education centre analyses

8/3/2019 Education Centre Analyses

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/education-centre-analyses 1/18

SITE # 4SITE NAME Windermere Site

Name Windermere Site Priority

AssignedWeighting

Points

Address 139 Windermere Rd. A 5

Closest Intersection Burlington St. E & QEW B 4

Site Area (acres) 41.8 C 3D 2E 1

Priority WeightingDifferenciation Factor 2.00

Scoring

Scoring

PointsExcellent 5Very Good 4Good 3Fair 2Poor 1Terrible 0

Category Criteria Rank Evaluation Score

Weighted

Score

Accessibility Public transit access B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05

SITE SELECTION CRITERIA MODEL

PROPOSED EDUCATION CENTREHAMILTON WENTWORTH DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD

% Weighting

SITE EVALUATION (SCORING MODEL)

CRITERIA WEIGHTING

SITE INFORMATION

SCORING SYSTEM

WEIGHTING SYSTEM

Accessibility Highway / major arterial access A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Accessibility To pedestrian infrastructure C 9 1.3% Poor 1 0.01Accessibility To bike paths C 9 1.3% Poor 1 0.01Accessibility To board service vehicles B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Accessibility To other delivery vehicles D 4 0.6% Good 3 0.02Accessibility Accessible by all mobilility levels (complies with ODA Act) B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07

0Amenities Business services C 9 1.3% Poor 1 0.01Amenities Restaurants B 16 2.4% Poor 1 0.02Amenities Convention / meeting facilities D 4 0.6% Fair 2 0.01Amenities Other retail services C 9 1.3% Poor 1 0.01

0Building Operating Costs Site Impacts on building operating costs (heating) B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07

Building Operating Costs Site Impacts on building operating costs (hydro) C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.040

Capital Costs Site Costs, including geotechnical & remediation B 16 2.4% Terrible 0 0.00Capital Costs Infrastructure costs B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05Capital Costs Impacts on building costs C 9 1.3% Poor 1 0.01Capital Costs Impacts on parking construction costs C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04

0Economic Impact Hamiltion as "best place to raise a child" D 4 0.6% Good 3 0.02Economic Impact Downtown Hamilton revitalization D 4 0.6% Poor 1 0.01Economic Impact Local economic benefits / impacts (job creation, etc.) B 16 2.4% Poor 1 0.02Economic Impact Aligns with GRIDS C 9 1.3% Fair 2 0.03

0Environmental Sustainability Sized to Minimize Building Footrpint B 16 2.4% Poor 1 0.02Environmental Sustainability Infill Or brownfield rather than greenfield B 16 2.4% Excellent 5 0.12Environmental Sustainability Re-use of existing buildng infrastructure C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04

0Location Visibilility to public A 25 3.7% Very Good 4 0.15Location Suitability to a "Landmark Building" B 16 2.4% Terrible 0 0.00Location Connections to / integration with surrounding communities B 16 2.4% Terrible 0 0.00

0Parking Off site availability A 25 3.7% Terrible 0 0.00Parking Off site parking rates B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07

0Proximity To other key user groups C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Proximity To other key stakeholders C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Proximity To Schools A 25 3.7% Fair 2 0.07Proximity To administrative staff residences B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Proximity To student population D 4 0.6% Fair 2 0.01

0Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for building program, allows landmark gesture A 25 3.7% Excellent 5 0.19Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for development of partner facilities (co-location) B 16 2.4% Excellent 5 0.12Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for parking needs A 25 3.7% Excellent 5 0.19Site Size, Configuration & Topography Meetings topographical and geotechnical requirements B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07

0Site Zoning Zoned (or certain to be re-zoned) for ECS land use A 25 3.7% Very Good 4 0.15Site Zoning Zoning allows for sufficient density & building height A 25 3.7% Excellent 5 0.19Site Zoning Approval of other jurisdictions having authority A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11

0Timing Acquisition timing A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Timing Approval timing A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Timing Construction timing A 25 3.7% Poor 1 0.04

TOTAL SCORE 675 106 2.6075.96



SITE # 18SITE NAME Aberdeen Site

Name Aberdeen Site Priority

Assigned

Weighting

Points

Address 606 Aberdeen Ave. A 5

Closest Intersection Aberdeen Ave. & Longwoods Rd. S B 4



ScoringScoringPoints

Excellent 5Very Good 4Good 3Fair 2Poor 1Terrible 0

Category Criteria Rank Evaluation ScoreWeighted

Score

Accessibility Public transit access B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05% Weighting

PROPOSED EDUCATION CENTRE


HAMILTON WENTWORTH DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD


CRITERIA WEIGHTING

SITE INFORMATION WEIGHTING SYSTEM

SCORING SYSTEM

Accessibility Highway / major arterial access A 25 3.7% Excellent 5 0.19Accessibility To pedestrian infrastructure C 9 1.3% Fair 2 0.03Accessibility To bike paths C 9 1.3% Fair 2 0.03Accessibility To board service vehicles B 16 2.4% Very Good 4 0.09Accessibility To other delivery vehicles D 4 0.6% Very Good 4 0.02Accessibility Accessible by all mobilility levels (complies with ODA Act) B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07

0Amenities Business services C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Amenities Restaurants B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Amenities Convention / meeting facilities D 4 0.6% Good 3 0.02Amenities Other retail services C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04



Capital Costs Site Costs, including geotechnical & remediation B 16 2.4% Poor 1 0.02Capital Costs Infrastructure costs B 16 2.4% Very Good 4 0.09Capital Costs Impacts on building costs C 9 1.3% Fair 2 0.03Capital Costs Impacts on parking construction costs C 9 1.3% Fair 2 0.03

0Economic Impact Hamiltion as "best place to raise a child" D 4 0.6% Good 3 0.02Economic Impact Downtown Hamilton revitalization D 4 0.6% Poor 1 0.01Economic Impact Local economic benefits / impacts (job creation, etc.) B 16 2.4% Poor 1 0.02Economic Impact Aligns with GRIDS C 9 1.3% Very Good 4 0.05


0Location Visibilility to public A 25 3.7% Fair 2 0.07Location Suitability to a "Landmark Building" B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05Location Connections to / integration with surrounding communities B 16 2.4% Poor 1 0.02

0Parking Off site availability A 25 3.7% Poor 1 0.04Parking Off site parking rates B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07

0Proximity To other key user groups C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04

Proximity To other key stakeholders C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Proximity To Schools A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Proximity To administrative staff residences B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Proximity To student population D 4 0.6% Good 3 0.02

0Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for building program, allows landmark gesture A 25 3.7% Poor 1 0.04Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for development of partner facilities (co-location) B 16 2.4% Poor 1 0.02Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for parking needs A 25 3.7% Fair 2 0.07Site Size, Configuration & Topography Meetings topographical and geotechnical requirements B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07

0Site Zoning Zoned (or certain to be re-zoned) for ECS land use A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Site Zoning Zoning allows for sufficient density & building height A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Site Zoning Approval of other jurisdictions having authority A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11

0Timing Acquisition timing A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Timing Approval timing A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Timing Construction timing A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11

TOTAL SCORE 675 116 2.6276.16



SITE # 15SITE NAME Ancaster High School

Name Ancaster Site Priority

Assigned

WeightingPoints

Address 374 Jerseyville Rd. W A 5

Closest Intersection Jerseyville Rd. W & Meadowbrook Dr. B 4



Scoring

Scoring



Score

Accessibilit Public transit access B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05

SCORING SYSTEM

WEIGHTING SYSTEMSITE INFORMATION




CRITERIA WEIGHTING

% Weighting

. .Accessibility Highway / major arterial access A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Accessibility To pedestrian infrastructure C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Accessibility To bike paths C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Accessibility To board service vehicles B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05Accessibility To other delivery vehicles D 4 0.6% Fair 2 0.01Accessibility Accessible by all mobilility levels (complies with ODA Act) B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07

0Amenities Business services C 9 1.3% Fair 2 0.03Amenities Restaurants B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05Amenities Convention / meeting facilities D 4 0.6% Fair 2 0.01Amenities Other retail services C 9 1.3% Fair 2 0.03



Capital Costs Site Costs, including geotechnical & remediation B 16 2.4% Excellent 5 0.12Capital Costs Infrastructure costs B 16 2.4% Very Good 4 0.09Capital Costs Impacts on building costs C 9 1.3% Very Good 4 0.05Capital Costs Impacts on parking construction costs C 9 1.3% Very Good 4 0.05

0Economic Impact Hamiltion as "best place to raise a child" D 4 0.6% Good 3 0.02Economic Impact Downtown Hamilton revitalization D 4 0.6% Poor 1 0.01Economic Impact Local economic benefits / impacts (job creation, etc.) B 16 2.4% Poor 1 0.02Economic Impact Aligns with GRIDS C 9 1.3% Poor 1 0.01

0Environmental Sustainability Sized to Minimize Building Footrpint B 16 2.4% Poor 1 0.02Environmental Sustainability Infill Or brownfield rather than greenfield B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05Environmental Sustainability Re-use of existing buildng infrastructure C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04

0Location Visibilility to public A 25 3.7% Fair 2 0.07Location Suitability to a "Landmark Building" B 16 2.4% Poor 1 0.02Location Connections to / integration with surrounding communities B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07


0

Proximity To other key user groups C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Proximity To other key stakeholders C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Proximity To Schools A 25 3.7% Poor 1 0.04Proximity To administrative staff residences B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05Proximity To student population D 4 0.6% Poor 1 0.01

0Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for building program, allows landmark gesture A 25 3.7% Very Good 4 0.15Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for development of partner facilities (co-location) B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for parking needs A 25 3.7% Very Good 4 0.15Site Size, Configuration & Topography Meetings topographical and geotechnical requirements B 16 2.4% Very Good 4 0.09

0Site Zoning Zoned (or certain to be re-zoned) for ECS land use A 25 3.7% Very Good 4 0.15Site Zoning Zoning allows for sufficient density & building height A 25 3.7% Excellent 5 0.19Site Zoning Approval of other jurisdictions having authority A 25 3.7% Excellent 5 0.19

0Timing Acquisition timing A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Timing Approval timing A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Timing Construction timing A 25 3.7% Excellent 5 0.19

TOTAL SCORE 675 121 2.9279.20



SITE # 1SITE NAME Chatham Street

Name Chatam Site Priority

AssignedWeighting

Points

Address n/a A 5

Closest Intersection Chatham St. & Dundurn St. S. B 4



Scoring

Scoring



Weighted

Score

Accessibility Public transit access B 16 2.4% Excellent 5 0.12




SITE INFORMATION

WEIGHTING

% Weighting

SCORING SYSTEM

WEIGHTING SYSTEM

CRITERIA

ccess y g way ma or ar er a access . oo .Accessibility To pedestrian infrastructure C 9 1.3% Poor 1 0.01Accessibility To bike paths C 9 1.3% Fair 2 0.03Accessibility To board service vehicles B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Accessibility To other delivery vehicles D 4 0.6% Good 3 0.02Accessibility Accessible by all mobilility levels (complies with ODA Act) B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07

0Amenities Business services C 9 1.3% Fair 2 0.03Amenities Restaurants B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05Amenities Convention / meeting facilities D 4 0.6% Good 3 0.02Amenities Other retail services C 9 1.3% Fair 2 0.03

0Building Operating Costs Site Impacts on building operating costs (heating) B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Building Operating Costs Site Impacts on building operating costs (hydro) C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04

0Capital Costs Site Costs, including geotechnical & remediation B 16 2.4% Poor 1 0.02Capital Costs Infrastructure costs B 16 2.4% Very Good 4 0.09Capital Costs Impacts on building costs C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Capital Costs Impacts on parking construction costs C 9 1.3% Very Good 4 0.05



0Location Visibilility to public A 25 3.7% Terrible 0 0.00Location Suitability to a "Landmark Building" B 16 2.4% Terrible 0 0.00Location Connections to / integration with surrounding communities B 16 2.4% Terrible 0 0.00



Proximity To other key stakeholders C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Proximity To Schools A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Proximity To administrative staff residences B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Proximity To student population D 4 0.6% Good 3 0.02

0Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for building program, allows landmark gesture A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for development of partner facilities (co-location) B 16 2.4% Poor 1 0.02Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for parking needs A 25 3.7% Very Good 4 0.15Site Size, Configuration & Topography Meetings topographical and geotechnical requirements B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07


0Timing Acquisition timing A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Timing Approval timing A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Timing Construction timing A 25 3.7% Very Good 4 0.15

.77.11



SITE # 9SITE NAME City Hall Site

Name City Hall Site Priority

AssignedWeighting

Points

Address 71 Main st. W A 5

Closest Intersection Main St. W & Bay St. S B 4

Site Area (acres) 6 C 3D 2E 1

Priority WeightingD if feren ciat ion Fac tor 2 .0 0

Scoring

Scoring



Weighted

Score



SCORING SYSTEM




CRITERIA WEIGHTING

% Weighting

Accessibility Highway / major arterial access A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Accessibility To pedestrian infrastructure C 9 1.3% Very Good 4 0.05Accessibility To bike paths C 9 1.3% Fair 2 0.03Accessibility To board service vehicles B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05Accessibility To other delivery vehicles D 4 0.6% Fair 2 0.01Accessibility Accessible by all mobilility levels (complies with ODA Act) B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07

0Amenities Business services C 9 1.3% Excellent 5 0.07Amenities Restaurants B 16 2.4% Excellent 5 0.12Amenities Convention / meeting facilities D 4 0.6% Excellent 5 0.03Amenities Other retail services C 9 1.3% Excellent 5 0.07

0Building Operating Costs Site Impacts on building operating costs (heating) B 16 2.4% Excellent 5 0.12


Capital Costs Site Costs, including geotechnical & remediation B 16 2.4% Poor 1 0.02Capital Costs Infrastructure costs B 16 2.4% Excellent 5 0.12Capital Costs Impacts on building costs C 9 1.3% Poor 1 0.01Capital Costs Impacts on parking construction costs C 9 1.3% Terrible 0 0.00

0Economic Impact Hamiltion as "best place to raise a child" D 4 0.6% Good 3 0.02Economic Impact Downtown Hamilton revitalization D 4 0.6% Very Good 4 0.02Economic Impact Local economic benefits / impacts (job creation, etc.) B 16 2.4% Very Good 4 0.09Economic Impact Aligns with GRIDS C 9 1.3% Excellent 5 0.07

0Environmental Sustainability Sized to Minimize Building Footrpint B 16 2.4% Very Good 4 0.09Environmental Sustainability Infill Or brownfield rather than greenfield B 16 2.4% Excellent 5 0.12Environmental Sustainability Re-use of existing buildng infrastructure C 9 1.3% Fair 2 0.03

0Location Visibilility to public A 25 3.7% Very Good 4 0.15Location Suitability to a "Landmark Building" B 16 2.4% Excellent 5 0.12Location Connections to / integration with surrounding communities B 16 2.4% Excellent 5 0.12

0Parking Off site availability A 25 3.7% Excellent 5 0.19Parking Off site parking rates B 16 2.4% Terrible 0 0.00

0Proximity To other key user groups C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Proximity To other key stakeholders C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Proximity To Schools A 25 3.7% Fair 2 0.07Proximity To administrative staff residences B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05Proximity To student population D 4 0.6% Fair 2 0.01

0Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for building program, allows landmark gesture A 25 3.7% Terrible 0 0.00Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for development of partner facilities (co-location) B 16 2.4% Terrible 0 0.00Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for parking needs A 25 3.7% Terrible 0 0.00Site Size, Configuration & Topography Meetings topographical and geotechnical requirements B 16 2.4% Very Good 4 0.09

0Site Zoning Zoned (or certain to be re-zoned) for ECS land use A 25 3.7% Excellent 5 0.19Site Zoning Zoning allows for sufficient density & building height A 25 3.7% Excellent 5 0.19Site Zoning Approval of other jurisdictions having authority A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11

0Timing Acquisition timing A 25 3.7% Fair 2 0.07Timing Approval timing A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Timing Construction timing A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11

TOTAL SCORE 675 139 3.1381.35



SITE # 14SITE NAME Crestwood Site

Name Crestwood Priority

AssignedWeighting

Points

Address 50 Millwood Place A 5

Closest Intersection Mohawk Rd. E & Upper Wentworth St. B 4

Site Area (acres) 9.85 C 3D 2E 1Priority Weighting

D iffer enc iat ion Fac tor 2. 00

Scoring

Scoring



Weighted

Score

Accessibility Public transit access B 16 2.4% Very Good 4 0.09Accessibilit Hi hwa / ma or arterial access A 25 3.7% Ver Good 4 0.15



% Weighting


CRITERIA WEIGHTING

SITE INFORMATION

SCORING SYSTEM

WEIGHTING SYSTEM

Accessibility To pedestrian infrastructure C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Accessibility To bike paths C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Accessibility To board service vehicles B 16 2.4% Very Good 4 0.09Accessibility To other delivery vehicles D 4 0.6% Very Good 4 0.02Accessibility Accessible by all mobilility levels (complies with ODA Act) B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07

0Amenities Business services C 9 1.3% Very Good 4 0.05Amenities Restaurants B 16 2.4% Very Good 4 0.09Amenities Convention / meeting facilities D 4 0.6% Good 3 0.02Amenities Other retail services C 9 1.3% Very Good 4 0.05


0Capital Costs Site Costs, including geotechnical & remediation B 16 2.4% Very Good 4 0.09Capital Costs Infrastructure costs B 16 2.4% Excellent 5 0.12Capital Costs Impacts on building costs C 9 1.3% Very Good 4 0.05Capital Costs Impacts on parking construction costs C 9 1.3% Very Good 4 0.05

0Economic Impact Hamiltion as "best place to raise a child" D 4 0.6% Good 3 0.02Economic Impact Downtown Hamilton revitalization D 4 0.6% Poor 1 0.01Economic Impact Local economic benefits / impacts (job creation, etc.) B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Economic Impact Aligns with GRIDS C 9 1.3% Very Good 4 0.05

0Environmental Sustainability Sized to Minimize Building Footrpint B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05Environmental Sustainability Infill Or brownfield rather than greenfield B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Environmental Sustainability Re-use of existing buildng infrastructure C 9 1.3% Fair 2 0.03

0Location Visibilility to public A 25 3.7% Fair 2 0.07Location Suitability to a "Landmark Building" B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05Location Connections to / integration with surrounding communities B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07

0Parking Off site availability A 25 3.7% Fair 2 0.07Parking Off site parking rates B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07


Proximity To other key stakeholders C 9 1.3% Very Good 4 0.05Proximity To Schools A 25 3.7% Very Good 4 0.15Proximity To administrative staff residences B 16 2.4% Excellent 5 0.12Proximity To student population D 4 0.6% Very Good 4 0.02

0Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for building program, allows landmark gesture A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for development of partner facilities (co-location) B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for parking needs A 25 3.7% Very Good 4 0.15Site Size, Configuration & Topography Meetings topographical and geotechnical requirements B 16 2.4% Very Good 4 0.09

0Site Zoning Zoned (or certain to be re-zoned) for ECS land use A 25 3.7% Excellent 5 0.19Site Zoning Zoning allows for sufficient density & building height A 25 3.7% Excellent 5 0.19Site Zoning Approval of other jurisdictions having authority A 25 3.7% Excellent 5 0.19

0Timing Acquisition timing A 25 3.7% Excellent 5 0.19Timing Approval timing A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Timing Construction timing A 25 3.7% Excellent 5 0.19

TOTAL SCORE 675 154 3.6286.16



SITE # 5SITE NAME Flamborough Site

Name Flamborough Site Priority

AssignedWeighting

Points

Address 1046 Hwy 6 A 5

Closest Intersection Hwy 6 & Concession Rd. 6 W B 4



Scoring

Scoring



Weighted

Score

Accessibility Public transit access B 16 2.4% Terrible 0 0.00

SCORING SYSTEM





CRITERIA WEIGHTING

% Weighting

Accessibility Highway / major arterial access A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Accessibility To pedestrian infrastructure C 9 1.3% Terrible 0 0.00Accessibility To bike paths C 9 1.3% Terrible 0 0.00Accessibility To board service vehicles B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Accessibility To other delivery vehicles D 4 0.6% Good 3 0.02Accessibility Accessible by all mobilility levels (complies with ODA Act) B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05

0Amenities Business services C 9 1.3% Terrible 0 0.00Amenities Restaurants B 16 2.4% Terrible 0 0.00Amenities Convention / meeting facilities D 4 0.6% Poor 1 0.01Amenities Other retail services C 9 1.3% Terrible 0 0.00



Capital Costs Site Costs, including geotechnical & remediation B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Capital Costs Infrastructure costs B 16 2.4% Poor 1 0.02Capital Costs Impacts on building costs C 9 1.3% Fair 2 0.03Capital Costs Impacts on parking construction costs C 9 1.3% Very Good 4 0.05

0Economic Impact Hamiltion as "best place to raise a child" D 4 0.6% Good 3 0.02Economic Impact Downtown Hamilton revitalization D 4 0.6% Poor 1 0.01Economic Impact Local economic benefits / impacts (job creation, etc.) B 16 2.4% Poor 1 0.02Economic Impact Aligns with GRIDS C 9 1.3% Poor 1 0.01

0Environmental Sustainability Sized to Minimize Building Footrpint B 16 2.4% Very Good 4 0.09Environmental Sustainability Infill Or brownfield rather than greenfield B 16 2.4% Poor 1 0.02Environmental Sustainability Re-use of existing buildng infrastructure C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04

0Location Visibilility to public A 25 3.7% Fair 2 0.07Location Suitability to a "Landmark Building" B 16 2.4% Terrible 0 0.00Location Connections to / integration with surrounding communities B 16 2.4% Terrible 0 0.00


0Proximity To other key user groups C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Proximity To other key stakeholders C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Proximity To Schools A 25 3.7% Poor 1 0.04Proximity To administrative staff residences B 16 2.4% Terrible 0 0.00Proximity To student population D 4 0.6% Poor 1 0.01

0Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for building program, allows landmark gesture A 25 3.7% Poor 1 0.04Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for development of partner facilities (co-location) B 16 2.4% Terrible 0 0.00Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for parking needs A 25 3.7% Poor 1 0.04Site Size, Configuration & Topography Meetings topographical and geotechnical requirements B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07

0Site Zoning Zoned (or certain to be re-zoned) for ECS land use A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Site Zoning Zoning allows for sufficient density & building height A 25 3.7% Very Good 4 0.15Site Zoning Approval of other jurisdictions having authority A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11

0Timing Acquisition timing A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Timing Approval timing A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Timing Construction timing A 25 3.7% Fair 2 0.07

TOTAL SCORE 675 78 1.8468.39



SITE # 2SITE NAME Highland Rd.

Name Highland Site Priority

AssignedWeighting

Points

Address 512 Highland Rd. A 5

Closest Intersection Highland Rd. & Upper Mt. Albion Rd. B 4



Scoring

Scoring



Weighted

Score

Accessibility Public transit access B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07



% Weighting


CRITERIA WEIGHTING

SITE INFORMATION

SCORING SYSTEM

WEIGHTING SYSTEM

ccess y g way ma or ar er a access . xce en .Accessibility To pedestrian infrastructure C 9 1.3% Fair 2 0.03Accessibility To bike paths C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Accessibility To board service vehicles B 16 2.4% Very Good 4 0.09Accessibility To other delivery vehicles D 4 0.6% Very Good 4 0.02Accessibility Accessible by all mobilility levels (complies with ODA Act) B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07

0Amenities Business services C 9 1.3% Fair 2 0.03Amenities Restaurants B 16 2.4% Very Good 4 0.09Amenities Convention / meeting facilities D 4 0.6% Fair 2 0.01Amenities Other retail services C 9 1.3% Very Good 4 0.05


0Capital Costs Site Costs, including geotechnical & remediation B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Capital Costs Infrastructure costs B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Capital Costs Impacts on building costs C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Capital Costs Impacts on parking construction costs C 9 1.3% Very Good 4 0.05

0Economic Impact Hamiltion as "best place to raise a child" D 4 0.6% Good 3 0.02Economic Impact Downtown Hamilton revitalization D 4 0.6% Poor 1 0.01Economic Impact Local economic benefits / impacts (job creation, etc.) B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Economic Impact Aligns with GRIDS C 9 1.3% Fair 2 0.03

0Environmental Sustainability Sized to Minimize Building Footrpint B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05Environmental Sustainability Infill Or brownfield rather than greenfield B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05Environmental Sustainability Re-use of existing buildng infrastructure C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04

0Location Visibilility to public A 25 3.7% Very Good 4 0.15Location Suitability to a "Landmark Building" B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Location Connections to / integration with surrounding communities B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07

0Parking Off site availability A 25 3.7% Fair 2 0.07Parking Off site parking rates B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07

0Proximity To other key user groups C 9 1.3% Fair 2 0.03

Proximity To other key stakeholders C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Proximity To Schools A 25 3.7% Very Good 4 0.15Proximity To administrative staff residences B 16 2.4% Very Good 4 0.09Proximity To student population D 4 0.6% Very Good 4 0.02

0Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for building program, allows landmark gesture A 25 3.7% Excellent 5 0.19Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for development of partner facilities (co-location) B 16 2.4% Very Good 4 0.09Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for parking needs A 25 3.7% Excellent 5 0.19Site Size, Configuration & Topography Meetings topographical and geotechnical requirements B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07

0Site Zoning Zoned (or certain to be re-zoned) for ECS land use A 25 3.7% Very Good 4 0.15Site Zoning Zoning allows for sufficient density & building height A 25 3.7% Very Good 4 0.15Site Zoning Approval of other jurisdictions having authority A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11


.83.11



SITE # 8SITE NAME Innovation Park

Name Innovation Park Priority

AssignedWeighting

Points

Address 175 & 270 Longwoods Rd. A 5

Closest Intersection Longwoods Rd. & Aberdeen Ave. B 4



Scoring

Scoring



Weighted

Score

Accessibility Public transit access B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05



% Weighting


CRITERIA WEIGHTING

SITE INFORMATION

SCORING SYSTEM

WEIGHTING SYSTEM

Accessibility Highway / major arterial access A 25 3.7% Very Good 4 0.15Accessibility To pedestrian infrastructure C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Accessibility To bike paths C 9 1.3% Fair 2 0.03Accessibility To board service vehicles B 16 2.4% Excellent 5 0.12Accessibility To other delivery vehicles D 4 0.6% Excellent 5 0.03Accessibility Accessible by all mobilility levels (complies with ODA Act) B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07




Capital Costs Site Costs, including geotechnical & remediation B 16 2.4% Poor 1 0.02Capital Costs Infrastructure costs B 16 2.4% Very Good 4 0.09Capital Costs Impacts on building costs C 9 1.3% Fair 2 0.03Capital Costs Impacts on parking construction costs C 9 1.3% Very Good 4 0.05



0Location Visibilility to public A 25 3.7% Fair 2 0.07Location Suitability to a "Landmark Building" B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Location Connections to / integration with surrounding communities B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05

0Parking Off site availability A 25 3.7% Very Good 4 0.15Parking Off site parking rates B 16 2.4% Very Good 4 0.09

0Proximity To other key user groups C 9 1.3% Very Good 4 0.05Proximity To other key stakeholders C 9 1.3% Very Good 4 0.05Proximity To Schools A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Proximity To administrative staff residences B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Proximity To student population D 4 0.6% Good 3 0.02

0Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for building program, allows landmark gesture A 25 3.7% Very Good 4 0.15Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for development of partner facilities (co-location) B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for parking needs A 25 3.7% Excellent 5 0.19Site Size, Configuration & Topography Meetings topographical and geotechnical requirements B 16 2.4% Poor 1 0.02


0Timing Acquisition timing A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Timing Approval timing A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Timing Construction timing A 25 3.7% Very Good 4 0.15

TOTAL SCORE 675 137 3.2082.04



SITE # 17SITE NAME Jackson Square

Name Jackson Square Priority

AssignedWeighting

Points

Address 77 James St. N A 5

Closest Intersection James St. & King St. E B 4



Scoring

Scoring



Weighted

Score


SCORING SYSTEM





CRITERIA WEIGHTING

% Weighting

ccess ty g way / ma or arter a access 25 3.7% oo 3 0.11Accessibility To pedestrian infrastructure C 9 1.3% Very Good 4 0.05Accessibility To bike paths C 9 1.3% Fair 2 0.03Accessibility To board service vehicles B 16 2.4% Poor 1 0.02Accessibility To other delivery vehicles D 4 0.6% Poor 1 0.01Accessibility Accessible by all mobilility levels (complies with ODA Act) B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07

0Amenities Business services C 9 1.3% Excellent 5 0.07Amenities Restaurants B 16 2.4% Excellent 5 0.12Amenities Convention / meeting facilities D 4 0.6% Excellent 5 0.03Amenities Other retail services C 9 1.3% Excellent 5 0.07

0Building Operating Costs Site Impacts on building operating costs (heating) B 16 2.4% Excellent 5 0.12

Building Operating Costs Site Impacts on building operating costs (hydro) C 9 1.3% Very Good 4 0.050Capital Costs Site Costs, including geotechnical & remediation B 16 2.4% Excellent 5 0.12Capital Costs Infrastructure costs B 16 2.4% Excellent 5 0.12Capital Costs Impacts on building costs C 9 1.3% Excellent 5 0.07Capital Costs Impacts on parking construction costs C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04

0Economic Impact Hamiltion as "best place to raise a child" D 4 0.6% Good 3 0.02Economic Impact Downtown Hamilton revitalization D 4 0.6% Very Good 4 0.02Economic Impact Local economic benefits / impacts (job creation, etc.) B 16 2.4% Very Good 4 0.09Economic Impact Aligns with GRIDS C 9 1.3% Very Good 4 0.05

0Environmental Sustainability Sized to Minimize Building Footrpint B 16 2.4% Excellent 5 0.12Environmental Sustainability Infill Or brownfield rather than greenfield B 16 2.4% Excellent 5 0.12Environmental Sustainability Re-use of existing buildng infrastructure C 9 1.3% Excellent 5 0.07

0Location Visibilility to public A 25 3.7% Very Good 4 0.15Location Suitability to a "Landmark Building" B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Location Connections to / integration with surrounding communities B 16 2.4% Very Good 4 0.09

0Parking Off site availability A 25 3.7% Excellent 5 0.19Parking Off site parking rates B 16 2.4% Terrible 0 0.00

0Proximity To other key user groups C 9 1.3% Very Good 4 0.05

Proximity To other key stakeholders C 9 1.3% Very Good 4 0.05Proximity To Schools A 25 3.7% Fair 2 0.07Proximity To administrative staff residences B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05Proximity To student population D 4 0.6% Fair 2 0.01

0Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for building program, allows landmark gesture A 25 3.7% Terrible 0 0.00Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for development of partner facilities (co-location) B 16 2.4% Terrible 0 0.00Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for parking needs A 25 3.7% Terrible 0 0.00Site Size, Configuration & Topography Meetings topographical and geotechnical requirements B 16 2.4% Excellent 5 0.12

0Site Zoning Zoned (or certain to be re-zoned) for ECS land use A 25 3.7% Excellent 5 0.19Site Zoning Zoning allows for sufficient density & building height A 25 3.7% Excellent 5 0.19Site Zoning Approval of other jurisdictions having authority A 25 3.7% Excellent 5 0.19

0Timing Acquisition timing A 25 3.7% Very Good 4 0.15Timing Approval timing A 25 3.7% Excellent 5 0.19Timing Construction timing A 25 3.7% Excellent 5 0.19

.86.33



SITE # 12SITE NAME Jerome Site

Name Jerome Site Priority

Assigned

WeightingPoints

Address 1310 Upper Wellington A 5

Closest Intersection Upper Wellington St. & L. A. Pkwy B 4






Score




% Weighting


CRITERIA WEIGHTING

SITE INFORMATION

SCORING SYSTEM

WEIGHTING SYSTEM

Accessibility Highway / major arterial access A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Accessibility To pedestrian infrastructure C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Accessibility To bike paths C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Accessibility To board service vehicles B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Accessibility To other delivery vehicles D 4 0.6% Good 3 0.02Accessibility Accessible by all mobilility levels (complies with ODA Act) B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07

0Amenities Business services C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Amenities Restaurants B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05Amenities Convention / meeting facilities D 4 0.6% Good 3 0.02Amenities Other retail services C 9 1.3% Fair 2 0.03


Building Operating Costs Site Impacts on building operating costs (hydro) C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.040Capital Costs Site Costs, including geotechnical & remediation B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Capital Costs Infrastructure costs B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Capital Costs Impacts on building costs C 9 1.3% Very Good 4 0.05Capital Costs Impacts on parking construction costs C 9 1.3% Very Good 4 0.05

0Economic Impact Hamiltion as "best place to raise a child" D 4 0.6% Good 3 0.02Economic Impact Downtown Hamilton revitalization D 4 0.6% Poor 1 0.01Economic Impact Local economic benefits / impacts (job creation, etc.) B 16 2.4% Poor 1 0.02Economic Impact Aligns with GRIDS C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04


0Location Visibilility to public A 25 3.7% Poor 1 0.04Location Suitability to a "Landmark Building" B 16 2.4% Terrible 0 0.00Location Connections to / integration with surrounding communities B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05




0Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for building program, allows landmark gesture A 25 3.7% Excellent 5 0.19Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for development of partner facilities (co-location) B 16 2.4% Excellent 5 0.12Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for parking needs A 25 3.7% Excellent 5 0.19Site Size, Configuration & Topography Meetings topographical and geotechnical requirements B 16 2.4% Very Good 4 0.09

0Site Zoning Zoned (or certain to be re-zoned) for ECS land use A 25 3.7% Very Good 4 0.15Site Zoning Zoning allows for sufficient density & building height A 25 3.7% Very Good 4 0.15Site Zoning Approval of other jurisdictions having authority A 25 3.7% Very Good 4 0.15

0Timing Acquisition timing A 25 3.7% Excellent 5 0.19Timing Approval timing A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Timing Construction timing A 25 3.7% Very Good 4 0.15

.81.24



SITE # 10SITE NAME King & Queen

Name King & Queen Site Priority

Assigned

WeightingPoints

Address King & Queen A 5

Closest Intersection King & Queen B 4






Score




% Weighting

SITE INFORMATION

SCORING SYSTEM

WEIGHTING SYSTEM


CRITERIA WEIGHTING

Accessibility Highway / major arterial access A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Accessibility To pedestrian infrastructure C 9 1.3% Very Good 4 0.05Accessibility To bike paths C 9 1.3% Fair 2 0.03Accessibility To board service vehicles B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05Accessibility To other delivery vehicles D 4 0.6% Fair 2 0.01Accessibility Accessible by all mobilility levels (complies with ODA Act) B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07

0Amenities Business services C 9 1.3% Very Good 4 0.05Amenities Restaurants B 16 2.4% Excellent 5 0.12Amenities Convention / meeting facilities D 4 0.6% Very Good 4 0.02Amenities Other retail services C 9 1.3% Very Good 4 0.05


Building Operating Costs Site Impacts on building operating costs (hydro) C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.040Capital Costs Site Costs, including geotechnical & remediation B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05Capital Costs Infrastructure costs B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Capital Costs Impacts on building costs C 9 1.3% Fair 2 0.03Capital Costs Impacts on parking construction costs C 9 1.3% Terrible 0 0.00

0Economic Impact Hamiltion as "best place to raise a child" D 4 0.6% Good 3 0.02Economic Impact Downtown Hamilton revitalization D 4 0.6% Very Good 4 0.02Economic Impact Local economic benefits / impacts (job creation, etc.) B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Economic Impact Aligns with GRIDS C 9 1.3% Excellent 5 0.07

0Environmental Sustainability Sized to Minimize Building Footrpint B 16 2.4% Excellent 5 0.12Environmental Sustainability Infill Or brownfield rather than greenfield B 16 2.4% Very Good 4 0.09Environmental Sustainability Re-use of existing buildng infrastructure C 9 1.3% Poor 1 0.01

0Location Visibilility to public A 25 3.7% Very Good 4 0.15Location Suitability to a "Landmark Building" B 16 2.4% Very Good 4 0.09Location Connections to / integration with surrounding communities B 16 2.4% Very Good 4 0.09

0Parking Off site availability A 25 3.7% Very Good 4 0.15Parking Off site parking rates B 16 2.4% Poor 1 0.02


Proximity To other key stakeholders C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Proximity To Schools A 25 3.7% Fair 2 0.07Proximity To administrative staff residences B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05Proximity To student population D 4 0.6% Fair 2 0.01

0Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for building program, allows landmark gesture A 25 3.7% Terrible 0 0.00Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for development of partner facilities (co-location) B 16 2.4% Terrible 0 0.00Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for parking needs A 25 3.7% Terrible 0 0.00Site Size, Configuration & Topography Meetings topographical and geotechnical requirements B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07


0Timing Acquisition timing A 25 3.7% Fair 2 0.07Timing Approval timing A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Timing Construction timing A 25 3.7% Fair 2 0.07

.77.38



SITE # 6SITE NAME Pritchard Site

Name Pritchard Site Priority

AssignedWeighting

Points

Address 250 Pritchard Rd. A 5

Closest Intersection Pritchard Rd. & Rymal Rd. B 4



Scoring

Scoring



Weighted

Score

Accessibility Public transit access B 16 2.4% Poor 1 0.02



% Weighting


CRITERIA WEIGHTING

SITE INFORMATION

SCORING SYSTEM

WEIGHTING SYSTEM

Accessibility Highway / major arterial access A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Accessibility To pedestrian infrastructure C 9 1.3% Terrible 0 0.00Accessibility To bike paths C 9 1.3% Terrible 0 0.00Accessibility To board service vehicles B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Accessibility To other delivery vehicles D 4 0.6% Good 3 0.02Accessibility Accessible by all mobilility levels (complies with ODA Act) B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07

0Amenities Business services C 9 1.3% Fair 2 0.03Amenities Restaurants B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05Amenities Convention / meeting facilities D 4 0.6% Fair 2 0.01Amenities Other retail services C 9 1.3% Fair 2 0.03



Capital Costs Site Costs, including geotechnical & remediation B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Capital Costs Infrastructure costs B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05Capital Costs Impacts on building costs C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Capital Costs Impacts on parking construction costs C 9 1.3% Very Good 4 0.05

0Economic Impact Hamiltion as "best place to raise a child" D 4 0.6% Good 3 0.02Economic Impact Downtown Hamilton revitalization D 4 0.6% Poor 1 0.01Economic Impact Local economic benefits / impacts (job creation, etc.) B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05Economic Impact Aligns with GRIDS C 9 1.3% Fair 2 0.03

0Environmental Sustainability Sized to Minimize Building Footrpint B 16 2.4% Poor 1 0.02Environmental Sustainability Infill Or brownfield rather than greenfield B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05Environmental Sustainability Re-use of existing buildng infrastructure C 9 1.3% Fair 2 0.03

0Location Visibilility to public A 25 3.7% Terrible 0 0.00Location Suitability to a "Landmark Building" B 16 2.4% Terrible 0 0.00Location Connections to / integration with surrounding communities B 16 2.4% Terrible 0 0.00


0Proximity To other key user groups C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Proximity To other key stakeholders C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Proximity To Schools A 25 3.7% Very Good 4 0.15Proximity To administrative staff residences B 16 2.4% Very Good 4 0.09Proximity To student population D 4 0.6% Very Good 4 0.02

0Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for building program, allows landmark gesture A 25 3.7% Excellent 5 0.19Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for development of partner facilities (co-location) B 16 2.4% Excellent 5 0.12Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for parking needs A 25 3.7% Excellent 5 0.19Site Size, Configuration & Topography Meetings topographical and geotechnical requirements B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07

0Site Zoning Zoned (or certain to be re-zoned) for ECS land use A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Site Zoning Zoning allows for sufficient density & building height A 25 3.7% Very Good 4 0.15Site Zoning Approval of other jurisdictions having authority A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11


TOTAL SCORE 675 109 2.5775.70



SITE # 13SITE NAME Sheldon Site

Name Sheldon Site Priority

AssignedWeighting

Points

Address 315 Stone Church Rd. W A 5

Closest Intersection Stone Church Rd. W & Garth St. B 4


Prior ity Weigh ting Dif fe renciat ion Facto r 2 .00

Scoring

Scoring



Weight

Scor

Accessibility Public transit access B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Accessibilit Hi hwa / ma or arterial access A 25 3.7% Ver Good 4 0.15

SCORING SYSTEM





CRITERIA WEIGHTING

% Weighting

Accessibility To pedestrian infrastructure C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Accessibility To bike paths C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Accessibility To board service vehicles B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Accessibility To other delivery vehicles D 4 0.6% Good 3 0.02Accessibility Accessible by all mobilility levels (complies with ODA Act) B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07

0Amenities Business services C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Amenities Restaurants B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05Amenities Convention / meeting facilities D 4 0.6% Fair 2 0.01Amenities Other retail services C 9 1.3% Fair 2 0.03


0Capital Costs Site Costs, including geotechnical & remediation B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Capital Costs Infrastructure costs B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05Capital Costs Impacts on building costs C 9 1.3% Fair 2 0.03Capital Costs Impacts on parking construction costs C 9 1.3% Excellent 5 0.07

0Economic Impact Hamiltion as "best place to raise a child" D 4 0.6% Good 3 0.02Economic Impact Downtown Hamilton revitalization D 4 0.6% Poor 1 0.01Economic Impact Local economic benefits / impacts (job creation, etc.) B 16 2.4% Poor 1 0.02Economic Impact Aligns with GRIDS C 9 1.3% Fair 2 0.03

0Environmental Sustainability Sized to Minimize Building Footrpint B 16 2.4% Poor 1 0.02Environmental Sustainability Infill Or brownfield rather than greenfield B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05Environmental Sustainability Re-use of existing buildng infrastructure C 9 1.3% Fair 2 0.03





0Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for building program, allows landmark gesture A 25 3.7% Excellent 5 0.19Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for development of partner facilities (co-location) B 16 2.4% Very Good 4 0.09Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for parking needs A 25 3.7% Excellent 5 0.19Site Size, Configuration & Topography Meetings topographical and geotechnical requirements B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07

0Site Zoning Zoned (or certain to be re-zoned) for ECS land use A 25 3.7% Very Good 4 0.15Site Zoning Zoning allows for sufficient density & building height A 25 3.7% Very Good 4 0.15Site Zoning Approval of other jurisdictions having authority A 25 3.7% Very Good 4 0.15

0Timing Acquisition timing A 25 3.7% Excellent 5 0.19Timing Approval timing A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Timing Construction timing A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11

TOTAL SCORE 675 126 3.0180.0



SITE # 16SITE NAME Sir Alan McNab Site

Name Sir Alan McNab Site Priority

Assigned

WeightingPoints

Address 145 Magnolia Dr. A 5

Closest Intersection Magnolia Dr. & Mohawk Rd. W B 4

Site Area (acres) 30 C 3D 2E 1Priority Weighting

D if feren ciat ion Fac tor 2 .0 0




Score




% Weighting


CRITERIA WEIGHTING

SITE INFORMATION

SCORING SYSTEM

WEIGHTING SYSTEM

. .Accessibility To pedestrian infrastructure C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Accessibility To bike paths C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Accessibility To board service vehicles B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05Accessibility To other delivery vehicles D 4 0.6% Fair 2 0.01Accessibility Accessible by all mobilility levels (complies with ODA Act) B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07



0Capital Costs Site Costs, including geotechnical & remediation B 16 2.4% Very Good 4 0.09Capital Costs Infrastructure costs B 16 2.4% Very Good 4 0.09Capital Costs Impacts on building costs C 9 1.3% Very Good 4 0.05Capital Costs Impacts on parking construction costs C 9 1.3% Very Good 4 0.05

0Economic Impact Hamiltion as "best place to raise a child" D 4 0.6% Good 3 0.02Economic Impact Downtown Hamilton revitalization D 4 0.6% Poor 1 0.01Economic Impact Local economic benefits / impacts (job creation, etc.) B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05Economic Impact Aligns with GRIDS C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04





Proximity To other key stakeholders C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Proximity To Schools A 25 3.7% Excellent 5 0.19Proximity To administrative staff residences B 16 2.4% Excellent 5 0.12Proximity To student population D 4 0.6% Excellent 5 0.03

0Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for building program, allows landmark gesture A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for development of partner facilities (co-location) B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for parking needs A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Site Size, Configuration & Topography Meetings topographical and geotechnical requirements B 16 2.4% Very Good 4 0.09

0Site Zoning Zoned (or certain to be re-zoned) for ECS land use A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Site Zoning Zoning allows for sufficient density & building height A 25 3.7% Excellent 5 0.19Site Zoning Approval of other jurisdictions having authority A 25 3.7% Excellent 5 0.19

0Timing Acquisition timing A 25 3.7% Excellent 5 0.19Timing Approval timing A 25 3.7% Fair 2 0.07Timing Construction timing A 25 3.7% Excellent 5 0.19

.81.11



SITE # 3SITE NAME Stone Church and Pritchard

Name Pritchard Site Priority

Assigned

WeightingPoints

Address 130 Mud St. & 1565 Stone Church Rd. E A 5

Closest Intersection Stone Church Rd. E & Pritchard Rd. B 4



Scoring

Scoring



Score

Accessibilit Public transit access B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07

SCORING SYSTEM





CRITERIA WEIGHTING

% Weighting

. .Accessibility Highway / major arterial access A 25 3.7% Excellent 5 0.19Accessibility To pedestrian infrastructure C 9 1.3% Poor 1 0.01Accessibility To bike paths C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Accessibility To board service vehicles B 16 2.4% Very Good 4 0.09Accessibility To other delivery vehicles D 4 0.6% Very Good 4 0.02Accessibility Accessible by all mobilility levels (complies with ODA Act) B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07

0Amenities Business services C 9 1.3% Fair 2 0.03Amenities Restaurants B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Amenities Convention / meeting facilities D 4 0.6% Fair 2 0.01Amenities Other retail services C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04



Capital Costs Site Costs, including geotechnical & remediation B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Capital Costs Infrastructure costs B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05Capital Costs Impacts on building costs C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Capital Costs Impacts on parking construction costs C 9 1.3% Very Good 4 0.05


0Environmental Sustainability Sized to Minimize Building Footrpint B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05Environmental Sustainability Infill Or brownfield rather than greenfield B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05Environmental Sustainability Re-use of existing buildng infrastructure C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04

0Location Visibilility to public A 25 3.7% Very Good 4 0.15Location Suitability to a "Landmark Building" B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Location Connections to / integration with surrounding communities B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05


0

Proximity To other key user groups C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Proximity To other key stakeholders C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Proximity To Schools A 25 3.7% Very Good 4 0.15Proximity To administrative staff residences B 16 2.4% Very Good 4 0.09Proximity To student population D 4 0.6% Very Good 4 0.02

0Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for building program, allows landmark gesture A 25 3.7% Excellent 5 0.19Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for development of partner facilities (co-location) B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for parking needs A 25 3.7% Excellent 5 0.19Site Size, Configuration & Topography Meetings topographical and geotechnical requirements B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07

0Site Zoning Zoned (or certain to be re-zoned) for ECS land use A 25 3.7% Very Good 4 0.15Site Zoning Zoning allows for sufficient density & building height A 25 3.7% Very Good 4 0.15Site Zoning Approval of other jurisdictions having authority A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11


TOTAL SCORE 675 131 3.1181.05



SITE # 7SITE NAME Upper James Site

Name Upper James Site Priority

AssignedWeighting

Points

Address Upper James & Alderlea Ave. A 5

Closest Intersection Upper James & Alderlea Ave. B 4



Scoring

Scoring



Weighted

Score


SCORING SYSTEM





CRITERIA WEIGHTING

% Weighting

Accessibility Highway / major arterial access A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Accessibility To pedestrian infrastructure C 9 1.3% Terrible 0 0.00Accessibility To bike paths C 9 1.3% Terrible 0 0.00Accessibility To board service vehicles B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Accessibility To other delivery vehicles D 4 0.6% Good 3 0.02Accessibility Accessible by all mobilility levels (complies with ODA Act) B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07

0Amenities Business services C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Amenities Restaurants B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Amenities Convention / meeting facilities D 4 0.6% Fair 2 0.01Amenities Other retail services C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04



Capital Costs Site Costs, including geotechnical & remediation B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Capital Costs Infrastructure costs B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Capital Costs Impacts on building costs C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Capital Costs Impacts on parking construction costs C 9 1.3% Very Good 4 0.05



0Location Visibilility to public A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Location Suitability to a "Landmark Building" B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05Location Connections to / integration with surrounding communities B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05


0Proximity To other key user groups C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Proximity To other key stakeholders C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Proximity To Schools A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Proximity To administrative staff residences B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Proximity To student population D 4 0.6% Good 3 0.02

0Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for building program, allows landmark gesture A 25 3.7% Very Good 4 0.15Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for development of partner facilities (co-location) B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for parking needs A 25 3.7% Excellent 5 0.19Site Size, Configuration & Topography Meetings topographical and geotechnical requirements B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07

0Site Zoning Zoned (or certain to be re-zoned) for ECS land use A 25 3.7% Poor 1 0.04Site Zoning Zoning allows for sufficient density & building height A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Site Zoning Approval of other jurisdictions having authority A 25 3.7% Poor 1 0.04

0Timing Acquisition timing A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Timing Approval timing A 25 3.7% Fair 2 0.07Timing Construction timing A 25 3.7% Fair 2 0.07

TOTAL SCORE 675 111 2.5475.38



SITE # 11SITE NAME West Harbour Lands

Name West Harbour Lands Priority

Assigned

WeightingPoints

Address Barton & Bay A 5

Closest Intersection Barton & Bay B 4






Score



SCORING SYSTEM




CRITERIA WEIGHTING

% Weighting

Accessibility Highway / major arterial access A 25 3.7% Fair 2 0.07Accessibility To pedestrian infrastructure C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Accessibility To bike paths C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Accessibility To board service vehicles B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05Accessibility To other delivery vehicles D 4 0.6% Fair 2 0.01Accessibility Accessible by all mobilility levels (complies with ODA Act) B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07

0Amenities Business services C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Amenities Restaurants B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Amenities Convention / meeting facilities D 4 0.6% Very Good 4 0.02Amenities Other retail services C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04


Building Operating Costs Site Impacts on building operating costs (hydro) C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.040Capital Costs Site Costs, including geotechnical & remediation B 16 2.4% Poor 1 0.02Capital Costs Infrastructure costs B 16 2.4% Very Good 4 0.09Capital Costs Impacts on building costs C 9 1.3% Very Good 4 0.05Capital Costs Impacts on parking construction costs C 9 1.3% Very Good 4 0.05

0Economic Impact Hamiltion as "best place to raise a child" D 4 0.6% Good 3 0.02Economic Impact Downtown Hamilton revitalization D 4 0.6% Very Good 4 0.02Economic Impact Local economic benefits / impacts (job creation, etc.) B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Economic Impact Aligns with GRIDS C 9 1.3% Very Good 4 0.05

0Environmental Sustainability Sized to Minimize Building Footrpint B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05Environmental Sustainability Infill Or brownfield rather than greenfield B 16 2.4% Excellent 5 0.12Environmental Sustainability Re-use of existing buildng infrastructure C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04

0Location Visibilility to public A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Location Suitability to a "Landmark Building" B 16 2.4% Good 3 0.07Location Connections to / integration with surrounding communities B 16 2.4% Very Good 4 0.09

0Parking Off site availability A 25 3.7% Very Good 4 0.15Parking Off site parking rates B 16 2.4% Very Good 4 0.09


Proximity To other key stakeholders C 9 1.3% Good 3 0.04Proximity To Schools A 25 3.7% Poor 1 0.04Proximity To administrative staff residences B 16 2.4% Fair 2 0.05Proximity To student population D 4 0.6% Poor 1 0.01

0Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for building program, allows landmark gesture A 25 3.7% Very Good 4 0.15Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for development of partner facilities (co-location) B 16 2.4% Very Good 4 0.09Site Size, Configuration & Topography Sufficient for parking needs A 25 3.7% Very Good 4 0.15Site Size, Configuration & Topography Meetings topographical and geotechnical requirements B 16 2.4% Very Good 4 0.09


0Timing Acquisition timing A 25 3.7% Fair 2 0.07Timing Approval timing A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11Timing Construction timing A 25 3.7% Good 3 0.11

.80.44

education centre analyses

Documents