Charles St GRT terminal redevelopment

[clasher]

Convention centres and arenas are also pretty expensive to build, and I'm skeptical that it would be a wise use of public money. We'd face tough competition from London, Hamilton, and Toronto. I'd guess for as much as there are success stories of rinks/convention centres providing economic benefits, there's also a lot of places where they need millions a year in subsidies, and cost hundreds of millions to build.

[mgoose]

MAybe I was being a little too frank with my response, but If people don't feel safe now in dtk, I don't think they are the type of person that is ever going to "feel" safe in an urban environment. Just because we add more residents or events or things that will draw people downtown, does not mean we are going to get rid of the "grit" that comes with literally every urban core in canada.

As for what DTK needs it is obviously a combination of a lot off things, but only investing in residential units is not going to magically save DTK. I think it is a net positive, but people need things to do. Also it would be nice to draw people from outside the region into our cores. Right know I can not think of many reasons for someone from hamilton to come the kitchener.

To be fair, my wife and I will be moving to one of the new developments in DTK next year from Mississauga precisely because every single time we've come over for a weekend there has been something going on! Last year I think was the carnival, blues festival a market of some sorts and of course the Christmas market last weekend which we thoroughly enjoyed. I think the insane prices in the GTA will mean more people flee to neighbouring regions.

[danbrotherston]

Interesting, a lot of posters on this forum hate the suburbanites but want their money, go figure

Downtown is not safe, it's still very much a work in progress - the sooner this is realized and addressed the better

I don't "hate" suburbanites, I literally am one. But I correctly highlight that they are subsidized by the downtown, both directly in lower taxes (this is absolutely true where I live too), and indirectly by their activities (driving through and around downtown degrading the lives of people who live downtown).

If you feel pointing out these clear and unbiased facts are "hate" then I'd get a mirror, because that's your defensiveness speaking, not anyone here.

[westwardloo]

Convention centres and arenas are also pretty expensive to build, and I'm skeptical that it would be a wise use of public money. We'd face tough competition from London, Hamilton, and Toronto. I'd guess for as much as there are success stories of rinks/convention centres providing economic benefits, there's also a lot of places where they need millions a year in subsidies, and cost hundreds of millions to build.

Nothing is ever guaranteed, look at the failed urban revitalization attempts across canada in the 80's.  There will always be risk involved in a large public infrastructure project, look at the Montreal Olympics vs the Vancouver Olympics. The main objective once leadership determines they want to pursue something, be it a convention centre, a stadium or something like the Human Right Museum, is how can we achieve our goal that gives us the highest likelihood of success.  

Living life with a defeatist attitude is not productive "It might fail so why try".

[danbrotherston]

Convention centres and arenas are also pretty expensive to build, and I'm skeptical that it would be a wise use of public money. We'd face tough competition from London, Hamilton, and Toronto. I'd guess for as much as there are success stories of rinks/convention centres providing economic benefits, there's also a lot of places where they need millions a year in subsidies, and cost hundreds of millions to build.

Nothing is ever guaranteed, look at the failed urban revitalization attempts across canada in the 80's.  There will always be risk involved in a large public infrastructure project, look at the Montreal Olympics vs the Vancouver Olympics. The main objective once leadership determines they want to pursue something, be it a convention centre, a stadium or something like the Human Right Museum, is how can we achieve our goal that gives us the highest likelihood of success.  

Living life with a defeatist attitude is not productive "It might fail so why try".

I agree that defeatism isn't a good policy.

But I also think it's important to be smart. The malls in downtown failed because the people who promoted them didn't bother to understand how and why downtowns work. I think the same thing is happening with people promoting arenas. It's not to say that an arena can't be included in a revitalisation project, but I believe that if an arena is the thing you think will improve things, that simply isn't the case. Making downtown a place people want to be is the answer.

Here, let's ask a relevant question. The city already has an arena, I've been to it a few times. Is the presence of the arena in the auditorium neighbourhood making that neighbourhood more vital or more active than it would be without it? Or is it intermittently adding traffic, congestion, and parking complaints interspaced by being an empty inactive plot of land.

So why would we think an arena would do something different in downtown?

[westwardloo]

Nothing is ever guaranteed, look at the failed urban revitalization attempts across canada in the 80's.  There will always be risk involved in a large public infrastructure project, look at the Montreal Olympics vs the Vancouver Olympics. The main objective once leadership determines they want to pursue something, be it a convention centre, a stadium or something like the Human Right Museum, is how can we achieve our goal that gives us the highest likelihood of success.  

Living life with a defeatist attitude is not productive "It might fail so why try".

I agree that defeatism isn't a good policy.

But I also think it's important to be smart. The malls in downtown failed because the people who promoted them didn't bother to understand how and why downtowns work. I think the same thing is happening with people promoting arenas. It's not to say that an arena can't be included in a revitalisation project, but I believe that if an arena is the thing you think will improve things, that simply isn't the case. Making downtown a place people want to be is the answer.

Here, let's ask a relevant question. The city already has an arena, I've been to it a few times. Is the presence of the arena in the auditorium neighbourhood making that neighbourhood more vital or more active than it would be without it? Or is it intermittently adding traffic, congestion, and parking complaints interspaced by being an empty inactive plot of land.

So why would we think an arena would do something different in downtown?

Well, that is an easy answer. There is nothing else, but the arena near the Aud with little to no transit and very little density so not many people are walking. DTK has restaurants, shops, Rapid transit and high density around it. 

I am not saying an Arena is the only answer, but i truly believe that it is part of the answer, it guarantees 8-10k people entering the DTK core at a minimum 34 nights a year. That doesn't include the titans,  all of the concerts or other events it could host (Brier, World Juniors, Figure skating worlds).  The thing is, at the end of the day the Aud is 75 years old and will need to be replaced in the next 2 decades, why not think of it now while we still have available land DTK to incorporate a DT Arena.

[the_conestoga_guy]

I agree that defeatism isn't a good policy.

But I also think it's important to be smart. The malls in downtown failed because the people who promoted them didn't bother to understand how and why downtowns work. I think the same thing is happening with people promoting arenas. It's not to say that an arena can't be included in a revitalisation project, but I believe that if an arena is the thing you think will improve things, that simply isn't the case. Making downtown a place people want to be is the answer.

Here, let's ask a relevant question. The city already has an arena, I've been to it a few times. Is the presence of the arena in the auditorium neighbourhood making that neighbourhood more vital or more active than it would be without it? Or is it intermittently adding traffic, congestion, and parking complaints interspaced by being an empty inactive plot of land.

So why would we think an arena would do something different in downtown?

Well, that is an easy answer. There is nothing else, but the arena near the Aud with little to no transit and very little density so not many people are walking. DTK has restaurants, shops, Rapid transit and high density around it. 

I am not saying an Arena is the only answer, but i truly believe that it is part of the answer, it guarantees 8-10k people entering the DTK core at a minimum 34 nights a year. That doesn't include the titans,  all of the concerts or other events it could host (Brier, World Juniors, Figure skating worlds).  The thing is, at the end of the day the Aud is 75 years old and will need to be replaced in the next 2 decades, why not think of it now while we still have available land DTK to incorporate a DT Arena.

Your last point is the one that I've been harping on, too. I still think that we shouldn't view downtown in a vacuum, and that moving the Aud downtown could open up the existing Aud-lands to become a massive housing development that could add thousands of homes.

Obviously an arena isn't a panacea for all of downtown's issues, and it won't magically turn downtown into a world-class place on its own. But I firmly believe that downtowns should act as the cultural hub for their cities, and in Canada, hockey is viewed as a major part of our culture. That's not to mention all of the other cultural amenities that you've listed.

Compared to the JLC Bud Gardens Canada Life Place in London, DTK has significantly more parking spaces available in closer-proximity. DTK also has rapid transit running through its core which London does not (not yet, anyway). For all the arguments that you could ever make against building a new arena downtown, the transportation-aspect is clearly not one that holds any water.

Lastly, if we're not going to build the arena downtown, where else would you rather see it built? There will be a new arena in the next 50 years regardless. Do we want to build it in the suburbs and rely on cars for getting to it, or do we want to put it somewhere that it can offer ancillary economic benefits while also being near rapid transit?

[plam]

Need the arena and a convention centre DTK... simple

I am so, so tired of people thinking that convention centres are a magical solution to downtown revitalization. They really aren't. All of the NZ cities got on that train and built new convention centres recently (Wellington, Christchurch). A booming downtown economy has not ensued.

Indeed, I think that something like a climbing gym is far more likely to have positive effects on urban life than a convention centre.

[panamaniac]

Well, that is an easy answer. There is nothing else, but the arena near the Aud with little to no transit and very little density so not many people are walking. DTK has restaurants, shops, Rapid transit and high density around it. 

I am not saying an Arena is the only answer, but i truly believe that it is part of the answer, it guarantees 8-10k people entering the DTK core at a minimum 34 nights a year. That doesn't include the titans,  all of the concerts or other events it could host (Brier, World Juniors, Figure skating worlds).  The thing is, at the end of the day the Aud is 75 years old and will need to be replaced in the next 2 decades, why not think of it now while we still have available land DTK to incorporate a DT Arena.

Your last point is the one that I've been harping on, too. I still think that we shouldn't view downtown in a vacuum, and that moving the Aud downtown could open up the existing Aud-lands to become a massive housing development that could add thousands of homes.

Obviously an arena isn't a panacea for all of downtown's issues, and it won't magically turn downtown into a world-class place on its own. But I firmly believe that downtowns should act as the cultural hub for their cities, and in Canada, hockey is viewed as a major part of our culture. That's not to mention all of the other cultural amenities that you've listed.

Compared to the JLC Bud Gardens Canada Life Place in London, DTK has significantly more parking spaces available in closer-proximity. DTK also has rapid transit running through its core which London does not (not yet, anyway). For all the arguments that you could ever make against building a new arena downtown, the transportation-aspect is clearly not one that holds any water.

Lastly, if we're not going to build the arena downtown, where else would you rather see it built? There will be a new arena in the next 50 years regardless. Do we want to build it in the suburbs and rely on cars for getting to it, or do we want to put it somewhere that it can offer ancillary economic benefits while also being near rapid transit?

If it were me, it would be in the area bounded by Charles/Ottawa, Schneider Creek, and Borden.  Central enough with good transit, walking/biking, and bus links, along with good highwary access.

And the existing Aud site would become a major urban park, perhaps incorporating additional sports facilities.

[bravado]

Interesting, a lot of posters on this forum hate the suburbanites but want their money, go figure

Downtown is not safe, it's still very much a work in progress - the sooner this is realized and addressed the better

Any revenue generated from making suburbanite customers happy pales in comparison to the unfunded public liabilities they require just to get to your business in the first place.

Again, the suburbs need downtown. It does not flow the other way in any healthy cities.

[Momo26]

This has created good discord. I like the debate.

[clasher]

I don't think I have a defeatist attitude for thinking that there's probably better uses of large amounts of public money than building a convention centre. It'd probably be half a billion dollars by the time all is said and done. But I moved away from downtown so I suppose it doesn't matter what I think.

[Momo26]

I already shared i think it needs to be a mix of loads of things.

I am okay with an arena/premier sports AND entertainment venue but I think if we are doing the office and condos, we should take inspiration from The Well, Distillery District and Celebration Square.

I put more details in an earlier post. To build on that we could have a nice community space, RecRoom type all ages gaming business, plenty of restos with patios, something like planetarium and a larger Museum space and have clear linkages to the park and Immovation area as well as to King Street proper all whilst still paying homage to our roots and community members at large.


Then we need a Board for the Planetarium and Museum that goes hard and bringing the best and sought after exhibits to town. Selfishly perhaps, like Chicago, it should be FREE or heavily subsidized for Waterloo Region residents.

Just some thoughts.

Have a vision, spend the bux, and make Kitchener Waterloo a top 4 destination to live, play, work and visit in all of Canada (behind Toronto, Vancouver and say Montreal, as these are hard to top)

[danbrotherston]

I agree that defeatism isn't a good policy.

But I also think it's important to be smart. The malls in downtown failed because the people who promoted them didn't bother to understand how and why downtowns work. I think the same thing is happening with people promoting arenas. It's not to say that an arena can't be included in a revitalisation project, but I believe that if an arena is the thing you think will improve things, that simply isn't the case. Making downtown a place people want to be is the answer.

Here, let's ask a relevant question. The city already has an arena, I've been to it a few times. Is the presence of the arena in the auditorium neighbourhood making that neighbourhood more vital or more active than it would be without it? Or is it intermittently adding traffic, congestion, and parking complaints interspaced by being an empty inactive plot of land.

So why would we think an arena would do something different in downtown?

Well, that is an easy answer. There is nothing else, but the arena near the Aud with little to no transit and very little density so not many people are walking. DTK has restaurants, shops, Rapid transit and high density around it. 

I am not saying an Arena is the only answer, but i truly believe that it is part of the answer, it guarantees 8-10k people entering the DTK core at a minimum 34 nights a year. That doesn't include the titans,  all of the concerts or other events it could host (Brier, World Juniors, Figure skating worlds).  The thing is, at the end of the day the Aud is 75 years old and will need to be replaced in the next 2 decades, why not think of it now while we still have available land DTK to incorporate a DT Arena.

So what you're saying is that if downtown is already a desirable place that people want to go, then people who go to the games will choose to be there for some time.

Which is precisely what I said, the arena won't change whether people want to be downtown, which right now, the majority of people in the city don't want to be.

8-10k people aren't just "entering" downtown. Most of them are driving downtown--even with transit 90+% will still drive.

I don't think the arena would do anything to fix the problems with downtown, it would create 34 nights (plus some concerts of whatever) of a transient population who will just drive home afterwards. The rest of the time, the place will sit empty (say at least 300 days of the year) and contribute nothing to the activation of downtown. For 300 days of the year, it will be equivalent to an empty office building.

I'm not saying that an arena shouldn't be downtown, all I'm saying is that it would do nothing to help downtown, unless downtown is already healthy and thriving. London's downtown is not healthy and thriving, but if you go around the *gag* budwiser gardens *gag*--apparently now Canada Life Place, an improvement to be sure on a non-game day (300+ days of the year), it's a ghost down, it has done nothing to active downtown. If you go on one of the 34 game days + some concert days, it's just one big traffic jam.

As an aside, I never understand why people keep saying that the Aud must be replaced. It being old doesn't mean it must be replaced, buildings can be renovated and modernized as needed, I live in a city with buildings 100s of years old.

[danbrotherston]

This has created good discord. I like the debate.

Lol...it certainly has created that. I think the discourse has been interesting at least, and civil. Although it hasn't stopped the downvotes from lurkers.

I already shared i think it needs to be a mix of loads of things.

I am okay with an arena/premier sports AND entertainment venue but I think if we are doing the office and condos, we should take inspiration from The Well, Distillery District and Celebration Square.

I put more details in an earlier post. To build on that we could have a nice community space, RecRoom type all ages gaming business, plenty of restos with patios, something like planetarium and a larger Museum space  and have clear linkages to the park and Immovation area as well as to King Street proper all whilst still paying homage to our roots and community members at large.


Then we need a Board for the Planetarium and Museum that goes hard and bringing the best and sought after exhibits to town. Selfishly perhaps, like Chicago, it should be FREE or heavily subsidized for Waterloo Region residents.

Just some thoughts.

Have a vision, spend the bux, and make Kitchener Waterloo a top 4 destination to live, play, work and visit in all of Canada (behind Toronto, Vancouver and say Montreal, as these are hard to top)

I certainly think this is a laudable goal (although top 4 is ambitious to say the least, you'd have to move ahead of not just peer Ontario cities like Hamilton, London, and Guelph, but also Calgary, Edmonton, Quebec City, Victoria, probably others).

I think there are a lot of opinions here, but if the goal is to make DTK a premier destination to live and play rather than just work and visit, you have to think about the daily experience any development will generate. What does it feel like to be there on the other 300 days of the year of the year.

Ottawa did a big relatively urban development for the Red Black football team. I wandered into it during an off game. It was quieter than the rest of the relatively urban area, but it was still had some activity. There was a market, and a few other things going on. To me that's a great example to study, it's working better than something like London, but it still highlights how hard it is to activate a space where a huge amount of the space is effectively dead most of the time.

The other districts you mention are also good examples. I think anything that is "single use" is a risk, but I think most planners understand that at this point.