2010 election special

2010 Election Special – this is the introductory title to Peter Hume’s flyer detailing his past accomplishments and future plans. I take a very jaundiced view of most of his claims. For example:


Negotiated Browning Corridor exclusion as a high-speed bus route: In my view the inclusion of this route was always a red herring and Hume was on safe ground knowing that it would be eliminated from consideration. In fact, the contributors who identified viable solutions to the high speed bus corridor were individual residents of the Riverview Park community. They accomplished this by attending open houses on the project, communicating with the study consultants and writing articles in local community newspapers. On the topic of roads and transit, one wishes that Hume might have actively campaigned to exclude the Alta Vista Transportation Corridor from the city’s official plan.

Hosts annual Riverview Park Corn Roast…: Firstly, this annual event is funded partly using (wasting) tax payers’ dollars. I fail to see this and similar events to be more than a photo-op and an opportunity to watch the councillor eat!

Led major improvements to the Lansdowne Park redevelopment and design: Unfortunately Hume broke his commitment with Councillor Clive Doucet for an international design competition for the entire park (not just the grassy bits). Instead, he approved a sole-source contract agreement with a group of developers; several of whom donated to his election campaigns on 2003 and 2006 either as corporations or individuals.

Altered Ottawa Train Yards development to improve aesthetics: What Hume fails to acknowledge is that the Ottawa Train Yards development is largely populated by retail chains, most of them U.S. owned, that take away business from established businesses that are just blocks away. The inclusion of a WallMart store as the anchor tenant of a mall that is only 10 minutes from down-town and less than 5 minutes from St. Laurent Shopping Centre further dilutes revenue streams for established businesses. There is only so much retail money to spread around and adding acres of new retail space does not help. Most of the local jobs resulting from the Train Yards development are low paying (minimum wage). The original plans for this site included space for businesses that would employ skilled people, thus making it possible for some local residents to find attractive work opportunities close to home. It is unclear if or when this might happen.

President of Association of Municipalities of Ontario: Hume’s involvement with this group has resulted in him having among the worst attendance records at city council meetings. Some might say that his participation was for the greater good, but in reality it has resulted in his neglecting the needs and concerns of ward residents.

I could go on but the truth is that this councillor has been in office too long and is taking us for granted. In Hume’s flyer, ward resident Sam Ibrahim claims that Hume’s incumbency at city hall is not a weakness. For some Councillors this might be correct, but in the case of Councillor Hume it’s time for a Fresh Start.

The chicken or the egg?

Commenting on concerns expressed by Heritage Ottawa adviser, Leslie Maitland, that “the city is jumping the gun with respect to heritage” (“Where are the heritage reports?” critics ask before Lansdowne vote, Joanne Chianello, Ottawa Citizen, Sept 13, 2010) Councillor Peter Hume, chair of the city’s planning and environment committee says that “Rezoning has nothing to do with the heritage questions. All the rezoning does is to change allowable uses for the site.”


He goes on to suggest that it has no bearing on whether the city will move the Horticultural Building or what the easements – or sight lines – around the Aberdeen Pavilion will be. “Those aren’t zoning issues, those are site plan issues” he says.

Really Councillor, which came first, the zoning or the site plans; the site plans or the zoning? Here is yet another instance of this councillor disrespecting and disregarding the valid concerns expressed by citizens. Is it any wonder that people are so distrustful of this council? Hopefully it won’t be too long before Hume and others are called to account.

Some words of wisdom for the Lansdowne Partnership

Members of the Lansdowne Partnership Plan should pay attention to the words of Alan Williams, retired ADM Materiel at DND. In his article in last Saturday’s Ottawa Citizen (Flying Solo, July 24, 2010) Alan Williams is highly critical of the federal government’s decision to acquire the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) for DND on a sole-source basis.

He notes that Canada’s involvement in development of the JSF does not compel the government to sole source it’s procurement and says that to do so is incredibly bad business. He criticizes the decision in terms of increased cost, reduced opportunities for Canadian industry and uncertainty as to the JSF is the best solution to meet Canada’s needs.

He also addresses the ethical dilemma that the government puts itself in by going the sole source route: “… Procurement demands not only the highest degree of integrity but also the appearance of the highest degree of integrity. Undertaking sole-source deals leaves the procurement process more vulnerable to fraud, bribery and payoffs, and leaves the federal government more susceptible to such charges.”

It seems to me that all of these issues apply equally to the planned sole-source development of Lansdowne Park by OSEG and the city. Council must pay attention and reconsider its decision to go ahead with this project in its present form.

Join friends of Lansdowne at City Hall. Monday June 28

Dear Friends of Lansdowne

Public presence needed

We need your eyes on council today, tomorrow and Monday. A strong public presence at City Council shows the councillors that the public cares about this issue. Drop by City Hall for as short or as long a time as you wish. Delegations go right till 8 p.m. tonight and all day tomorrow. Then Council deliberations begin on Monday.

Rally for Lansdowne on Monday, June 28--noon at City Hall

There will be an event on Monday, June 28 at the Lisgar entrance to City Hall, starting at 11:45. As you know, Councillors are scheduled to make a final decision on Monday probably at the end of long day of debate.

We have a serious purpose - to convince our Councillors not to proceed with the Lansdowne Plan. With comfort food, soft drinks (at a reasonable price to help defray our costs) and music, we also want to offer a pleasant lunch-hour event.

The BBQ will be fired up and serving and the music will play, starting at 11:45. Speeches at about 12:15.

Please come yourself and convince as many others as possible to join us -- family, neighbours and friends. Spread the word via your networks if you can.
Join the Facebook event and invite your Facebook friends!

Some Breaking News re Ottawa Senators concern on Lansdowne deal

This information was forwarded Shawn Menard on behalf of "Our Ottawa" today. Please pass this information along:

There was a short TV text clip tonight that Cyril Leeder, President, Ottawa Senators has claimed that the Lansdowne group are seeking a 30 year monopoly over sports and entertainment in Ottawa. The Senators must have finally awakened to the two conditions in the legal framework whereby the city agrees not to build a stadium with more than 5,000 seats for the first thirty years which competes with the Lansdowne stadium - unless the city exercises its termination for convenience right.

Moreover, the CFL team will be granted a right of first opportunity to lease the competing new stadium ..if it contains football facilities. Same goes for the hockey team. There is no press release on the Senators site about this. It will be interesting to see if the city suddenly changes the terms of the legal framework. I find it hard to believe that the city has agreed to such a restriction on future city development .

Some articles on this today.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/sports/Lansdowne+proposal+gives+developers+year+monopoly+stadium/3200107/story.html

http://www.ottawasun.com/news/columnists/susan_sherring/2010/06/24/14508756.html

This could be the deal-breaker. It needs to pushed hard. It confirms suspicions of residents who were previously in favour. Our Ottawa may out a press release today.

Rejuvenate Lansdowne Park at any cost?

It appears that some individuals, including a few City Councillors believe that Lansdowne Park requires rejuvenation no matter what the cost, ownership, tendering or other implications. Neither do they consider it necessary to examine alternative options or properly consult the community.

I fail to understand why people continue to see the OSEG proposal as a now or never opportunity. There are alternatives that will allow Lansdowne to be restored progressively and affordably. It will be interesting to see how council now deals with opposition to the Lansdowne Partnership Plan being expressed by several City of Ottawa advisory committees.

Making the right choice on Lansdowne

Following is the text of a letter I e-mailed out to several city councillors following last evening's Public Information Meeting at Lansdowne Park organized by Friends of Lansdowne (http://www.letsgetitright.ca). Much of the text draws from a meeting handout prepared by New Edinburgh Community Alliance. It is hard to improve on their words.

This was an excellent evening with presentations from;
Gordon Henderson, President Kanata Beaverbrook Community Association;
Bob McKinley, President Rural Council of Ottawa; Bob Brocklebank, Glebe Community Association;
Paul Kariouk, Principal, Kariok Associates and Associate Professor, Carleton University, School of Architecture;
Shawn Menard, President Centretown Citizens Community Association, Vice chair, Pedestrian and Transit Advisory committee, City of Ottawa;
Ian Lee, Director, MBA Program, Sprott School of business, Carleton University;
Will Murray, Friends of Lansdowne;
Anne Scotton, moderator.

Dear Councillor Wilkinson,

I am writing this letter to ask that you vote against proceeding with the Lansdowne Park development as proposed by the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG) when the issue comes to a vote at council on Monday, June 28, 2010. There are many reasons why a decision on the future of Lansdowne should be delayed; I have itemized some of them below.

The urgency that appears to be placed on coming to an early decision is unclear to me, other than it will benefit OSEG financially if the project is approved by council. Also the results of recently completed studies and reports need far more time to read and understand than the short period (days in some cases) that has been made available.

The City of Ottawa has spent years putting together policies on contracting and finances, to protect the interests of communities and taxpayers. These policies are being ignored by Councillors who support this project; their actions threaten to undermine sound governanace in the City.

Large developments in public spaces such as Lansdowne should start with a design competition for the whole site so that citizens and politicians can consider pros and cons of different options and select the best. At Lansdowne the City has ditched this policy. It is true that there is now a design competition but it is late in the process and it is only for part of the site.

Public tendering should be used to select proponents who offer the best value for money. Sole sourcing of projects leads to high costs and opens the door to sweet deals for proponents.

The city and developers should operate at arm’s length. This promotes transparency and accountability. In Lansdowne’s case OSEG have been representing themselves as partners of the City long before any significant partnership agreement has been concluded. City logos appear on their plans. The City has not objected!

The public should be properly consulted on how major sites are to be developed. In the case of Lansdowne, citizens have been given no opportunity to discuss alternative uses of the site (e.g. parkland, recreational, commercial, social housing) or whether and where a stadium should be located. So-called consultations to date have been opportunities for the developers to push their own project, and citizens have mainly been invited just to ask questions.

Policies on tendering, contracting and consultation provide a level playing field for development in the city; they promote transparency and predictability and prevent waste of tax dollars. Community groups become very worried when council starts cutting special deals and end-running its own policies.

The City proposes to channel $129 million of tax dollars to refurbish an aging stadium; plus the cost of an underground parking lot. The main purpose is to provide a venue for football – a sport that has failed twice in recent years in Ottawa. Another stadium built for baseball in Ottawa sits empty most of the time. Would you invest the money of you or your family in a business that has failed twice?

Scotia Bank Place (originally the Corel Centre) was built with private money. Why not a football stadium? If the OSEG team believes football is a viable proposition, they should put up the money for the venue. If they won’t take the business risk what does this tell us about the prospects of football in Ottawa? What happens to the stadium if football fails? What new expenses will taxpayers have to shoulder?

The Lansdowne stadium is in the wrong place. It was built when Ottawa was much smaller, before the Queensway, before the bus rapid transit system. There is no sense in re-investing in a facility that is not on a mass-transit route, one that ill clog the Glebe and Old Ottawa South with parked cars any time there is a game. Things will only get worse as Ottawa’s population grows.

The costs for the City keep growing. It’s not just the stadium: $5 million was budgeted for the urban park bordering the canal. Estimates for other design work have come in from $32 to $88 million. Other costs: moving the Ottawa Art Gallery, relocating trade shows, interest rate increases, and so on! Also, the city proposes to give away valuable public lands to private interests as part of the OSEG deal.

The Glebe is a vibrant, healthy community of local merchants and restaurants and low-rise residences. It is pedestrian friendly and on a human scale. Old Ottawa South, across the canal, is the same. Communities like these are hard to build, but easy to undermine. The OSEG proposal offers big volume stores (many of them U.S. owned), a shopping centre, a hotel, high rise buildings and heavy traffic. It is the antithesis of the kind of community that is there now, on both sides of the canal.

I am not a resident of your ward but this is a city wide issue. I am contacting my friends and associates who reside in your ward asking them to write you on this issue. I am also asking them to consider which candidate they will support in the October municipal election on the basis of your voting record on this issue.

Please put the brakes on the OSEG proposal now?

Sincerely,

Colin Hine

An interview with Clinton Cowan

Clinton Cowan a Candidate for Councillor in Ward 18

I recently interviewed Clinton Cowan on behalf of my community newspaper, Riverview Park Review. People living outside Riverview Park who might be interested in learning more about Mr. Cowan. Here is a copy of the article.

Clinton Cowan, a long-time resident of Alta Vista, is running for councillor in Alta Vista/Canterbury/Riverview Ward in the upcoming October municipal election. Clinton is a husband and father with a determination to improve the quality of living in Ottawa. Clinton has worked in the public, private, and non-profit sectors helping to build vibrant communities and he currently works in the field of labour relations. His education includes Carleton University - Public Administration and University of Ottawa - Communications. Clinton has served the community in many volunteer roles including: South-East Ottawa’s Community Health Centre; Ottawa Valley Autistic Homes; Byward Market Safety and Security Committee; CHEO, the Ottawa Food Bank and the Salvation Army.

Mr. Cowan made the decision to run for councillor in the upcoming election because he has observed that there is a broken relationship between the community and the current councillor. Clinton wants to work with residents to return strong leadership to City Hall by repairing the disconnect and using every avenue in keeping the people informed so that residents can participate in shaping our unique community.

Riverview Park Review asked each of the three candidates running for council in Ward 18 questions on several issues. Here are Clinton’s responses:

Some members of council have proposed that referendum questions on homelessness be included in the 2010 ballot. What are your thoughts about homelessness in Ottawa? “We have a tremendous amount of intellectual and, at times, financial resources available but we have challenges in addressing the populations at risk because of the competitive duplication in providing services. Competing, or near-competing, groups could be brought together to work on a strategic long term approach. Individual cases are unique, requiring a holistic consistent approach to people at risk. The most important thing we can do is to show individuals what support is available to them and where to find support. Interestingly, in Ward 18, one in four people lives at or below the government defined poverty line.”

What can be done to improve local transit links within the community and accelerate a comprehensive light rail plan for the city while making public transit affordable to everyone?
“Light rail dependent on expropriation is a symptom of poor planning. That approach cannot continue in our city if we hope to shape it properly for future growth.

“The greatest challenge is not where transit goes but who uses it. It is now a competition for people to decide whether to use personal transportation with personal music and climate control which contributes to traffic congestion and air pollution, or use the bus. To encourage ridership in the short term what is needed is an expansion of the Eco Pass program and to tip the balance in favour of transit use versus car use. If the current council were truly sincere about encouraging ridership, they would minimize new road building. A shift in the funding ratio is needed and this requires innovative thinking. There is a piecemeal approach to road use, development of corridors, and traffic. The new bus garage at Industrial Ave. and Russell Road will likely saturate roadways in the area but only token notice and communication to community have occurred during this major development. Communities are willing to share growing pains but they must be able raise awareness to what is not feasible or sustainable or acceptable to a community.

What are your views on intensification projects within the community? How can changes be effectively integrated while respecting existing communities (residents and infrastructure)? “Wonderful communities have developed over many years and intensification decisions need to respect the nature of communities. The City over-inflated projected populations within planning time-horizons. We must be honest about intensification targets and we must look at all the options if intensification is to be kept in scale with what we need and if we are to make it truly successful. There is a history of poor planning resulting in increased traffic, increased pollution and a community divided by major arterial walls.”

Some construction projects being funded under the governments’ Economic Action Plan have been fast forwarded so that they can be completed within the deadlines imposed. What are your views on this approach? “This financial opportunity was put in place to help mitigate the effects of a global crisis. We cannot ignore this; however the municipality should have requested an amendment asking that the city be allowed to implement its normal practices. Rushed projects provide minimal opportunity for community participation. Good decisions take time.”

What do you think can be done to build neighbourhoods where people can live, work and play? “Neighbourhoods matter. I am a supporter of sustainable communities that enhance quality of life. Currently I am working on a movement to increase the capacity of home care spaces in our community, which has one of the highest unfulfilled demands for spaces in the city. Changes in land use occur frequently and we rarely look at the need to support the current mix of residential, commercial, institutional land use that makes them sustainable. Not counting gas stations, Alta Vista has three convenience stores. The corner store does not exist. Walmart is not a corner store. There is a lot of room for improvement; any change must involve the community.”

Do you think that tax increases can be set at or below inflation with a balanced focus on economic, social, and environmental sustainability? “In an ideal setting it would be wonderful if there were no need for continual tax increases. However, the challenge to predetermining a tax rate does not account for the needs and wants of the community. Ottawa has greater needs than wants. We are looking at capital expenditures for our transit system, to resolve neglected waste water infrastructure, to build a new public library, and to develop Lansdowne. We need to take a look at what is needed today, to minimize stress on taxpayers. Currently we have a 3.7% increase to our taxes but we still have increasing user fees, including higher water rates coming shortly, and we have to deal with levy after levy. Most of it is money required to fix problems that should have been addressed or avoided a long time ago. It is apparent that we need a Fresh Start at the council table.”

Do you think that debate and citizen engagement on governance issues (amalgamation, borough councils, and ward councils) should be encouraged? “Should I have the honor of representing Alta Vista Ward I will make every effort to encourage community engagement, using every tool available to a councillor. The fact is that our city was not amalgamated by our choice. As a city we exist by a legislative act from the province. Dialogue must be brought up to the provincial level to initiate change. I have talked to community associations and business improvement associations across the city and it is clear that a lot more interchange between civic leaders and members of the community is needed.”

What are your views on the OSEG/Lansdowne Live proposal? Do you agree that projects of the magnitude of Lansdowne Live should be contracted on a sole-source basis and have so much financial risk transferred to the City? Do you think Lansdowne Live fits in with the neighbourhood? “At this point we will likely never know if this proposal represents the best possible use of this land. It is worrisome that the city has not looked at other alternatives. Do we have the right eyes at the table? Seven of ten architects review panel resigned. In a hiccup our councillor was able to pull his team from across country; locals are only minimally involved. Will they do this with other developments (e.g. the downtown tunnel)?”


At all levels of government voters complain that they only hear from their elected representative at election time. What would you do to engage community members regularly, to listen to their concerns and to respond constructively? “As a candidate I believe I have broken new ground for how residents can become and stay involved and I will provide uncensored opportunities for people to communicate, not just on election day, every day. That commitment is on my website (http://www.clintoncowan.ca/). I make the effort to come to people; I do not expect them to take time off to come to me. I will attend community associations and I will always try to maximize opportunities for community engagement. I have the commitment, the vision and the energy to bring City Hall to the people.”

The true costs of the Lansdowne development are beginning to emerge

“In for a penny, in for a pound,” so the old British saying goes, and this appears to be the philosophy of some members of the seven person jury that is studying various proposals for redevelopment of the canal side of the Lansdowne site (From $5M idea to $88M design, Joanne Chianello, Ottawa citizen, June 4, 2010). Based on his reported comments, this is clearly the position of Councillor Peter Hume who also notes that borrowing for “the construction of this new facility is not out of the range of possibility.” I bet it’s not!
Fortunately, some other members of council seem to be aware of the implications of more borrowing. Councillor Diane Deans points out that borrowing money is hardly free “It is becoming clear that this is not revenue neutral, but a sink-hole for our citizens.” The OSEG planned design appears to be growing out of proportion in order to ensure that private developer’s financial interests are protected. Hope fully council will reject the plan when it is debated later this month.

Ottawa Citizen blog shut down for criticizing Lansdowne-Live?

Rumor has it that Maria Cook’s Ottawa Citizen blog-site on architectural design was shut down this week following a request from OSEG member Roger Greenberg because it included some critical posts and commentary on Lansdowne-Live. Apparently Greenberg also asked that Maria be reprimanded. It has been suggested that Greenberg is scouting all sources for negative comments.
The Citizen has not commented on this apparent blunder but Maria’s blog now appears to be up again. It is unclear if any of the “offending” blog posts have been removed. Does anybody happen to know?

Another last minute attempt to sweeten a bad deal

I agree with Councillor Clive Doucet’s views on the proposed move of the Ottawa Art Gallery to Lansdowne Park (Art gallery at Lansdowne idea a “buy-off” attempt: Doucet, Joanne Chianello, Ottawa Citizen, May 12, 2010). This appears to be another ill thought out try at changing public perceptions of the Lansdowne Live proposal. It will be interesting to see the financial implications of this proposal and who will end up paying for it; the tax payers of Ottawa no doubt!

The basic facts have not changed; the Lansdowne Live proposal is a sole source deal that leaves the City of Ottawa carrying the long term risk. Look for more smoke and mirrors when this proposition comes to council this summer.

The thin end of the wedge

I am disturbed by the recent decision by Ottawa council’s corporate services and economic development committee to lift a bylaw that prevents consultants from providing services to the city and to a private developer on the same or related project (Committee OKs bylaw change, Ottawa Citizen, March 3, 2010). This decision, if approved by full council, will set a dangerous precedent.

It is particularly troublesome that such a decision has been taken so soon after the mammoth council debate over the Lansdowne Park transportation study that resulted in Delcan Corporation, OSEG’s consultant on the Lansdowne Live proposal agreeing to stand down from a consulting role for the city because of perceived conflict of interest.

As well as avoiding possible conflicts of interest, having an alterative contractor perform the work on behalf of the city is always a wise strategy. Mistakes or oversights are frequently made and it is wise to have an independent consultant act on behalf of the city. I find the argument that there are insufficient qualified consultants available to undertake this study difficult to accept and I doubt there will be a steep learning curve involved if a new consultant does the work.

No matter how small or straightforward the project, reversing the bylaw once will make it easier to turn it down next time, and so-on ad-infinitum. Hopefully city council will turn down this recommendation when it comes up for a vote.

Lansdowne Park – recent updates

I received some interesting information from Tim Lash today. Tim recently responded to the City’s on-line survey on the Lansdowne Park design. His constructive and enlightening notes are included below. Also, here is some commentary from Tim on recent articles. He provides links to recent blog posts on the project:

“The strain of the process shows in recent articles in Ottawa’s main newspaper, The Citizen:
“http://www.ottawacitizen.com/entertainment/names+Lansdowne+panel/2443671/story.html
“http://www.ottawacitizen.com/entertainment/Design+teams+already+lining/2529547/story.html
“http://www.ottawacitizen.com/entertainment/Ottawa+firms+give+Lansdowne+miss/2552667/story.html
“It seems the closer people are to the process, the less comfortable they are with it. Not one of the 21 design firms expressing interest in bidding is from the Ottawa region. Architecture firms here may be refraining out of professional integrity. The Regional Society’s October 2009 position paper on Lansdowne is available at http://www.orsa.ca/ The seven architects of the City's urban design review panel resigned together in December 2009.

“A community leader close to it recounts the step by step story up to November 2009 in two blog entries:

“http://lookintolansdowne.blogspot.com/2009/11/catching-up.html

“http://lookintolansdowne.blogspot.com/2009/11/catching-uppart-2.html”

Here is Tim’s input to the on-line survey:

Subject: Input to City's online survey on design for Lansdowne Park

1. What would you, your family and friends like to do in a new urban park at Lansdowne?

a. Do and watch amateur and semi-organized sports and activities (predominantly city-wide community and civic).
b. Green space - real natural surfaces, open and vegetated.
c. Farmer's market
d. Enjoy the canal and related activities or extensions
e. Enjoy and learn about heritage of Lansdowne architecture and community activities.
f. Large special civic events and ceremonies.
g. Trade shows, if the site is viable for them.
h. Enjoy Lansdowne as an inviting feature of Bank Street - as Central Park is a loved amenity in New York for those along its bordering avenues.
i. Experience the whole and its components as carriers of the best in new environmental and activity design.
j. No new residential in the bounds of the whole park, unless it is for public purposes, e.g. some forms of public residential. No new independent retail or commercial hotel.

2. What elements or features do you think the new park should include?

Special natural pavilion along Bank Street. Large mature trees (e.g. maple spp., oak, pine), two rows deep, along the Bank street side of the park - making a leafy pavilion of green for all to enjoy, whether moving along Bank, or using this street-front apron of Lansdowne Park as an approach to the larger public space of the park - whether or not a plan for retail goes ahead (In preference, it should not become retail; good-sized public space in the heart of the city is too valuable as such. The whole site should remain public, for publicly-determined public use.). This leafy wall will provide a welcome block-long contrast to the steady line of "main-street" fronts north and south of it. It will valorize and enhance the beautiful bridge over the canal and the walkways to and from it. It will give growing space for stately trees taller than the City can allow in most streets that conflict with overhead lines, providing welcome arboreal biodiversity.

Good lighting. Emphasize environmental and social sustainability in design. This includes well-targeted activity lighting, without light pollution within or beyond the park boundaries, or further loss of night sky due to spilled light or illuminated high-intensity signage and advertising.

Good sunlight. Don't lose afternoon sunshine to blockage and artificial shadow from looming structures. This is a likely downside to the retail, residential and hotel as drawn by project proponents. (Note how the US embassy cut off afternoon from the west of Byward Market.)

3. Do you have other comments that could help the designers come up with a plan that would make this urban park a unique and special place within the City?

a. Value the urban interface. Bank St side of the Park as above, from Holmwood to the canal.

b. Integrated whole design. A key principle for making any large public facility a success and a design to celebrate is BOTH that its parts be fully integrated within its bounds, AND that it be integrated with its surroundings, fitting into overall plans so it supports (A) local neighborhood and borough aspirations, as well as (B) city-wide functions and enabling facilities such as transportation systems.

c. Private is subsidiary to public. Start with a clear unified public purpose or set of purposes for the Park as a whole; the design must be for the whole at once, based on a coherent and publicly accepted purpose, to avoid piecemeal fragmentation, and to achieve harmony of elements that nestle together or complement each other at different scales and with functions that flow together well. Simply having consistent visual motifs or signage on separately designed components, for example, will not provide a worthy unique and special place within Canada's capital. The current broken-up process, unclear purposes and phasing is unlikely to encourage a coherent whole for this public space. It may not even allow it, if the Lansdowne Live developers are already starting on architectural design for the commercial parts first. The design of any private components must be secondary and complementary to the overall public design.

d. Manage risk of bad design sequence. Do not privilege any private design that jumps the gun. Tell the developers to wait until the purpose and master plan are set, and ensure they know that any advance expenses at this time are at their own risk, not at the risk of Ottawa citizens, and will not prejudice open public decision on the whole.

e. This advice is wholly offered with good will and is sincerely intended for the betterment of Lansdowne Park for the whole city. However, with regret, I offer it under protest. The yanking of the original international design competition, and the imposition of a single-source privatization bid to which all due considerations became secondary, was a bad thing.

The best step now would be to set that Lansdowne Live initiative aside for the moment, and restore an uncompromised design competition. The "urgent" deadlines for decision are illusory and artificial, and mean little compared to the length and significance of what will now be done to make Lansdowne Park a wonderful part of Ottawa or a miserable one. What is built at Lansdowne will become a monument to the city's decision processes - for good with principled fair and community-building processes, or for ill with city-dividing politics and influence.

I applaud Delcan's voluntary withdrawal from the city-led transportation study, which was intended to provide an independent assessment of the study Delcan itself did for the developers. What were city staff thinking, in this deservedly controversial issue, by asking the same people to vet the study they themselves did for the developers? The processes of decision, contract awarding and consultation were already tainted. This lack of judgment by city staff about how to arrive at responsibly independent information and advice is remarkable. I mean bad.

While I appreciate Councillor Hume's effort to find a way through a bad situation by designing for just part of the site, it doesn't answer the fundamental issue of the pre-emptive sole sourcing of a public space for private benefit, to Ottawa citizens' loss of control and Ottawa taxpayers taking on costs and risk. Further, from a professional urban design standpoint, the terms of reference for this design exercise are still not clear about the relation of the part of Lansdowne Park to the whole, nor about the relation of Lansdowne Park as a whole to its surrounding urban living spaces.

It has been encouraging to see people with the professional qualifications of George Dark and Barry Hobin turning their attention to this situation. However, like Delcan, they are also probably in a position where their ability to exercise their full professional design skills and advise on a major iconic public urban site are compromised - by the city's limited terms of reference for the design study, and possibly by the developer pushing ahead out of turn with designing the most controversial and determining parts of the site.

Tim Lash
Ottawa

A very interesting committee meeting

Yesterday (Feb 8, 2010) at City Hall there was a joint meeting of the Transportation and Transit committees to to consider the Lansdowne Transportation Impact and Assessment Study and Transportation Demand Management Plan. Committee debate focussed on two main issues: the terms of reference for the work and the sole sourcing of a major part of the work to Delcan. One hopes that lessons learned from this debate will be applied to other city projects in the community where I live and elsewhere across the city.

Several public delegations commented on the terms of reference and on the contracting arrangement and there was considerable discussion between presenters, councillors and city staff. Debate over possible conflict of interest if Delcan was selected to perform the study, revealed that the contractor would be required to review its own work; work undertaken in previous studies for which Delcan was contracted by Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG).

Several motions, including one that would require the city to choose a consultant without prior connection with the project, were debated. Voting on this was preempted when Delcan Vice President, Ron Jack, was allowed to address the committee and elected to withdraw Delcan’s participation in the project. It was also agreed that work undertaken by the selected contractor would be subject to critical overview by an independent contractor.

Much of the debate focused on the terms of reference for the study and planning activity. Several of the presenters expressed concern about the public consultation process in earlier phases of this work. It was agreed that proactive public involvement was needed and specific steps will now be incorporated to:

- Ensure that the public is notified well in advance of public meetings;
- Relevant documentation will be made available for public review well ahead of meetings;
- Minutes of meetings with the public will be provided; and
- Adequate time will be provided to enable public delegations to submit comments and suggestions to the city.

Interestingly lack of timely public involvement is major concern surrounding the OC Transpo Bus Garage currently under construction an Industrial Avenue. If effective communications and timely public involvement had been facilitated by the city, many of the community and city-wide concerns that are only now being raised could have been resolved before construction began. I am sure that there a many other project across the city that would also benefit from this kind of foresight. The process needs to be much more open and transparent.

Also, one wonders if Delcan should have been allowed to participate in detailed design of the hospital link section of the Alta Vista Transportation Corridor (AVTC) given their role for many years in the environmental assessment for this roadway. Granted Delcan was contracted directly by the city for all of this work, but there was no independent review of work undertaken during the EA process before design work commenced.

Is Hume the man to watch?

Following is the text from a letter to the editor I wrote to the Ottawa Citizen last weekend. As they chose not to publish, I decided it was worth posting here.

In his article in the Ottawa Citizen on Saturday January 23, 2010 (Hume is the man to watch) Randall Denley suggests that Councillor Peter Hume would make an excellent mayoral candidate in the coming municipal election. Some of the observations Denley makes about Hume are questionable and ignore problematic aspects of his performance.

Like most politicians one of Hume’s attributes includes a more than adequate share of arrogance and he tends to punish those who disagree with him; including members of the local community. This is not a quality seen in visionaries but it is a quality that makes bad managers. We have already seen arrogance in abundance from the present occupant of the mayor’s chair and it is not something we need to see repeated any time soon.

In action, Hume sits on the fence over many issues, and eventually often votes against the wishes of people in his ward and he often reneges on agreements previously made with fellow Councillors. Issues that come to mind include the Alta Vista Transportation Corridor (AVTC), the negotiated agreement with the Lansdowne Live group and currently, his response to Riverview Park residents in Ward 18 over their concerns about plans to expand the new OC Transpo Bus Garage on Industrial Avenue.

Hume’s performance on the rejuvenation of Lansdowne Park is far from the good example of how he operates that Denley suggests. The design competition he is currently endorsing is a far cry from the international design competition he originally supported in cooperation with Councillor Clive Doucet and others. His reversal on this issue during the final stages of city council’s debate has all but eliminated the possibility of alternative viable proponents coming forward.

At a recent open house in Riverview Park that offered a long overdue opportunity for the community to comment on the OC Transpo bus garage expansion it appeared that Councillor Hume was more interested in mediation - providing other facilities/services in the neighborhood - than in mitigating possible damage to residents’ quality of life and home values from noise and pollution. Residents are so concerned about this expansion that they are holding an extraordinary meeting of the community association tonight. They have invited members of city staff and OC Transpo. Councillor Hume has indicated he will not be able to attend.

Many people in the communitywould be quite pleased if Hume was to put his name forward for mayor, not because they hope he will be successful, but rather to improve the odds for new viable candidates to run in Ward 18. Hume has represented this Ward for far too long.

A Riddle

Question: Who would vote to make a sow’s ear out of a silk purse?

Answer: Ottawa City Council!

Yes, that is what Ottawa City Council did yesterday when it voted to conditionally approve the OSEG’s Lansdowne Plan. Make no mistake, the motion amendments that apparently made the deal sweet enough for a majority of council to approve are pure window dressing. Proposed changes to the deal might even make the matter worse.

Watch out for scope change negotiations as any resulting contract proceeds. With less incremental money coming to OSEG as the city attempts to recover it’s share OSEG will be hot to recover the cash elsewhere.

Also, Councillor Hume’s amendment has no real substance. Design decisions on planned retail areas of Lansdowne will do little to influence the type of retailers who elect to set up shop there. No design competition is going to control OSEG’s right to lease the retail space to whomever they choose, notwithstanding suggestions to the contrary by Councillor Hume.

And don’t expect ongoing transportation/transit planning to produce any significant improvements. Lansdowne is still a landlocked site on Bank Street with serious traffic congestion and only limited access to public transit. Nothing can change this.

It is unlikely that significant changes will result from these studies to be undertaken by city staff and consultants. And it is unlikely that council’s decision will be any different in May 2010. The high point of any contract award is typically the day the contract is signed; from that point forward it’s usually downhill. It’s as if they have signed the contract already. And remember, it’s still an unethical sole-source deal!

Over the past few months many people have commented that the public consultation process was simply window dressing. This observation is clearly correct. A large body of negative feedback from citizens during the consultation process and from public delegations last week has been largely ignored. Is this what democracy means in the City of Ottawa? Citizens of Ottawa, at the next municipal election, vote with your feet!

Mayor’s comments suggest that council intends to proceed with Lansdowne Live whatever the public has to say

Listening to Mayor Larry O’Brien speak on CBC Radio this morning suggested to me what many have believed all along; that the city intends to proceed with the OSEG proposed plan in some form whatever the public have to say about it. Mayor O'Brien was commenting on the results of the Nanos Research survey on the Lansdowne Live proposal - see this morning’s article in the Ottawa Citizen (Stadium survey results tell council to “just do it").

This conclusion is reached by 23% of respondents in a poll of 1,000 residents conducted by Nanos Research on October 17 though 19, 2009. This means that 73% of respondents believe that the city should be doing something else, though exactly what is unclear.

This doesn’t sound like a strong mandate to proceed to me!

The article also summarizes a report by Nanos Research on a survey of 3,000 residents gathered from survey forms filled out at public meetings and on-line. Interestingly respondents were least favorably disposed to inclusion of the only elements of the plan that will likely make the project profitable to OSEG members (retail space, residential development, office space, movie theatres and a hotel).

Again, this doesn’t sound like a favorable public response to me!

Changing the scope of the Lansdowne Live plan does not address the sole-source issue

Reducing the size of the retail elements of the OSEG plan for Lansdowne Live might make some retailers feel more comfortable and allowing some elements of the plan open to a competitive design process might appease some people (Coucillors huddle over Lansdowne, Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen, October 13, 2009). But it does not alter the fact that development and operation of a major city asset is still being awarded to a contractor without competition. Neither does it address other concerns at the site like parking and transit access.