Lansdowne 2.0 survey results 

Lansdowne 2.0 development plans include the construction of a smaller arena, new north side stands with no roof, the loss of green space, two new condo towers and revamped retail. 

Photo: Liz McKeen 

 

Lansdowne 2.0 survey results 

What do you say? 

 

In December 2024, the Glebe Report asked readers what you thought of the Lansdowne 2.0 development plans. We received 169 responses to our online survey. Here are the results. 

A resounding majority, 128 respondents or 76 per cent, disliked the Lansdowne 2.0 development plans, selecting the response that they are “wrong-headed, financially reckless and biased in favour of private developers to the detriment of public green space and urban parks for people.” As reasons for their dislike, 82 per cent chose taxpayers’ burden/financials, 76 per cent chose loss of green space, 67 per cent chose traffic/parking, 56 per cent mentioned more condo towers and 39 per cent chose other reasons. An astonishing number of respondents took the time to comment under “Other reasons.” 

Some of these comments were short and pithy: 

  • Smaller arena?????? Not good. 
  • Waste of taxpayer money. 
  • Pouring good money after bad. 
  • Lansdowne 2.0 is dominated by uninspired private sector thinking. 
  • Long years of construction are a huge negative. I’m likely to move.  
  • Likely increased ticket prices due to less seating. 
  • Large mistake to place a stadium in a location without mass transport. 
  • It’s a race to the bottom. 

Some respondents took the opportunity to provide more extensive comments or reasons to dislike the plans on a range of issues: 

  • [Need] off ramp in 2025 to consider the impact of the project in light of the financial crisis re transport, housing and infrastructure funding deficits. 
  • Another example of the ‘mediocritizing’ of the Nation’s Capital simply for the gain of unimaginative developers. 
  • We taxpayers can’t afford it, nor can the Glebe handle the excess traffic from building these condo towers, plus we need more green space, not less. 
  • With Ottawa’s limited resources, there are other pressing needs. The funding of deeply affordable housing, improved transit and long-postponed infrastructure upgrades are . . . more likely to guarantee long-term sustainability, growth, vitality and strong financial ratings than is a project unlikely to achieve its financial projections. With 10 years of anticipated noisy, disruptive construction and towers that steal the sun from existing patios it is unclear how . . . the projected substantial increase in retail income can be achieved. On top of that, essential green space will be lost, and new residents will discover they are in a neighbourhood that fails to meet even 50 per cent of the city green-space standard. As well, Lansdowne 2.0 offers less stadium seating and a smaller arena that . . . may well become obsolete. Only OSEG . . . stands to benefit from Lansdowne 2.0. It is unclear to me why my tax dollars should bail them out. Surely our lesson should have been learned. 
  • Opportunity cost of not funding really needed services like public transit and climate change mitigation. 
  • Unsolicited sole source proposal times two. Lansdowne 1.0 was a financial disaster for the City. Vast amounts of staff time & city resources already spent on a flawed proposal for a project that is not a city priority. No remedy for existing traffic / parking issues. Unfeasible & impractical. 
  • Loss of the opportunity for a vibrant public space such as Winnipeg’s The Forks and Vancouver’s Granville Island. 
  • [Exacerbated] by possible QE Drive closure by the NCC. 
  • A public park is not the appropriate site for luxury condos. Of course it is better than it was before OSEG, but that is a strawman argument. Compare it to what it COULD have been. 
  • Lack of consideration of public consultation. The appearance that City staffers are not independent of OSEG . . . This money would be better spent on housing, homelessness, creating a transit system that people WANT to use. 

On the other side of the argument, 41 respondents or 24 per cent approved of the Lansdowne 2.0 plans, choosing the response that they are “on the right track, are a good use of taxpayers’ money and will result in a thriving people place.” As reasons for approval, 36 per cent chose new arena, 32 per cent entertainment/restaurants, 32 per cent more housing, 19 per cent stable OSEG finances and 44 per cent gave other reasons. Some of the comments made under “other reasons” were: 

  • I like everything about it. It’s a hub of activity, From Farmers Markets to Vintage Markets to Christmas Markets. I’m tired of the nimbys. If you don’t want traffic, events etc., move to the suburbs. 
  • What’s there to dislike – unless you dislike change! I live here – I shop here – it is my entertainment hub – I can’t wait to watch Lansdowne 2.0 grow and flourish! 

 

Share this