heritage Horticultural Building to accommodate their commercial vision, which the City accommodated over the protests of heritage experts.

    Third, the matter of design – it was not a choice of this design or maintaining the previous status quo – there were other options. With the moving out of the Central Canadian Exhibition (leaving vacant acres of unused pavement) and the deterioration of the South Side Stands at (then) Frank Clair Stadium, clearly something had to be done. City Council recognized this and launched an international design competition, including possibilities for a water park and pedestrian bridge across the canal. Unfortunately this was trumped by the OSEG plan for a football franchise and commercial/residential uses at the site to support their franchise. Had Council stuck to its design competition there would likely have been more public space & amenities than we have now there today.

    Whether the CFL football franchise would have been located here is another matter, but it is worth noting that under the City’s Official Plan such a major entertainment/sports facility would have had to been located by the transitway (or provincial highway) to accommodate transportation to & from the site (Bayview Yards in Lebreton Flats would have qualified). Clearly Lansdowne Park fails this requirement, but City staff got away with avoiding this by declaring that Lansdowne Park, as a previous existing stadium, was “grandfathered”(!).

    So, in my view, City Council squandered an opportunity to transform public land in the heart of the city into our own version of Central Park. The commercial uses there are not “world class” or a destination – they merely capitalize on the high incomes in the Glebe and Old Ottawa South, and essentially are a form of subsidy to support a private sports venture. Opportunity lost, sad to say.

    1. In response to Mr. Cullen’s comments, all of which have been made in some form or another hundreds of times over the past seven years, I would note the following:

      1) Eric did not write that Mayor Watson was wholly responsible for the park. What he said was that the mayor withstood the onslaught of criticism. That onslaught was relentless and continues to this day – case in point, the same arguments opponents were making loudly at the time are still showing up in the comment section of this blog three years after it opened.

      2)I understand the concern over the creeping privatization of public space, but the portion of the site that was “privatized” is not all or even most of the site. Lansdowne now includes a large and popular park that is unequivocally public and well used. And even if one wishes to stand on the principle that no public land should be leased to private interests ever (a dubious proposition at best), at some point that argument becomes very academic. I would challenge Mr. Cullen to look at the pictures in the article showing crowds of people wandering the site and argue that those areas are now private. The public has certainly not been deprived of the use of Lansdowne. To me, the site now serves a far greater swath of the public than it ever did as a parking lot that was technically public (and which, I note, was leased to a private operator that charged for parking).

      3) If the argument that Lansdowne has been privatized is dubious, the argument a design competition would have fixed the whole thing is even more so. Mr. Cullen claims that if a design competition proceeded, it would likely have led to “more public space and amenities”. There is virtually no basis for that claim. A design competition alone does not provide amenities. Those require money, which was not forthcoming from the public purse, and the resulting plans do not always succeed (see Downsview Park and imagine if that failure was sitting in the middle of the Glebe). And even if the financing was found within the public purse in this case, and the park that Mr. Cullen describes was built, I find it very unlikely that a not-quite-central park would draw anywhere near the number of people from all over the city that Lansdowne draws on a daily basis. (Unless of course you are willing to lease the site to music promoters, sports franchises and other private interests.)

      The arguments of opponents like Mr. Cullen were not compelling seven years ago, and they certainly aren’t compelling now that Lansdowne is a busy and popular place.

      This was a good article Eric. I would urge you to keep up the balanced commentary.

  4. I think there’s a lot of potential at Landsdowne that needs to mature. I cycle through it on weekday afternoons, and unless something is happening, it looks empty. But I’m sure the peak crowd it’s designed to accommodate isn’t there on a Tuesday afternoon at 4:00pm in July…

    From visits to the farmer’s market with the family, I find the play structure a bit single-use and not very pre-school to kindergarten friendly. You climb it. That’s it. No slides, swings, diversity of climbers, etc. My kids were more keen to climb around the ramps in the skate park. The water feature was a bigger hit than I thought it would have been. But the recent confab about not playing on the art makes me shake my head. When you need to put up signs about where you are allowed to play and where you’re not allowed to play, something went wrong in the design. And the whole play area is far from where the action is in Landsdowne, too.

    I’m hoping the trees grow out more and provide more shade. It’s a stinker on a summer afternoon on all of that pavement. My family only really discovered the Farmer’s Market when it was at Brewer, so for us, it’s a step down because Brewer was such a good fit for what we were looking for – space to get around the vendors (sometimes), lots of shade opportunities (away from the vendors, but not far) and a reason to extend the trip because Brewer Park has such a great playground.

    Overall, it’s nice a development. I’m neither in love nor hating it. But hopefully it can grow into itself over time.

  5. I really enjoy going to Lansdowne. I bring my young kids and we have a blast. They like the market and the park (and the water splash pad thing). That being said, I don’t understand why they couldn’t make it pedestrian only in between the shops. The big underground parking lot is accessible from the canal side and Bank Street side. Why do cars need to be able to drive in between the shops. Because there are no curbs, for pedestrians it feels wide open and you forget sometimes to look for cars. I know my young children feel the urge to take off and run free but there’s always a car nearby. I know my family would enjoy the experience of Lansdowne more if it was pedestrian only.

  6. In response to Mr. Cullen’s comments, all of which have been made in some form or another hundreds of times over the past seven years, I would note the following:

    1) Eric did not write that Mayor Watson was wholly responsible for the park. What he said was that the mayor withstood the onslaught of criticism. That onslaught was well-financed and relentless and continues to this day – case in point, the same arguments opponents were making loudly at the time are still showing up in the comment section of this blog three years after it opened.

    2)I understand the concern over the creeping privatization of public space, but the portion of the site that was “privatized” is not all or even most of the site. Lansdowne now includes a large and popular park that is unequivocally public and well used. And even if one wishes to stand on the principle that no public land should be leased to private interests ever (a dubious proposition at best), at some point that argument becomes very academic. I would challenge Mr. Cullen to look at the pictures in the article showing crowds of people wandering the site and argue that those areas are now private. The public has certainly not been deprived of the use of Lansdowne. To me, the site now serves a far greater swath of the public than it ever did as a parking lot that was technically public (and which, I note, was leased to a private operator that charged for parking).

    3) If the argument that Lansdowne has been privatized is dubious, the argument a design competition would have fixed the whole thing is even more so. Mr. Cullen claims that if a design competition proceeded, it would likely have led to “more public space and amenities”. There is virtually no basis for that claim. A design competition alone does not provide amenities. Those require money, which was not forthcoming from the public purse, and the resulting plans do not always succeed (see Downsview Park and imagine if that failure was sitting in the middle of the Glebe). And even if the financing was found within the public purse in this case, and the park that Mr. Cullen describes was built, I find it very unlikely that a not-quite-central park would draw anywhere near the number of people from all over the city that Lansdowne draws on a daily basis. (Unless of course you are willing to lease the site to music promoters, sports franchises and other private interests.)

    The arguments of opponents like Mr. Cullen were not compelling seven years ago, and they certainly aren’t compelling now that Lansdowne is a busy and popular place.

    This was a good article Eric. I would urge you to keep up the balanced commentary.

    1. Matt:

      1) I really have to take issue with your reiteration of the tired canard used to attack Lansdowne’s critics that they were “well-financed.” Most of the money was collected via volunteers running fundraisers. And I have to ask, “well-financed” compared to what? The untold funds the City & OSEG spent to sell their scheme for Lansdowne? I don’t think so.

      And as for people making the same arguments about the scheme, why shouldn’t they? As far as the issues of the failure of the process to create an open and legitimate outcome; and the fact that no serious attempt was made to determine if another approach could have been taken to redevelop Lansdowne without the de facto privatization of a large part of the site, and the direction of the rest of the site to the needs of the private businesses there, nothing has changed.

      2) As to the questions of how much of the site is public and how much is parking, it’s surprising how much of Lansdowne is still parking, roadways, paving stones or grassy areas waiting to be pressed into the service of OSEG, its tenants and other private enterprises operating events at Lansdowne.

      As much as people can wander through the mixed use areas leased by OSEG and the rest of the site, that is controlled by OSEG, I’m certain that as soon as any persons or activities that OSEG did not find to their tastes (e.g. panhandlers or protestors, etc), were to take place, all of a sudden OSEG’s happy, open “public” spaces would suddenly be privatized on the spot.
      Indeed, I’ve been told the grey pavers that run along the middle of the sidewalks at Lansdowne demarcate the boundary between public street and privatized areas.

      3) The design competition was never intended as a panacea, but a reflection of putting the emphasis on figuring out what would be the best use for this as a true public space, rather than simply railroading through a backdoor private deal, with no meaningful process of public discussion of what would be the best use for the site.

      The eventual outcome of an alternate process would likely have had a private component, but hopefully it would have been in the context of there having been a public discussion about more than a sole option. And where the emphasis would be on private elements facilitating a predominantly public project, rather than what we ended up with, which is a profoundly private scheme in which all the elements of the development are first and foremost aimed at supporting the objectives of the private businesses.

      1. I think there is a big difference between taking a forward-looking approach to question what we could have done better, and continuing to make the same broad assertions about how the City was so wrong all those years ago. The first has a valuable purpose. The second makes people want to run away.

        As I inferred in my response to Mr. Cullen, the broader public doesn’t care about what lease agreements underlie the cobblestones that they are strolling on. The public is free to wander virtually all of Lansdowne – it is to all intents and purposes public space.

        While you claim that the “paving stones or grassy areas (are) waiting to be pressed into the service of OSEG, its tenants and other private enterprises operating events at Lansdowne”, there is really nothing to support that claim. Or the suggestion that OSEG is going to suddenly clamp down and “privatize” the areas that thousands of people are enjoying. Those things haven’t actually happened. I visit quite frequently and not once have OSEG or its tenants interfered with my enjoyment of those areas in any way. Your argument strays into the philosophical and frankly has the feel of tilting at windmills.

        Like you, I might have a general preference for public projects over these types of public-private partnerships, but at the end of the day, all that matters is the result. And I think that most concede that there was little chance that a predominantly public project would have resulted in the necessary investment to make Lansdowne as multi-faceted a site as it now is.

        Lastly, I do have to admit that I had second thoughts about using the term “well-financed”, and actually took it out when I re-posted my comment. However, the vocal Lansdowne opponents were by and large wealthy individuals from the neighbourhood. They raised funding for their campaign that ran intot the multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars. If the shoe fits…

  7. A small rebuttal to Matt: Prior to the OSEG proposal, all of Lansdowne Park was in the public domain. Now most of it is not, as the condo towers, commercial stores, and even the Civic Centre/TD Place stadium (under OSEG control) shows. And the City still put up the $170 million for the refurbished stadium, which OSEG controls.

    Of course an international design competition wouldn’t have solved everything: it would still take political will do make the appropriate investments. However, putting $170 million of public dollars into public space & amenities at Lansdowne Park would provide more benefits to the taxpayers of Ottawa than building a facility controlled by private interests, compounded by permitting public lands to be used to support those private interests via condo and commercial development.

    However, the deed is done. What bothers me (beyond the huge public subsidy for private interests) is the notion that this was the best choice for City Council, given the false alternative of “acres of paving lot”. Not true – there were other options. Unfortunately the citizens of Ottawa were deprived of knowing what other options were out there when the international design competition was arbitrarily halted in favour of the OSEG proposal.

    1. True, it isn’t fair to suggest that the only alternative was “acres of parking lot”. We could definitely have done something else with the site. The problem, however, with that argument is that we had 30+ years of purely public ownership during to find that better use. And the result of public ownership was there for everyone to see with their own eyes – the aforementioned parking lot and a stadium and arena that were falling apart.

      Proponents of a public redevelopment had more than ample time to explore and pursue options for the site. Instead, there were endless debates that left us with an asset that didn’t benefit the public in any way. After that experience, it is extremely difficult share your confidence that a design competition would have led to the type of wonderful public redevelopment that had eluded the city for decades.

      Whatever you think of the councils that pushed this ahead, they created a place that the public wants to visit in huge numbers, and I think it is right to commend them for doing so.

  8. Hmm. You’re usually a tougher grader Eric. So here’s my take:
    —————
    PROGRESS REPORT: LANSDOWNE PARK
    GRADE: C-
    COMMENTS: Meets basic requirements, but not achieving full potential
    – Shows evidence of some good work and improvement over previous grading periods.
    – Struggles to use resources wisely and does not play well with classmates.
    – Negatively influenced by pushy, dominant figures in class.
    – Continues to contribute minimal effort, and demonstrates poor attitude and performance overall, marked by lack of drive, self-motivation, and creativity, which impede further progress.
    – Seems content to settle for easy-to-achieve goals rather than more challenging objectives.
    – Does not receive constructive criticism well or adjust performance appropriately.

Comments are closed.