Today I had the pleasure of appearing on CFRA as one of the candidates running in the upcoming municipal election and I was asked about the Lansdowne Partnership plan. When I said that I considered Council's decision to proceed was unwise, I was asked to elaborate.
I commented that there are two essential steps in considering a public/private partnership.
The first is to calculate what the project would cost if done as a purely public undertaking. The second step is to solicit bids for alternative approaches from private sector partners. I said that neither of these steps had been accomplished in Ottawa's involvement in Lansdowne.
I was challenged with an assertion that a costing for a public undertaking had been prepared. My retort was that I did not consider that anything approaching a satisfactory examination of the cost of a public project had been done. I continue to believe that is the case and would invite anyone out in the blogosphere who believes this basic first step was done to correct me.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Sunday, June 20, 2010
A very proper Auditor General
Much of the press coverage about the Auditor General's report on the Lansdowne redevelopment scheme has been highly misleading.
In his report delivered June 17, the City Auditor General was very clear that he had a tightly defined mandate. Put simply, he took the figures provided by the proponents of the project, he accepted their hypotheses about flows of funds, and verified that the numbers could produce the results the proponents claimed. Stated more bluntly, he checked the arithmetic and but was not allowed to question whether the calculations made any sense.
Quoting directly from the AG's report -- "The audit scope was limited to an assessment of the financial information contained in the LPP proposal. The audit did not include generating independent figures, nor was it intended to provide an opinion on the development itself. As such, it does not represent an evaluation of the merits of the underlying concepts for re-development of the Lansdowne Park site as presented in the LPP proposal (e.g., a private-sector partnership, revenue neutrality, the use of property taxes, the optimal site for a stadium, etc.)."
By contrast, we have seen all sorts of press statements such as 24hours which ran the headline "makes sense" with the sub-head "City's AG gives thumbs up to Lansdowne partnership".
The reality of what our cautious City Auditor General said is quite different from the unrestrained boosterism of the local media.
In his report delivered June 17, the City Auditor General was very clear that he had a tightly defined mandate. Put simply, he took the figures provided by the proponents of the project, he accepted their hypotheses about flows of funds, and verified that the numbers could produce the results the proponents claimed. Stated more bluntly, he checked the arithmetic and but was not allowed to question whether the calculations made any sense.
Quoting directly from the AG's report -- "The audit scope was limited to an assessment of the financial information contained in the LPP proposal. The audit did not include generating independent figures, nor was it intended to provide an opinion on the development itself. As such, it does not represent an evaluation of the merits of the underlying concepts for re-development of the Lansdowne Park site as presented in the LPP proposal (e.g., a private-sector partnership, revenue neutrality, the use of property taxes, the optimal site for a stadium, etc.)."
By contrast, we have seen all sorts of press statements such as 24hours which ran the headline "makes sense" with the sub-head "City's AG gives thumbs up to Lansdowne partnership".
The reality of what our cautious City Auditor General said is quite different from the unrestrained boosterism of the local media.
Defiance of Council by City Manager
Who is running things at City Hall?
I have just begun to read the report of the Auditor General which was delivered at a Council meeting on June 17. Right at the front of the report the AG notes that Council had approved a motion (77/11) on November 9, 2009 in which the City Manager was instructed to "commission an independent study to evaluate the various consequences of dedicating property taxes to a single expenditure in the City's budget and the Auditor General verify the methodology".
The Auditor General notes that "Management did not complete the independent study referred to in Motion 77/11. As such, the Auditor General could not verify the methodology."
So Council directs the City Manager to deliver a study, but nothing is done. In spite of the fact that this is one of the studies that Council directed to be delivered in conjunction with its consideration of the so-called Lansdowne Partnership plan, it seems that Council is about to proceed to consider the plan regardless.
This is the same City Manager that cancelled a design competition for Lansdowne Park even though it had been approved by Council. The City Manager failed to come back to Council to seek its approval for the cancellation -- apparently he just went ahead and did it on his own. Later he did indicate, without remorse, that this may have been an error. Such reversal of a Council decision is something that Council itself cannot do easily, but it appears that the City Manager can do as he wishes.
Now we have the second time the City Manager has defied Council and refused to carry out its instructions.
It is time for a motion of censure to be brought before Council. In addition, any further discussion of the infamous Lansdowne Partnership plan should be deferred until the report called for in motion 77/11 is delivered and considered by Council.
I have just begun to read the report of the Auditor General which was delivered at a Council meeting on June 17. Right at the front of the report the AG notes that Council had approved a motion (77/11) on November 9, 2009 in which the City Manager was instructed to "commission an independent study to evaluate the various consequences of dedicating property taxes to a single expenditure in the City's budget and the Auditor General verify the methodology".
The Auditor General notes that "Management did not complete the independent study referred to in Motion 77/11. As such, the Auditor General could not verify the methodology."
So Council directs the City Manager to deliver a study, but nothing is done. In spite of the fact that this is one of the studies that Council directed to be delivered in conjunction with its consideration of the so-called Lansdowne Partnership plan, it seems that Council is about to proceed to consider the plan regardless.
This is the same City Manager that cancelled a design competition for Lansdowne Park even though it had been approved by Council. The City Manager failed to come back to Council to seek its approval for the cancellation -- apparently he just went ahead and did it on his own. Later he did indicate, without remorse, that this may have been an error. Such reversal of a Council decision is something that Council itself cannot do easily, but it appears that the City Manager can do as he wishes.
Now we have the second time the City Manager has defied Council and refused to carry out its instructions.
It is time for a motion of censure to be brought before Council. In addition, any further discussion of the infamous Lansdowne Partnership plan should be deferred until the report called for in motion 77/11 is delivered and considered by Council.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Puzzled by Roger and friends
It is becoming complex maintaining two blogs simultaneously. The other blog is for the election (I am a candidate for Councillor for Ward 17) while this blog is all-Lansdowne all the time. At any rate, the Lansdowne issue is the big issue in Capital Ward at least until June 28, so much of my work on the election side overlaps with my Lansdowne interest.
With that explanation, here is a message I posted on my election blog (http://brocklebank.blogspot.com/)---
I would recommend reading the article in the Ottawa Citizen of today (Sunday May 30) entitled "The Lansdowne Four".
The prime spokesman for the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group, Roger Greenberg, is quoted as saying "What I'm not used to is people taking facts and deliberately changing them to suit their purposes. I've never seen that before. But I guess that's part of the game. I'm just not used to playing that game." I think Mr. Greenberg would do everyone a big favour by going further and listing the specific facts and how he considers that those facts have been distorted.
Another point that Mr. Greenberg could usefully elaborate is the fine distinction he is making in his statement "This is clearly not a sole-source contract. This was an unsolicited proposal."
First, I'm not sure that I understand the difference. Maybe Mr. Greenberg has a valid point; I just don't understand what that point is.
Second, I find the idea that it is an unsolicited proposal is hard to square with a passage earlier in the same article, a passage worth quoting:
The way Greenberg tells it, OSEG learned that its modest plan to lease Frank Clair Stadium from the city was a non-starter after meeting with Mayor Larry O'Brien and city manager Kent Kirkpatrick in the fall of 2007.
"Their comeback to us was, 'Guys, listen. We're not going to spend upwards of $100 million in taxpayers' money to fix up the stadium so you can play 10 games of football a year'" Greenberg recounts.
If the businessmen wanted to propose something more comprehensive, O'Brien and Kirkpatrick told them, the city would listen.
This raises two questions --
(a) Does the discussion with the Mayor and the City Manager constitute solicitation of an offer? If it does, I guess the "unsolicited proposal" description does not apply.
(b) Is the timing (autumn of 2007) correct? It is worth remembering that Council's approval of a design-to-build competition for Lansdowne was in late November of 2007. The announcement of the CFL conditional franchise was in March 2008. The suspension of the design-to-build competition was May/June 2008. The Lansdowne Live proposal indicating OSEG was moving beyond a simple stadium rental was revealed on October 17. 2008. If the timing in the Citizen article is correct, the most senior elected official of the city plus the most senior member of city staff had been in discussions with OSEG for a year prior to the public statement of the intention by OSEG to submit an "unsolicited proposal".
I share with Mr. Greenberg the desire to have the facts stated clearly. Those facts can be interpreted differently, but we continue to need facts.
With that explanation, here is a message I posted on my election blog (http://brocklebank.blogspot.com/)---
I would recommend reading the article in the Ottawa Citizen of today (Sunday May 30) entitled "The Lansdowne Four".
The prime spokesman for the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group, Roger Greenberg, is quoted as saying "What I'm not used to is people taking facts and deliberately changing them to suit their purposes. I've never seen that before. But I guess that's part of the game. I'm just not used to playing that game." I think Mr. Greenberg would do everyone a big favour by going further and listing the specific facts and how he considers that those facts have been distorted.
Another point that Mr. Greenberg could usefully elaborate is the fine distinction he is making in his statement "This is clearly not a sole-source contract. This was an unsolicited proposal."
First, I'm not sure that I understand the difference. Maybe Mr. Greenberg has a valid point; I just don't understand what that point is.
Second, I find the idea that it is an unsolicited proposal is hard to square with a passage earlier in the same article, a passage worth quoting:
The way Greenberg tells it, OSEG learned that its modest plan to lease Frank Clair Stadium from the city was a non-starter after meeting with Mayor Larry O'Brien and city manager Kent Kirkpatrick in the fall of 2007.
"Their comeback to us was, 'Guys, listen. We're not going to spend upwards of $100 million in taxpayers' money to fix up the stadium so you can play 10 games of football a year'" Greenberg recounts.
If the businessmen wanted to propose something more comprehensive, O'Brien and Kirkpatrick told them, the city would listen.
This raises two questions --
(a) Does the discussion with the Mayor and the City Manager constitute solicitation of an offer? If it does, I guess the "unsolicited proposal" description does not apply.
(b) Is the timing (autumn of 2007) correct? It is worth remembering that Council's approval of a design-to-build competition for Lansdowne was in late November of 2007. The announcement of the CFL conditional franchise was in March 2008. The suspension of the design-to-build competition was May/June 2008. The Lansdowne Live proposal indicating OSEG was moving beyond a simple stadium rental was revealed on October 17. 2008. If the timing in the Citizen article is correct, the most senior elected official of the city plus the most senior member of city staff had been in discussions with OSEG for a year prior to the public statement of the intention by OSEG to submit an "unsolicited proposal".
I share with Mr. Greenberg the desire to have the facts stated clearly. Those facts can be interpreted differently, but we continue to need facts.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Descent into cynicism
I have always been a conspiracy denier. I've never thought there were spooks or reds under every bed.
But as a regular reader of the Ottawa Citizen, I am wondering about journalistic integrity at our leading, maybe-again-solvent, newspaper. I wonder if the news and editorial comment would be a bit different if I took out full-page ads every weekend to sell real estate.
I note that the blog by Maria Cook, the one and only Citizen blog that ever gives any credence to critics of the Lansdowne Live boondoggle, seems frozen in time. Strangely enough, when you take a peek, there is nothing more recent than May 4. Some say there was other material which has mysteriously disappeared.
This is not the first time that the Citizen has engaged in self-censorship. I seem to recall that there was a critical comment by the distinguished architect who designed the UofO SITE building. I'm told that his comments were not glowing praise for the Lansdowne Live proposal. It strangely disappeared, never to be seen again.
Not only is dissent being suppressed, the propaganda machine at the Citizen is in full flow, churning out praise for the latest revelations about the Lansdowne operation. As prime example, I would cite the column in today's Citizen by Ken Gray. He trots out the tired canard that the only alternative to the Lansdowne Live scheme is to do nothing and allow mould to cover the park. He claims that the tide is turning and that those who have dared to question the scheme are now coming around to buy in to the Lansdowne Live proposal.
Well, I guess I missed my chance. The Citizen and other Canwest papers were up for sale. It seems they were well and truly purchased.
But as a regular reader of the Ottawa Citizen, I am wondering about journalistic integrity at our leading, maybe-again-solvent, newspaper. I wonder if the news and editorial comment would be a bit different if I took out full-page ads every weekend to sell real estate.
I note that the blog by Maria Cook, the one and only Citizen blog that ever gives any credence to critics of the Lansdowne Live boondoggle, seems frozen in time. Strangely enough, when you take a peek, there is nothing more recent than May 4. Some say there was other material which has mysteriously disappeared.
This is not the first time that the Citizen has engaged in self-censorship. I seem to recall that there was a critical comment by the distinguished architect who designed the UofO SITE building. I'm told that his comments were not glowing praise for the Lansdowne Live proposal. It strangely disappeared, never to be seen again.
Not only is dissent being suppressed, the propaganda machine at the Citizen is in full flow, churning out praise for the latest revelations about the Lansdowne operation. As prime example, I would cite the column in today's Citizen by Ken Gray. He trots out the tired canard that the only alternative to the Lansdowne Live scheme is to do nothing and allow mould to cover the park. He claims that the tide is turning and that those who have dared to question the scheme are now coming around to buy in to the Lansdowne Live proposal.
Well, I guess I missed my chance. The Citizen and other Canwest papers were up for sale. It seems they were well and truly purchased.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Read your own paper!
Life is complex and it is difficult to keep up. However this is no excuse for the apparent muddled thinking of the Ottawa Citizen editorial board. Apparently the people who write the editorials do not read the news stories carried in their own paper.
On Wednesday April 21, the newspaper carried an editorial with the title "Rush to judgement". The position taken in the editorial was that the Glebe Business Improvement Area was too hasty in criticizing plans for the commercial development at Lansdowne Park which had come to their attention.
But the editorial contained two "howlers" that call into question the capability of the authors to make any statement about the Lansdowne project.
First the editorial said "Planner George Dark and his colleagues’ proposal for Lansdowne Park isn’t expected to be unveiled until May 10". In fact it is not George Dark and his team, but rather the five design teams working on the Lansdowne Park "front lawn" -- really the backyard -- whose designs are to be received and released to the public.
It is not clear that the "master plan" which is to bring together the various separate designs, and which is Dark’s mandate, will ever be made public. As far as anyone knows, Dark’s comments on the "unique" retail experience proposed for Lansdowne are not for public consumption. Maybe George Dark and his two colleagues will whisper a few remarks in the ear of the Mayor, or may slip some information to Roger Greenberg, but there is no stated intention of telling the public what those three highly-qualified team members think.
Later in the editorial appears the comment that "It’s too bad the city didn’t conduct a study of the business effects of the new Lansdowne on Bank Street...". My understanding is that, as a participant in the Lansdowne "partnership", the city funded a study that conveniently concluded that plunking a major shopping centre in Lansdowne was just fine and would have no negative consequences for existing businesses. In addition, the city provided support for the study undertaken for the Glebe BIA which concluded that the capacity of the Glebe and Ottawa South to absorb new retailing was much more modest than that proposed by the promoters of Lansdowne Live. So to try to reconcile the irreconcilable, the city is now paying for a report which would try to bring these two studies to a common conclusion. In addition, your taxes are also supporting a further study to attempt to specify the unique nature of the shopping proposed at Lansdowne.
All these studies have been reported in the pages of the Ottawa Citizen. What is really too bad is that the Citizen editorial board has not learned of their existence.
Readers might wonder why it is necessary to define the unique nature of shopping at Lansdowne. After all, many of the shops at St. Laurent are the same as those at Bayshore and this does not seem to bother anyone. This drive to make Lansdowne unique is to justify the extraordinary financial arrangements proposed in an attempt to justify the Lansdowne Live boondoggle.
It has been suggested (sometimes with a straight face) that the property taxes on the retail component at Lansdowne will pay for the debt incurred for the stadium/arena renovation and for other city costs associated with the proposed project. This dubious idea is founded on the assumption that the retail operation at Lansdowne, built on city land offered rent-free, would never have been contemplated elsewhere in Ottawa. Moreover the retail at Lansdowne is assumed to make so few demands on city services that 75% of the taxes paid is not needed to fund services and can be diverted to the stadium/arena redevelopment.
This idea that the retail at Lansdowne is special is one of the most curious parts of the whole confidence game now underway. It is exactly the suspicion that Lansdowne will be just another mall or "power-centre" that has likely stimulated the Glebe BIA to make its concerns known. Apparently the plans indicate that the promoters of Lansdowne Live believe that a grocery store facing on Bank Street would be something new and exciting for Ottawa. Please excuse my yawn.
While I nap, perhaps the members of the Citizen editorial board would like to read some back issues of their own paper.
On Wednesday April 21, the newspaper carried an editorial with the title "Rush to judgement". The position taken in the editorial was that the Glebe Business Improvement Area was too hasty in criticizing plans for the commercial development at Lansdowne Park which had come to their attention.
But the editorial contained two "howlers" that call into question the capability of the authors to make any statement about the Lansdowne project.
First the editorial said "Planner George Dark and his colleagues’ proposal for Lansdowne Park isn’t expected to be unveiled until May 10". In fact it is not George Dark and his team, but rather the five design teams working on the Lansdowne Park "front lawn" -- really the backyard -- whose designs are to be received and released to the public.
It is not clear that the "master plan" which is to bring together the various separate designs, and which is Dark’s mandate, will ever be made public. As far as anyone knows, Dark’s comments on the "unique" retail experience proposed for Lansdowne are not for public consumption. Maybe George Dark and his two colleagues will whisper a few remarks in the ear of the Mayor, or may slip some information to Roger Greenberg, but there is no stated intention of telling the public what those three highly-qualified team members think.
Later in the editorial appears the comment that "It’s too bad the city didn’t conduct a study of the business effects of the new Lansdowne on Bank Street...". My understanding is that, as a participant in the Lansdowne "partnership", the city funded a study that conveniently concluded that plunking a major shopping centre in Lansdowne was just fine and would have no negative consequences for existing businesses. In addition, the city provided support for the study undertaken for the Glebe BIA which concluded that the capacity of the Glebe and Ottawa South to absorb new retailing was much more modest than that proposed by the promoters of Lansdowne Live. So to try to reconcile the irreconcilable, the city is now paying for a report which would try to bring these two studies to a common conclusion. In addition, your taxes are also supporting a further study to attempt to specify the unique nature of the shopping proposed at Lansdowne.
All these studies have been reported in the pages of the Ottawa Citizen. What is really too bad is that the Citizen editorial board has not learned of their existence.
Readers might wonder why it is necessary to define the unique nature of shopping at Lansdowne. After all, many of the shops at St. Laurent are the same as those at Bayshore and this does not seem to bother anyone. This drive to make Lansdowne unique is to justify the extraordinary financial arrangements proposed in an attempt to justify the Lansdowne Live boondoggle.
It has been suggested (sometimes with a straight face) that the property taxes on the retail component at Lansdowne will pay for the debt incurred for the stadium/arena renovation and for other city costs associated with the proposed project. This dubious idea is founded on the assumption that the retail operation at Lansdowne, built on city land offered rent-free, would never have been contemplated elsewhere in Ottawa. Moreover the retail at Lansdowne is assumed to make so few demands on city services that 75% of the taxes paid is not needed to fund services and can be diverted to the stadium/arena redevelopment.
This idea that the retail at Lansdowne is special is one of the most curious parts of the whole confidence game now underway. It is exactly the suspicion that Lansdowne will be just another mall or "power-centre" that has likely stimulated the Glebe BIA to make its concerns known. Apparently the plans indicate that the promoters of Lansdowne Live believe that a grocery store facing on Bank Street would be something new and exciting for Ottawa. Please excuse my yawn.
While I nap, perhaps the members of the Citizen editorial board would like to read some back issues of their own paper.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Transportation study - haste makes waste
To the astonishment of folk close to the Lansdowne project, the terms of reference for the transportation study are to come before the joint Transportation and Transit Committee on Monday Feb. 8. Until a couple of days ago, the plan had been to have the standing committee look at the terms of reference on Feb. 17.
Obviously someone is in a big hurry.
Another indication of the perceived need for speed is the proposal that the contract for the study be let without competition. Who cares about value for money when you're in a rush?
It is said that the company that did the initial transportation study for OSEG has been preparing the terms of reference for the next study and it is the firm who will (without competition) be awarded the next study. We should learn if this is the new modus operandi around City Hall.
And without getting into a lot of the detail about the next study, I think it is being misconstrued in the media. In today's (Feb. 4) Citizen the study is described as determining "how the Lansdowne Live project will affect traffic". That is not what the Council resolution back in November demanded. The motion asked the study to ascertain "...whether or not impacts on traffic circulation and on-street parking resulting from the implementation of the LPP can be reasonably accommodated...".
The clear implication is that if the transportation issues cannot "be reasonably accommodated", the plan cannot proceed.
I believe it is important that the transportation study be required to explicitly demonstrate that the transportation issues can be addressed. Failing such a demonstration, the project should be halted.
Obviously someone is in a big hurry.
Another indication of the perceived need for speed is the proposal that the contract for the study be let without competition. Who cares about value for money when you're in a rush?
It is said that the company that did the initial transportation study for OSEG has been preparing the terms of reference for the next study and it is the firm who will (without competition) be awarded the next study. We should learn if this is the new modus operandi around City Hall.
And without getting into a lot of the detail about the next study, I think it is being misconstrued in the media. In today's (Feb. 4) Citizen the study is described as determining "how the Lansdowne Live project will affect traffic". That is not what the Council resolution back in November demanded. The motion asked the study to ascertain "...whether or not impacts on traffic circulation and on-street parking resulting from the implementation of the LPP can be reasonably accommodated...".
The clear implication is that if the transportation issues cannot "be reasonably accommodated", the plan cannot proceed.
I believe it is important that the transportation study be required to explicitly demonstrate that the transportation issues can be addressed. Failing such a demonstration, the project should be halted.
Why now?
Councillor Clive Doucet has been outspoken in his criticism of the Lansdowne Live proposal for redevelopment of Lansdowne Park. His concerns about process have seemed reasonable enough. He has shown less interest in the financial side of this give-away proposal than I would have expected, but he has been consistent in questioning the wisdom of the so-called partnership arrangement.
Now suddenly he has written to the National Capital Commission asking that the NCC buy Lansdowne Park from the City. It is not clear to me why Mr. Doucet thinks selling the park to the NCC is a good idea nor is it obvious why this idea has been sprung on the NCC at this moment.
Whether we like it or not, the City has managed to get the NCC to become a partner (maybe a reluctant partner, but a partner all the same) in the Lansdowne Live implementation exercise. The NCC was represented on the stage when the design panel led by George Dark was introduced in mid-January. The NCC is to be involved in the design competition for the "front lawn".
I consider the Lansdowne Live approach to be wrong-headed. I hope that the NCC will come to the same conclusion as it is more deeply exposed to the arrangement.
But I do not think that the NCC is going to change course instantly. A large organization does not turn on a dime.
Rather than coming out now with the idea of the NCC taking over the Park (an idea I don't particularly support), it would be much better to give the NCC ample time to become disillusioned with the process.
Possibly Councillor Doucet does not really want to have the NCC take over Lansdowne; maybe his letter is just an expression of his frustration with the process up to now. But I think it would have been better to allow public opinion to drive a wedge between the NCC and the promoters of Lansdowne Live at City Hall, and then suggest an NCC takeover.
Now suddenly he has written to the National Capital Commission asking that the NCC buy Lansdowne Park from the City. It is not clear to me why Mr. Doucet thinks selling the park to the NCC is a good idea nor is it obvious why this idea has been sprung on the NCC at this moment.
Whether we like it or not, the City has managed to get the NCC to become a partner (maybe a reluctant partner, but a partner all the same) in the Lansdowne Live implementation exercise. The NCC was represented on the stage when the design panel led by George Dark was introduced in mid-January. The NCC is to be involved in the design competition for the "front lawn".
I consider the Lansdowne Live approach to be wrong-headed. I hope that the NCC will come to the same conclusion as it is more deeply exposed to the arrangement.
But I do not think that the NCC is going to change course instantly. A large organization does not turn on a dime.
Rather than coming out now with the idea of the NCC taking over the Park (an idea I don't particularly support), it would be much better to give the NCC ample time to become disillusioned with the process.
Possibly Councillor Doucet does not really want to have the NCC take over Lansdowne; maybe his letter is just an expression of his frustration with the process up to now. But I think it would have been better to allow public opinion to drive a wedge between the NCC and the promoters of Lansdowne Live at City Hall, and then suggest an NCC takeover.
Role of the design panel
The appointment of the design panel (George Dark, Rick Haldenby and Marianne McKenna) is a positive step.
At the press briefing, the point was made that the panel would provide guidance for the design of the entire Lansdowne site. This was described as encompassing three parcels of land -- the stadium/arena, the commercial development, and the "front lawn". The "front lawn" seems to include the Aberdeen Pavilion, the Horticulture Building and all the empty land (now acres of asphalt) stretching eastward to the canal.
But we do not seem to know all the details. It would be interesting to know if there were terms of reference established for the design panel. If so, is there any reason that document has not been made public?
I would be particularly interested in knowing how the panel is to provide guidance for the stadium/arena and commercial elements. In an interview with Ken Gray of the Ottawa Citizen, Councillor Chiarelli describes the panel as "adjudicating" the design of the stadium and shopping complex. It would be interesting to learn if the panel's views are to be issued in public or if they are simply to be whispered in Roger Greenberg's ear. I hope the former.
There is also a bit of confusion about the design panel on the one hand and the competition for design of the "front lawn" on the other. I would imagine that the design panel would provide advice in writing the documentation for the competition. Perhaps they would enunciate how the "front lawn" is to relate to the canal or how the heritage of the site is to be respected.
But the design panel is not the jury for the selection of the chosen design for the "front lawn". Indeed the press release is confusing on this point. According to the press release, the City plus the NCC and Parks Canada will chose three to five design teams which will be funded to come up with their ideas. There is no indication that the design panel will be involved in that selection.
Then there will be a design workshop in March at which the three to five teams will present their ideas to a select audience. The City, with NCC and Parks Canada, will select people to be invited to the workshop. If any of the design teams wishes to have any other consultation with members of the public, that is up to them.
In May the three to five design proposals will be released to the public. The press release says this is to "foster further public comment". I find that statement peculiar because the only public comment sought to that date is the result of the public consultations held in January and February of 2008 (to which the the three to five design teams will be granted access). It is worth noting that the two public consultations held in 2008 did not result in any formal report being issued because the design consultation was shut down. In the absence of such a report, we can only speculate about what material will be provided to the design teams.
After the designs are revealed in May public reaction is to be "collected and reviewed" by the Dark design panel, by City Council, the NCC and Parks Canada. What happens to that analysis of public comment is unclear because it may have nothing to do with the outcome of the competition.
A jury is established by the City, Parks Canada and the NCC to select a winning proposal from among the three to five submitted. Having chosen one submission (with or without regard for the analysis of public comment), the recommended design is then considered by the Rideau Canal Superintendent, by a design advisory committee of the NCC, the board of NCC and Ottawa City Council. Presumably each of these four bodies of deliberation is to approve or disapprove the selected design. Whether each has an equal voice is not clear. Nor is it evident how a decision will be reached if the Canal Superintendent and the NCC Board like it, while the NCC advisory committee and City Council dislike it.
And to add to the complexity, the design panel of Dark, Haldenby and McKenna have apparently no say whatever in the selection of the winning design. Their role seems to be limited to the collection and review of comment centred on the May public disclosure of the three to five designs.
At the press briefing, the point was made that the panel would provide guidance for the design of the entire Lansdowne site. This was described as encompassing three parcels of land -- the stadium/arena, the commercial development, and the "front lawn". The "front lawn" seems to include the Aberdeen Pavilion, the Horticulture Building and all the empty land (now acres of asphalt) stretching eastward to the canal.
But we do not seem to know all the details. It would be interesting to know if there were terms of reference established for the design panel. If so, is there any reason that document has not been made public?
I would be particularly interested in knowing how the panel is to provide guidance for the stadium/arena and commercial elements. In an interview with Ken Gray of the Ottawa Citizen, Councillor Chiarelli describes the panel as "adjudicating" the design of the stadium and shopping complex. It would be interesting to learn if the panel's views are to be issued in public or if they are simply to be whispered in Roger Greenberg's ear. I hope the former.
There is also a bit of confusion about the design panel on the one hand and the competition for design of the "front lawn" on the other. I would imagine that the design panel would provide advice in writing the documentation for the competition. Perhaps they would enunciate how the "front lawn" is to relate to the canal or how the heritage of the site is to be respected.
But the design panel is not the jury for the selection of the chosen design for the "front lawn". Indeed the press release is confusing on this point. According to the press release, the City plus the NCC and Parks Canada will chose three to five design teams which will be funded to come up with their ideas. There is no indication that the design panel will be involved in that selection.
Then there will be a design workshop in March at which the three to five teams will present their ideas to a select audience. The City, with NCC and Parks Canada, will select people to be invited to the workshop. If any of the design teams wishes to have any other consultation with members of the public, that is up to them.
In May the three to five design proposals will be released to the public. The press release says this is to "foster further public comment". I find that statement peculiar because the only public comment sought to that date is the result of the public consultations held in January and February of 2008 (to which the the three to five design teams will be granted access). It is worth noting that the two public consultations held in 2008 did not result in any formal report being issued because the design consultation was shut down. In the absence of such a report, we can only speculate about what material will be provided to the design teams.
After the designs are revealed in May public reaction is to be "collected and reviewed" by the Dark design panel, by City Council, the NCC and Parks Canada. What happens to that analysis of public comment is unclear because it may have nothing to do with the outcome of the competition.
A jury is established by the City, Parks Canada and the NCC to select a winning proposal from among the three to five submitted. Having chosen one submission (with or without regard for the analysis of public comment), the recommended design is then considered by the Rideau Canal Superintendent, by a design advisory committee of the NCC, the board of NCC and Ottawa City Council. Presumably each of these four bodies of deliberation is to approve or disapprove the selected design. Whether each has an equal voice is not clear. Nor is it evident how a decision will be reached if the Canal Superintendent and the NCC Board like it, while the NCC advisory committee and City Council dislike it.
And to add to the complexity, the design panel of Dark, Haldenby and McKenna have apparently no say whatever in the selection of the winning design. Their role seems to be limited to the collection and review of comment centred on the May public disclosure of the three to five designs.
End of quiescence
The period of dormancy surrounding Lansdowne Park seems to be over. Not much has happened since City Council held its nose and decided to press ahead with the grand Lansdowne Partnership Plan back in November.
On Jan. 14 we had the announcement of the design panel headed by George Dark. Both Dark and Rick Haldenby from the University of Waterloo were quoted in the press with less than complimentary comments about the plans for Lansdowne seen so far.
Then in the debate about the City Budget for 2010, the questionable provision for repairs at Lansdowne were trimmed back. This is no big surprise. Not only has Council been consistent for decades in failing to properly maintain Lansdowne, but the proposal for expenditure in 2010 included fixing up the south side stands - the part of the stadium which is slated to be demolished.
The request for proposals on providing alternative trade fair space has been issued. It was strange that staff had proposed back in November to just ask Shenkman to offer up a proposal and then to invite others to try to match or beat Shenkman. I understand that even officials of Shenkman Corp. thought this was a strange approach.
But this week, we have seen additional indication that the pressure is mounting and attempts are again being made to stampede us all to making hasty decisions. Suddenly a proposal for the needed transportation study is to be discussed by joint Transit & Transportation Committee on Monday Feb. 8. It had been thought that this would wait until Feb. 17 but now we seem to be in a big rush.
We also have had the strange letter from Councillor Doucet to the National Capital Commmission asking the NCC to purchase Lansdowne Park. It is difficult to know what prompted that letter at this time.
On Jan. 14 we had the announcement of the design panel headed by George Dark. Both Dark and Rick Haldenby from the University of Waterloo were quoted in the press with less than complimentary comments about the plans for Lansdowne seen so far.
Then in the debate about the City Budget for 2010, the questionable provision for repairs at Lansdowne were trimmed back. This is no big surprise. Not only has Council been consistent for decades in failing to properly maintain Lansdowne, but the proposal for expenditure in 2010 included fixing up the south side stands - the part of the stadium which is slated to be demolished.
The request for proposals on providing alternative trade fair space has been issued. It was strange that staff had proposed back in November to just ask Shenkman to offer up a proposal and then to invite others to try to match or beat Shenkman. I understand that even officials of Shenkman Corp. thought this was a strange approach.
But this week, we have seen additional indication that the pressure is mounting and attempts are again being made to stampede us all to making hasty decisions. Suddenly a proposal for the needed transportation study is to be discussed by joint Transit & Transportation Committee on Monday Feb. 8. It had been thought that this would wait until Feb. 17 but now we seem to be in a big rush.
We also have had the strange letter from Councillor Doucet to the National Capital Commmission asking the NCC to purchase Lansdowne Park. It is difficult to know what prompted that letter at this time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)