Why Buy More Failure At Lansdowne?
“I’ve been sitting under that roof for 16 years but I won’t go.”
David Maclaren, an Ottawa resident, who dislikes the proposed
roof-less Lansdowne northside stands.
What if you built a half-billion dollar stadium but nobody came.
As former New York Yankee catcher and scribe Yogi Berra said: “If the people don’t want to come out to the ballpark, nobody’s going to stop them”. We’ve seen empty Lansdowne stands before.
Has it ever crossed city minds that people sit on the northside stands because they don’t want to be exposed to Ottawa’s harsh climate?
Have the city and private planners sat out at an Ottawa Redblacks game in October in the rain or the sleet and paid to do so? Maybe our hot-house flowers in the planning department are too busy walking their dogs in Westboro to notice.
The city is saving $15 million to $20 million on not building a roof over the new stands. But is it a false economy? If the current stands have a roof and the new stands don’t, how many Redblacks fans do you lose? Enough to damage the sustainability of the football club? ‘Sustainability’ … that’s a word planners know.
So you spend $500 million on a facility that’s not as fan-friendly as the current model because it doesn’t have a roof. You save $20 million on no roof. But if the project doesn’t work without a roof, that’s a half-billion-dollar failure on a $20-million saving. Where’s the sustainability in that?
Without a roof, the new northside stands aren’t as good as the current stands. Why sit in the rain when you can see the game better on your 75-inch TV screen at home where the beer and chips are cheaper? Often, the company is better, too. Unlikely your guests will throw up on your new coat.
So why build a new half-stadium when the old model is what people want.
Better still, don’t build the new stands at all.
The city’s infrastructure is screaming for help which you can’t hear above the municipal budget wailing with a big hole in the middle.
Haven’t we practised failure enough at Lansdowne? Do we need to buy more failure?
Maybe the proposed Lansdowne northside stands really do suck.
Ken Gray
For You:
Court Throws Roadblock To Kanata Golf Deal
Time For Another Provincial Rail Inquiry
SNC Failed Tech Specs Twice In Trillium Line Bid
Bookmark The Bulldog, click here
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
– The Bulldog – News Feed Enter 
Oh dear!
Mr. Maclaren has to understand that the stands aren’t being rebuilt to meet his needs and those of his fellow fans. They are there to satisfy the needs of the OSEG gang. Since they can watch the games from the air-conditioned/heated accommodations offered in the overlooking apartments, they aren’t worried about the absence of a roof over the stands.
In fact, might a roof not get in the way of the views of the field from the new apartment blocks behind the stands? Maybe that and not the $20M is the reason for the removal of the roof.
Fans are incidental to the whole Lansdowne process, either 1.0 or 2.0, and their views are largely irrelevant.
Good post
In addition to the voter’s suggestion that a roof on the North Side stands might block the view of the Red Black games from the overlooking apartments, might the apartments not used by the OSEG gang be inhabited mostly by rabid Red Black fans? On game days, the rabid fans and their friends could watch the Red Black games from the overlooking apartments resulting in fewer potential fannies occupying seats in the stands. All to say, the odds of Lansdown 2.0 being more of a money maker than Lansdown 1.0 are likely greater than winning the 649 jackpot, but you already knew that!