Simmons Sport Centre Complex Master Plan

Simmons Sport
Centre Complex
Master Plan
City of Charlottetown
Master Plan
Project Requirements
RFP outlined key deliverables:
Condition Assessment of the Simmons
Assessment of utilization, user profiles and
• A City-wide assessment of ice and/or
outdoor pool needs was not within the
brief/requirements for this project.
Project Requirements
Establish vision for the future of the Complex based
 Assessment of community and user needs via
market research, extensive stakeholder and
public consultations;
 Projected demographic changes and trends in
sports participation.
Establish short to medium-term (1-5 yrs.) and
long-term (6-10 yrs.) strategic directions for
development of the Complex inclusive of capital
project priorities.
State of the
2012 Condition Audit:
The Arena
 Arena building generally well maintained (40 yrs. old);
 Lacks many modern amenities that would be included
in a new building;
 With the same level of maintenance and equipment
replacement, building systems should perform
satisfactorily over the next 5 years +;
 But, significant maintenance/repair issues exist
(movement of the rink slab, building envelope issues).
2012 Condition Audit:
The Arena
 Investment will maintain the facility at a progressively
lower (relative) level of quality compared to a state of
the art efficient modern facility;
 Significant Investment in facility as a single-pad venue
should not be an option.
2012 Condition Audit:
The Pool
 Pool and related systems in poor condition;
 Exterior slab-on-grade outside the canteen and pool
change rooms is extensively cracked;
 Pool mechanical equipment is 38-years-old and
should all be replaced;
 Pool is beyond functional life; patching should not be
an option; in-situ replacement of pool and mechanical
system required.
2012 Condition Audit:
The Sports Fields
 Wear of sports fields is worse in the normal high use
areas. Some fields are operating at or over capacity
(e.g. Simmons Main and Colonel Gray);
 Fields appear to drain well with the exception of
some localized water ponding;
 The grass is in fair condition, with the best turf being
on Simmons Main Field;
 There are no changing or washroom facilities for the
sports fields.
The Vision
Simmons as a
 Simmons Sport Centre
and fields considered
part of a broader
Community campus;
 Functionally integrated
into the activities and
facilities of the
surrounding schools;
 Design options look
holistically at the
improved functionality
of the entire campus.
What We Heard
Breakdown of Consultation
Stage 1: Over 24 In‐depth
Interviews w/ Key Stakeholders
(e.g. User Groups)
Stage 2: Public Input Session to
Guide Master Plan Vision
Online Public Survey (promoted on
City website and via news release)
– 69 Respondents
Stage 3: Public Meeting to Review
Draft Master Plan (Option)
Advertised via hand delivered flyer
to all households within 100 m.
Almost 50% of online respondents
indicated they were little to
moderately satisfied with the current
Simmons facility (ranking from 3-5) .
What We Heard
 Wide range of needs/aspirations voiced;
 Yet, consensus on several key aspects of future
1  Enhance its community focus;
opportunities for active
2  Maintain/enhance
recreation and intensive field use (e.g. investing
in artificial field turf); and
3  Expanding opportunities for passive recreation
What We Heard
 Ambitious;
 Somewhat conflicting (or at least challenges
concept of complementarity);
 Nevertheless clear.
Concepts &
Capital Costs
An iterative process followed whereby a range of options
responding to community vision are balanced with capital
cost implications of the suite of desired changes.
The Result:
A likely sustainable framework for long-term planning.
Option 1: Maintain
Status Quo
 No new initiatives on-site;
 Maintenance/enhancement of
current facilities;
 Includes a rebuilt pool in-situ and
moderate capital enhancements
to arena in years 1-5;
 Does not address long-term
viability of arena building (i.e. 10-15
years from now);
 Does not offer realistic solution to
long-term ice needs in City.
Issues for Consideration
Short-term costs
provide a 1-5 year
strategy for the
improvement of the
Complex in light of
policy gap regarding
future City-wide ice
Doesn’t address changing
community needs, long-term
infrastructure planning or highest
and best use for the site.
Costly price tag for ensuring
status quo for next 10 years
Negative cost-benefit ratio.
Option 2: Traditional
Recreation Footprint
 Short-term (1-5 yrs.) investment in
required and desirable capital
repairs and upgrades to arena and
 Pool rebuilt in-situ;
 Longer-term (6-10 years) upgrades
to existing arena to significantly
extend useful life coupled with
additional ice-pad (i.e. twinning).
Issues for Consideration
Meets the needs of principal
users – field sports and ice user
groups best if facility twinned.
Outstanding policy & strategic
questions as to merits of
twinning arena (pending
assessment of City-wide ice
Cost of fully upgrading
arena and add second
pad is only marginally less
expensive than the cost
of building a new twin
pad at Greenfield site
($14.4 M to $15 M).
Option 3: Investing in
First Class Complex
 Emphasis on sports infrastructure
at community level;
 New Pool in-situ; note in all
scenarios, option for alternatives
to finalize pool should be
investigated (for example a
wading pool/splash-pad
 Development of Simmons Main
Field with artificial turf,
appropriate fencing;
 Arena decommissioned pursuant
to a presumed future policy
strategy of ice replacement in
City; and
 Multi-use community centre.
Option 3: Investing in
First Class Complex
 Investment in integrated trails
and pick-up use sport courts;
 Network of active loops/trails
and social spaces (gazebos).
Issues for Consideration
Decommissioning of
the arena must occur in
the context of Councilapproved strategies for
facilities development
and growth planning.
arena is likely
warranted in mediumterm.
Invests in sports fields and
meets significant
community and school
interest in field utilization.
Opportunity for an
alternative range of uses
in a neighbourhood
Synergy between
intensive field use and
passive recreation.
Order of Magnitude Capital Costs (2013 $) by Option
Long Term Build-Out*
Development Area/Item
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Sub-Total Construction Cost Estimate
Soft Costs (20%)
Grand Total
Short Term Costs (Years 1-5)
A1 Capital Upgrades to Existing Facilities and
Infrastructure (Years 1 - 5) (all-in costs)
- Arena
- Pool
- Fields
Optional Long Term Upgrade to Arena**
B Arena Twinning (Allocation)
B2 New Arena (Greenfield Location) (Optional)
- Single Pad***
- Twin Pad***
C Conversion to Artificial Turf Field
D Multi-Use Centre
- Building (Allocation)
- External Development
- Multi-Use Court (x1)
E Multi-use Trails/Walkway Connections
* Excludes decommissioning, demolition and off-site disposal costs as applicable
** Estimate of additional CapEx to significantly extend service life and functional quality of arena
*** Costs not reflected in construction estimates for Option 3
The 5-year Plan
 In the short-term (1-5 years), Option 1
represents an immediate actionable
strategy focused on maintaining the status
 Option 3 (minimal costs years 1-5) only
relevant if decommission of Simmons is
We do not recommend adopting Option 3
for expediency in years 1-5 without making
a policy decision on the future of Simmons
Arena should receive some $2.5 M
minimum investment in the next 5 years if
plan is to retain it for next 10 years.
The 5-year Plan
 The 5-year plan assumes arena is retained,
for which needed repairs and upgrades
must be undertaken to extend its life, and
improve its quality markedly in the shortterm.
 Minimum investment of $3.5
 Further investment over the longer-term
(totaling $4 million) could ensure its life for
a further 20+ years (not recommended).
The Longer-term Plan
 Options 2 and 3 represent the longer-term plan for
the development of Simmons;
 Immediate Action: A decision between these two
options will be dependent on the results of Citywide recreation planning exercise inclusive of an
ice needs and open-air pool needs assessment;
 Option 2 (retaining and twinning the arena over the
longer-term) totals $12 million in additional
investment over years 6-10 yrs.;
 Option 3 achievable over the long-term at a cost of
$5.1 million. However, cost of replacing
decommissioned ice elsewhere in City should be
recognized, but not ascribed to this project.

similar documents