Facility Options Analysis

8/6/2019 Facility Options Analysis

1/31

C E N T R A L P A R K

Scenario Options Analysis

CENTRAL PARK REDEVELOPMENT STEERING COMMITTEE

July 4, 2011


2/31

Introduction

The various Project scenarios and review criteria developed for this analysis overview are intended to beused to inform further design work; capital cost estimates; and, community and stakeholder consultation.

The scenarios developed were all based on: meeting the parameters of the Project outlined for the Steering Committee; the research completed to-date relating to recreational services, needs, and population projections;

and, the characteristics of Central Park and the context of its location.

Except for the initial covered ice rink proposal, each of the three scenarios presented represent variationsof the maximum probable development option; each containing:

expanded pool facilities with a 5-6 lane pool, and a refurbished multi-use/therapeutic pool; twin pad arena based on existing arenas; and, outdoor park uses.

These are being defined as the maximum probable development options based on a balanced estimate

that looks at the overall value for cost and feasibility for theoptions based on general assessments of: reasonable level-of-service for recreation and sport uses

given population projections; site limitations; and, magnitude of funding necessary.

Design

The scenarios and assessments presented here are based oncontemporary professional best practices in urban planning,urban design, and landscape architecture. This work wasinformed by the existing framework of policy, visions, and

plans of the community, as well as the work of the CentralPark Redevelopment Steering Committee.

For the purposes of creating these preliminary scenarios, thefollowing were defined as civic interests that had to beconsidered throughout the design process:

community well-being & livability; community & neighbourhood identity; recreation opportunities; site and neighbourhood context; and, civic place making.

Inventory & AnalysisPrior to developing the maximum probable develop scenariosthe site was analyzed to better understand its characteristicsas they would relate to the design exercise, including:

built form; existing uses; neighbourhood; axis, nodes, edges; and, desire lines.

A l l i l l u s t r a t i o n s a n d p h o t o s b y T o w n o f C o l l i n g w o o d & E n v i s i o n T a t h am I n c .

Central Park.

Location of main buildings on site.


3/31


Access points; street end views; trail (western

edge); and, desire line across park to trail.

Street network and potential connections to

neighbouring residential uses.

Parking locations. Main access from Hume Street, and focal area for

outdoor uses.

Model of Central Park features as these

currently exist.

Outdoor sports uses: three ball diamonds (none

meeting standards); open air ice surface; lawn-

bowling green.


4/31

Review Criteria

The criteria used for the assessments of the scenarios have been defined to provide insights into a numberof key elements associated with the function, feasibility, cost, and civic interests of a possibledevelopment.

Each of the items in the scenario reviews has one of three coloured dots to describe the relative impact orvalue of that characteristic as follows:

- Significant challenge, or problematic element/characteristic - Moderate challenge, or less than positive element/characteristic - Minimal challenge, or positive element/characteristic

CRI TERION IMPACT/VALUE

FUNCTION

Parking Availability and functionality of parking arrangement.

Entrances (cars, buildings) Functionality and wayfinding.

Back-of-house operations Relationship and impacts of back-of-house operations.

Pedestrian circulation Functionality and wayfinding specifically for pedestrians for all seasons.

Uses (active, passive) The uses that are on site not related to pool and arena facilities.

Stormwater management The ability to manage stormwater and relative amount of impervious surfaces.

BUILDING DESIGN

Front facades Function and aesthetics of front facades for all uses; impact on curling club facade.

Massing/visual impact Impact, complexity of building massing.

Relationship with existing buildings Relationships between buildings and the spaces between them, functionally and

aesthetically.

PLACE MAKING

Spaces & places Ability to create public outdoor spaces that are: well defined; active/energized;

aesthetically pleasing; and, allow for a mix of users.

Overall park opportunities Assessment of entire park in terms of function, aesthetics, uses, sense of place, and

contextual fit with neighbourhood.



5/31

CRI TERION IMPACT/VALUE

Synergies Unique opportunities that support: uses; park identity; public place making;

etcetera.

NEIGHBOURHOOD/COMMUNIT INTEGRATION

Relationship to street network Functional connections to streets.

Streetscape Impacts on function and aesthetics of streetscapes, primarily from the perspectives

of pedestrians and site neighbours.

Impact on neighbours Impacts on neighbouring sites in terms of function and aesthetics.

Presence on Hume Street Functional and aesthetic quality of the primary site orientation on Hume Street.

Relationship to downtown Impact on ability to enhance connections to downtown.

COSTS

Relative costs Impacts on overall costs inherent with how facilities are provided.

Implications of retrofitting

(buildings)

Impacts on overall costs inherent with physically linking facilities.

Associated costs of moving existing

facilities

Impacts on overall costs inherent with necessary moving and reconstruction of

park facilities.

INTANGIBLES

Phasing opportunities General ease of phasing.

Synergies Unique opportunities that result from scenarios characteristics.

Red flags Noteworthy challenges.



6/31


Scenario Options Analyses



7/31

Covered Outdoor Ice Surface

Description

This design was considered as a possible option to expand level-of-service for ice demand using existing

infrastructure.

The intent was to develop a roof cover over the outdoor ice rink located in Central Park. The preliminarydesign was developed to allow for further expansion in phases, for example: complete enclosure of rink;addition of dressing rooms; addition of office and concession space.

The design of the cover, and any additional building phases, would be required to address the limitationsassociated with the heritage designation of the curling rink.

The very close proximity of the out door rink to the curling rink building would add a level of complexityto any construction project in this location.

On-site improvements to stormwater management infrastructure and parking facilities would benecessary with this proposal; as it would be with any development on site.

View of the proposed covered

seating area.

View of the covered ice surface. View to the south from Hume Street.

Noteworthy Items

The cover of the rink would potentially extend the usable season for the facility by a few weeks.However, the effectiveness of this approach remains in question as there are issues associated with theability to provide appropriate cooling capacity for this outdoor facility that are independent of providingcover over the ice.

Even if all future phases of this proposal were completed to create an arena, the level-of-service providedto the community would be sub-standard to that of a purpose built arena.

This approach would maintain the Eddy Bush Memorial Arena as the primary ice facility in thecommunity. The foreseeable capital investment necessary to maintain this building (well past its easilyserviceable lifespan) would have to be considered part of this proposal.

Overall, taking into account the reduced quality of the retrofitted outdoor rink (as compared to a purposebuilt arena), and the necessity to maintain the aging Eddy Bush Memorial Arena as the primary icesurface for the community, the value assessment of this concept is unfavourable.


8/31

Option One: Single Building

Description

This proposed design combines all the pool and arena uses in one building that also physically connects

to the curling rink. The goal is to provide unique opportunities for shared common indoor space that willprovide cost saving and functional benefits.

This arrangement has the most massive building footprint of the three scenarios; this is because of theadded area of the building intended for common indoor spaces. The single facility will include a newarena, the existing YMCA and pool expansion, and the curling rink.

The main parking area (and potential for expansion) is not restricted by the building and is shared by allthe uses.

One ball diamond can be rebuilt on site,as well as, the lawn bowling green.

Noteworthy Items

This proposal only has one connectionto the the street network, on HumeStreet; meaning that traffic managementwill be a significant problem.

This buildings mass will havesignificant impacts on the residences tothe west of the site. The challenges toovercome this will be very problematicand likely very costly to design andconstruct. The design of the new

portions of the complex would be

required to address the limitations associated with the heritage designation of the curling rink.

Because there is one parking lot to service all the indoor facilities there may be some conflicts associatedwith peak use times.

Successfully mixing the architectural styles of a new arena, heritage designated curling rink building, andYMCA, will be one of the largest challenges of this proposal. Developing appropriate main entrances forthe building and curling rink will also be an added architectural challenge.


Hume street side of site. Western edge of site. View over site from the south.


9/31

With this arrangement there locations along Paterson Street where it would be natural to expect/provideaccess to the building, perhaps making it necessary to create a hierarchy of entrances and two frontfacades to the building. These would require additional design consideration and will impact interiorspace arrangements and costs.

The retrofitting component of this proposal will increase the complexity and costs associated withmechanical and structural construction associated with this option.

With this arrangement, the outdoor park uses have a less prominent location making the site appear moredensely developed than typical of parks within the community. Overall this proposal results in asignificant change of identity for the park as a whole.

CRITERI A ITEM IMPACT/VALUE

FUNCTION

Parking May have some conflicts during peak times; simple, functional arrangement

Entrances (cars, buildings)May need two sets of entrances for common building

Back-of-house operations Back-of-house for ice uses could be combined

Pedestrian circulation The strong possible need for two main entrances into the building

Uses (active, passive) Difficult challenge to have the outdoor park uses feel connected

Stormwater management Large area of impervious surfaces

BUILDING DESIGN

Front facades Difficult reconciling main building entrance and curling rink entrance, and

overall mass of building

Massing/visual impact Overall mass of building, particularly west elevation

Relationship with existing buildings Challenge to combine three buildings of different ages

PLACE MAKING

Spaces & places Challenge to make outdoor public spaces that function well (internal shared

spaces is primary focus)

Overall park opportunities There are some opportunities to maintain features, or build new ones



10/31


Synergies The internal shared spaces of the building


Relationship to street network Only one access point; traffic management difficulty

Streetscape Western facade elevation significant challenge (building mass)

Impact on neighbours Western facade elevation significant challenge (building mass)

Presence on Hume Street An architectural challenge; provided curling rink remains prominent

Relationship to downtown No negative impact on relationship to downtown

COSTS

Relative costs Large building with shared indoor space; connecting buildings of different

ages and styles (mechanical, structural, architectural costs)


(buildings) Mechanical and structural complexity


facilities Can redevelop lawn bowling green and ball diamond on site

INTANGIBLES

Phasing opportunities Shared indoor space, and mechanical systems challenges

Synergies A large facility with indoor shared spaces may provide interesting

opportunities

Red flags The impact on neighbourhood; costs of mechanical and structural

TOTAL 5 - 12 - 5 -



11/31



12/31

Option Two: Combined Curling & Arena Building

Description

This arrangement has only the ice facilities linked with a new building, with the pool expansion and

YMCA remaining separate.

The parking is distributed throughout the park with access to the street network in a number of locations.

A potentially interesting outdoor public courtyard could be incorporated between the existing YMCA andnew arena building.

The lawn bowling green is redevelopedon site. With the remaining park usesdefined as a single block along the southof the site.

A direct connection is provided to thetrail in the west along the Hamilton

Street axis.

Noteworthy Items

This configuration of the twin pad arenawill require approximately 25% morebuilding area than a more simple squareor rectangular building. The long facadefacing the outdoor park area will providea design challenge so that it does notoverwhelm the park with its mass.

The parking configuration is not very practical, and will require many people to walk around the park togain access to the buildings even when not during peak use times.

With this arrangement there are a number of locations where it would be natural to expect/provideaccess to the buildings, perhaps making it necessary to create a hierarchy of entrances and buildingfacades. These would require additional design consideration and will impact interior spacearrangements and costs.

View of Hume Street frontage Western edge of site with courtyard

space between buildings.

Park area to the south side of site.


13/31

The design of the new portions of the complex would be required to address the limitations associatedwith the heritage designation of the curling rink. Additionally, the relationship between existing back-of-house operations for the curling rink and new arena will be a design challenge.


FUNCTION

Parking Too spread out

Entrances (cars, buildings)Multiple access points

Back-of-house operations Challenge of incorporating curling rink and arena operations in the

building footprint

Pedestrian circulation The strong possible need for two main entrances into the arena building

Uses (active, passive) Impact of the large building facade on the park will be difficult to address

Stormwater management Addition of impervious surfaces

BUILDING DESIGN

Front facades Challenge of relationship between arena and curling rink

Massing/visual impact

The mass of the arena surrounding the curling rink

Relationship with existing buildingsMass of the arena surrounding the curling rink and heritage designation

PLACE MAKING

Spaces & places Outdoor courtyard space between buildings

Overall park opportunities Outdoor park area could function well; difficult to feel connection to

buildings

Synergies Combination of outdoor courtyard space and interior shared spaces


Relationship to street networkMultiple access points

Streetscape Somewhat confusing presence of buildings along streetscapes



14/31


Impact on neighbours Western elevation of arena building, and possible secondary entrance

Presence on Hume Street Somewhat confusing presence of buildings along Hume streetscapes


COSTS

Relative costs This is a very costly building arrangement to achieve a twin pad arena


(buildings) Heritage designation; complexity of structural/mechanical systems


facilities

Able to redevelop lawn bowling green on site

INTANGIBLES

Phasing opportunities Does allow for phasing of ice and water uses separately

Synergies Potential indoor shared space and outdoor public courtyard space

Red flags Size and cost of arena in terms of value (large and complicated building for rinks)

TOTAL 4 - 16 - 2 -



15/31



16/31

Option Three: Separate Arena Building

Description

This design develops all the proposed ice and water facilities as independent buildings with no physical

connections. The pool addition and retrofitting is contained in the YMCA building; the curling rinkremains and its visual prominence on the site is enhanced with landscape and site improvements; and aseparate twin pad arena is also developed.

The primary parking area is provided generally in the area where the current lot is located and this willbe shared between the indoor uses.

In the area bounded by the curling rinkand the south end of the YMCA a publicfamily and playground area is provided,that may include water or nature playfor example.

Noteworthy Items

By not linking the buildings together,this arrangement does not incur theretrofitting costs for mechanical systems;and has the simplest structural andarchitectural challenges of the threescenarios.

This design connects to the street systemin a number of locations, reducing the

impact of traffic volumes during peak use times.

Because there is no shared indoor space, the overall building footprint is reduced, which results in lessstormwater management infrastructure.

The impact of the arena buildings mass is reduced by setting it back from the streets behind the lawnbowling green and open park space.

Phasing of this scenario for the redevelopment of Central Park would be easily accommodated.

View of Hume Street side. View of site from north west. Park area with lawn bowling green

next to arena.


17/31


FUNCTION

Parking Shared parking

Entrances (cars, buildings) Each use maintains and creates purposeful access to buildings

Back-of-house operations Independent of each other

Pedestrian circulation Easily understood building and park arrangements

Uses (active, passive) Outdoor spaces need to be designed to provide connections to indoor uses

Stormwater management Increased impervious surfaces

BUILDING DESIGN

Front facades No conflicting architectural styles

Massing/visual impact Smallest necessary building masses to accommodate uses

Relationship with existing buildings The new arena building can be easily designed to complement heritage

building

PLACE MAKING

Spaces & places Outdoor family playground space

Overall park opportunities Outdoor park area could function well

Synergies Outdoor family playground space and building on existing assets to

improve public spaces with minimal costs


Relationship to street network Numerous connections to afford traffic movement

StreetscapeMinimum change because largest building mass is set back from street

Impact on neighboursMinimum change because largest building mass is set back from street



18/31


Presence on Hume Street Challenge will be to enhance the presence of the principle architectural

feature of the site, the curling rink


COSTS

Relative costs Simplest construction, and smallest building envelopes for uses


(buildings) No connections beyond the design already developed for the YMCA

expansion


facilities Lawn bowling green may be rebuilt on site

INTANGIBLES

Phasing opportunities All buildings are independent and construction can easily be phased

Synergies Outdoor family playground space; enhancing the overall park assets

Red flags Phasing to ensure completion of ice and water facilities

TOTAL 1 - 4 - 17 -



19/31


Steering Committee Analysis Sheets



20/31

Option One: Single Building


21/31


FUNCTION

Parking

Entrances (cars, buildings)

Back-of-house operations

Pedestrian circulation

Uses (active, passive)

Stormwater management

BUILDING DESIGN

Front facades


Relationship with existing buildings

PLACE MAKING

Spaces & places

Overall park opportunities

Synergies


Relationship to street network

Streetscape

Impact on neighbours

Presence on Hume Street

Relationship to downtown

COSTS

Relative costs

Implications of retrofitting(buildings)


facilities

INTANGIBLES

Phasing opportunities



22/31


Synergies

Red flags

TOTAL



23/31



24/31

Option Two: Combined Curling & Arena Building


25/31


FUNCTION

Parking






BUILDING DESIGN

Front facades



PLACE MAKING

Spaces & places


Synergies



Streetscape




COSTS

Relative costs



facilities

INTANGIBLES




26/31


Synergies

Red flags

TOTAL



27/31



28/31

Option Three: Separate Arena Building


29/31


FUNCTION

Parking






BUILDING DESIGN

Front facades



PLACE MAKING

Spaces & places


Synergies



Streetscape




COSTS

Relative costs



facilities

INTANGIBLES




30/31


Synergies

Red flags

TOTAL



31/31

Documents

Facility Options Analysis