On Monday April 6 at 1:30pm, there will be a Joint Meeting of the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee and the Planning and Environment Committee. The following report by city staff will be tabled at the meeting: Assessment of Stadium Proposals: Lansdowne Live and Senators Sports & Entertainment (Kanata). According to Rob Tremblay, the committee coordinator, the report will also be available that day on ottawa.ca. So it begins...
Ottawa Citizen is ramping up it's coverage on the stadium debate: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/fp/stadium+matters/1463102/story.html Stadium coverage in the Ottawa Citizen: Saturday: Planning and design specialist Maria Cook writes on what each of the competing proposals would do for Ottawa's urban fabric. Sunday: The tale of the tape -- a full graphical guide to the projects. Monday: City hall reporter Patrick Dare explains how each project group makes its play for city support and your tax dollars. Tuesday: A full account of the city report on the proposals from city hall.
I have thought all along that this s the argument that SSE has to make. Put the Stadium into Kanata, let us build up housing, offices and business around that and do Lansdowne PROPERLY.
I agree that this is a key argument SSE have to make. Obviously council are very concerned with having to do something with Lansdowne, even if they decide against any stadium, and they need to be shown that there are other options. The other key argument in my mind is the fact that the SSE plan uses funding from multiple levels of government, rather than the city borrowing to fund it themselves. Do you want your kids to still be paying for the stadium in 2039, when it will probably need a major overhaul that will also have to be paid for? Those are the two arguments that are hard to refute in my mind, whether you want soccer or the CFL. Those are the arguments that we will need to get across to councilors like Bob Monette, who had a letter published in the Citizen today. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Business/empty+stadiums/1463157/story.html
Today's piece from the Citizen, comparing the two proposals: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Business/Tale+tape/1465898/story.html
... and more from the very prolific Maria Cook on her blog: http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/designingottawa/default.aspx
I like the approach that Matt Rossetti describes for the Kanata Stadium in this link, although I am skeptical that the end results would be quite as he described. Certainly his early sketches, although very impressive, do not give the impression of "using older materials like brick and stone, looking at being able to grow ivy and winter creepers up the building so it has that feel to it that's it's been there quite a while."
I always though that Erick McEvoy was on the right track for Lansdowne, with his vision of a mini-canal lined with townhouses, shops and cafes. The gems of that site are the canal and the Aberdeen Pavilion, and any design must have those two at the centre. Here are his drawings from Maria Cook's blog:
Yes Maria Cook in the Citizen seems to be very prolific on the stadium subject, but I don't see the relevance of this or some earlier ones to the Ottawa decisions. I wonder if she talks to Richard Starnes......
Patrick Dare in the Citizen today: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Entertainment/What+stake+taxpayers+stadium+debate/1467611/story.html Just a summary of the situation, no new information until later today.
From the sun...hardly the most reliable source. But, if Rick Chiarelli's comments about Lansdowne at the bottom are the case, then Kanata Stadium already seems to have little chance of being approved. http://www.ottawasun.com/News/OttawaAndRegion/2009/04/06/9019046-sun.html
His last comment "We may or may not have a decision to make about a stadium" is clearly wrong. Even if they reject both proposals, or send them both back in the hope of getting a better offer, they still need to decide whether to tear down Frank Clair stadium or rebuild it.
Discussion of city staff’s report on the stadium proposals starts at 1:30pm. You can get a link to an audio feed of that meeting from the city of Ottawa web site: http://www.ottawa.ca/index_en.html
Bullet recommendations: 1. That council accept the staff report 2. That council direct staff to approach the federal/provincial government and determine if there are any sources of funding that would not be available to the light rail plan 3. That in the event that this is a no, that Council decide if they want to take money away from transportation for a stadium. 4. If they are willing to do this, or are willing to put out $100 Million+ on their own, they direct staff to work with the proponents to find out their "best and final offer" 5. If they are not, then they direct staff to inform the proponents that both have been rejected. My money is on 5. basically, if there is no federal/provincial money, neither stadium gets built. That is what staff is recommending.
They talked about the costs of the proposals, but did I miss where they talked about the benefits, the income to the city from each proposal?
I did not hear anything about benefits, beyond stating that both proposals are qualitatively excellent.
But isn't it pointless to say an option would cost $7M a year, if that same option will bring in $9M a year?
I liked this part.... It says that the revenues expected from their plan were too optimistic. "Business plan revenues deemed to weigh in favour of proponent instead of the stadium as per industry norm," says the report. http://www.ottawasun.com/News/OttawaAndRegion/2009/04/06/9026691.html
I don' see how it would bring in $9 Million a year. SSE wants a long term lease at $9 Million total. Plus property taxes? I think they are stating $9 Million once everything is built up. But that is a long time from now, if ever (see: Palladium)
From the City of Ottawa press release http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/bulldog/default.aspx My emphasis there.... My take is that it will be up to Melnyk to come up with a federal or provincial Minister to state that they have money for this stadium that would otherwise be unavailable. If he can do that, then the field tilts significantly in his favour.
Didn't Melnyk take Garber to visit with both federal and provincial people when he came to Ottawa in January? Maybe he has prepared the ground for the next step. I'm going to spend this evening reading the report that council discussed today.
There, I just skim-read it. To me the big things that Council will be looking at are the numbers. Staff has accepted the figures of SSE to build the stadium. They have not for OSEG - they increase that to $125 Million. So, the key scenarios are the base ones, which are slightly weighted in favour of OSEG (30yr cost of $76 Million as opposed to SSE's 30yr cost of $95 million). That assumes the Civic Centre is kept. However, there are two things with this - the first being that the City will have to commercialise 25% of Lansdowne without realising any actual site improvement (ie greening). It is widely recognised that the best method the city has of funding any redevelopment of Lansdowne is to leverage the Bank Street section. If they trade this in for a CFL tam and stadium, they will need to find an alternate source of money for redevelopment of the 20 acres of parking. The second is the possibility that Melnyk has some surprise federal funding. I doubt it (or he would have brought in a guarantee by now). What do I think will happen? Absent any federal or provincial funding, nothing.
The numbers are the things that strike me on a quick skim of the report,although it needs more study. Lansdowne Live is very expensive - $125M according to the city’s estimates, plus $30M for parking, but still not enough parking to even meet the city zoning by-law, and greening. Total capital cost to the city is $155M for Lansdowne Live vs. $100M for the Kanata Stadium, of which the city is only on the hook for $23.3M, plus the land. In addition, selecting the Kanata Stadium allows for significant cost avoidance if you take scenario #1 and demolish Lansdowne by 2013 (cost $15M, but then saves $3.8M/yr for the following 26 years (overall cost avoidance = $83.8M). If Melnyk can deliver the federal and provincial funding as he expects, it sounds like a no-brainer to me.
Except Hunt will not move the 67s to Kanata, so the City would also have to build a Junior A ice rink. I can see Hunt's point on this - the 67s are marketed as a cheap night out and get a lot of walk up traffic from the universities. Adding the $11 parking at SBP dilutes the cheap part of it. But mostly I think, it is just spite.