Posts: 2,865
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2015
Reputation:
95
(03-27-2017, 03:11 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: Or to be spiteful and pick a greenfield site south of Galt, to try to "hide" the facility from Kitchenerites.
The real issue has always been people from outside Cambridge using their facilities. Not only that, though, the Conestoga College location will confuse people from outside the trial-city area. They might think they're in Kitchener, and Cambridge can't have that. They don't want anyone thinking that the rec centre isn't in Cambridge. Driving down the 401, anyone from Toronto or London won't realize that one side is Kitchener and one side is Cambridge. I see that as being the entire and only issue.
Posts: 62
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
1
(03-27-2017, 03:21 PM)highlander Wrote: What are the advantages of a single facility instead of splitting up the arena and other uses? Are there any events that actually make use of the entire facility? I personally don't understand the appeal of these huge complexes as opposed to spreading the services throughout the city, other than I'm assuming many smaller sites are (much?) more expensive to run. In addition to efficiencies gained from a single larger facility (common services, amenities, admin, etc) a larger facility can be used for larger events, tournaments, and so on that may pass on the city if their participants have to drive all over town to multiple venues.
Posts: 140
Threads: 2
Joined: Jan 2015
Reputation:
8
(03-28-2017, 11:39 AM)NotStan Wrote: In addition to efficiencies gained from a single larger facility (common services, amenities, admin, etc) a larger facility can be used for larger events, tournaments, and so on that may pass on the city if their participants have to drive all over town to multiple venues.
Yeah, I was thinking more like 2-3 facilities instead of one. So arenas in one location, gym in another and pool either with the gym or in a 3rd location. It seems more accessible to me that way - for example, you may have to drive across town to play hockey, but maybe you can walk to the swimming pool.
Posts: 62
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
1
(03-28-2017, 01:03 PM)highlander Wrote: (03-28-2017, 11:39 AM)NotStan Wrote: In addition to efficiencies gained from a single larger facility (common services, amenities, admin, etc) a larger facility can be used for larger events, tournaments, and so on that may pass on the city if their participants have to drive all over town to multiple venues.
Yeah, I was thinking more like 2-3 facilities instead of one. So arenas in one location, gym in another and pool either with the gym or in a 3rd location. It seems more accessible to me that way - for example, you may have to drive across town to play hockey, but maybe you can walk to the swimming pool. that might be a good compromise, although the megaplex provides a single dropoff point for all activities.
Posts: 1,709
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
34
The moment you have cross-activities (swimmers or hockey players who want to work out, families who have kids interested in more than one activity, or a single kid interested in more than one activity), you make this a much worse situation for everyone. Imagine 3 separate facilities for 3 separate activities, and three possible home locations, one adjacent to each of the facilities and far from all others. If you happen to buy a home by the one facility you use, you're great, but if your kid takes up a new interest, you become hard done by to get to the others, and heaven help you if you have need to visit multiple facilities. With a single main facility, you know that regardless of interests, you'll always go to the same place, have a better chance of needing fewer trips, greater chance of organizing carpools, etc.
Posts: 10,280
Threads: 65
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
296
... and two thirds of residents will always complain that it's too far for all the activities!
Posts: 1,709
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
34
Depending on how you locate it. If you located centrally in one facility, no. As soon as you locate in separate, disparate facilities, you are just as poor a destination for people as a single, non-central facility, but without any of the single-facility benefits.
Posts: 10,280
Threads: 65
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
296
However, a single facility requires roughly 3x the land of three separate facilities. And that makes finding a suitable central location considerably more difficult.
Posts: 1,709
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
34
It does, and certainly if you attempt to shortchange the cost of land. But a poorly located public facility that becomes a not-publicly-accessible facility becomes not worth anything. It's quite terrible that we've tried to save a few dollars by putting some of the services for lower means families beyond even GRT use. I can't recall what center is out in southwest Kitchener, but that it is a non-pedestrian industrial area and a special GRT shuttle service was needed to let its patrons get to it speaks to the failure of decision-making that took place.
Posts: 302
Threads: 1
Joined: Apr 2016
Reputation:
12
A lot of people seem to be forgetting too that at the Conestoga site it would be leased, so after 50-60 years the city won't have the land or the facility and will have to start over.
Add in that the city is talking more about how they don't have money to refurbish existing ice rinks means that it would be actually replacing existing facilities and wouldn't be a gain, or would be a small gain. Other facilities in the city have room to add to them negating the need to build a multiplex.
Posts: 744
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
11
(03-28-2017, 04:35 PM)tomh009 Wrote: However, a single facility requires roughly 3x the land of three separate facilities. And that makes finding a suitable central location considerably more difficult.
It can't be that hard to find a site along Hespeler Road suitable for this...
Posts: 302
Threads: 1
Joined: Apr 2016
Reputation:
12
(03-28-2017, 08:24 PM)mpd618 Wrote: (03-28-2017, 04:35 PM)tomh009 Wrote: However, a single facility requires roughly 3x the land of three separate facilities. And that makes finding a suitable central location considerably more difficult.
It can't be that hard to find a site along Hespeler Road suitable for this...
the flea market has been tossed around. The city owns a maintenance yard on Bishop street they they could put it on since the maintenance yard can be anywhere.
Posts: 896
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
11
I'm kind of hoping the maintenance yard (and everything along that creek) will eventually be redeveloped as a linear park as Hespeler Road is urbanized. Considering how much of the land on that side of Hespeler Road will be subject to new floodplain regulations, it will be good compensation for developers whose sites will be limited - they can offer park access.
Posts: 302
Threads: 1
Joined: Apr 2016
Reputation:
12
the maintenance yard is between Conestoga and Franklin, it is a separate property
Posts: 10,280
Threads: 65
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
296
(03-28-2017, 07:59 PM)darts Wrote: A lot of people seem to be forgetting too that at the Conestoga site it would be leased, so after 50-60 years the city won't have the land or the facility and will have to start over.
After 50-60 years, a public facility will need to either be replaced or have a major refurbishment done. How many public facilities older than 1957 do we have in the region today? KPL was only about 45 years old when it was renovated.
|
