DiscoStu
Active Member
Maybe it was Covid/WFH's fault, or maybe it was the economic downturn's fault... but it seems like it wasn't a viable operation anymore when it was open to everyone. Probably why it needs fancy-pants rates now to make it work.
|
|
|
Urban Development and Proposals Discussion
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
Maybe it was Covid/WFH's fault, or maybe it was the economic downturn's fault... but it seems like it wasn't a viable operation anymore when it was open to everyone. Probably why it needs fancy-pants rates now to make it work.
darwink
Senior Member
It was likely coming up on capital renewal, and the city didn't see it as a city supported facility, even though it was paid for mostly with government money, and enabled by a city zoning/density transfer.
The Y said that its membership program formerly paid for its operating expenses, but the membership had been dwindling. Alternative revenue sources (swim clubs, commuters I guess) were harder due to a lack of parking.
trtcttc
Active Member
And as we spend billions of taxpayer funds for a transit station at it's doorstep, the city decides to throw away a prime recreation facility because of a couple down years due to a once in a generation health crisis.
darwink
Senior Member
Thrillhou
New Member
<nerd> The view out the window is wrong, the view out the curved window section is to the North</nerd>Saw this in the Crescent Heights community newsletter, happy to see the facility being repurposed but dissappointed that it's now only for those with the $$$
View attachment 573858
(interesting seeing the Bow literally in the Bow river here)
Discover Calgary's New Athletic Club
High end wellness, premium athletic facilities and beautiful food and beverage spaces for connecting, are coming soon at the Eau Claire Athletic Club. This state-of-the-art facility is slated to open 2025. Located in the former Eau Claire YMCA building.www.ecathleticclub.ca
I think there were two factors in the drop in memberships at the Y. Tough economic decline and a reduction in downtown workers, but also competition from other gyms that popped up in office buildings. I used to be a member at the downtown Y up until about 2009 - when a gym subsidized by my company opened in my building. Gyms were opening up in other buildings also, and most of these gyms were just for tenants of the buildings, which kept them from getting too busy. Also as in the case of my building's gym, it was cheap, something like $20 a month. My wife kept her Y membership because of the pool, but a huge number of people used the Y mainly for the gym.
MichaelS
Senior Member
The Y downtown was pretty key for young families. When my son was less than a year old, my wife could walk there, even in winter as it only involved.1-2 blocks outside without a plus 15 connection, and do a class and get child care included in her membership for an hour. She went almost daily because of that. We still have friends we met there doing the same thing. The closure of the Y was not the main reason we eventually left downtown for west springs, but it sure didn't help the case for staying.
trtcttc
Active Member
This might be the wrong thread but since the discussion is ongoing, is there a particular reason why Calgary has very few publicly run rec centres? We have the Y, other privately-operated facilities (Repsol, Vecova), local community associations, a couple city facilities (Southland, Village Square), but they all have different membership structures and programs. In Vancouver, there's a large program offering by the Parks and Rec board with programs taking place at various community centres and/or private facilities. Similar in Toronto as well.
darwink
Senior Member
The city views it as cheaper, and various facilities over time were paid for in different ways. Independent operating arrangements can increase transparency, accountability, and importantly, increase maintenance investment. Some of the Y facilities are Y facilities, some are city facilities the Y is under contract to operate. Vecova, Westside, Vivo, Lindsay Park, Family Leisure. they're all 'civic partners'.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
I think how we provide recreation facilities and access to them needs a systematic rethink in Calgary. There's a bunch of facilities produced through many different service models over the decades, but I will focus on our current (in my opinion, flawed) model.
Compared to others, Calgary's current approach is only capable of creating larger and fancier - but fewer and very infrequently built - facilities that are mostly scattered across the suburbs. Few of these are accessible by anything but car, admission costs and monthly passes are very high. How did this happen?
I think public recreation's purpose drifted from what it should be trying to do. Over the years increased demands for specialized facilities (wave pools, leisure ice, climbing walls) and middle and upper class needs (hockey rinks, generous parking), slowly pulled recreation towards an approach where a facility should have these things, as opposed to them being nice-to-have extras on a basic service provision. This pushed the facility cost and size up, making inner city sites too constrained to meet the new "standard" provision.
We have chose a recreation provision model that can only produce giant, expensive, recreation facilities in a suburban format operated by a third party. It's not a success to have the 1st and 2nd largest YMCAs in the world at a cool $300M if the vast majority of people, particularly low-income and limited mobility folks, can't access recreation facilities because they are 5, 10 to 20km away.
Toronto's approach is much different. It assumes some basic recreation and fitness functions should be reasonably close to where people live everywhere, suburbs and inner city alike.
The result is often far more basic facilities, but a far better access and location provision. Toronto has 40+ gyms/weight rooms, 30+ indoor pool locations.
Importantly, this focus on general access carried over to costs. Here's what you'd pay for a pass annually:
| Toronto - city facilities (40+ locations) | Calgary - city facilities only (16 locations) | Calgary - YMCA (6 locations) | Calgary - MNP Centre (1 location) | |
| Full access (classes + weights + gym + pool) | $300 / year | $803 / year | $1,025 / year | $895 / year |
If you never take a class, Toronto discounts the pass ($240 annually), and if you only want weight room and gyms (no pools), annually it's only $190. None of these options exist in Calgary - you're always paying for full access if you have a pass. Toronto also has free recreations centres in lower-income areas, and a similar sliding-scale rebate program to Calgary's low-income pass.
So what gives? The main difference is the philosophical approach to recreation - access to recreation and fitness are treated as privileges (perhaps not intentionally, but definitely as an outcome) in Calgary, less so in Toronto that takes a more universal approach. We have a system that's cheap for taxpayers, but expensive for some, and inaccessible to many.
Last edited:
darwink
Senior Member
For a long time the school boards in Toronto built pools as part of their high schools. Keeping these pools accessible to the public was a policy challenge 15 or so years ago, as the costs to do so became more clear over time and weren't city funded. We will see as large renewal bills come due over the next 20 years how many stay open.
trtcttc
Active Member
As an example, this was opened within a new condo development only 5 minutes walk from Union Station and Scotiabank Arena. It has the basic amenities - gyms, pools, multipurpose rooms and not much else but very accessible.
City of Toronto officially opens One Yonge Community Recreation Centre on Toronto’s downtown waterfront
News Release November 4, 2023 Today, Mayor Olivia Chow and Deputy Mayor Ausma Malik (Spadina-Fort York) were joined by City of Toronto staff and members of the local community to officially open the new One Yonge Community Recreation Centre on Toronto’s downtown waterfront. The new public...
www.toronto.ca
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
Feels like the C+E should have some kind of recreation something. Having it build into a development would be interesting... Looking at you bus barn along the Elbow that could be turned into a rec centre and housing.
darwink
Senior Member
The Toronto project was $20 million from the city and a hard to find and possibly non-public amount from the private developer for a zoning change (office to residential), a set aside of 10% for affordable units and significant density (first site is 65 floors, second phase is 105, third 80). Phase 4-5 were to add to to office space but that seems to have been waived for a financial contribution to the ferry terminal and severing of some of the parcel for a park, and instead the existing office tower might also switch to another residential phase.
These projects where you can garner $1400+ per square foot, are another ball game, where the city can extract $150-$180 dollars a square foot in 'voluntary' benefits for planning permission.
