Article content
It did not come as a surprise that the City of Ottawa’s finance committee voted last week to reject a competitive design process for the $419 million Lansdowne redevelopment, and instead sole-sourced the contract to the architect hired by OSEG to do the job. Council is expected to rubber-stamp the committee decision, and barring an improbable Ontario Land Tribunal decision against the project, Lansdowne 2.0 is now a go.
Article content
For some inexplicable reason, the city has developed an aversion to design competitions that most cities routinely undertake to attract the best and brightest in order to bring new and innovative ideas to major projects. And it is not just the current city government. Whoever the mayor — Larry O’Brien, Jim Watson or Mark Sutcliffe — and whatever the makeup of council, the city has consistently shown a lack of ambition, invention and imagination when it comes to Lansdowne. More often than not, it takes the easy path: just sole-source the project and get it over with.
Article content
The idea that the city would go out there and seek the best ideas and designs in the hope of creating something infinitely better is alien to them. That’s how an international design competition for an urban park at Lansdowne was halted back in 2010, and the redevelopment sole-sourced to the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group. And it fits perfectly with the city’s plan now to once again sole-source the project design contract to OSEG’s preferred architect, Brisbin Brook and Beynon (BBB).
This is not to say BBB would not do a good job. It might well. But it is to say that we’ve denied ourselves the chance to see and measure what other architects are capable of, and then decide if BBB is indeed the best for the job. We’ve seen the model of the new Lansdowne, but who is to say there aren’t better ideas out there? If the city and OSEG have such confidence in BBB, why are they reluctant to pit it against the competition? BBB could easily come on top, and no one would be able to complain. But now, there would be questions about what might have been.
Article content
City staff say launching a competitive process that’s open to all would delay the project and increase the costs. But that’s typical Ottawa. There is always a reason the city can’t aim higher. It sets up a process that leaves no room for manoeuvre, and when it is called out, dangles the spectre of higher costs. And who wants higher costs?
But this is really not about higher costs; it’s a rush to push the project through before a new Ontario building code goes into effect. The city needs to submit its design by early next year, or risk having to comply with a potentially more stringent code. June Creeman of the Glebe Community Association summed it up best: “Racing to avoid complying with the new building code is unwise. Would you buy a new computer if it had an operating system that’s about to expire?” No, I would not, and you wouldn’t either. But apparently, our city government aims to do so.
Then there is the small matter of the Glebe Community Association’s appeal against the project’s rezoning application, to the Ontario Land Commission. If you are a betting man or woman, you will be wise to bet against the appeal succeeding. The OLC is just not in the business of blowing up major land development projects, and no one should have their hopes high in this situation. So, on we go.
Let’s be clear that no one in the city wants Lansdowne to fail. Residents want the best for the city, but what some are saying is that this iteration of Lansdowne is not the best we could have done. And they are right. Yet there is no turning back now that the project is a done deal. So, let’s just hope it succeeds, because we all have a vested interest in it.
Mohammed Adam is an Ottawa journalist and commentator. Reach him at nylamiles48@gmail.com
Recommended from Editorial
Share this article in your social network
