Redevelopment of Lansdowne delayed

Developer should go out for tender now, then again after the court proceedings and sue for the difference in costs plus lost revenues for the months in question.

How about the City solicitors filing their own court Motions to get the matter moving forward.
Requesting the dismissal of the nonsense perpatrated by the left wing loons.

But that makes sense!!! The ridiculous thing is that these guys will take the city to court and the city will pick up the tab.

The latest in the Lansdowne saga, the moving of the historic Aberdeen pavillion can go ahead so they build the underground parking lot. It's back into the hands of the city council after "Heritage Ottawa" tried to protest the moving of the building.
Another obstacle out of the way for the stadium,

[url=] ... g-wraps-up[/url]

Looks like a I got it wrong it's not the historic Aberdeen Pavillion that they are trying to move, but the Horticulture building. The Horticulture building has no architecture value, it's an eye sore and should be torn down, it's the ugly building to the left of the Aberdeen pavillion in the picture. Why move it? it's not worth saving.
Just another attempt by a group to stop or slow down development of Lansdowne.

I was at a Gee-Gees game this past fall with a friend who had been going to Riders games long enough to remember their glory days. At some point he turns to me and asks "Hey, where the hell is this Horticulture Building they make such a big deal about?" :lol: It's location and appearance are SO important to Lansdowne that this guy had missed noticing it for the past four decades.

Also, I was told at one of the meetings by a city staff member that only the front of the building is considered heritage. :? In other words, you could demolish the other three walls, so long as you kept the facade standing. IT was built a certain way, which is now near non-existent, but the rest is just another brick building so it did not get heritage designation. Figure that out.

When I was watching the CFL draft, Rod Black asked the commissioner about expansion and Cohon said it was likely that Ottawa would return in 2014. While that was already likely, it's still disappointing to hear him say it.

There is some activity today in that the OMB is hearing appeals about zoning and such. Nothing new there, but one of the articles in relation to it said that the city still intends to begin construction in June.

[url=] ... aring.html[/url]

[i]A legal challenge by the group Friends of Lansdowne is also due to start in June.

The city maintains, however, that construction at Lansdowne is set to begin the same month.[/i]

If that's true, I can only guess that it'll be on the "going-to-happen-anyway" aspects we discussed earlier (taking down the remaining south side stands, for example) but if so, it would minimize the impact of "officially" starting later.

Man, I hope so.. I mean, they're just refurbishing one side anyway and rebuilding the south side stands. You'd think it wouldn't take that long, but I just don't get that sense of urgency from the parties involved.

Roger Greenberg of OSEG said something the other day that was encouraging on one hand, but discouraging on the other. it basically amounted to "if it's 2014 instead of 2013, so be it".

There's been some speculation for a while that the NIMBY are trying to drag this out to the point that OSEG says "screw it" and walks away. I think that was Greenberg's way of saying "not gonna happen" but that they still intend to have things done for 2013 (in which case, Ottawa would have limited draft participation next year, which is pretty cool to think about).

The Lansdowne Park state of the art cinema looks good!!

[url=] ... of-the-art[/url]

No question very, very nice.

This whole drawn our process is just plain frustrating, for me it has moved to the point that I've just stopped reading about it. When the shovels are in the ground then the excitement of football in Ottawa will start to become a reality. I recently heard Jim Watson talking about how important sport is to a city, on the same panel was the mayor of Kamloops, that has just finshed building another huge sports complex, they decided it needed to be done and it was done. Ottawa lets the minority dictate to the majority. When a small volunteer group of heritage types can stop the a major project because they don't want some minor historical structure moved there is a huge problem with who's running the City.

It's time for the new City Councillors and mayor to step up and say "enough is enough", that's why this new group was voted in, to change the lame ducks we had.

I'm not familiar with everything there in Ottawa but sometimes you have to let due process play out to avoid potential lawsuits later. Just the way it is. :?

To some it is the process but to other is can be deemed an abuse of the system.

yes you are right "enough is enough" but the city council has absolutely no control over these people that raise money and fight these things in court. Anyone can challenge something in court if they have the money, I just wish the judge will make the "Friends of Lansdowne" pay the court costs if they lose, but I doubt that will happen and the city will have to pay the costs no matter what the outcome.
On top of that we have the "heritage" council going to try to stop OSEG from moving a so called "heritage" building at Lansdowne that is in the way of development. The hearings are this week in front of the Ontario Municipal board and then they take 30 DAYS to come up with a decision.
It's a wonder we get anything done in this Province, it's sad when one person or a group can put a hold or delay the wishes of the majority.

What is currently burning me right now are the creative use of dollar values and/or selective memory.

"The city is paying $400 million and OSEG pays $100M just to put up a bunch of stores."

The $400M includes the interest over 30-40 years, whereas the $100M does not. Kind of a significant point. It also includes about $40M (pre-interest) to build the park that was chosen as a result of the design competition for the "front lawn". That design competition came about due to complaints from opponents, who now complain about the resulting cost instead.

Someone essentially called me an idiot on the Citizen comment section for opposing a group that just wants to save the taxpayers money. What a load. If that were their intentions, they haven't done very well with it. They added the above cost and reduced revenue by capping residential and commercial. Bravo. :roll:

The Horticulture thing is a real gem, eh? We can't move it 300 feet because it's been there since 1914, but we CAN move the field on which football has been played since at least 1908 to, well, wherever. Sorry, NIMBY, if you're going to lean on history, you can't just pick the parts you like!

But I thought that OSEG would be paying the city back in rent and property taxes and that the $400 million the city pays up front would be paid back in 5 years or so? Also the city is paying $2 million a year to maintain the site as it is now.
I think it's still a win win situation for the city and OSEG. OSEG will also run the stadium and schedule concerts/events etc which will be a lot more effective than the way the city is running it now.

I think the plan originally was meant to basically pay for itself, but that's no longer the case with all the changes that have been made to it. That's what gets me.

The original park, for instance, was only supposed to be a wide field which cost about $5M to put together, split between the two sides. The design competition turned it into something a fair bit more elaborate, but at an additional 30-35M. Now opponents uses the higher amount as proof that the plan can't sustain itself. so how can you win?

The Horticulture thing is a real gem, eh? We can't move it 300 feet because it's been there since 1914, but we CAN move the field on which football has been played since at least 1908 to, well, wherever. Sorry, NIMBY, if you're going to lean on history, you can't just pick the parts you like!

Unreal. Selective respect of the term 'history'. :?