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.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
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)