Doesn't look good for the Lansdowne site but maybe Kanata I was reading in an article May 28. Maybe this is better for all concerned even if it means a longer wait for a team, Ottawa area gets a new stadium. Ottawa gets a lot of tourists anyways so no need to have a stadium near the downtown, I don't know.
Going to Kanata for events sukcs @$$. It's the last place I want a stadium.
This is a colossal wate of time, Earl. The city has said from day one that it doesn't have the money to rebuild the stadium, that's why the competition is set up so the winner gets the right to do it. So if the city, in their infinite wisdom, decides to place the stadium anywhere else, I'd love to see their plans for covering its cost.
Would Hunt's group pay for it? Maybe...If it also includes ways for them to make coin elsewhere, which was the plan in the first place. That was why they wanted to build condos and a hotel there along with the stadium.
So now you're looking at land that can not only cover a stadium but also residential and commercial.
I believe that this is catering to the minority who, during the consultation, suggested moving the stadium. They never had a solid suggestion as to where to go (though I have one for them) or how to cover the cost, just your standard "wouldn't it be nice" type of day-dreaming. But now the city can pretend to look around, come up empty and tell those very same people "Hey, we tried".
The most positive scenario is that the Hunt group has quietly struck a deal for elsewhere that does meet their criteria, because aside from the stadium at Lansdowne Park, most of their proposal was not warmly received. So they could split this into two issues (stadium set aside, rebuilt Lansdowne however you want) and everyone looks good for meeting the complaints of nearby Lansdowne residents.
The only option I can think of is an area named Hurdman. It's not as central, but there is plenty of mass transit already built there, it's already crawling with apartment and condo buildings and is close to a major shopping center, the University of Ottawa and the VIA train station. However, I don't know if it's actually feasible, who owns the land, etc.
I simply do not understand this. There was an overwhelming majority (ie: NOT 50% +1) to keep Frank Clair Stadium at Lansdowne with its present capacity maintained (at a minimum).
This article really skews things to a point where the message did not reflect the true outcome of the consultations and online discussions.
And why does it always come back to people having such a narrow vision that the stadium should only be used for football? As I said at the consultations and in the online discussions, the stadium can be used for MANY MORE THINGS. We talked ad nauseum about attracting larger events to the Capital; events that would otherwise pass us by if we didn't have such a large venue to hold the larger crowds.
To quote the Glebeites: "We're not against football itself," said June Creelman, chairwoman of the GCA's Lansdowne committee. "What we're against is the use of acres of public land in the heart of Ottawa for something that happens eight times a year."
By the way GCA: It's 9 regular season home games, plus preseason plus potential post-season games. Get your facts straight
Listen carefully Glebeites: ...The...stadium...can...be...used...for...different...events - NOT JUST FOOTBALL!
When I approached this issue, I tried to give suggestions that would benefit the city as a whole (ie: something for everyone). The stadium would make me happy because it could host my football team - The Ottawa Rough Riders. It could also be used for a myriad of other events to make others happy, even their farmer's market. Having a stadium with a dome might even benefit the farmers market because they could move inside in inclement weather should the stadium not be in use during farmer's market hours.
It looks like I'll be contacting City Council yet again to rebut this friggin' report.
Exactly. They’re not anti-football but they support amateur sports? What, like the Gee-Gee’s? They’ll use it at least four times too. How about the multitudes of times it’s used in the winter for kids’ soccer?
Ultimately, the same amount of space is being eaten up.
Short answer? No, it doesn't mean that the Hunt group died before they even got started.
They apparently have a deadline of March 2009 to secure a deal for a stadium. I guess the league could extend that, that would be their call. As it stands, we don't even know WHERE this stadium would be even though it seemed obvious that it would be where it always was.
Right now, what it means is that the 2010 start, that was never guaranteed anyway, is becoming less likely while council decides what they want to do. The reports that were expected by April are now scheduled for July, so less than halfway through the calendar year, we're already preparing to be three months behind.
Good article, interesting. As I've said before, complicated situation, no easy answer, so many different interests. Of course, as a football fan, I want to see a redeveloped or new stadium but am not so selfish as to see there are many other issues that need to be addressed.
I'm going to write to this guy and compliment him on this article. There is absolutely no part of the logic to disagree with.
The only reason one could dislike his perception of things is if you live in the neighborhood and hate anything that brings the least spark of life to your area.
This is why pro-stadium people get so annoyed at the residents of the Glebe. Right now, NO ONE can enjoy Lansdowne Park. Pro-stadium people are content to have their "share" and the city can do whatever it wants with the rest. If it's parks, fine. Whatever. The Glebe Geezers though have to have it match their vision. They want what they like at the expense of what anyone else might want.
This guy does a good job of clearly explaining how everyone can end up benefitting from doing this properly. Thanks for posting it, Tony, I hadn't come across it.
Of course. Same here. We just want them addressed fairly.
The Glebe has been sneaky about it a fair bit. The try to appear to not be anti-sports by stating that they approve of amateur sports. What they are really saying is they support sports that no one attends.**
Such sports also don't require a stadium big enough to have major concerts that might keep them up until gasp 11PM on a Saturday night.
**If anyone is planning on replying with a shot at Renegades attendance, please summon the willpower to resist.
I don't get that because wouldn't a new football stadium be good for amateur sports aswell. It could be used by college and High School football teams aswell as soccer teams. If they put a bubble over it and divide into two pitches for the winter you could have a couple of kids soccer teams use it in the winter and it could possibly be used to conventions and trade shows. You add a hotel into the mix and you have yourself a fully funtional convention center.
Right, but their argument is that the southside alone is about 14,000 (Tony, is that right?) seats. Plenty good for football, soccer, some concerts...on a small scale. You don't need 30,000 for high school football, right?
So because they're SO supportive of amateur sports :roll: they don't mind half the stadium there knowing full well that a CFL club can't play in that capacity, you can't have another FIFA event, the Stones won't play a crowd that samll, etc.
It's a load of crap. They could care less about amateur sports and there are plenty of places for amateur teams to play anyway. Carleton U. is having its field redone, in fact, and some football teams are moving there.
It almost makes me wish I was in Ottawa right now, I wouldn't mind butting some heads with these people.
You can also think about it this way without a pro capacity stadium the kids won't have any hero's. It's the pro football and soccer teams that make the hero's that enable the kids to want to play the games in the first place. Not having a pro team could hurt amateur athletics in more than just a place to play.
It feels pointless. No matter the argument your present, they can’t step outside of their little world.
No matter how you present that it’s a good thing for the city in term of image, revenue, etc, they reject all that with “build it elsewhere” (without suggesting a realistic “where”) or shrug off all that stuff with arguments about increased traffic and noise.
But there again, like you stated elsewhere, what do you expect when you buy a house across from a stadium? So it’s not like many people have any sympathy for them.
They’re not all like that. A couple of people in the neighborhood have spoken up in favour of the stadium so they don’t get painted with the same brush. But the ones that are like that are very loud.
They remind me of Grandpa Simpson. “This is a list of words I no longer want to hear on television. Number one: Bra…”