Report will help Council make the right decision over the next 62 days
Over the next 62 days Council will have to make one of the most important decisions for the future of Ottawa. Where should we build a new outdoor event facility (stadium) – in Kanata or at Lansdowne Park?
To help us make this decision, today City staff released a study with 23 potential sites that would accommodate a major sports stadium with a list of specific criteria. Please click here to view the report. This study is not designed to recommend a specific site or plan for development or renovation of a stadium, but rather to assess the strengths and weaknesses of sites in the City.
In my opinion, before City Council makes a decision that involves tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer’s money, the City needs to take a look at the bigger picture. How do these two opportunities rank versus other potential sites for major sports stadiums in Ottawa? For example, is it accessible to transit? Is it located near a residential community? Does it have sufficient parking? We need to have the answers to these questions and more in order to help us properly evaluate the MLS and CFL opportunities.
We have two world-class community builders who have submitted ideas to the City and we owe it to them to garner all information required to make the right decision.
What’s next?
The report released today will be formally tabled at Planning and Environment Committee (PEC) on Feb. 24, 2009 and will be considered at PEC on March 10, 2009 with Council consideration on March 11, 2009.
Then the staff report on the evaluation of the business cases for both concepts will be tabled at a special meeting of Council on March 25, 2009 and Council is set to make a decision on April 22,2009.
The citizens of Ottawa will have an opportunity to comment at the Planning and Environment Committee on Feb. 24 and at a join Corporate Services and Planning Commitee meeting on April 7. I also encourage you to continue commenting on my blog.
February 20th, 2009 at 10:14 am
If I can weigh in: we don’t owe these millionaires ANYTHING. The city owes it to US, the people of Ottawa, to consider our needs and those of future generations, our land and environment, and our local businesses. The answer is clearly a development in the city centre. According to the report, other progressive cities chose downtown sites for their newest stadiums / facilities based on a clear mandate — with no pretenses about neutrality or objectivity — that revitalizing the downtown core is INTEGRAL to healthy cities. Please don’t let this turn into a Soccer vs. Football fight (especially given the fact that the report identifies little need for a new sports facility and an extreme need for a new exhibition space), or a Melnyk vs. Hunt decision. This is about Ottawa residents first and foremost.
February 20th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Karen
No ireally don;t agree.The sneators alone have created jobs and borught in millions of dollars per year.Take the bell cup and the world junior they borught in about $60 million dollaersover a the 2 week period.As with the 67s they have aslo brought in a large amount of money as well as jobs.So yes in way the city does owe a bit to these two groups.
February 20th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
For staff to rank multi- purpose sports facilities of such grander, on a scale rating the possible city sites, for big business that are investing millions of dollars, well beyond city coffers financial means, could be perceived as ill conceive report. Big business never has allowed third party representatives especially municipalities dictate where they will build, just from the fact: who is footing the bill.
The logic should be applied here for city council, choose Lansdowne Park or Scotiabank Place?
Then have city staff proceed to do an analysis of which part of the city has the greatest need for a multipurpose athletic facility, with room for expansion.
The ideal areas seem to be Barrhaven or Downtown since they have small athletic facilities but have had a large influx of new housing in these two areas of the city. Ideally this would be accomplished without the city acquiring more debt.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
I’m just wondering why Hurdman wasn’t considered as a potential stadium site. It’s a good, central location with great access to public transit and lots of available space. I believe it is also city-owned.
One thing I’m certain about it is that if the stadium was to be placed in a suburb, it should be next to Scotiabank place, because this way at least pre-existing infrastructure can be leveraged. Otherwise, it should stay within the greenbelt.
February 24th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
An open competition and 25 site reviews does not address one glaring issue - who will actually get something done with Lansdowne. Politicians are famous for endlessly debating issues with little or no action.
Lansdowne Live revitalizes a crown jewel for Ottawa for all residents of Ottawa to enjoy. This is an actual proposal with actual capital behind it by actual residents of Ottawa with a longstanding history of supporting worthy and rewarding endeavors for citizens of Ottawa. Mr. Melnyk wants to support his own interests in a location not in Ottawa with his proposal. Lansdowne Live addresses a need of the city in returning Lansdowne Park to it’s former glory.
Pie in the sky ideas and locations and proposals do not bring $$ and developers to the table - they just waste time with no tangible interest to get actual results.
Lansdowne Live is something for this city to be proud of - mix the deep private wealth with a public asset and all of Ottawa benefits. Mayor O’Brien I truly believe you see this as an opportunity for actual progress and I hope those in council can see that as well.
Approve Lansdowne Live!
February 25th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Phill
Kanata is ottawa i know some don’t think it is but it is.With the landsdwon live they want the city to pay for the stadium which is $80 million while melnyk wants around $30 million from the city.As for saying melnyk saying its only to support his own inteerest is not true.Most want landsdown live but aslo most want soccer.Yes the hunt group has there own capital behind there bid but so does the melynk bid.
February 27th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
I agree with Phil. Lansdowne provides an unparalleled location, really needs to be developed, upgraded and improved, and definitely should remain a public place for the citizens of Ottawa. The mix proposed by Lansdowne Live seems to provide a judicious mixture which would enhance the space and make it viable for future generations. Apparently this group has already consulted with other levels of government while formulating their proposal, and it is now Council’s job to do due diligence to find out what funding can be accessed. This proposal has the added advantage of being flexible - both football and future soccer can be accommodated. Local ownership who live in the community is another advantage. It just has so much going for it. I really hope Council doesn’t analyze this thing to death and end up blowing the opportunity.
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:12 pm
I too do not believe that we owe anything to the two sports entrepreneurs who have come forward to promote their plans and their sports. Neither do we necessarily even need another sports facility, since the Ottawa public has already demonstrated a keen disinterest in professional football in the capital. What I am concerned about is Landsdowne Park. We need an international competition for a concept plan for the Park. If the concept plans of one of the two local business groups wins the competition only then should we be negotiating with them. We have the opportunity to make it an inner city attraction for many more people than would attend a few football or soccer games and for many generations.
March 4th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
I share Rob’s question. I could not, for the life of me, think of 23 possible places for a stadium, but I was certain Hurdman would be one of them. It has better (bus) transit than Bayview, is near a shopping mall and a university. What disqualified it from consideration?
March 5th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
We can talk about proposed locations until the end of time. In fact I fear that is what will happen with this whole stadium issue.
The fact is Lansdowne Live has money on the table and a plan to actually get something done. To actually have a stadium built and stop Lansdowne from being a terrible eyesore.
Respectfully JF what disqualifies all of these ‘Pie in the Sky’ discussions for locations is who has money and a plan to actually get a shovel into the ground. In my opinion Lansdowne Live meets that need!
March 8th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Phil, FYI, I very much support Lansdowne Live. I was stating curiosity about the exclusion of Hurdman, but not from a desire to try to force anything to be done there. As far as I’m concerned, it’s LL all the way.
March 13th, 2009 at 6:35 am
I am a capitalist and right leaning politically. That is why I am against both of these proposals for sports venues. They both rely far too much on public money and the process has not been sufficiently open to competing bids.
In particular, the Lansdowne proposal is a joke. The CFL has failed twice at that site and not because the seats weren’t comfy enough. How foolish do we have to be to try a third time with more public money?
Lansdowne could be a major tax contributor with a mix of commercial and residential development as well as green space. Why buy a money pit when it could be a cash cow?
March 20th, 2009 at 7:04 am
Melnyk’s Kanata proposal makes much nore sense than Lansdowne Live.
First, it makes use of available federal and provincial funding, rather than putting the city on the hook for the whole (unknown) cost of the stadium repair.
Second, it brings the world’s most popular sport to the nations capital.
Third, it generates more money and international recognition for the city than the CFL would.
Fouth, it leaves the Landsowne site availble to be devoloped into something more impressive than an outdoor stadium and an aquarium.
Vote for MLS in Kanata!
March 25th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Dave - I have not heard anything about the Fed or Prov paying for Kanata and not Lansdowne. I fully understand that the city would be involved with approx the same amount of $$ in either proposition. The only difference being city money spent in Kanata means money not spent on fixing up the jewel that is Lansdowne.
Lansdowne is a meeting place for the people of Ottawa and always has been. A rebuilt central stadium creates a buzz of activity for businesses, restaurants and people all along the canal on game day. I much prefer this to a parking lot out in Kanata.
AS far as sports for my vote i’ll take CFL over MLS anyday!
March 26th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Karen hit the nail on the head with her comment that “progressive cities chose downtown sites for their newest stadiums / facilities”. Building Ottawa’s NHL arena out in the burbs was a dumb decision that, as I understand it, was driven by a developer’s interests and not those of Ottawa’s citizens. Put ANY sport stadium or major spectator facility in a central location that can be accessed by the maximum number of public transit routes. This would also keep car commuters working in the city going to an event off the roadways. If you live in the west end and have driven home on the same night as a Senators game or other big event at Scotiabank Place, you know exactly what I’m talking about. Lansdowne is central and obviously better than Kanata but transit access is limited to a few bus routes. Lebreton Flats, the snow dump near the O Train transitway stop and even Hurdman make much more sense. It’s ridiculous to plan a big spectator facility without making a priority of how people living in ALL areas of the city will travel to get there.