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.

Councillor Chiarelli and innovative accounting

In todays "Metro" Councillor Rick Chiarelli is quoted as saying that Ottawa has three possible choices with respect to the redevelopment of Lansdowne Park. He defines the choices as:
1. buy into the Lansdowne Live proposal by OSEG
2. let the stadium rot and spend $4 million per year for the arena and salons
3. tear down the stadium and civic centre and install a lawn for $40 million with the option to build a stadium elsewhere for $200 million.

The Councillor then argues that going with the OSEG proposal will cost nothing because the debt will be paid by a portion of the city's revenue from the commercial development in the proposed partnership.

In fact there are many other possibilities than those suggested by the Councillor. Moreover the way that the financial arrangements have been described is simply incorrect.

First consider other possibilities.

Instead of maximizing the investment in the stadium, exposing the greatest investment to a risky proposition, it would be possible to address the real safety issues of the stadium and civic centre for a smaller amount of money, do appropriate minor renovations and get a team on the field quickly. With less investment at stake, it would be possible to see whether pro football succeeds, and if the transport and other problems associated with the use of the stadium can be resolved. Assuming football is a success and the transportation issues are overcome, we could then go on to undertake a series of upgrades of the stadium (and civic centre).

Another possibility would be that we do the minimal work on the stadium to get a team on the field and we discover that the transportation issues really are serious. Because we have not invested such a great sum in Lansdowne, it would then be possible to consider a stadium at another location.

Obviously there are many other alternative ways of redeveloping Lansdowne Park, including selling part of the property, rather than engaging in the complex lease arrangement for 30-50-70 years.

Turning to the discussion of financing, it is here that we discover that Councillor Chiarelli is totally out of his depth.

Even if you accept the dubious proposition of dedicating property tax revenue from the commercial development to carry the cost of the debt incurred in upgrading the stadium and civic centre, the Councillor still does not have it right.

We are told that the proposal involves the City taking on debt to be retired over a 40 year amortization. The annual cost of that debt is said to be $7.1 million. The principal source of funds for the $7.1 million is not from the shopping centre's property taxes but rather the $3.8 million in maintenance which the City would need to spend to continue the present programme activity at Lansdowne. This is the $4 million to which the Councillor refers in the article. Yes we have never adequately maintained Lansdowne in the past but it is argued that we will in the future and we are so sincere in our dedication that we can count on saving $3.8 million forever.

So the property taxes to be designated to pay down the debt load borne by the City will only cover a minority of the annual debt servicing cost of the proposal. And here we enter into the whole question of designating property tax revenues. If it can be done for the redevelopment of Lansdowne Park, I would suggest it can be done for anything. I might like marble sidewalks in front of my house -- this will cost nothing because my property taxes can be designated to pay for it. And what does everyone else want to do with their property taxes???

The fact is that Mr. Chiarelli, for reasons that escape me, has become prime cheerleader for the Lansdowne Live proposal from OSEG. He doesn't let reason or logic stand in the way of his advocacy. This is a pity; we expected more from him.

Who is pushing this project?

I used to think that Lansdowne Live was a project being promoted by Messrs. Greenberg, Shenkman, Ruddy and Hunt. Now I am beginning to wonder if I have it wrong.

On August 29 the Citizen ran a column by Kenneth Gray under the headline "Councillor touts revamped Lansdowne plan". According to my Oxford Concise "tout" is to "solicit custom persistently". The article quotes Councillor Chiarelli as saying "I feel good about the whole thing".

In the Sun of September 1 an article is headed "Lansdowne plan has mayor in sales mode" and Mr. O'Brien is quoted as saying "I believe the business transaction and site planning is the best possible plan available that is tax neutral for the citizens of Ottawa."

And Le Droit ran an article on September 2 under the headline "O'Brien promet un beau melange" and goes on to quote the mayor saying "c'est un beau melange de prudence sur le plan economique et de design artistique de niveau international".

Wow! It seems that some of our elected members of Council consider that is their job to promote this deal. If OSEG has been considering hiring a PR team, they can save their money -- just rely on our local politicians. After all, they were out selling the proposal before any of the details were released. They would probably sell me a used car even before it comes onto the lot!