Charles St GRT terminal redevelopment

[tomh009]

However, I personally don't care as much for the potential of the Charles Terminal site as much as I do about the Aud site. I think that area has massive potential to be redeveloped (if done thoughtfully). Perhaps by refurbishing the older parts of the existing Aud as a new community center, which itself could center a large scale development with a significant affordable housing component. I honestly wasn't aware of the "sewer trunk" cited in the article (which is funny, since I work to design water/wastewater infrastructure - I should know better!), and how it also lends itself to being prepared to take on an additional load without the need for upgrades.

I think the Aud site is big enough to contain a new Aud building, structured parking and significant redevelopment. It's over 44 acres, and probably about half of it is surface parking today.

[danbrotherston]

I really don’t understand the obsession some planners have with sports facilities. They usually turn out badly. This is an overwhelmingly bad idea. It’s frustrating how few are it.

How so?  The idea of a new arena, the location, the suggested mechanism to pay for it, or a preference for other spending priorities?

There are many reasons. 

For one, the priorities are wrong. We shouldn’t be spending money on a new arena, and the planner is utterly naive to believe we can get it for free. Sporting venues very often end up being a complete quagmire. 

For two, there are so many much more valuable things we can do in that space. Many want an indigenous centre, but even if you’re not on board with that it’s at the centre of our city, a high density and intensity of use is vastly better than something that gets used a handful of days a week at best.

For three, the location is poor. I hate that we live in a car dependent city, but we do, and especially a venue like an arena will demand a huge amount of parking, and because of the lack of vision of most people in our society, they won’t even consider the Benton garage, so it will result in a huge amount of parking added downtown. Worse, it’s actually a dense residential area meaning nights it is used there will be significant disruption to many more peoples lives.

Do you want a fourth reason?  I think it’s a waste to build a new arena, the Aud is fine, the current location is good, it could easily be renovated.  The same people demanding a new arena will throw a tantrum if you plan to demolish anything more than 60 years old.

Also a typo in my first: *frustrating how few *see* it

[the_conestoga_guy]

How so?  The idea of a new arena, the location, the suggested mechanism to pay for it, or a preference for other spending priorities?

There are many reasons. 

For one, the priorities are wrong. We shouldn’t be spending money on a new arena, and the planner is utterly naive to believe we can get it for free. Sporting venues very often end up being a complete quagmire. 

For two, there are so many much more valuable things we can do in that space. Many want an indigenous centre, but even if you’re not on board with that it’s at the centre of our city, a high density and intensity of use is vastly better than something that gets used a handful of days a week at best.

For three, the location is poor. I hate that we live in a car dependent city, but we do, and especially a venue like an arena will demand a huge amount of parking, and because of the lack of vision of most people in our society, they won’t even consider the Benton garage, so it will result in a huge amount of parking added downtown. Worse, it’s actually a dense residential area meaning nights it is used there will be significant disruption to many more peoples lives.

Do you want a fourth reason?  I think it’s a waste to build a new arena, the Aud is fine, the current location is good, it could easily be renovated.  The same people demanding a new arena will throw a tantrum if you plan to demolish anything more than 60 years old.

Also a typo in my first:  *frustrating how few *see* it

For better or for worse, I think that the city of Kitchener will be building a replacement to the Aud sometime in the future. For the sake of argument, I'm assuming this to be the case. Obviously I think there are more pressing matters for our tax dollars to go towards; I'm just operating in this assumed future scenario.

If we assume that the city will be building a new venue, I think the most important question is "where should it be constructed such that we can provide the greatest economic impact per tax dollar invested?" 

I personally look to cities like Winnipeg and London, and observe the successes/mistakes/lessons from each of them. They constructed similar sized arenas on similar sized plots of land as the Charles St Terminal. London, for example, built a new arena with minimal new parking, and they're just as car-dependent as Kitchener. Plus, they didn't have an LRT stop next door to the site. There are tons of arguments against this kind of development, but I don't think access to parking should be one of them.

I do agree that there will be increased traffic downtown as a result, and that will be disruptive to the downtown residents. But, not to sound too harsh, that's probably a good thing for the downtown businesses? Further investment by the city into active-transportation infrastructure in combination with the LRT will hopefully mitigate the car traffic from nearby residents. The remaining cars will likely be people entering the city core from the suburbs, the same people who have been saying "there's no reason to go downtown after 5pm." These are people who will be visiting downtown who might otherwise never do so, and could now have the opportunity/excuse to shop at the downtown businesses.

[jeffster]

Why is everyone so fixated on building an arena here? It's a stupid idea, especially downtown. The Aud sits dormant most of the year unless there is an event going on.

The Aud doesn’t sit dormant. Usually, as in without covid-19, besides Rangers games and the occasional concert, and other larger special events, there are also a lot of trade shows, along with tournaments. The Aud, and the twin pads, are usually booked for at least 300 days or more per year, with the entire area (The Aud and arenas, football field, baseball park) being use almost every day.

A downtown venue would mean you would literally have an arena that would be dormant 80% of the time, with Rangers and concerts and the occasional Jeff Dunham type show coming in. It’s not likely that you will have regular rentals into the new arena as who wants to lug equipment and pay $10 for parking to have a game of shiny. That means this would not serve the community at all.

That said, putting the arena in downtown Kitchener also means you’re losing 3 ice pads and replacing it with one. This is where “The Devil’s in the Details”

1) trade shows are gone, as generally they use two or three ice pads, all depending.
2) tournaments are gone.
3) Jack Coach is gone — where do the Panthers go?
4) a crap load of other events are gone

In the meantime, now you have to replace 2 additional ice pads as they are needed in the city.
You have to replace the baseball park. Does it go back downtown (where it originally was located?).

So cost now isn’t just to replace “The Aud”, but you also have to find land to replace the two other pads. You have to find land for the Panthers with a stadium that should be able to seat 2,000 (or more).

All costs not factored in replacing that entire area.

But once city hall decides this is a great idea, likely there is no stopping them.

I also agree with Dan with almost everything on why this is a terrible idea.

If the city has dollar sign in their eyes regarding the value of this property, they claim $440m, if money is what they want, sell off a golf course, which is a lot more land, and would give you a hell of a lot more money.

[jeffster]

However, I personally don't care as much for the potential of the Charles Terminal site as much as I do about the Aud site. I think that area has massive potential to be redeveloped (if done thoughtfully). Perhaps by refurbishing the older parts of the existing Aud as a new community center, which itself could center a large scale development with a significant affordable housing component. I honestly wasn't aware of the "sewer trunk" cited in the article (which is funny, since I work to design water/wastewater infrastructure - I should know better!), and how it also lends itself to being prepared to take on an additional load without the need for upgrades.

I think the Aud site is big enough to contain a new Aud building, structured parking and significant redevelopment. It's over 44 acres, and probably about half of it is surface parking today.

All they would need to do is put the new arena in Centennial park — the city would lose 1 soccer/football field, but that’s it. You could clean up the area to add additional parking if needed — and a shuttle to Borden Station.

[KevinL]

I think the Aud site is big enough to contain a new Aud building, structured parking and significant redevelopment. It's over 44 acres, and probably about half of it is surface parking today.

All they would need to do is put the new arena in Centennial park — the city would lose 1 soccer/football field, but that’s it. You could clean up the area to add additional parking if needed — and a shuttle to Borden Station.

Took me a bit to realize what you meant - put the arena where Centennial *Stadium* once was and demolish the original. That could work.

[Joedelay Highhoe]

If Kitchener had any half decent sports teams it might be worthwhile. But Junior B hockey? Ugh. This isn't the Bridgestone Arena and Kitchener isn't Nashville.

[ac3r]

I had no idea they tore that down until a few months ago. I never go to The Aud so it has been years since I've seen it, then I think I saw it on Google Maps or somewhere and thought...wait what happened to the Centennial "Stadium"?

Fond memories of that thing, but I can understand the removal. It was very old.

[the_conestoga_guy]

If Kitchener had any half decent sports teams it might be worthwhile. But Junior B hockey? Ugh. This isn't the Bridgestone Arena and Kitchener isn't Nashville.

Not everyone loves junior hockey, but lets not pretend that we aren't blessed to have the Kitchener Rangers in our home town. The OHL is the most important junior hockey league in the world (and is a few leagues above Junior B), and we have the second most prosperous team in that league in our city.

If we're being realistic, we're not about to attract an NHL/MLB/NFL/NBA team to our city (in our lifetime at least). And if we're trying to stay on topic with respect to the development of the Charles Street Terminal property, then we needn't consider an MLS/CFL/minor league baseball team. I'd argue that having an OHL team is in the next tier of importance. I know this is all incredibly subjective, but there is some intangible value in contributing to the identity of our national past-time. 

Speaking of Junior B, the Aud previously hosted the Kitchener Dutchman before they moved to Ayr. Perhaps a new arena could also play host to the KW Siskins, which would then free up their current venue for other uses. 

Finally, the KW Titans exist and play at the Aud. I don't know much about them, but I'm sure they'd be upset not to be included in this conversation!

[neonjoe]

If Kitchener had any half decent sports teams it might be worthwhile. But Junior B hockey? Ugh. This isn't the Bridgestone Arena and Kitchener isn't Nashville.

The OHL is Major Junior A hockey, the top tier for amateur hockey. Pre-covid the Aud was almost always sold out and theres a long waiting list to get season tickets. So there is demand for the hockey at least.
The Titans on the other hand are not filling the aud but its good to have another sport fill the facility during non hockey times. 
During the summer months its deal. The venue also is too small to draw large acts and too big for smaller acts so it really doesn't get used too often. We definitely do not get as many events as some cities that are smaller than the 10th biggest CMA in Canada.

Maybe keeping the Aud site but allowing some redevelopment for Mixed including food could be an option. Having the restaurants/bars near by go a long way in staggering the arrival and departure times of the guests which in turn could alleviate traffic.

Another spot that I always thought would have been good for a venue would be the Charles/Kent or Charles/Borden blocks. They are very much under-utilized and having a non-split section of LRT there could encourage more transit ridership to the games.

[KevinL]

There's no way we'll get an MLS team, but a CPL soccer team is well within this region's grasp (and it's been discussed before). That will require a different property than the terminal, though, and is more likely somewhere on the Aud grounds.

[Lens]

Am I the only one who thinks there's nothing wrong with the Aud as it is today? They have repeatedly updated and improved it over the past 20 years and probably back even further. I see no reason why it can't continue to be upgraded, expanded and improved for another 30+ years. I hate the mentality in the sports world that a venue is old and must be replaced just because it's 40 years old. It's EXTREMELY wasteful to replace a building let alone a large one like the Aud.

[danbrotherston]

There are many reasons. 

For one, the priorities are wrong. We shouldn’t be spending money on a new arena, and the planner is utterly naive to believe we can get it for free. Sporting venues very often end up being a complete quagmire. 

For two, there are so many much more valuable things we can do in that space. Many want an indigenous centre, but even if you’re not on board with that it’s at the centre of our city, a high density and intensity of use is vastly better than something that gets used a handful of days a week at best.

For three, the location is poor. I hate that we live in a car dependent city, but we do, and especially a venue like an arena will demand a huge amount of parking, and because of the lack of vision of most people in our society, they won’t even consider the Benton garage, so it will result in a huge amount of parking added downtown. Worse, it’s actually a dense residential area meaning nights it is used there will be significant disruption to many more peoples lives.

Do you want a fourth reason?  I think it’s a waste to build a new arena, the Aud is fine, the current location is good, it could easily be renovated.  The same people demanding a new arena will throw a tantrum if you plan to demolish anything more than 60 years old.

Also a typo in my first:  *frustrating how few *see* it

For better or for worse, I think that the city of Kitchener will be building a replacement to the Aud sometime in the future. For the sake of argument, I'm assuming this to be the case. Obviously I think there are more pressing matters for our tax dollars to go towards; I'm just operating in this assumed future scenario.

If we assume that the city will be building a new venue, I think the most important question is "where should it be constructed such that we can provide the greatest economic impact per tax dollar invested?" 

I personally look to cities like Winnipeg and London, and observe the successes/mistakes/lessons from each of them. They constructed similar sized arenas on similar sized plots of land as the Charles St Terminal. London, for example, built a new arena with minimal new parking, and they're just as car-dependent as Kitchener. Plus, they didn't have an LRT stop next door to the site. There are tons of arguments against this kind of development, but I don't think access to parking should be one of them.

I do agree that there will be increased traffic downtown as a result, and that will be disruptive to the downtown residents. But, not to sound too harsh, that's probably a good thing for the downtown businesses? Further investment by the city into active-transportation infrastructure in combination with the LRT will hopefully mitigate the car traffic from nearby residents. The remaining cars will likely be people entering the city core from the suburbs, the same people who have been saying "there's no reason to go downtown after 5pm." These are people who will be visiting downtown who might otherwise never do so, and could now have the opportunity/excuse to shop at the downtown businesses.

London is a good counter example. That being said, London downtown is also utterly gutted in comparison to Kitcheners downtown, I'm not sure it's a model we should aim for.

As for business, I'm not sure it does help businesses. People who go to an arena, might buy food downtown, or they might just go somewhere else, then drive to the arena. This kind of behaviour has been seen before, I know it was studied in LA, but I'm sure it has happened other places.

I'm no economist or planner, but AFAIK the traditional pump up downtown schemes usually fail, and the best way to actually help downtown businesses is to have people LIVE downtown, certainly we are moving that direction, but there is still huge demand for housing.

Instead of asking "where is the best place for an arena", I'd ask what is the best use for that particular site. I think "arena" would be pretty far down the list.

But I suspect you're right, Kitchener probably won't be building a new arena any time soon. Despite how much the city does seem to love these bullshit kinda investments (I'm looking at you The Museum advertising helicopter), it takes a decade to do anything and I don't think they're really even thinking about it right now, so this whole discussion is probably academic.

FWIW though, "selling this plot to the highest bidder for condos" probably isn't top of my list of best uses for the site either, but it is the one I expect will happen.

[danbrotherston]

Why is everyone so fixated on building an arena here? It's a stupid idea, especially downtown. The Aud sits dormant most of the year unless there is an event going on.

The Aud doesn’t sit dormant. Usually, as in without covid-19, besides Rangers games and the occasional concert, and other larger special events, there are also a lot of trade shows, along with tournaments. The Aud, and the twin pads, are usually booked for at least 300 days or more per year, with the entire area (The Aud and arenas, football field, baseball park) being use almost every day.

A downtown venue would mean you would literally have an arena that would be dormant 80% of the time, with Rangers and concerts and the occasional Jeff Dunham type show coming in. It’s not likely that you will have regular rentals into the new arena as who wants to lug equipment and pay $10 for parking to have a game of shiny. That means this would not serve the community at all.

That said, putting the arena in downtown Kitchener also means you’re losing 3 ice pads and replacing it with one. This is where “The Devil’s in the Details”

1) trade shows are gone, as generally they use two or three ice pads, all depending.
2) tournaments are gone.
3) Jack Coach is gone — where do the Panthers go?
4) a crap load of other events are gone

In the meantime, now you have to replace 2 additional ice pads as they are needed in the city.
You have to replace the baseball park. Does it go back downtown (where it originally was located?).

So cost now isn’t just to replace “The Aud”, but you also have to find land to replace the two other pads. You have to find land for the Panthers with a stadium that should be able to seat 2,000 (or more).

All costs not factored in replacing that entire area.

But once city hall decides this is a great idea, likely there is no stopping them.

I also agree with Dan with almost everything on why this is a terrible idea.

If the city has dollar sign in their eyes regarding the value of this property, they claim $440m, if money is what they want, sell off a golf course, which is a lot more land, and would give you a hell of a lot more money.

Lol...I was going to say, we don't always agree, but in this case, yeah, you're absolutely right, those are also very good point.

Like I said, I really don't understand why people find this idea so appealing. I'll admit I'm biased, my home is right next to it, so I like, wouldn't like an arena there, but if you dig at all, it just isn't a good fit.

[danbrotherston]

Am I the only one who thinks there's nothing wrong with the Aud as it is today? They have repeatedly updated and improved it over the past 20 years and probably back even further. I see no reason why it can't continue to be upgraded, expanded and improved for another 30+ years. I hate the mentality in the sports world that a venue is old and must be replaced just because it's 40 years old. It's EXTREMELY wasteful to replace a building let alone a large one like the Aud.

Yeah, this is on point!

I don't get it, like I said, the same people who are advocating for this, would also argue against tearing down even a single home over 60 years old.

It isn't about heritage or smart use of resources.