Brendan McCoy and I [Mohammad al-Asad] participated in the Lansdowne Strategic Design and Review Panel meeting held at City hall on Thursday, February 4, 2010. The meeting was organized by councilor Peter Hume, who introduced two of the three Panel members, Toronto urban designer George Dark of the design firm Urban Strategies, and Rick Haldenby, director of the school of architecture at the University of Waterloo. The third member, Marianne McKenna, the founding partner of the Toronto architectural firm KPMB, was unable to attend.
Other participants included urban planner John Smit from the City of Ottawa, and a representative of the retail consulting firm J. C. Williams, which has been hired by the City to consult on determining the nature of the project’s retail segment. Stakeholders attending the meeting included members of the City’s Environmental Advisory Committee, Algonquins of Ontario, Heritage Ottawa, the Ottawa Farmers’ Market, and the Glebe BIA. Community organizations attending were the Ottawa South Community Association, the Ottawa East Community Association, the Centretown Citizen’s Coalition Community Association, and the Glebe Community Association.
George Dark made a few comments about the work of the Panel that included the following:
- They will emphasize design issues, particularly overseeing the design competition for the “Front Lawn” part of Lansdowne.
- City Council gave the Panel the mandate to look at all aspects of the project (but not the authority to approve or reject the project).
- They will be working with the NCC as partners in the project (only for the “Front Lawn” part, but not for the commercial part; a Letter of Understanding was signed between NCC and the City in January).
- They (along with the city and OSEG) will be organizing a three-day symposium towards the end of the month for firms interested in entering the competition for the “Front Lawn.” They expect 50 – 60 firms to express interest. Based on their offers, five to six finalists will be chosen to participate in a paid competition. A winner will be chosen amongst those by early June, before the final City Council vote on Lansdowne.
- They plan to have the “Front Lawn” designer chosen by June although the actual design process will not begin in earnest until then.
- He announced that OSEG has appointed the architects for the commercial part of the project: Barry Hobin and Ritchard Brisbin from Ottawa, as well as Canon Design, an American firm with international presence.
Other information presented in the meeting included the following:
John Smit will be completely devoting his time to the Lansdowne project (he had been responsible for planning of the Central District of Ottawa up to now).
The jury that will judge the “Front Lawn” competition will include the members of the Panel, Peter Hume, and a member from each of Parks Canada and the National Capital Commission. Two other design professionals who are yet to be identified will be added to the jury.
Mr. Dark then asked for questions and comments. One of the issues raised was whether they will address how this project will affect adjacent neighborhoods. Both Mssrs. Dark and Haldenby answered that they would do so and will look at how the project will affect Bank Street among other areas and streets. They added that this is a project that is receiving national attention, is a unique example of an urban intervention, and therefore will be closely watched.
It also was emphasized to Mssrs. Dark and Haldenby that the surrounding communities are united in their opposition to the project. Both answered that they are aware of that. Mr. Haldenby added that he even has received emails asking him not to take part in the design review Panel. Mr. Dark also emphasized that their work will focus on design issues and producing the best outcome possible. He added that this project is being divided into two parts: a public part (the “Front Lawn”) and a commercial part (the development), and they will work on ensuring that the two parts will be integrated together to the best level possible.
Will Murray of the Centretown Citizen’s Association Coalition made the forceful point that the members of the Panel should be willing to “walk away” from the project if they come to the conclusion that they do not agree with it. Mr. Dark answered that they consider themselves to be totally independent, that they will provide “peer review” for the final project masterplan, but also emphasized that they will not be advocating any specific group, and that their position very well might not be in agreement with that taken by the local affected communities.
The representatives of the Farmers’ Market mentioned that they are not taking a position supporting or opposing the Lansdowne project, but would like to ensure that they have suitable facilities to sell their products and are worried about being pushed out of business by the food store that is to be included in the project. They also added that a considerable part of their business (about 30%) comes from residents of the Glebe, who walk to the market rather than drive to it, and they therefore have a positive relation with the community they wish to preserve.
Mr. Dark and the representative of J. C. Williams mentioned that they are exploring a “retail vision” for the project, and admitted that it is still not clear as to what retail will be taking place in the project and what will be the final size of the retail area. It was remarked by a number of those attending that the retail studies provided by the Glebe BIA and the developer, OSEG, come up with totally different results and there is a need for a third independent study.
Mr. Dark also added that the new Lansdowne development is not only viewed as a place for retail and sport activities, but one that also will house many of the city’s events such as the Jazz Festival and Winterlude.
One of the community representatives emphasized that public land should not be handed to private developers. Mr. Haldenby answered that such practices have existed throughout history and he feels there is nothing wrong with the concept.
The representative of the Glebe BIA mentioned that there are many specialty stores that cannot survive in a mall or strip mall settings, but thrive in a Main Street setting. Building a mall on Lansdowne will most probably drive those stores out of business and may even destroy Bank Street stores as a commercial Main Street, thus depriving the city of an important part of its retail landscape, one that also encourages pedestrian, rather than automobile access.
Assessment: By Mohammad al-Asad
The concept of this Panel and its emphasis on the “Front Lawn” design should be approached with extreme caution and even skepticism. What is being carried out is partly cosmetic, partly a diversion, and partly an attempt to establish “facts on the ground” by realizing one component of the project.
The members of the Panel at the end of the day are commissioned (and paid) by the City and OSEG in an advisory capacity, and therefore represent the project rather than the surrounding communities, and most probably will end up taking the role of providing additional support for the project, but one that may appear to present a “softer” edge in relation to the community.
Accepting the idea of the “Front Lawn” can greatly undermine the community stakeholders’ position towards the Lansdowne project. The City / OSEG are presenting the project as one composed of two integral parts: A commercial part and a public park. The public park is their compromise towards the surrounding communities and the public at large. If the surrounding communities accept the “Front Lawn,” they are one step closer to accepting and endorsing the project as a whole. Participating in the process of developing the “Front Lawn” is in itself a tacit approval of the whole project.
The Panel’s emphasis on the project as an architectural / urban design problem, rather than addressing the nature of this urban intervention is problematic and provides a diversion away from the primary concerns we have regarding this project. These include the financial feasibility of implementing such a development using tax-payers' money, and the acceptability of creating such a large-scale commercial development in area with an infrastructure that is not equipped to accommodate it, particularly in terms of traffic.
The Panel’s mandate in many ways is conceptually no different than the mandate of the proposed traffic study. It is to ensure that the project works rather than to question whether such a project is in alignment with the public good.
At the end of the day, nothing has changed in terms of the original proposal. The developers want a stadium and a significant area they can develop commercially as retail, residential, hotel, and office space, and they will get that. In return, they will devote a part of the site to a public park. Although the surrounding communities seem to have resigned themselves to the fact that public space will be handed over to a private developer for retail, the main problems of whether the arrangement is financially sound and how this will affect surrounding traffic, transportation, and parking patterns, remain unchanged.
OSCA should seriously consider declining any participation in the “Front Lawn” competition process and should urge the other affected community associations to do the same. OSCA still opposes the project, and by participating in the process leading to the “Front Lawn,” it would be providing a stamp of approval for the overall project, which will make it more difficult for OSCA to voice opposition to it in the future. OSCA accordingly may indicate to the City (and the media) that it remains too early to participate in the process. All decisions relating to if and how OSCA may participate in the process of developing Lansdowne should wait until after Council votes on the project in June.
If OSCA decides to participate in the “Front Lawn” design process, it will not be gaining much, maybe the ability to influence certain details. It should be pointed, however, that if it decides not to participate, it may be entering a more confrontational relation with the City. The decision obviously is a difficult one and should follow extensive discussions in OSWatch, the OSCA board, and the community at large.
One final comment: it seems from the composition of those attending the meeting with the review Panel that there is an attempt at diluting the presence of the involved community associations. Those invited, other than the relevant community-based associations, included the City’s Environmental Advisory Committee, the Farmers’ Market, Heritage Ottawa, and Algonquins of Ontario. All have valid concerns regarding the project, but none of them are in particular opposition to it. They merely want to ensure that their specific concerns are being met. The relevant community-based organizations, on the other hand, are opposed to the project on the conceptual level, rather than to specific details in it, and their concerns accordingly should be addressed separately from those of other stakeholders.
Assessment: By Brendan McCoy
Mohammad makes a forceful case and I share some of his concerns. Completely withdrawing from the process has a certain appeal. It would be a very clear gesture and it would save me from going to a lot of meetings. However I fear it would not gain us anything, and would lose us the ability to influence the project in at least small ways. Our community does not expect us to fix all the problems, but they do expect us to try.