Welcome Guest! In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away. Click here to get started.


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Cambridge Multi-Sports Complex [Proposed]
#31
More vocal opposition to the proposed location.

http://m.therecord.com/news-story/649554...x-location-
Reply
#32
(04-14-2016, 04:44 AM)rangersfan Wrote: More vocal opposition to the proposed location.

http://m.therecord.com/news-story/649554...x-location-

It's probably evil to mention it, but I think when those folks say that it's a bad location for Cambridge, they really mean that it's a bad location for Galt.
Reply
#33
(04-14-2016, 08:49 AM)panamaniac Wrote:
(04-14-2016, 04:44 AM)rangersfan Wrote: More vocal opposition to the proposed location.

http://m.therecord.com/news-story/649554...x-location-

It's probably evil to mention it, but I think when those folks say that it's a bad location for Cambridge, they really mean that it's a bad location for Galt.

It's not that great for Hespeler, and inconvenient for Preston. Blairites probably don't mind.
My Twitter: @KevinLMaps
Reply
#34
How is it not great for Hespeler? The 401 goes directly from Hespeler to the proposed location of the Sportsplex. As well, with a multiuse trail planned for Preston almost all the way to the Sportsplex to be built next year, it doesn't seem too bad for them either. Galt has it the worst.
Reply
#35
City of Cambridge complains about regional courthouse being created in center of region.
City of Cambridge complains about Cambridge sports facility not being located in center of Cambridge.

... Rolleyes
Reply
#36
(04-14-2016, 08:49 AM)panamaniac Wrote:
(04-14-2016, 04:44 AM)rangersfan Wrote: More vocal opposition to the proposed location.

http://m.therecord.com/news-story/649554...x-location-

It's probably evil to mention it, but I think when those folks say that it's a bad location for Cambridge, they really mean that it's a bad location for Galt.

Not really great for Preston since it requires going around a chokepoint in the city to get there. For Hespeler the 401 doesn't really have an interchange in it, it runs on the outside of Hespeler and the only on ramps in that direction are on townline road (going backwards on the very edge of Hespeler) or on Hwy 24, actually outside of Hespeler. It's not really close to much in Cambridge. Add to it that they are talking about closing down 2 existing ice pads that are located in the city to out there it doesn't help. For anyone who gets around on transit it isn't an easy ride for anyone.

Usually for buildings like this councillors will talk about all the economic spin off that is going to happen, but in this case they can't.


(04-14-2016, 02:32 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: City of Cambridge complains about regional courthouse being created in center of region.
City of Cambridge complains about Cambridge sports facility not being located in center of Cambridge.

... Rolleyes
The complaint about the courthouse probably more had to do with the one in Cambridge closing.
Reply
#37
(04-16-2016, 09:37 AM)darts Wrote: For anyone who gets around on transit it isn't an easy ride for anyone.

Realistically not many sports complex users get there on transit.  Maybe if we had more transit-accessible locations it would improve somewhat (although not many kids will haul hockey gear on a bus), but look at the arena/sports complex locations in K-W built in the last few decades, and apart from Waterloo Memorial Recreation Complex, few are accessible by transit.  RIM Park, Activa, CORE are all car-oriented.  How about Cambridge Sports Park, is it transit-accessible (and do people actually use transit to get there)?

I can actually walk from home to Don McLaren (next to KCI and GRH) -- but carrying hockey equipment all that way diminishes the appeal of the walk!
Reply
#38
(04-16-2016, 10:35 AM)tomh009 Wrote:
(04-16-2016, 09:37 AM)darts Wrote: For anyone who gets around on transit it isn't an easy ride for anyone.

Realistically not many sports complex users get there on transit.  Maybe if we had more transit-accessible locations it would improve somewhat (although not many kids will haul hockey gear on a bus), but look at the arena/sports complex locations in K-W built in the last few decades, and apart from Waterloo Memorial Recreation Complex, few are accessible by transit.  RIM Park, Activa, CORE are all car-oriented.  How about Cambridge Sports Park, is it transit-accessible (and do people actually use transit to get there)?

I can actually walk from home to Don McLaren (next to KCI and GRH) -- but carrying hockey equipment all that way diminishes the appeal of the walk!
Hockey users I agree won't for sure, but there are gyms planned in the facility, it would make it more difficult to reach it for afterschool basketball or volleyball, or even for the people who will work there.

The YMCA in cambridge does have a lot of transit users for it's gym facilities.
Reply
#39
Which ice pads are planned to be closed? Do they have other sports at those, too? And transit-accessible?
Reply
#40
(04-16-2016, 12:19 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Which ice pads are planned to be closed?  Do they have other sports at those, too?  And transit-accessible?

"During Tuesday’s meeting, the future of several existing facilities was also briefly discussed. Should the multiplex go forward, the city could look at closing the rinks at Karl Homuth, Dickson and Duncan McIntosh arenas.

McVittie said a review will take place and a report on decommissioning one, two or all of those arenas will be brought back to council later this year."http://m.cambridgetimes.ca/news-story/6374343--54-6m-or-72-3m-two-multiplex-options-headed-to-council-next-week

In short they don't really know or have really a plan in place. If they spend extra on the new arena they might not have money available to refurbish an existing arena assuming that they are in need of replacement

As for transit accessible they are in neighbourhoods and all have buses that are scheduled to at least 9 I believe off the top of my head.
Reply
#41
Thanks, darts. It seems that those are hockey-only facilities, though, right? If so, transit will be a less appealing option even at the current arenas, given the need for most users to carry hockey equipment.
Reply
#42
(04-16-2016, 12:55 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Thanks, darts.  It seems that those are hockey-only facilities, though, right?  If so, transit will be a less appealing option even at the current arenas, given the need for most users to carry hockey equipment.

True but the new proposal does have a gym and it would be a lot more beneficial to be in the city.
Reply
#43
Fair enough. It's a lost opportunity (unless there will be reasonably convenient transit to the new complex at Conestoga College), but not an actual loss compared to today's situation.
Reply
#44
(04-14-2016, 08:49 AM)panamaniac Wrote:
(04-14-2016, 04:44 AM)rangersfan Wrote: More vocal opposition to the proposed location.

http://m.therecord.com/news-story/649554...x-location-

It's probably evil to mention it, but I think when those folks say that it's a bad location for Cambridge, they really mean that it's a bad location for Galt.

Took the words out of my fingers. All the Galt old money is complaining that they didn't locate a big facility south of the Delta again. I was in favour of the Holiday Inn Drive proposal, but this works too.
Reply
#45
More icepads but no location

Looks like the price for the place keeps going up despite no location being finalized. I wonder if the "no sportsplex" side will start to become more vocal than the those arguing about location. Seems like a a huge amount of money.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)