C

S c en a ri o Option s A nalysis

CENTRAL PARK REDEVELOPMENT STEERING COMMITTEE July 4, 2011

Introduction
The various Project scenarios and review criteria developed for this analysis overview are intended to be used 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 variations of 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 dened as the maximum probable development options based on a balanced estimate that looks at the overall value for cost and feasibility for the options 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 on contemporary professional best practices in urban planning, urban design, and landscape architecture. This work was informed by the existing framework of policy, visions, and plans of the community, as well as the work of the Central Park Redevelopment Steering Committee. For the purposes of creating these preliminary scenarios, the following were dened as civic interests that had to be considered throughout the design process: community well-being & livability; community & neighbourhood identity; recreation opportunities; site and neighbourhood context; and, civic place making.

Central Park.

Inventory & Analysis

Prior to developing the maximum probable develop scenarios the site was analyzed to better understand its characteristics as they would relate to the design exercise, including: built form; existing uses; neighbourhood; axis, nodes, edges; and, desire lines.

Location of main buildings on site.

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 To w n o f C o l l i n g w o o d & E n v i s i o n Ta t h a m I n c .

Model of Central Park features as these currently exist.

Outdoor sports uses: three ball diamonds (none meeting standards); open air ice surface; lawnbowling green.

Parking locations.

Main access from Hume Street, and focal area for outdoor uses.

Access points; street end views; trail (western edge); and, desire line across park to trail.

Street network and potential connections to neighbouring residential uses.

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 To w n o f C o l l i n g w o o d & E n v i s i o n Ta t h a m I n c .

Review Criteria
The criteria used for the assessments of the scenarios have been dened to provide insights into a number of key elements associated with the function, feasibility, cost, and civic interests of a possible development. Each of the items in the scenario reviews has one of three coloured dots to describe the relative impact or value of that characteristic as follows: - Signicant challenge, or problematic element/characteristic - Moderate challenge, or less than positive element/characteristic - Minimal challenge, or positive element/characteristic

CRITERION FUNCTION Parking Entrances (cars, buildings) Back-of-house operations Pedestrian circulation Uses (active, passive) Stormwater management

I M PA C T / VA L U E

Availability and functionality of parking arrangement. Functionality and waynding. Relationship and impacts of back-of-house operations. Functionality and waynding specically for pedestrians for all seasons. The uses that are on site not related to pool and arena facilities. The ability to manage stormwater and relative amount of impervious surfaces.

BUILDING DESIGN Front facades Massing/visual impact Relationship with existing buildings Function and aesthetics of front facades for all uses; impact on curling club facade. Impact, complexity of building massing. Relationships between buildings and the spaces between them, functionally and aesthetically.

PLACE MAKING Spaces & places Ability to create public outdoor spaces that are: well dened; 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 t with neighbourhood.

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 To w n o f C o l l i n g w o o d & E n v i s i o n Ta t h a m I n c .

CRITERION Synergies

I M PA C T / VA L U E Unique opportunities that support: uses; park identity; public place making; etcetera.

NEIGHBOURHOOD/COMMUNITY INTEGRATION Relationship to street network Streetscape Functional connections to streets. Impacts on function and aesthetics of streetscapes, primarily from the perspectives of pedestrians and site neighbours. Impact on neighbours Presence on Hume Street Relationship to downtown Impacts on neighbouring sites in terms of function and aesthetics. Functional and aesthetic quality of the primary site orientation on Hume Street. Impact on ability to enhance connections to downtown.

COSTS Relative costs Implications of retrotting (buildings) Associated costs of moving existing facilities Impacts on overall costs inherent with necessary moving and reconstruction of park facilities. Impacts on overall costs inherent with how facilities are provided. Impacts on overall costs inherent with physically linking facilities.

INTANGIBLES Phasing opportunities Synergies Red ags General ease of phasing. Unique opportunities that result from scenarios characteristics. Noteworthy challenges.

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 To w n o f C o l l i n g w o o d & E n v i s i o n Ta t h a m I n c .

S c e n a r i o Options Analyses

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 To w n o f C o l l i n g w o o d & E n v i s i o n Ta t h a m I n c .

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 preliminary design was developed to allow for further expansion in phases, for example: complete enclosure of rink; addition of dressing rooms; addition of ofce and concession space. The design of the cover, and any additional building phases, would be required to address the limitations associated 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 complexity to any construction project in this location. On-site improvements to stormwater management infrastructure and parking facilities would be necessary 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 the ability to provide appropriate cooling capacity for this outdoor facility that are independent of providing cover over the ice. Even if all future phases of this proposal were completed to create an arena, the level-of-service provided to 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 the community. The foreseeable capital investment necessary to maintain this building (well past its easily serviceable lifespan) would have to be considered part of this proposal. Overall, taking into account the reduced quality of the retrotted outdoor rink (as compared to a purpose built arena), and the necessity to maintain the aging Eddy Bush Memorial Arena as the primary ice surface for the community, the value assessment of this concept is unfavourable.

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 will provide cost saving and functional benets. This arrangement has the most massive building footprint of the three scenarios; this is because of the added area of the building intended for common indoor spaces. The single facility will include a new arena, 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 all the uses. One ball diamond can be rebuilt on site, as well as, the lawn bowling green.

Noteworthy Items
This proposal only has one connection to the the street network, on Hume Street; meaning that trafc management will be a signicant problem. This buildings mass will have signicant impacts on the residences to the west of the site. The challenges to overcome this will be very problematic and likely very costly to design and construct. The design of the new portions of the complex would be

Hume street side of site.

Western edge of site.

View over site from the south.

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 conicts associated with peak use times. Successfully mixing the architectural styles of a new arena, heritage designated curling rink building, and YMCA, will be one of the largest challenges of this proposal. Developing appropriate main entrances for the building and curling rink will also be an added architectural challenge.

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 To w n o f C o l l i n g w o o d & E n v i s i o n Ta t h a m I n c .

With this arrangement there locations along Paterson Street where it would be natural to expect/provide access to the building, perhaps making it necessary to create a hierarchy of entrances and two front facades to the building. These would require additional design consideration and will impact interior space arrangements and costs. The retrotting component of this proposal will increase the complexity and costs associated with mechanical and structural construction associated with this option. With this arrangement, the outdoor park uses have a less prominent location making the site appear more densely developed than typical of parks within the community. Overall this proposal results in a signicant change of identity for the park as a whole.

CRITERIA ITEM FUNCTION Parking Entrances (cars, buildings) Back-of-house operations Pedestrian circulation Uses (active, passive) Stormwater management BUILDING DESIGN Front facades

I M PA C T / VA L U E

May have some conicts during peak times; simple, functional arrangement May need two sets of entrances for common building Back-of-house for ice uses could be combined The strong possible need for two main entrances into the building Difcult challenge to have the outdoor park uses feel connected Large area of impervious surfaces

Difcult reconciling main building entrance and curling rink entrance, and overall mass of building

Massing/visual impact Relationship with existing buildings PLACE MAKING Spaces & places

Overall mass of building, particularly west elevation Challenge to combine three buildings of different ages

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

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 To w n o f C o l l i n g w o o d & E n v i s i o n Ta t h a m I n c .

CRITERIA ITEM Synergies

I M PA C T / VA L U E The internal shared spaces of the building

NEIGHBOURHOOD/COMMUNITY INTEGRATION Relationship to street network Streetscape Impact on neighbours Presence on Hume Street Relationship to downtown COSTS Relative costs Large building with shared indoor space; connecting buildings of different ages and styles (mechanical, structural, architectural costs) Implications of retrotting (buildings) Associated costs of moving existing facilities INTANGIBLES Phasing opportunities Synergies Shared indoor space, and mechanical systems challenges A large facility with indoor shared spaces may provide interesting opportunities Red ags The impact on neighbourhood; costs of mechanical and structural Mechanical and structural complexity Only one access point; trafc management difculty Western facade elevation signicant challenge (building mass) Western facade elevation signicant challenge (building mass) An architectural challenge; provided curling rink remains prominent No negative impact on relationship to downtown

Can redevelop lawn bowling green and ball diamond on site

TOTAL

5-

12 -

5-

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 To w n o f C o l l i n g w o o d & E n v i s i o n Ta t h a m I n c .

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 To w n o f C o l l i n g w o o d & E n v i s i o n Ta t h a m I n c .

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 and new arena building. The lawn bowling green is redeveloped on site. With the remaining park uses dened as a single block along the south of the site. A direct connection is provided to the trail in the west along the Hamilton Street axis.

Noteworthy Items
This conguration of the twin pad arena will require approximately 25% more building area than a more simple square or rectangular building. The long facade facing the outdoor park area will provide a design challenge so that it does not overwhelm the park with its mass.

View of Hume Street frontage

Western edge of site with courtyard space between buildings.

Park area to the south side of site.

The parking conguration is not very practical, and will require many people to walk around the park to gain 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/provide access to the buildings, perhaps making it necessary to create a hierarchy of entrances and building facades. These would require additional design consideration and will impact interior space arrangements and costs.

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. Additionally, the relationship between existing back-ofhouse operations for the curling rink and new arena will be a design challenge.

CRITERIA ITEM FUNCTION Parking Entrances (cars, buildings) Back-of-house operations Too spread out Multiple access points

I M PA C T / VA L U E

Challenge of incorporating curling rink and arena operations in the building footprint

Pedestrian circulation Uses (active, passive) Stormwater management BUILDING DESIGN Front facades Massing/visual impact Relationship with existing buildings PLACE MAKING Spaces & places Overall park opportunities

The strong possible need for two main entrances into the arena building Impact of the large building facade on the park will be difcult to address Addition of impervious surfaces

Challenge of relationship between arena and curling rink The mass of the arena surrounding the curling rink Mass of the arena surrounding the curling rink and heritage designation

Outdoor courtyard space between buildings Outdoor park area could function well; difcult to feel connection to buildings

Synergies

Combination of outdoor courtyard space and interior shared spaces

NEIGHBOURHOOD/COMMUNITY INTEGRATION Relationship to street network Streetscape Multiple access points Somewhat confusing presence of buildings along streetscapes

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 To w n o f C o l l i n g w o o d & E n v i s i o n Ta t h a m I n c .

CRITERIA ITEM Impact on neighbours Presence on Hume Street Relationship to downtown COSTS Relative costs Implications of retrotting (buildings) Associated costs of moving existing facilities INTANGIBLES Phasing opportunities Synergies Red ags

I M PA C T / VA L U E Western elevation of arena building, and possible secondary entrance Somewhat confusing presence of buildings along Hume streetscapes No negative impact on relationship to downtown

This is a very costly building arrangement to achieve a twin pad arena Heritage designation; complexity of structural/mechanical systems

Able to redevelop lawn bowling green on site

Does allow for phasing of ice and water uses separately Potential indoor shared space and outdoor public courtyard space Size and cost of arena in terms of value (large and complicated building for rinks)

TOTAL

4-

16 -

2-

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 To w n o f C o l l i n g w o o d & E n v i s i o n Ta t h a m I n c .

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 To w n o f C o l l i n g w o o d & E n v i s i o n Ta t h a m I n c .

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 retrotting is contained in the YMCA building; the curling rink remains and its visual prominence on the site is enhanced with landscape and site improvements; and a separate twin pad arena is also developed. The primary parking area is provided generally in the area where the current lot is located and this will be shared between the indoor uses. In the area bounded by the curling rink and the south end of the YMCA a public family and playground area is provided, that may include water or nature play for example.

Noteworthy Items
By not linking the buildings together, this arrangement does not incur the retrotting costs for mechanical systems; and has the simplest structural and architectural challenges of the three scenarios. This design connects to the street system in a number of locations, reducing the

View of Hume Street side.

View of site from north west.

Park area with lawn bowling green next to arena.

impact of trafc volumes during peak use times. Because there is no shared indoor space, the overall building footprint is reduced, which results in less stormwater management infrastructure. The impact of the arena buildings mass is reduced by setting it back from the streets behind the lawn bowling green and open park space. Phasing of this scenario for the redevelopment of Central Park would be easily accommodated.

CRITERIA ITEM FUNCTION Parking Entrances (cars, buildings) Back-of-house operations Pedestrian circulation Uses (active, passive) Stormwater management BUILDING DESIGN Front facades Massing/visual impact Relationship with existing buildings Shared parking

I M PA C T / VA L U E

Each use maintains and creates purposeful access to buildings Independent of each other Easily understood building and park arrangements Outdoor spaces need to be designed to provide connections to indoor uses Increased impervious surfaces

No conicting architectural styles Smallest necessary building masses to accommodate uses The new arena building can be easily designed to complement heritage building

PLACE MAKING Spaces & places Overall park opportunities Synergies Outdoor family playground space Outdoor park area could function well Outdoor family playground space and building on existing assets to improve public spaces with minimal costs NEIGHBOURHOOD/COMMUNITY INTEGRATION Relationship to street network Streetscape Impact on neighbours Numerous connections to afford trafc movement Minimum change because largest building mass is set back from street Minimum change because largest building mass is set back from street

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 To w n o f C o l l i n g w o o d & E n v i s i o n Ta t h a m I n c .

CRITERIA ITEM Presence on Hume Street

I M PA C T / VA L U E Challenge will be to enhance the presence of the principle architectural feature of the site, the curling rink

Relationship to downtown COSTS Relative costs Implications of retrotting (buildings) Associated costs of moving existing facilities INTANGIBLES Phasing opportunities Synergies Red ags

No negative impact on relationship to downtown

Simplest construction, and smallest building envelopes for uses No connections beyond the design already developed for the YMCA expansion Lawn bowling green may be rebuilt on site

All buildings are independent and construction can easily be phased Outdoor family playground space; enhancing the overall park assets Phasing to ensure completion of ice and water facilities

TOTAL

1-

4-

17 -

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 To w n o f C o l l i n g w o o d & E n v i s i o n Ta t h a m I n c .

S teeri n g C o m mittee A nalysis Sheets

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 To w n o f C o l l i n g w o o d & E n v i s i o n Ta t h a m I n c .

Option One: Single Building

CRITERIA ITEM FUNCTION Parking Entrances (cars, buildings) Back-of-house operations Pedestrian circulation Uses (active, passive) Stormwater management BUILDING DESIGN Front facades Massing/visual impact Relationship with existing buildings PLACE MAKING Spaces & places Overall park opportunities Synergies NEIGHBOURHOOD/COMMUNITY INTEGRATION Relationship to street network Streetscape Impact on neighbours Presence on Hume Street Relationship to downtown COSTS Relative costs Implications of retrotting (buildings) Associated costs of moving existing facilities INTANGIBLES Phasing opportunities

I M PA C T / VA L U E

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 To w n o f C o l l i n g w o o d & E n v i s i o n Ta t h a m I n c .

CRITERIA ITEM Synergies Red ags

I M PA C T / VA L U E

TOTAL

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 To w n o f C o l l i n g w o o d & E n v i s i o n Ta t h a m I n c .

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 To w n o f C o l l i n g w o o d & E n v i s i o n Ta t h a m I n c .

Option Two: Combined Curling & Arena Building

CRITERIA ITEM FUNCTION Parking Entrances (cars, buildings) Back-of-house operations Pedestrian circulation Uses (active, passive) Stormwater management BUILDING DESIGN Front facades Massing/visual impact Relationship with existing buildings PLACE MAKING Spaces & places Overall park opportunities Synergies NEIGHBOURHOOD/COMMUNITY INTEGRATION Relationship to street network Streetscape Impact on neighbours Presence on Hume Street Relationship to downtown COSTS Relative costs Implications of retrotting (buildings) Associated costs of moving existing facilities INTANGIBLES Phasing opportunities

I M PA C T / VA L U E

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 To w n o f C o l l i n g w o o d & E n v i s i o n Ta t h a m I n c .

CRITERIA ITEM Synergies Red ags

I M PA C T / VA L U E

TOTAL

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 To w n o f C o l l i n g w o o d & E n v i s i o n Ta t h a m I n c .

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 To w n o f C o l l i n g w o o d & E n v i s i o n Ta t h a m I n c .

Option Three: Separate Arena Building

CRITERIA ITEM FUNCTION Parking Entrances (cars, buildings) Back-of-house operations Pedestrian circulation Uses (active, passive) Stormwater management BUILDING DESIGN Front facades Massing/visual impact Relationship with existing buildings PLACE MAKING Spaces & places Overall park opportunities Synergies NEIGHBOURHOOD/COMMUNITY INTEGRATION Relationship to street network Streetscape Impact on neighbours Presence on Hume Street Relationship to downtown COSTS Relative costs Implications of retrotting (buildings) Associated costs of moving existing facilities INTANGIBLES Phasing opportunities

I M PA C T / VA L U E

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 To w n o f C o l l i n g w o o d & E n v i s i o n Ta t h a m I n c .

CRITERIA ITEM Synergies Red ags

I M PA C T / VA L U E

TOTAL

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 To w n o f C o l l i n g w o o d & E n v i s i o n Ta t h a m I n c .

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 To w n o f C o l l i n g w o o d & E n v i s i o n Ta t h a m I n c .