Lansdowne 2.0 (Northside Stands/Arena Redevelopment) | U/C

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by phil235

Ah, hadn't noticed the sculpture in that picture. Hope they do manage to save it, though it looks like that truck very well might have driven over it.

They carefully (but still not carefully enough and without the artist's input) took it down on 2017 for the Grey Cup/NHL Classic. Now it's just the demo crew.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/public-art-lansdowne-park-ottawa-sculpture-1.4349790

[rocketphish]

Lansdowne's massive illuminated sculpture has been dismantled
Moving Surfaces, a sculpture made of folded stainless steel 50 metres long, has occupied a berm overlooking the Rideau Canal for 11 years.

By Joanne Laucius, Ottawa Citizen
Published Jan 14, 2026 | Last updated 48 minutes ago



An monumental digital installation has been dismantled after only 11 years as a signature piece of artwork at Lansdowne Park.

Moving Surfaces and the trickling spire Uplift, both by Vancouver-based artist Jill Anholt, were installed at Lansdowne Park in 2014 at a total cost of about $3.5 million.

Moving Surfaces occupied a berm on with a view of the Rideau Canal. The undulating sculpture was 10 metres high and 50 metres long and is made of folded stainless steel and illuminated by an LED lighting system. The installation has been non-functional as a digital art piece since March 2024 because some electronic parts are no longer available and there’s no budget to restore it, according to a city report released last fall.

The final Lansdowne 2.0 recommendation included that Moving Surfaces be “respectfully decommissioned and removed.”

In the past 10 years, the city has frequently had cases of LED strings not lighting up and has had to repair these by replacing the LED power supplies, according to report. Moving Surfaces has served as a “meaningful element within the public realm,” but it has required maintenance.

“It is estimated that it has cost $5,000 annually since 2017 to maintain, replace and solve electrical issues. In 2019, due to a major lighting and software failure, a repair was required to make the Moving Surfaces functional. The cost to refurbish was $119,000.”

The report said it would take $700,000 to rehabilitate the lighting system.

<more>

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/lansdownes-illuminated-sculpture-dismantled

[rocketphish]

Lansdowne's iconic art piece moved to storage, artist worries about its future
City says Moving Surfaces is being stored for Lansdowne 2.0 construction, may be reinstated pending review

CBC News
Posted: Jan 14, 2026 4:20 PM EST | Last Updated: 2 hours ago

The steel sculpture known as Moving Surfaces occupied a berm in Ottawa’s Lansdowne Park for more than a decade. Now, as construction begins on the site’s redevelopment, the massive artwork is being dismantled and moved into city storage.

Artist Jill Anholt, who designed the nearly $2 million sculpture, said the initial decision to remove the art piece worried her — but she was confident it would be reinstated.

“In December, I received a draft report that said that approximately 80 per cent of the LED strings were still working,” she said. “At Christmas I left feeling very optimistic that we had a plan in place to do a slow refurbishment of the work.”

That optimism faded, however, after Anholt learned the city didn’t heed her recommendations for removing and storing the lighting system. She said the metal structure itself is durable, but the lighting — which she calls essential to the artwork — is at risk.

“The piece had been taken down … with all the LED’s in place, which meant that they would not survive the two to four years sitting outside,” she said, adding that she feels the city “took the whole remediation possibility off the table.”

Anholt is worried the consequences could make reinstating the sculpture not financially viable.

“With the only remaining possibility being an entirely new [lighting] system from scratch, this can be very expensive,” she said. “I’m not certain what the funding source would be for that.”

Anholt said she feels let down.

“I’m very, very, very disappointed,” she said.

“I feel very unoptimistic that this piece is ever going to see the light of day again.”

The City of Ottawa says the relocation is part of council’s direction under the Lansdowne 2.0 project.

In a statement, Justin Kurosky, manager of construction and design for Lansdowne 2.0, said staff are working “to identify a cost-effective and durable method for reimagining and reinstating Moving Surfaces.”

He added that “the piece is being carefully and safely relocated to an off-site City storage site while the new event centre is constructed,” and that staff will return to council with cost estimates and proposed funding sources once a review is complete.

For now, Moving Surfaces will sit in storage as redevelopment continues — its future uncertain, its creator hoping it won’t be forgotten.

With files from CBC's All In A Day

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/la...rtist-worries-about-its-future-9.7045684

[ponyboycurtis]

Install it at the traffic triangle across from the Library.

BadaBing BadaBoom

[urbanforest]

Originally Posted by ponyboycurtis

Install it at the traffic triangle across from the Library.

BadaBing BadaBoom

Depending on how the layout for Lebreton goes, maybe it could be placed on one of the hills in the parkland on the west side of the site.

Some photos of the carnage from today:

[Catenary]

“The piece had been taken down … with all the LED’s in place, which meant that they would not survive the two to four years sitting outside,” she said, adding that she feels the city “took the whole remediation possibility off the table.”

Why would storing the LEDs outside make any difference? It's an outdoor sculpture, they have never been protected from the elements.

I have never gotten the feeling that the artist is a particularly reasonable person and this doesn't help. Uplift, across the park required signage to keep kids in the adjacent splash fountain from slipping on the sculpture and cracking their heads on the sharp rock. Moving Surfaces used to play a rainbow during pride week which looked very cool, but I didn't see it the following year. I asked a friend who knew how the system worked, and he said that they weren't allowed to as the artist only allowed the sculpture to play their pre-approved lighting.

I get that the city hasn't been great about it, but maybe our art installations should be designed for long-term maintainability and not have sensitive components that require expensive, ongoing maintenance in perpetuity.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Catenary

I have never gotten the feeling that the artist is a particularly reasonable person and this doesn't help. Uplift, across the park required signage to keep kids in the adjacent splash fountain from slipping on the sculpture and cracking their heads on the sharp rock. Moving Surfaces used to play a rainbow during pride week which looked very cool, but I didn't see it the following year. I asked a friend who knew how the system worked, and he said that they weren't allowed to as the artist only allowed the sculpture to play their pre-approved lighting.

I remember that - the artist wants to continue to have a big say in what the the city does with the piece, which seemed to go a little far.

There is the idea of moral rights in a piece of art, so even when the city pays for the piece, the artist retains an interest in the integrity of the piece (for instance the city couldn't rework the piece without the artist's ok). Not sure if the city's purchase agreements don't include a waiver of those rights or if the artist is just making enough noise to put pressure on the city.

While the piece was designed for that spot on the hill and fit great there, it seems like a mistake for the city to pay millions of dollars for a piece of art and to give the artist a veto over any proposed move or change to the surrounding area. It's hard to say that most public art is so integral to a particular location that it can't ever be moved. That would be going in the wrong direction in terms of putting more hurdles in the way of development, at least in my opinion.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by phil235

I remember that - the artist wants to continue to have a big say in what the the city does with the piece, which seemed to go a little far.

There is the idea of moral rights in a piece of art, so even when the city pays for the piece, the artist retains an interest in the integrity of the piece (for instance the city couldn't rework the piece without the artist's ok). Not sure if the city's purchase agreements don't include a waiver of those rights or if the artist is just making enough noise to put pressure on the city.

While the piece was designed for that spot on the hill and fit great there, it seems like a mistake for the city to pay millions of dollars for a piece of art and to give the artist a veto over any proposed move or change to the surrounding area. It's hard to say that most public art is so integral to a particular location that it can't ever be moved. That would be going in the wrong direction in terms of putting more hurdles in the way of development, at least in my opinion.

Doesn't seem like she has a veto or that the City really cares what she thinks, or what anybody thinks of what we might do with a $4 million art piece.

When it was commissioned, I don't think anyone imagined we'd consider tearing down the Civic Centre and removing the berm less than a decade later.

The earlier 2.0 plans did include a good chunk of the berm preserved, along with the art installation, but it's been valued engineered to death (for somehow $200 million more) to the point we're ;eft with a mole hill that can't accommodate the structure.

I like the idea of moving it on a new berm at LeBreton Park since it could never have the same prominence at 2.0.

[J.OT13]

Went to Lansdowne on the weekend. Entire Great Lawn and treed plaza by Aberdeen have been ripped out.



And a strip of the football field.

[AuxTown]

Do we know the construction timeline? Is the arena going to be fully open before the old stands/arena come down?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by AuxTown

Do we know the construction timeline? Is the arena going to be fully open before the old stands/arena come down?

Yeah, the idea is to open the new arena before taking down the Civic Centre.

Phase 1: Event Centre (Nov 2025 – July 2028): Construction begins with the new event center and great lawn, aiming for completion by July 2028. Preliminary works, including site preparation, start in late 2025.
Phase 2: North-Side Stands (Nov 2028 – Nov 2030): The complete overhaul and reconstruction of the north-side stands at TD Place, including surrounding infrastructure.
Phase 3: Residential Development (2031 – 2034): Construction of two to three new residential towers is scheduled to follow, with total project completion expected by the end of 2034.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/ottawa/article/he...0north%2Dside%20stands%20at%20TD%20Place

[urbanforest]

Seeing the timeline is depressing. We’re talking basically a decade of construction for this gong show. Woohoo

[phil235]

Anyone know what the work along the edge of the football field is? I'm assuming that is what is forcing the relocation of the the Atletico home games over the next little while. Hopefully it is limited and short term?

Five years for the new arena and stadium is okay. I really hope that the condo development can be done on a relatively small site, so the rest of the park is up and running by then.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by phil235

Anyone know what the work along the edge of the football field is? I'm assuming that is what is forcing the relocation of the the Atletico home games over the next little while. Hopefully it is limited and short term?

Five years for the new arena and stadium is okay. I really hope that the condo development can be done on a relatively small site, so the rest of the park is up and running by then.

I'm not really sure. I'd wager utility work, but I'm not sure why that's necessary to do now when we're just bulldozing the park for site prep.

[c_speed3108]

I suspect that is probably the reason they were so anxious in the fall about getting a go/no-go from city council without delay. Enough time to get the utilities in and that area cleaned up before the football season in May and (ideally) Athletico in April, although they use less of the stadium.

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I'm not really sure. I'd wager utility work, but I'm not sure why that's necessary to do now when we're just bulldozing the park for site prep.

I believe it is sewer and water, being done in the winter to mitigate impact to the field. You can see a new concrete maintenance structure in the foreground of that picture.

[urbanforest]

Yeah, they’re installing utility lines for the new arena.

In a statement to CBC, the City of Ottawa explained that crews needed to install underground utilities for the future arena and event centre, to be built where a berm now stands at the east end of the stadium.

"With the footprint of the future Event Centre being located adjacent to the east endzone, there are utility connections that must be established underneath the northern edge of the field," the city said.

"To do this work, crews will require access to the field as they construct new utilities that will ultimately service the future Event Centre."

While part of the artificial turf at TD Place has been removed, the city said any construction affecting the pitch is scheduled for completion before the start of Atlético’s domestic season in April.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/at...ce-for-major-match-in-february-9.7020223

[phil235]

Thanks for the replies. I guess easier to go under the field than to go under the road or the buildings.

I think this was part of the anxiousness to move forward quickly, but there were also the changes to the building code that would have necessitated an expensive redesign of the arena and stands. That factor was mentioned in all of the documents that I saw.

I know Ottawa people often feel immune to economic cycles, but i do see quite a bit of value in this investment proceeding at a time when the federal government is cutting thousands of jobs and unemployment in the region is the highest in Canada. Without government spending on this and projects like this and the LRT and various federal complexes, the pain would be a lot worse right now.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Catenary

I believe it is sewer and water, being done in the winter to mitigate impact to the field. You can see a new concrete maintenance structure in the foreground of that picture.

Fair.

Originally Posted by phil235

Thanks for the replies. I guess easier to go under the field than to go under the road or the buildings.

I think this was part of the anxiousness to move forward quickly, but there were also the changes to the building code that would have necessitated an expensive redesign of the arena and stands. That factor was mentioned in all of the documents that I saw.

I know Ottawa people often feel immune to economic cycles, but i do see quite a bit of value in this investment proceeding at a time when the federal government is cutting thousands of jobs and unemployment in the region is the highest in Canada. Without government spending on this and projects like this and the LRT and various federal complexes, the pain would be a lot worse right now.

Do we have any idea what those building code changes are that would have impacted the project? It's a little ironic that accessibility was a big argument point if beating those building code changes means fewer accessibly features.

Beating a dead horse, but 2.0 itself isn't the problem, but the value engineering that transformed a decent project with minimal impact and new and exciting destinations to this basic facility looming over the park that looks like the Rexall Centre with a green roof, along with the removal of any new feature, is what most people take issue with.

The biggest complaint I remember hearing with the initial proposal was that the green roof was not accessible, and somehow we ended up with no green roof and the full removal of the berm.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Do we have any idea what those building code changes are that would have impacted the project? It's a little ironic that accessibility was a big argument point if beating those building code changes means fewer accessibly features.
...

The biggest complaint I remember hearing with the initial proposal was that the green roof was not accessible, and somehow we ended up with no green roof and the full removal of the berm.

I only saw general descriptions of the Code changes, but they had to do with energy efficiency, accessibility and general construction requirements. I don't think that the issue was the changes in and of themselves, but rather the timing. The entire project had been designed under the then current building code and it would have needed to be re-designed to meet the standards in the new code, so there would have been cost and delay.

Accessibility features aren't only dictated by the building code - there are detailed requirements under the Accessible Ontario Act that came into full effect in 2025 and the Human Rights Code that apply to public buildings as well. So the overall level of accessibility is still going to meet strict standards regardless.

I didn't know about the full removal of the berm.