West District | ?m | ?s | Truman

[trtcttc]

Awesome if this project happened!

From the land and design vision available, it will be a good opportunity for the City and YMCA to work through a more "urban format" recreation complex with a tighter footprint, more focused amenities and way less bloat that really negatively impacted the accessibility and cost of the mega-facilities of the 2000-2020 era.

The recreation centre here is using something closer to 1 hectare v. ~10 hectares of the previous era of projects. I am being generous by cutting out the related storm pond infrastructure that was also build as part of the Rockyridge YMCA as an example:
View attachment 731288View attachment 731290

Of course a 200,000+ sqft building will have more amenities in it than a 70,000 sqft building, however a return to more community-scale facilities is what the doctor needed here. Much of our failure to maintain or upgrade inner city recreation facilities the past 20 years, despite rapid growth, seemed to stem to a combination of suburban focus and inflexible facility standards that kept all efforts focused on major regional scale, multi-use, multi-sport mega complexes that required a ginormous amount of land. There didn't seem to be much of an appetite to try to figure out how to work in a land-constrained situation, or how we could upgrade or expand something like Eau Claire, Beltline, or Inglewood - instead the solution is to close "non-standard facilities" and just bolt on yet more stuff to MNP (as the inner city's mega-suburban-style recreation complex).

Of course, the great irony is that after 20 years where the obsession with suburban recreation centre design prevented renewal of inner city recreation facilities; the very first urban-format recreation facility may finally be built ... in the suburbs.

I don't think they need to be 200,000 sqft+, 70k is still pretty big. However, the inner city single aquatic facilities are more expensive to operate according the City's own GamePlan report, so I think we'll see more consolidation. I don't mind expanding MNP and closing smaller facilities if it's more efficient, but at this point, one rec centre for downtown is not enough. There should at least be something else on the west end

 

[CalgaryTiger]

I don't think they need to be 200,000 sqft+, 70k is still pretty big. However, the inner city single aquatic facilities are more expensive to operate according the City's own GamePlan report, so I think we'll see more consolidation. I don't mind expanding MNP and closing smaller facilities if it's more efficient, but at this point, one rec centre for downtown is not enough. There should at least be something else on the west end

View attachment 731346

I'm going to hammer it into everyone's heads until it becomes reality. Combination, rec centre, elevated Green Line station and affordable residential on the site the City will need to buy in the NW corner of 1st Street SW and 10 Ave.

 

[IceCreamMan]

I don't think they need to be 200,000 sqft+, 70k is still pretty big. However, the inner city single aquatic facilities are more expensive to operate according the City's own GamePlan report, so I think we'll see more consolidation. I don't mind expanding MNP and closing smaller facilities if it's more efficient, but at this point, one rec centre for downtown is not enough. There should at least be something else on the west end

I've been advocating for years that the West Village location would be a terrific location for a multi-use recreation centre. Right on the Blue Line LRT and the BRT line, major road arteries N/S/W/E, the river pathway right there, and would service an area that is very underserved by a facility of this typology. When I was part of the Westbrook Local Growth Committee a couple years ago, I was trying to hammer home to people this idea; I was suggesting even in there the location kiddie corner to Shaganappi Point station (where Crown Park is now) would also be an excellent location for a multi-use recreation centre, and fit in with Calgary's recreation growth plans and TOD plans. Crown Park is off the table now, of course, but the West Village is prime and ready, IMO.

Of course, a handful of members in the group were against a west downtown rec centre (too bold and too scary!), but a majority of members and the City were 100% gung ho for it and loved the idea.

 

[Surrealplaces]

Loving the new supertall in the downtown skyline. Surprised I haven't seen it mentioned on the site.

I made mention of it back on April 1st

 

[trtcttc]

I've been advocating for years that the West Village location would be a terrific location for a multi-use recreation centre. Right on the Blue Line LRT and the BRT line, major road arteries N/S/W/E, the river pathway right there, and would service an area that is very underserved by a facility of this typology. When I was part of the Westbrook Local Growth Committee a couple years ago, I was trying to hammer home to people this idea; I was suggesting even in there the location kiddie corner to Shaganappi Point station (where Crown Park is now) would also be an excellent location for a multi-use recreation centre, and fit in with Calgary's recreation growth plans and TOD plans. Crown Park is off the table now, of course, but the West Village is prime and ready, IMO.

Of course, a handful of members in the group were against a west downtown rec centre (too bold and too scary!), but a majority of members and the City were 100% gung ho for it and loved the idea.

Truman is donating the land for the West District YMCA, because it helps bring up the value of their surrounding residential. Imagine if WVT, instead of that ugly, useless podium, it's a rec centre. City builds and operates, Cidex gifts them the space, raises the value of all the residential units above in perpetuity.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

I've been advocating for years that the West Village location would be a terrific location for a multi-use recreation centre. Right on the Blue Line LRT and the BRT line, major road arteries N/S/W/E, the river pathway right there, and would service an area that is very underserved by a facility of this typology. When I was part of the Westbrook Local Growth Committee a couple years ago, I was trying to hammer home to people this idea; I was suggesting even in there the location kiddie corner to Shaganappi Point station (where Crown Park is now) would also be an excellent location for a multi-use recreation centre, and fit in with Calgary's recreation growth plans and TOD plans. Crown Park is off the table now, of course, but the West Village is prime and ready, IMO.

Of course, a handful of members in the group were against a west downtown rec centre (too bold and too scary!), but a majority of members and the City were 100% gung ho for it and loved the idea.

Sadly, I think we're ten years from looking at the West village and twenty years from anything happening. Optimistically, DIC moves and Scotia Place and Grand Central become catalysts and East Village and Victoria Park build-out goes quicker than expected, maybe that timeline moves up.

 

[CBBarnett]

I don't think they need to be 200,000 sqft+, 70k is still pretty big. However, the inner city single aquatic facilities are more expensive to operate according the City's own GamePlan report, so I think we'll see more consolidation. I don't mind expanding MNP and closing smaller facilities if it's more efficient, but at this point, one rec centre for downtown is not enough. There should at least be something else on the west end

I am bit skeptical of this kind of analysis - not that I don't believe them that old facilities are much less efficient, just that I think it's a key message that is misleading and is applied to justify the wrong conclusion (that we need larger, more multi-use facilities so they are cheaper). It does this by confusing a few different concepts related to amenities, age of buildings and cost efficiency calculations.

For example, Quarry Park YMCA and Killarney both have the same sized flatwater pool - 25m x 6 lanes = this works out to about 3,500 sqft of flatwater per facility using 2.5m lane widths. It's not that surprising that a 2010s-built pool would be way more efficient to operate than a 1960s-era one but claiming this through 4x less expensive per square foot is problematic. What's the denominator in cost per square foot they are using?

The Quarry Park YMCA is about 95,000 sqft (layout below). Information isn't available on what's included in the costs, but because they use per square foot I assume they mean total building square foot, or at least the proportion associated with recreation.

Roughly, Killarney's entire footprint is about 29,000sqft. No information available on the interior square footage.

As I don't have Killarney layout, let's focus only on the pool itself as they are the same size. Perhaps surprisingly both giant and new Quarry Park and tiny and old Killarney have relatively the same swimming "capacity" of a 25m pool, 6 lanes wide. Compare the relative size of the pools below - my square footage estimate is rough, ignores all the pool deck, hot tubs and other aquatic features, just the physical lap pool:

Killarney = 3,500 sqft pool / 29,000 = 12% of the facility
Quarry Park = 3,500 sqft pool / 95,000 = 3.7% of the facility

So Killarney's pool takes up 3.3x the relative proportion of the square footage compared to Quarry Park YMCA. Assuming flat-water pools are the most expensive "per square foot" to operate in facilities like this, we can lower average costs by attaching anything to them - increase your denominator. Larger change rooms, a running track, hallways - anything has less cost per-square foot than a pool does. Compare the size of the change room on the diagram above to this picture from Killarney's:

Then layer in the age of the pool and the associated infrastructure maintenance costs - of course it makes Killarney look poor performing! Even if we rebuilt Killarney brand-new with equally efficient, modern pool infrastructure it would still look poor performing on a per-square foot measurement. It's the wrong measure - Killarney offers the same amount of swimming capacity on a far smaller footprint. If anything, it's more efficient, not less that Quarry Park (once you remove the age of building issues).

All this wouldn't matter except for how they talk about using these measure - they are implying that old, small facilities are less cost efficient to build more giant new ones. Great! Except larger doesn't mean lower costs; newer means lower costs. You could rebuild Killarney in the same footprint with efficient modern pool infrastructure and it would be awesome and way more cost-efficient .... except now we can't fit a "larger, multi-use facility" which is the model we are assuming is the best approach in facility design.

Extend this thinking out a few decades and we have where we are at today - Killarney and the inner city facilities languish and close because they look inefficient and poor performing because they are old. Meanwhile newer, bloated facilities dilute their "per square foot" costs and look better. Over time the quality of amenity gap between old and new increases, because the investment all flows to the new, seemingly more efficient suburban facilities, perpetuating the a cycle - turns out demand is stronger when facilities are newer and higher quality!

The development model becomes so focused on chasing efficiency by building new big facilities it stops knowing how to renovate or upgrade existing facilities, the only option becomes building new big, multi-use facilities with huge footprints. Unfortunately these don't fit in the inner city and hit other efficiency problems (e.g. turns out 10 hectares of land is more expensive in Killarney than in greenfield development).

So facilities start closing when we refuse to pay for a upgraded pool in the same footprint (because it looks cost-inefficient), yet we don't open new facilities because they don't fit (because it's cost prohibitive). Ironically, the actual total cost of providing flat-water pools in different facilities remains reasonably similar this whole time, once your account for age of the infrastructure.

 

[trtcttc]

I am bit skeptical of this kind of analysis - not that I don't believe them that old facilities are much less efficient, just that I think it's a key message that is misleading and is applied to justify the wrong conclusion (that we need larger, more multi-use facilities so they are cheaper). It does this by confusing a few different concepts related to amenities, age of buildings and cost efficiency calculations.

For example, Quarry Park YMCA and Killarney both have the same sized flatwater pool - 25m x 6 lanes = this works out to about 3,500 sqft of flatwater per facility using 2.5m lane widths. It's not that surprising that a 2010s-built pool would be way more efficient to operate than a 1960s-era one but claiming this through 4x less expensive per square foot is problematic. What's the denominator in cost per square foot they are using?

The Quarry Park YMCA is about 95,000 sqft (layout below). Information isn't available on what's included in the costs, but because they use per square foot I assume they mean total building square foot, or at least the proportion associated with recreation.

View attachment 731543

View attachment 731544
Roughly, Killarney's entire footprint is about 29,000sqft. No information available on the interior square footage.

View attachment 731552
As I don't have Killarney layout, let's focus only on the pool itself as they are the same size. Perhaps surprisingly both giant and new Quarry Park and tiny and old Killarney have relatively the same swimming "capacity" of a 25m pool, 6 lanes wide. Compare the relative size of the pools below - my square footage estimate is rough, ignores all the pool deck, hot tubs and other aquatic features, just the physical lap pool:

Killarney = 3,500 sqft pool / 29,000 = 12% of the facility
Quarry Park = 3,500 sqft pool / 95,000 = 3.7% of the facility

So Killarney's pool takes up 3.3x the relative proportion of the square footage compared to Quarry Park YMCA. Assuming flat-water pools are the most expensive "per square foot" to operate in facilities like this, we can lower average costs by attaching anything to them - increase your denominator. Larger change rooms, a running track, hallways - anything has less cost per-square foot than a pool does. Compare the size of the change room on the diagram above to this picture from Killarney's:

View attachment 731553
Then layer in the age of the pool and the associated infrastructure maintenance costs - of course it makes Killarney look poor performing! Even if we rebuilt Killarney brand-new with equally efficient, modern pool infrastructure it would still look poor performing on a per-square foot measurement. It's the wrong measure - Killarney offers the same amount of swimming capacity on a far smaller footprint. If anything, it's more efficient, not less that Quarry Park (once you remove the age of building issues).

All this wouldn't matter except for how they talk about using these measure - they are implying that old, small facilities are less cost efficient to build more giant new ones. Great! Except larger doesn't mean lower costs; newer means lower costs. You could rebuild Killarney in the same footprint with efficient modern pool infrastructure and it would be awesome and way more cost-efficient .... except now we can't fit a "larger, multi-use facility" which is the model we are assuming is the best approach in facility design.

Extend this thinking out a few decades and we have where we are at today - Killarney and the inner city facilities languish and close because they look inefficient and poor performing because they are old. Meanwhile newer, bloated facilities dilute their "per square foot" costs and look better. Over time the quality of amenity gap between old and new increases, because the investment all flows to the new, seemingly more efficient suburban facilities, perpetuating the a cycle - turns out demand is stronger when facilities are newer and higher quality!

The development model becomes so focused on chasing efficiency by building new big facilities it stops knowing how to renovate or upgrade existing facilities, the only option becomes building new big, multi-use facilities with huge footprints. Unfortunately these don't fit in the inner city and hit other efficiency problems (e.g. turns out 10 hectares of land is more expensive in Killarney than in greenfield development).

So facilities start closing when we refuse to pay for a upgraded pool in the same footprint (because it looks cost-inefficient), yet we don't open new facilities because they don't fit (because it's cost prohibitive). Ironically, the actual total cost of providing flat-water pools in different facilities remains reasonably similar this whole time, once your account for age of the infrastructure.

There's two arguments they are making. The first one is that pools and leisure centres built in the 1980s, the leisure centre is more efficient to operate. And then the Quarry Park example, which is even more efficient than both of them by being newer. It's very possible that larger facilities are more efficient, sharing a lot of utilities and support facilities. It's also why we, and many other municipalities, started combining facilities under one roof, rather than have 3 buildings for a pool, arena, gym/fitness centre.

I don't think in practice that means they will not upgrade existing facilities, there's a number of upgrades planned in the first wave of GamePlan. Unclear if this is a mistake since there's no details, but for example, the Foothills Aquatic Centre is listed as "Foothills Aquatic & Fitness Centre Redevelopment". Adding a fitness centre to the existing pool is more efficient than building a separate fitness centre.

GamePLAN: Reimagining recreation in Calgary

GamePLAN is a vision and strategy for the future of public recreation in Calgary for the next 25 years. It will help increase investment in recreation facilities, programs and services throughout Calgary. It sets a service level standard that responds to record levels of population growth and...

www.calgary.ca