recreation facility feasibility study · recreation facility feasibility study 2 the langdon...
TRANSCRIPT
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY Langdon, AlbertaSubmitted By: aodbt architecture + interior design25.09.2014
Funding Partners:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
0.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION 2 1.1 Population + Demographics 1.2 Existing Recreation Amenities 1.3 Recreation Studies Completed to Date
2.0 PARTNERSHIPS 6 2.1 Partnership Advantages 2.2 Potential Partnerships
3.0 COMPONENTS OF A NEW FACILITY 9 3.1 Facility Component Comparison 3.2 Weighted Scoring Analysis 3.3 Arena 3.4 Recommended Facility Components
4.0 ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY 15 4.1 Operating Cost Analysis by Amenity Type 4.2 Operating Cost Comparisons
5.0 CONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS 20 5.1 Building Type Options 5.2 Building Type Selection Criteria 5.3 Building Type Comparison 5.4 Construction Analysis Conclusions
6.0 DESIGN OPTIONS 24 6.1 Option 1 6.2 Option 2 6.3 Option 3 6.4 Option 4 6.5 Design Option Conclusions
7.0 LOCATION ANALYSIS 29 7.1 Criteria for Location Selection 7.2 Location Options 7.3 Location Analysis 7.4 Location Conclusions
8.0 SITE + DESIGN OPTIONS 34 8.1 Site 1 Options 8.2 Site 2 Options
9.0 CONCLUSIONS + RECOMMENDATIONS 38
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
0.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Langdon Recreation Centre has engaged aodbt architecture + interior design to perform a feasibility study for a recreation facility in the Hamlet of Langdon, AB. This study uses current and historical information around population and community desire to identify potential partnerships, what amenities should be targeted and how they can be sustained economically, design and construction options, and where the proposed facility should be constructed.
According to the Rocky View County 2013 Census, the Hamlet of Langdon currently has a population of 5,000 with a projected growth of 7% annually. This population and growth can justify a recreation complex, and the feasibility is only bolstered when considering the surrounding population base within Rocky View County and from the City of Calgary. A new recreation facility in Langdon would serve this growing population while complementing other facilities in the district. The growth within the community may soon justify the construction of a High School in Langdon as well. The potential benefits gained through a joint-use facility must be considered, as similar facilities have been very successful in other jurisdictions. Examples of successful joint-use facilities in the region include the South Fish Creek Complex in Calgary and the Springbank Park for All Seasons. This is the major partnership that will benefit Langdon, but other partnerships pertaining to delivery of services, sponsorship, or providing artifacts for a museum area within the complex should also be explored.
A scoring tool has been used to determine the amenities that should be provided within the new facility. The scoring takes into consideration capital and operating costs along with the desires as stated by the community. Further information is provided in regards to operations and financial sustainability, as it is a stated goal of the partnership that any constructed facility must be self-sufficient. It has been determined that an indoor ice arena, fieldhouse, fitness facility and jogging track are the core components that should be planned, supported by flexible meeting space, food services, leasable commercial space, and a child care. There is the potential to link a library, gymnasium, and performing arts centre to the development of a high school. A museum is an important aspect of the project that should be pursued further. There is the potential to have a prominent location in the facility highlighting Langdon’s history.
Four design options have been provided for consideration. The first provides a basic arena only, with a small space available to provide food services and some fitness space. At approximately $7,800,000, this is the most cost-effective option, but it does not provide all desired amenities. Option 2 provides a slightly wider building, which in turn frees up space for more amenities. Expanded seating in the arena and a more defined fitness area can be
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
1
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
included, along with a jogging track that circles the upper level of the arena. The extra space and amenities come at a premium, as the high level cost of this option is estimated to be $11,300,000.
The next two options include both the arena and fieldhouse as the anchor tenants within the proposed complex. Option 3 holds each of these two large amenities within a single structure that is nearly 90,000 ft2. Due to such a large area, a firewall between the two amenities would be required, which increases the price. This option is estimated to cost approximately $20,000.000. Option 4 provides the same large areas, but separates them into two buildings connected by a link. Its cost is reduced from Option 3 to an estimated $18,500,000. In this scenario, the separation of buildings reduces the need for a firewall while allowing the arena to be narrower, reducing area and costs. Option 4 also provides more flexibility than Option 3, as this allows for amenities to be constructed in separate phases.
Two potential locations are analyzed against a number of relevant criteria with the goal of identifying a preferred site. The first is on Centre Street and Wilson Road near the community’s centre. This location has existing infrastructure and connections to an existing elementary school on the opposite end of the site. The second location is a greenfield site on the southwest edge of town. The first site has better community connections and existing infrastructure in place, while the second site has more room to provide future amenities and a strong partnership in place, as the site has already been purchased for the purpose of a joint site with the School Division. Considering the larger development that is planned, the second site is the recommended location for the recreation facility.
Based on the analysis, the recommendation for the Langdon recreation facility is to plan to incorporate the recommended amenities within the facility, as it is anticipated that they will be economically sustainable when the building opens, pending market rental rates are charged. It is recommended that Option 4 be pursued, as it provides all the amenities that are desired for the least cost while allowing for flexibility in phasing. Site 2 has been recommended as the most desirable location. It is recommended that the recreation facility be planned in a manner that works to integrate a future high school and its potential connections, along with planned outdoor recreation amenities such as football, soccer, and baseball fields. Further discussion can be held to determine if one of the structures should be constructed ahead of the other, based on access to capital. It is recommended that the arena is a higher community desire, and should be developed first if phasing is necessary.
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
2
The Langdon Recreation Centre has retained a team from aodbt architecture + interior design to provide a feasibility study for a new recreational facility in the Hamlet of Langdon, Alberta.
Langdon is situated within Division 4 of Rocky View County, and is one of the fastest growing communities in the region. Based on a number of previous studies, it has been determined that a new recreation facility is required to serve Division 4. The Bow North Recreation Board represents Rocky View’s Division 4, and has determined that Langdon is an appropriate location for a recreation facility to be developed (Rocky View Amenity Study: Phase One, Page 66).
The overall intent of the feasibility study is to determine what components will be beneficial to the community and district while remaining self-sufficient in the long-run. The study not only works to identify costs and benefits of recreation facility components, but also provides recommendations for how the facility can operate in a way that will be sustainable for the future. While it is important to provide the community with amenities, it is also important to analyze the long-term effects that it may have on a region financially.
The following study works to assess the demographics of the Bow North Recreation District, analyze past studies completed, and determine what type of recreation amenities would best serve the community. The analysis will identify potential elements that could be housed within a recreational facility along with potential sites for the facility to be located. Initial opinions of cost are identified, as well as preliminary conceptual design options. From this, project stakeholders will gain an understanding of the potential size and scope of the facility, and what it could offer to the region as a whole.
1.1 POPULATION + DEMOGRAPHICS
According to the Rocky View County 2013 Census, Division 4 has a population base of 6,580. The communities within the Bow North Recreation District include the Hamlet of Langdon (population of 4,897), Indus (population of 36), Dalmead (population of 27) and surrounding rural areas (population of 1,620). Division 4 represents the largest population base of all Rocky View County with Langdon making up 74.4% of Division 4’s total population.
According to the Federal Census conducted in 2011, 20.9% of the population of Langdon is between the ages of 30-44, compared to Alberta’s Provincial Average of 14.2%. It is also indicated that 30.4% of Langdon’s population is under the age of 15, which is significant when compared to the provincial average of 18.8%.
The census indicates that a projected per annum growth rate of 7.0% can be assumed from 2013-2018, and 2.5% beyond 2018 for the Hamlet of Langdon. In 2011, there was an average of 3.18 residents per lot. Continuous growth rates such as these assume that another 2,000 residents will call Langdon home within the next three to five years. This will bring the projected 2018 population to approximately 7,000, surpassing the current population of Division 4.
These numbers suggest that Langdon is a young and growing community. It is speculated that the reason for such rampant growth is due to more affordable housing and the attractiveness of larger lots in Langdon when compared to Calgary and its surrounding communities. These growth trends are driving the need for additional recreation amenities in order to serve the population base of Division 4. Not only would this amenity serve current residents of Langdon and surrounding area, but would also act as an attraction for those considering relocating to the region.
Bow North Recreation District
1.0 INTRODUCTION
3
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
1.2 CURRENT RECREATION AMENITIES
Being that Langdon is a young community with a growing population, there is an increasing need to provide the community with recreation amenities. As previously outlined, 30.4% of Langdon’s population is under the age of fifteen, and therefore unable to provide their own transportation to and from their various activities.
Residents of Langdon and surrounding Division 4 communities are currently commuting to recreation amenities. Distances can be as close as Indus, which is 10km from Langdon, or as far as Gleichen, which is 55km away. Recreation facilities are in high demand, and the County has been assessing this need for a number of years. The table below outlines the existing recreation facilities in the Bow North Recreation District and surrounding areas:
Table 1: Recreation Amenities in the North Bow Recreation District + Surrounding Areas
LOCATION FACILITY TYPE SERVICESChestermere Chestermere Regional
Recreation CentreCurling rink, 2 indoor ice arenas with viewing lounge, outdoor soccer fields, multipurpose courts for badminton, basketball and volleyball, baseball diamonds and multipurpose recreation space for community classes
Chestermere Anniversary Park Bike trails into Calgary, skateboard park, lakefront with swimming area and basketball courts
Chestermere Millennium Park Walking paths, beach, playground and basketball courts
Gleichen Gleichen Arena Arena, Curling Rink
Indus Indus Community Centre Ice arena, 450 person hall, baseball diamonds, outdoor soccer fields, meeting rooms, catering service, pre-school and concession
Langdon Langdon Field House Stepping Stones Preschool, meeting rooms, rentals for Irish dancing, Weight Watchers, Scouts, private event rentals and exercise classes
Langdon Langdon Park Ball diamonds, skate park, walking trails, picnic sites, outdoor skating rink and community centre
Southeast Calgary Calgary Soccer Centre Four indoor regulation fields, 14 change rooms, natural turf outdoor field, fitness centre, licensed lounge, subway and soccer store
Southeast Calgary Trico Centre for Family Wellness
Aquatics centre, 2 NHL sized arenas, on-site childcare, meeting rooms, and gymnasium
Southeast Calgary Frank McCool Athletic Park 2 Arenas, community centre, meeting rooms and outdoor sports fields
Southeast Calgary Great Plains Recreation Facility (Opening 2015)
Two multi-purpose rinks, fitness centre, meeting space, food services and pro shop with skate sharpening
Southeast Calgary South Fish Creek Complex 4 Arenas, Gymnasiums, Public Library, YMCA and High School
Strathmore John Leboldus Memorial Park
18 hole golf course, playground, multipurpose concrete space, basket-ball court, horseshoe pitch and picnic tables/bbq pit
Strathmore Kinsmen Park Strathmore Lion’s Spray Park, walking paths, amphitheatre and playground
Strathmore Strathmore Family Centre Indoor ice arena, Strathmore Aquatic Centre, meeting rooms, multipurpose room and indoor walking track
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
4
Langdon currently has three recreational and rental facilities that can accommodate indoor activities throughout the year. These are the Langdon IOOF Hall, the Langdon Women’s Institute and the Langdon Field House. None of these have the capacity to serve the needs of the growing community or the district in general. The Langdon Field House is not a typical field house, in that it is not an athletic facility, but rather, rental space for meeting rooms and community organizations.
The organizations currently renting space in the Langdon Field House include: Stepping Stones Preschool, Boy Scouts, Beavers and Cubs of Canada, Weight Watchers, the Langdon Irish Dancers and a variety of exercise classes requiring no equipment, as there is no fitness facility. A preschool also operates out of the Field House Monday through Friday. The preschool director sets up and takes down the classroom every day so that the space can be used in the evenings and weekends to accommodate rentals and community events.
1.3 RECREATION STUDIES COMPLETED TO DATE
The Bow North Recreation Board has been examining the need for additional recreation and community services in the region for a number of years. This has involved various community consultations, assessment of community need and the exploration of partnership opportunities. The results of the studies completed in association with the Bow North Recreation District are summarized below.
» North Bow Community Facility Board: Recreation Facility Needs Assessment & Feasibility Study, 2006
In 2006 Randall Conrad and Associates Ltd. were engaged to complete a Needs Assessment & Feasibility Study for the Bow North Recreation District. The study involved community surveys, community consultations, identification of concept plans and costing for a 3-phase Multi-Use Facility in Langdon. Based on the feedback from the community, Randall Conrad and Associates Ltd. identified the indoor facilities of greatest desire to the community were as follows: field house/gymnasium, indoor ice arena, leisure aquatics centre, community meeting rooms, fitness centre, child play area and a library.
In 2006 the North Bow Community Facility Board, in partnership with the Rocky View School Division and the Rocky View County, purchased a 45 acre site for a future high school and community facility project. In 2008 the Joint Planning Committee engaged in site planning exercises to determine potential components and configuration on the site. The project has not yet moved forward due to funding constraints.
» Bow North Recreation District Recreation Master Plan, 2009
In 2009, the Bow North Recreation District developed a master plan to support the growth of recreation and cultural facilities in the region. The Bow North Recreation Master Plan identifies existing recreation facilities in the region and the need for future planned amenities. The document continues the concept of a Multi-Use Joint Facility in Langdon as a future planned amenity. Here it is proposed in three phases, in collaboration with Rocky View Schools. Proposed components for the multiplex include a secondary school, a soccer pitch and recreation amenities. In addition to a new multi-plex, the study also makes note of future plans to add a 2nd ice surface to the Indus Recreation Centre.
» Langdon Recreation Centre: Community Recreation Survey, 2013
As a follow-up to the 2006 study, the Langdon Recreation Centre (LRC) commissioned a survey to Langdon residents in September 2013 with the purpose of determining indoor recreation needs and community desire. The goal of the LRC was to focus toward amenities that proved to be sustainable, and as such, an aquatics centre was removed from the survey options. From the survey, the top five requested facilities were as follows: ice arena, fitness facility with yoga, gymnasium, indoor field and multi-purpose meeting space. 511 households responded, which is 35% of the households within the community. Of these households responding to the survey, 85% were in favor of an indoor ice arena in Langdon. Of the 15% not in favor of an indoor ice arena, the following amenities were identified as desirable: fitness facility with yoga, library, gymnasium, performing arts and multi-purpose meeting space.
5
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
1.4 SUMMARY OF PAST STUDIES
From the population analysis, it is evident that Langdon serves as the largest population base within the Bow North Recreation District. Based on an analysis of existing facilities available to the community, it is clear that residents within the North Bow are commuting to various locations to utilize recreation amenities. This, combined with conclusions from the recreation studies completed to date, reveals a pressing need for additional recreation amenities in the Bow North Recreation area. Work to acquire additional facilities has been ongoing since 2003, and stakeholders continue to pursue the development of a new recreation facility for the district.
Each of the previous studies show consistency in proposing the Hamlet of Langdon as an amenable location for a new recreation facility within the Bow North Recreation District. A number of studies have also identified the opportunity for a partnership with Rockyview Schools, as a high school is anticipated in Langdon as the population expands. The recommendations have been consistent in proposing a district facility that integrates a number of amenities into a recreation multi-plex facility. The community has consistently shown a desire for additional recreation amenities and community meeting space. The main amenities identified as top prioritIes are listed in the two tables below:
Although a facility that integrates many recreation components is desired, it should be noted that the direction has shifted to explore amenities that can be self-sustaining in the future. Based on input from Rocky View County and the Langdon Recreation Centre, considerations for future recreation amenities must take into account ability to sustain in the long-run. This will be considered further throughout the analysis, ensuring that both community desire and sustainability are taking into careful consideration moving forward.
Table 2: Desired Recreation Components Identified in Past Studies (in alphabetical order):
AMENITYAquatics Centre
Child Play Area
Court Sport Area
Fine Arts Theatre
Fitness/Wellness Centre
Ice Arena
Library
Social/Banquet Facilities
Walking Track
Youth Activity Centre
Table 3: Top Requested Amenities in 2013 Recreation Survey (in alphabetical order):
AMENITYField House
Fitness Centre
Gymnasium
Indoor Ice Arena
Multi-Purpose Meeting Space
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
6
2.1 PARTNERSHIP ADVANTAGES
The decision to build a recreation facility in a community such as Langdon offers potential for a variety of unique partnerships within the community. There is a potential for both economic and social drivers that will enhance the quality of life in the Bow North Recreation District. Economic potential stems from a number of different partnership opportunities that a community can explore. These partnerships will not only aid in sustaining a facility financially, but will also help to bring to life the vision that was set out by Rocky View County.
The following partnerships can act as economic and social drivers for a district recreation facility:
» SPONSORSHIPSponsorship opportunities can range from the name of the building to a seat in the arena. Many of these sponsorship agreements can be multi-year commitments that not only help raise capital, but also assist with ongoing maintenance and operations for the facility.
» COMMUNITY PARTICIPATIONHaving a full-service facility can open many opportunities for the residents of Langdon and the surrounding Division 4 communities. This is an opportunity to utilize a facility in Langdon as opposed to paying for services and transportation costs to other areas. As the largest community in Division 4, Langdon serves as a central hub for surrounding communities and it would benefit a large population of Rocky View County residents to have the recreation centre there.
» RENTALSIt is difficult to find recreation facilities in Rocky View County, especially those that can accommodate adequate space for ice hockey and indoor soccer. Langdon would have an opportunity to promote their new facility and generate revenues from athletic associations in surrounding communities. Space within this facility could also be used for group exercise classes, such as yoga, martial arts and parent & tot activities.
» COMMERCIAL OPPORTUNITIES Many modern recreational facilities have spaces that can be leased out to businesses. This can range from lounge operations to an on-site sporting goods store. This opportunity creates synergies between the recreation centre and local entrepreneurs. As well, it provides convenience and comfort for those using the recreation facility. A lounge would allow for a warm, comfortable spot to eat and drink while parents watch their child play hockey, and sporting goods store allows for last minute equipment needs to be covered during tournaments or games.
» COMMUNITY CENTREA recreation facility can also help drive new amenities to a community. As the community of Langdon continues to expand, there is the potential to introduce new amenities such as coffee shops and restaurants to better serve residents and visitors. These amenities serve not just the residents of Langdon, but also to those who travel from smaller communities to utilize the recreation amenities. A recreational facility in Langdon will quickly become a hub for the community. This will help drive further development around the facility, as developers will see an opportunity to serve the people using this facility on a daily basis.
» OTHER DRIVERSThere are many intangible benefits that a multi-use recreational facility can bring, such as added economic activity from tournaments, festivals, or tradeshows. These events can serve to give Langdon a higher profile, be an amenity for residents and benefit local businesses financially.
2.0 PARTNERSHIPS
VISIONRocky View is an inviting, thriving and sustainable County that balances agriculture with diverse residential, recreational and business opportunities. - Rocky View County Corporate Strategy, 2011
7
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
2.2 POTENTIAL PARTNERSHIPS
» ROCKY VIEW SCHOOLS/ROCKY VIEW COUNTY
While the region is in need of a recreation facility, there is also a future need for additional education facilities. With no high school in Langdon, students in grades 9-12 currently attend school in Chestermere. The population analysis presented earlier identifies Langdon as a young and growing community; based on projected population growth, Rocky View Schools anticipates that a high school in Langdon will be required in the next five years.
In 2003 the North Bow Community Facility Board was formed to lead to the development of recreation facilities in the Bow North Recreation Area. The goal of the board was to identify the potential opportunities for a new recreation facility and explore all potential partnerships. In 2006 the North Bow Community Facility Board partnered with Rocky View County and Rocky View Schools to purchase a 45 acre site in Langdon’s Southwest. By purchasing the site jointly, capital costs were shared between the three entities. The intent of the parcel is to accommodate a joint-use site that includes Langdon’s first high school, an indoor recreation facility and outdoor recreation amenities. In 2008, a study was completed to identify the potential partnership opportunities, preliminary design options and a cost analysis. The site plan below indicates the initial concept developed for the joint-use site.
The plans developed in 2008 were not pursued as funding was not available for development at that time. The site is still vacant, and the partnership is to be explored further should funding come available. This is an excellent opportunity to explore as joint-use sites have proven to be advantageous in communities of this size.
A high school brings amenities that are beneficial to the community as a whole. A component of the learning resource centre could be operational after hours, providing services to residents through a public library component. The potential exists for a performing arts centre which can be used by community groups. The gymnasium could be utilized for indoor events after school hours, and offer a location for tournaments that would bring visitors into the community. The School Division will benefit from the amenities the community centre provides, whether it is access to the fitness centre for student athletes, using the food and beverage services provided within the centre, or using the fieldhouse or arena for programming. The most difficult time for facility rentals is during the day, which is when the schools could develop programming to take advantage of the co-located infrastructure. Joint funding arrangements may be considered during planning for the high school to increase the viability of these amenities.
The development of a joint recreation facility and high school necessitates the development of outdoor recreation components. Infrastructure such as soccer pitches and a football field are integral for a high school, but also provide a great benefit to the community. The opportunity would exist for the County and School Division to develop these outdoor components jointly. These outdoor amenities can be used for high school athletics as well as community organized activities.
» Draft Joint Use Facility Conceptual Plan, 2008 Developed by: GEC Architecture
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
8
» LANGDON & DISTRICT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
With a rich heritage in the region there is potential to incorporate a historical component within a new recreation facility. With interest from the Langdon & District Chamber of Commerce, there is potential to develop a partnership to run a small museum component within a new recreation facility. If the museum could be owned and operated by the historical society, and could consist of a portion of the foyer or a gallery wall, depending on the artifacts available for display. This allows for an opportunity to integrate recreation and culture together, and provide an additional amenity to the public without the requirement to run and operate the museum.
» CHILD CARE/DROP IN PROGRAM Childcare centres have been successfully run by 3rd party operators in partnership with the building owner in many similar facilities. This is a crucial amenity for the Hamlet, as young and growing populations make good use of childcare services. The services that can be provided range from fully certified daycare spaces to daily drop-in programs that have parents stay with their children while they are involved in programming.
Having this amenity in Langdon will be of great benefit to the residents of the Hamlet and the division. Langdon is the largest population base within the district, and it is also central to those outside of the Hamlet. Locating a childcare centre within a multi-use facility gives the users a chance to take advantage of many of the other amenities that exist within the building and on the site. Future partnerships may also form as the High School is developed.
The entire partnership must work together from the very initial stages of the project, as childcare design must be performed in strict accordance with provincial guidelines. It will be important for the number of spaces, the ages of children, and the services provided to all be agreed upon by the partnership before the final design of the space is completed.
9
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
3.0 COMPONENTS OF A NEW FACILITY
There are a number of driving factors that ultimately determine what components will make up a new recreation facility, which components are required immediately and which may be deferred to subsequent phases. When planning a new facility, it is important to take into consideration a number of building components that could be included in a new recreation facility and assess their value to the community based on the following four factors: community desire, capital costs, operating costs and potential for revenue generation. Taking the above factors into account will help select amenities that will respond to the desires of the community while also taking into consideration the long-term viability and sustainability of the new facility.
This section focuses on examining community consultations, identifying potential elements of a new facility, and assessing these elements based on the four factors identified above. A comparative analysis of the potential building components identifies the combination of elements that will best serve Division 4 of Rocky View County in a new recreation facility.
3.1 FACILITY COMPONENT COMPARISON
The list below is comprised of a variety of amenities that can be taken into consideration when developing a recreation facility. The potential components below have been identified in past studies conducted in the district as potential amenities, many of which have been rated as highly desired by the community.
Table 4: Potential Recreation Facility Amenities
AMENITY DESCRIPTION
Arena 500-600 Seat Ice Arena
Arena – 2nd Sheet 2nd surface with limited seating for younger ages and rentals
Aquatic Centre Pool dedicated to lane swim, lessons and leisure activities
Child Care Centre/Pre-School Dedicated space for a child care facility and/or Pre-School
Climbing Wall Dedicated indoor rock climbing area
Commercial Space Services to be provided privately - physiotherapy, sporting goods etc.
Curling Rink 4 Sheet Rink
Fitness Facility/Yoga Area for weight training, exercise machines and yoga and group classes
Food Services Arena food and possibility for chain restaurants
Gymnasium Space for basketball, volleyball, badminton etc.
Gymnastics Space for gymnastics lessons/competitions
Indoor Field Sports Indoor space for soccer, lacrosse, field hockey etc.
Library Dedicated library space for community use
Multi-purpose Meeting Space Multi-purpose area for community use
Museum Static museum to highlight history of the region
Performing Arts Space Stage and seating to be used for community theatre
Racquet Sports Courts dedicated to squash and racquetball
Walking/Running Track Indoor track for community use in all seasons
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
10
» FACILITY COMPARISON METHODOLOGY
To best determine the priority components of a new recreation facility for the North Bow Recreation District, a list of criteria can help to determine the best next steps. A quantitative analysis allows for a differentiation between the above amenities; this analysis can determine which amenities are to be given priority, which may not be considered further, and which may need to be constructed in future phases due to current limitations. The criterion used in determining a priority list for the Bow North Recreation District is as follows:
COMMUNITY DESIRE Identified as important to the Hamlet and RegionCAPITAL COST Initial cost to constructOPERATING COST Costs for on-going operations and maintenanceREVENUE GENERATION Can revenue be generated from the amenity
Each potential amenity below is assigned a rating of High, Medium or Low for each of the above noted criterion. Each response is assigned a value to give each amenity a final score. The Community Desire criterion holds double the weight as the others:
COMMUNITY DESIRE High = 10 Medium = 6 Low = 2CAPITAL COST High = 1 Medium = 3 Low = 5OPERATING COST High = 1 Medium = 3 Low = 5REVENUE GENERATION High = 5 Medium = 3 Low = 1
» SCORING METHODOLOGY
To determine if an item scores high, medium, or low, a combination of community consultations and past experience have been utilized:
As noted in Section 1, a number of community consultations in respect to a new recreation facility have been completed over the past 10 years. These studies have formed the basis of the scoring for the Community Desire category. A high rating indicates that the amenity was identified in multiple studies as being desirable. Lower ratings reflect that the given amenity was identified in past studies, but were not documented as receiving high community support.
Capital costs are scored based on the one-time costs to construct the needed infrastructure for each amenity. A high score is reflective of the requirements for a large and/or specialty space, such as an arena, or for a smaller space that may require a high degree of finishes, such as a food services space. It also takes Langdon’s proposed amenity type into consideration. A museum can have a very high capital cost in some scenarios, but in Langdon’s case it is proposed that the museum shares space with other amenities, so the cost to construct would be quite low.
Operating costs are scored based on the projected yearly costs required to operate the amenity space. This includes replacement and utility costs, but also people costs. Staffing is typically a major driver of operating costs, and changes in a staffing model may alter these scores. Current scoring is based on operations of past facilities.
Finally, Revenue Generation identifies the amenities that have the ability to be self-sustaining or turn a profit. An amenity like an arena has the potential to be profitable for the community, but it will score lower than Commercial Space or Food Services because these spaces are much more certain to have a positive cashflow.
Table 5 on the following page outlines potential amenities for a new recreation facility, along with their attributed score for each category identified above. The weighted score allows for amenities to be evaluated based on a variety of contributing factors.
11
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
Table 5: Potential Recreation Facility Amenities: Weighted Scoring
AMENITY COMMUNITY DESIRE
CAPITAL COST
OPERATINGCOST
REVENUEGENERATION
WEIGHTEDSCORE
Commercial Space High Low Low High 25
Multi-purpose Meeting Space High Medium Low High 23
Fitness Facility/Yoga High Medium Low Medium 21
Child Care Centre/Pre-School High Medium Low Medium 21
Museum High Low Low Low 21
Indoor Field Sports High Medium Medium Medium 19
Gymnasium High Medium Medium Medium 19
Food Services High High Medium High 19
Arena High High High Medium 15
Walking/Running Track Medium Medium Low Low 15
Arena – 2nd Sheet Medium High High High 13
Library Medium Medium Medium Low 13
Gymnastics Low Low Low Low 13
Performing Arts Space Medium High Medium Low 11
Racquet Sports Low Medium Low Low 11
Climbing Wall Low Medium Low Low 11
Aquatic Centre Medium High High Low 9
Curling Rink Low High High Low 5
3.2 WEIGHTED SCORING ANALYSIS
The above table outlines the weighted scores of each potential amenity for a new recreation facility. The amenities with the highest scores represent areas of the building that act as support spaces to the major amenities/infrastructure. These amenities cannot be built alone as stand-alone entities, but it is important to include them in a multi-purpose facility as they will generate revenue and provide services to building users.
» HIGHEST SCORE: The major amenities that scored in the highest range (20-25) include: fitness facility/yoga, child care centre, museum, multi-purpose meeting space and commercial space. These amenities have scored in the highest range as they have been ranked highly in terms of community desire, generally see a lower capital cost, are less expensive to operate once constructed, and have the opportunity to generate revenue.
» MID-RANGE SCORE: The major amenities that scored in the mid-range (15-19) include: indoor ice arena, walking/running track, indoor field sports, gymnasium and food services. These amenities scored lower than the first group, but still must be considered. Their weighted score is a reflection of a general high community ranking with either higher operating and capital costs or a lower opportunity for revenue generation.
» LOWEST SCORE: Items scoring the lowest at this time (5-14) include: curling rink, aquatic centre, racquet sports, performing arts space, gymnastics, library and a 2nd ice arena sheet. The scoring of these amenities is the result of a combination of high capital and operating costs, little opportunity for revenue generation or they are not highly desired by the community. There is, however, potential for these amenities to be considered in subsequent phases.
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
12
3.3 ARENA
The indoor arena component scored in the mid-range of the identified amenities. The high community desire to construct a rink in Langdon is clear, but high capital and operating costs for this infrastructure bring the arena’s weighted scoring down. Consideration must also be given to the existing arena in Indus. The Rocky View Amenity Study: Phase One highlights the issue best. On page 66 it states that “an arena would duplicate the existing arena facility nearby in Indus, therefore with increased population growth the need for an arena should be considered through further studies and addressed on a regional scale.”
» ARENA USAGE
The Indus Minor Hockey Association (IMHA) is the body that organizes minor hockey for players within the Division. In 2013, 228 participants were registered, forming 13 teams of youth ages 5-19. 680 hours of ice was scheduled at the arena in Indus from October to April, which is the time when minor hockey is being played at maximum capacity. 848 hours of ice time (65 hours per team per season) was booked, leaving 168 hours of ice that was required outside of the Division. The arena in Gleichen was the main supporter of the extra ice-time required to satisfy the needs of Minor Hockey.
In 2014, registrations have increased to 245 participants and 15 teams requiring ice-time. To meet the ice-time requirements for the year, nearly all practices will be on shared ice (1/3 sheet or 1/2 sheet per team), while more teams will be travelling for practices. Sharing ice is acceptable for some levels, but as participants move to upper levels of Minor Hockey, more full-sheet ice is needed. An ice-time scenario for 2014 based on the current registrations is presented below:
AGE GROUP # TEAMS WEEKLY ICE/TEAM (HRS)
ICE CONFIGURATION HRS/TEAM
TOTAL HRS
Under 7 4 2 50% Third, 50% Half Sheet 21 84
Novice (8-9) 3 4 50% Half, 50% Full Sheet 75 225
Atom (10-11) 3 4 33% Half 67% Full Sheet 83 250
Peewee (12-13) 2 4.5 33% Half, 67% Full Sheet 94 188
Bantam (14-15) 2 4.5 100% Full Sheet 113 225
Midget (16-18) 1 4.5 100% Full Sheet 113 113
Totals 15 1085
Approximately 400 hours of ice time would be required outside of Indus to satisfy these requirements. Because of constraints on prime-time ice in other locations, the above scenario is not being met. More half-sheet practices are being held, more practices are being held outside of the division, and ultimately less playing time is being provided.
Looking forward, there are other points to consider:• As the population of Langdon and the Division expands, registrations in Minor Hockey will increase. More
players will require more teams and more ice time.• As the population of the Division ages, there will be more upper tiered teams who require more dedicated ice
time. The above table shows the trend, as there are 4 teams under seven, and only one Midget team. This will not be linear, as participation tends to drop off as players get older.
• The number of female players in the Division slightly trails the Alberta average. If more females join hockey leagues, there may be a requirement for female teams at upper levels.
13
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
This analysis only examines minor hockey ice times. Ice is used by other groups as well, such as figure skating, junior learn-to-skate programs, and public skating. LRC has projected 2018 yearly prime time ice time requirements, based on historical Minor Hockey usage and projected population growth, for an ice surface in Langdon. This is outlined below:
The Langdon Recreation Centre Online Survey (Page 7) noted that there would be a strong uptake on a number of these programs. Prime time ice is defined as between 4-9pm on weekdays and from 8am-9pm on weekends.
Ice rentals outside of this time-frame is rented to adult leagues in the evenings, and education programs during the day. Adult leagues provide a great source of revenue, as this group is willing to play in off-hours and pay premium rates due to availability of ice. Strong uptake was identified from adult hockey players in Langdon in the LRC survey, but if available ice time is marketed, adults will drive from the surrounding jurisdictions, especially from the City of Calgary, to get access to ice.
The daytime proves to be the hardest to rent, as children are in school while adults are at their places of employment. Currently Indus runs a junior high school program and a preschool program in non-primetime hours. These programs would only be further enhanced in Langdon if child drop-in programs and a High School were co-located in a single facility.
Based on the amount of ice provided versus the ice required, and the requirement to travel outside of the Division for ice time it is clear that there is a shortage of ice for Minor Hockey within the Division. This constraint will only become a larger issue as the population continues to grow. It is also clear that the LRC has a good view on how ice time can be allocated beyond Minor Hockey to support the community and provide revenue. This information strengthens the case for a second arena. If there is a second arena constructed for the division, consideration must be given to the location, as past studies have identified opportunities in both Langdon and Indus.
Indus has the inherent benefit of having an existing arena in place. If a second sheet of ice was to be added, there are potential operations savings that could be realized. This ranges from use of dressing rooms to Zamboni operations to a shared ice plant, if it was designed initially to handle a second rink. An arena in Langdon would not have this opportunity, but it would have the benefit of co-locating with the other recreation and education amenities being proposed. This provides benefits to users, as a family may have one kid in hockey while the other is in indoor soccer, or a father may wish to take advantage of the fitness centre while his daughter is at hockey practice.
There are a number of other reasons why the facility in Langdon would better serve the people of the Division while being a better fit for the County as a whole. Langdon is the major population center within the division that is rapidly expanding, so the majority of residents would have easier access to a facility if constructed in the Hamlet. Langdon has more opportunities to raise one-time capital and ongoing operational funding. The Langdon Recreation Centre Survey (Page 4) has already identified that the community is willing to accept an increase in taxes of, on average $185/year, to help fund this facility. There is also a larger base to pursue personal and corporate sponsorships.
RENTAL TYPE HOURS CURRENT USAGE
Minor Hockey in League 625 Half of Total Required. Split with Indus.
Minor Hockey Tournaments 200 More could be pursued with ice in Langdon and Indus
Ringette 50 2 Hours per week, October 1 – March 31
Figure Skating 125 5 Hours per week, October 1 – March 31
Learn-to-Skate Program 125 5 Hours per week, October 1 – March 31
Public Skating 125 5 Hours per week, October 1 – March 31
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
14
There would be long-term benefits within the community as well. Langdon has local businesses that would benefit from this development, as people will come to Langdon from within the division, or from the surrounding areas, and potentially spend money in the Hamlet as opposed to traveling into Calgary.
For the reasons provided above, the study recommends the development of a second Division 4 arena in Langdon. This should not be seen as competition by the arena in Indus, but as an opportunity to work together to increase revenue for each facility. For example, communities will typically provide minor hockey rentals at a lower hourly rate, while charging a higher hourly rate for events such as adult recreational hockey. If Indus and Langdon could partner together and share some of the reduced rates, they can jointly market premium ice-times. Indus and Langdon could also rent unused time to other leagues from the City or surrounding areas in a similar manner to how the IMHA is currently renting from Gleichen and Beiseker, potentially serving older youths like Bantam or Midget aged players at earlier or later hours.
3.4 RECOMMENDED FACILITY COMPONENTS
Based on the weighted score of the amenities, along with the support for an arena facility indicated above, it is recommended that the following amenities be taken into consideration during the planning of a new facility:
Table 6: Potential Recreation Facility Amenities: Weighted Scoring
CORE COMPONENTS SUPPORT COMPONENTS RELIANT ON PARTNERSHIPIndoor Ice Arena Multi-purpose Meeting Space MuseumFieldhouse Food Services Library
Fitness/Yoga Commercial Space GymnasiumRunning/Walking Track Child Care/Pre-School Performing Arts Centre
The core components refer to the primary recreation amenities that the community will be provided. These components will have the highest capital and operating costs. Support components include areas that either support the core amenities or bring revenue streams to the facility. It is to be noted that there are also some amenities that are dependent on a partnership with either Rocky View Schools or the community. If a partnership is not pursued these items may be considered in future phases.
15
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
Recreation facilities are an important aspect of any community. As communities grow, residents have an expectation of more amenities and facilities to be able to utilize. The unfortunate reality of recreation facilities is that they rarely, if ever, make money. In some cases, a community must subsidize these facilities on a yearly basis to keep them operational through general municipal revenues. Yearly subsidies are not an option for a new facility in Langdon, as any new complex must be financially self-sufficient. For this reason, it is important to consider how certain amenities will be sustained in the long-run, and what components can be integrated to increase revenue generation. This section analyzes the potential operating costs of a multi-plex facility, what it may mean to the members of the community, and identify what strategies can help bring the facility to a cost-neutral position in the long-run.
4.1 OPERATING COST ANALYSIS BY AMENITY TYPE
Each of the recommended amenities identified in Section 3.4 have ongoing costs and revenues associated with them. The following section outlines potential costs and revenue generation by amenity type. For the purpose of this analysis, only the building components that have shown to score highly in the weighted analysis are being considered in the cost exercise, as a number of components have already been ruled out in the previous section due to cost or low community desire.
This information has been compiled by looking at a number of different facilities throughout Alberta, British Columbia, and Saskatchewan. The facilities analyzed range from smaller facilities in communities similar in size to Langdon to larger urban centers. As the data was analyzed, trends emerged that were similar for all facilities, but the size, location, and amenities within a facility do have an influence on operations.
» ARENAS
Arenas can vary greatly between turning a profit or a loss, depending on how they are operated. If a decision is made by the rink operators to not subsidize ice rentals then there is the ability to break even or make a profit. Only one of the five arenas examined chose to run their facility in this manner. The result is minor hockey fees being higher than the other communities and the arena being aggressively promoted for ice rentals. The philosophy of the other four communities is to subsidize certain groups, namely minor hockey programs, and run the facility at a deficit.
Of the arenas examined who subsidize minor hockey, about 70% of the facility’s operating expenses are collected through revenue, while 30% is the deficit covered by subsidies. Annual operating costs are approximately $375,000 for arenas that do not share infrastructure with other amenities.
4.0 ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY
The decision to subsidize ice rentals will determine the profitability of an arena.
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
16
» FIELDHOUSES
Fieldhouses have lower operating costs than arenas as there is no ice plant to maintain or full-time staff needed to flood the playing surface. Once constructed, the major costs are the utilities, minor maintenance, and the staff required to promote the facility. Revenue is mainly generated from sports looking to use playfields on a year-round basis. This is mainly indoor soccer, but groups such as lacrosse, football, and baseball may also take advantage of this space in the off-season. Fieldhouses can typically run cost neutral or at a small operating loss. From the facilities analyzed, costs to operate a fieldhouse were approximately $120,000 per annum.
» OTHER AMENITIES
The other major amenities proposed for the recreation complex, including the fitness center, walking/jogging track, and flex-space should run revenue neutral or generate revenue. The reason for this is that once constructed these spaces should require little utility or maintenance costs to operate.
A fitness center will have the highest ongoing costs in equipment maintenance and replacement costs. A walking/jogging track, if designed properly, will use very little dedicated space, yet can be an attractive amenity for people during the winter months. The flex-space can be rented to a number of groups, such as child drop-ins, yoga, or other group activities. Employees can operate these spaces jointly, which helps keep operating costs lower. Facilities examined have been able to run these amenities at a small profit.
Other amenities discussed are included to provide facility users with services they desire, but also generate facility revenue. This includes food and beverage services, a licenced facility, and leasable commercial spaces.
There is the potential for the food services, flexible program space, fitness/athletics, childcare areas and commercial units within the facility to be run by a private, 3rd party vendor within the complex. As the project moves forward, the partnership can look at what synergies can be developed between the existing businesses in the community and if it makes sense for other services to be operated out of a large centralized complex.
Due to lower operating costs and moderate rental rates, Fieldhouses can typically run cost-neutral.
17
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
4.2 OPERATING COST COMPARISONS
To further understand how the proposed recreation can be self-sustaining from an operations perspective, a case study has been developed. This example uses the amenities proposed within the recreation complex and highlights the potential revenue and expenses associated with each.
Expenses have been collected from similar facility types on a yearly operating basis. These have not been broken down by specific cost. The largest cost in any amenity in a recreation facility is the wages required to pay employees who operate the facility. A facility of this scope requires staff who have diverse skill sets. This ranges from the employees who look after the building systems to those who develop and promote the programs run in the facility. Without this staff base, programs could not be coordinated and organized properly for the users. Staff costs generally make up 45% of the total yearly expenses for a recreation facility.
It is important to note that when facilities are integrated, there become efficiencies with staff. Less people overall would be required to maintain the building or run programs because they can be coordinating multiple activities. For example, in an integrated facility, a single staff member could coordinate multiple activities, such as ice, field house and multi-purpose space rentals.
Other costs include utilities, ongoing maintenance of equipment, and potential contingency funding for equipment or facility repair. It would be prudent for the facility to include an equipment replacement reserve within the building’s funding model.
Revenues are almost entirely driven by user fees within a facility, although this is dependent on how food and beverage services are operated. User fees can be difficult to fully identify because there are so many variables. Different groups and times are priced to respond to affordability challenges certain users may have, while taking advantage of the demand placed on prime-time rentals.
To simplify, an average rate will be used for each amenity. A more detailed operations plan would finalize rental rates. Rates have been based on a combination of similar facilities in the Langdon area, including within the City of Calgary. Rates for smaller communities have also been examined so a balance between rates in the City and rates in smaller jurisdictions have been considered.
For the two larger amenities being considered (arena and fieldhouse), hourly rental rates are the standard method of charging for the space. Other variables to be considered are the hours/day a facility can be rented and the days of the year that a facility would be available and in demand. Each facility can be rented all year long, but demand typically decreases during the summer months for both the arena and fieldhouse. Demand for ice time is especially important to consider because the costs associated with maintaining ice is higher than maintaining activities in a fieldhouse.
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
18
To make each of these two amenities revenue neutral based on operating costs from other facilities, the following would need to be achieved. Please note that these numbers do not take into consideration revenue that could be achieved from single events such as trade-shows. These events could be extra sources of revenue, especially if they are held during the off-peak season.
» ICE ARENA
RENTAL CRITERIA ASSUMPTIONSAverage Rental Rate: $200/hr A conservative and blended rental rate that takes into account
off-peak rentals
Rentable Days: 8 Months (~240 days) This assumes a September to April season
Daily Rentals: 9 hours This assumes renting the facility continuously from 4:00pm until 1:00am. Times could be longer on weekends, yet shorter in off-peak months
NOTE: These targets would result in revenues of $425,000, which is the amount required to operate an arena with an approximate surplus of $50,000.
» FIELDHOUSE
RENTAL CRITERIA ASSUMPTIONSAverage Rental Rate: $120/hr A conservative and blended rental rate that takes into account
off-peak rentals
Rentable Days: 6 Months (~180 days) This assumes an October to March season
Daily Rentals: 6 hours This assumes continuous rentals from 5:00 – 11:00pm. Times could be longer on weekends, yet shorter in off-peak months
NOTE: These targets would result in revenues of $120,000, which is the amount required to operate a fieldhouse at a break-even point.
19
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
» OTHER AMENITIES
The other amenities being considered for the facility include a fitness center, jogging track, museum, daycare, multi-purpose space and food and beverage facilities. Space for Commercial Rental Units are also anticipated. These amenities can be run in a variety of factors, ranging from all being privatized and run by 3rd party providers to some or all functions being managed by the facility’s governing body. If the desire is to privatize all these functions, then to make the facility self-sustaining it is a matter of charging enough rent to cover the utilities, maintenance and operations. The only contingency required is to plan for the possibility of the facility not being fully leased at all times.
The one amenity that may wish to stay within the governing body’s control is the fitness center and jogging track along with the renting of space to groups or activities. Operating costs for these spaces would widely vary, as it would depend on the number of employees and the types of services they provide. If people are hired to provide a variety of recreational programs, the operating costs of the space could increase dramatically. The recommendation is to gain a better understanding for the number of members that would be interested in using this space and identifying what types of services they desire. Once a critical mass of users have purchased monthly or annual memberships that provide a confident revenue stream, then expanded programs can be offered to meet the demands of the users within the facility’s budget.
The one element that is likely to produce a loss is the Museum. Museums are typically free for users to enjoy, which is important for the community to have ready access to cultural artifacts and information about the history of the area. As a result, there is no real revenue source beyond sponsorship. If the museum is limited in size and integrated prominently within the larger facility, the operating costs should be minimal. The other amenities should be structured to provide funding for this important part of the facility.
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
20
5.0 CONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS
5.1 BUILDING TYPE OPTIONS
Recreation facilities have typically been constructed using a combination of traditional construction and pre-engineered structures. These building types would be used in different applications that respond to their strengths. Traditional construction provides a solid foundation, flexibility in design, and the ability to withstand corrosion, which makes it the preferred method of construction for swimming pools. Pre-engineered structures provide large spanned open spaces with high floor to ceiling heights. This type of construction is a cost-effective solution to provide the large open spaces required for recreational activities such as hockey, curling, or indoor soccer.
Different construction methods are constantly being developed to provide project teams with different building options. One facility type that is proving very suitable for recreational facilities is an insulated membrane structure. This building type uses a flexible exterior membrane that is stretched over an aluminum frame. The result is a facility with a large span and high floor to ceiling height. These properties, which are very similar to those provided by a pre-engineered structure, are very beneficial for recreational activities requiring open spaces. Furthermore, the use of aluminum and a fabric/composite exterior membrane greatly diminishes the potential for corrosion.
21
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
5.2 BUILDING TYPE SELECTION CRITERIA
With all building types there are positives and negatives associated with each. The question to be asked is which method of construction is best for the recreational complex in Langdon? To better understand this, the costs and benefits of each building type will be compared in order for an informed decision can be made.
The following criteria are to be used to compare the construction types identified on the previous page:
This will compare the costs to initially construct the facility.CAPITAL COST
ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF ENVELOPE
Looking at the energy efficiency of the different construction types based on similar building systems. The analysis is based solely on the building envelope and not the systems used within the structure. Traditional construction envelope is based on a baseline of R20 walls and R30 roof, which is reflected in the capital cost.
MAINTENANCE COSTS
An analysis of the costs required on an on-going basis to maintain the facility.
LIFE EXPECTANCY The expected lifespan of each facility type.
FLEXIBILITY/EXPANDABILITY
The ability of each building type to be used in a number of different manners, either in its current configuration or as a part of a renovation/expansion project.
IMAGE The positive and negative impacts of how the building can be designed to look.
TIMELINE TO CONSTRUCT
The length of time required to build the proposed facility.
DISASTER CENTER
The ability of the building to serve as a place of refuge or a collection point during a natural disaster.
PARTNERSHIPOPPORTUNITY
How a facility lends itself to being a part of a larger development and what is the potential of a partner to assist in the development.
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
22
Table 7: Building Type Comparison
CRITERIA TRADITIONAL PRE-ENGINEERED INSULATED MEMBRANE
CAPITAL COSTS* $100.00/ft2 $60.00/ft2 $40.00/ft2
ENERGY EFFICIENCY - BUILDING ENVELOPE
Baseline 5-10% more due to lack of insulation.
10-15% less as membrane includes insulation to R30.
MAINTENANCE COSTS Minimal with good exterior cladding, some maintenance for windows.
Potential for increased maintenance through corrosion.
Potential required repairs to the membrane.
LIFE EXPECTANCY 50 Years with a building enve-lope as priced. Roof replace-ment at 25 years.
Building will require ongoing maintenance after 25 years.
The outer membrane must be replaced after 25 years.
FLEXIBILITY/ EXPANDABILITY Easy to make changes or renovate in the future. Can link to other building types
Limitations to make changes as the building comes “pre-engineered” to function as initially designed
Difficult to add or delete to the structure. Works best when facility is planned and Membrane structures are used exclusively
IMAGE Very good building image. Can be purpose-built for community.
Best if conventional construction portrays the image and structure is secondary view.
Provides an aesthetic that would be unique to the community.
TIMELINE TO CONSTRUCT 2 years 18 months 12 months
DISASTER CENTER Building can be designed to withstand majority of natural disasters.
No potential to be a place of refuge in a natural disaster.
Meets some disaster center criteria.
PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY Easy to attach future components. Building can be designed with partnerships in mind.
Less flexible to attach future components. Partners can be attracted, but the building will not be a driving factor.
Links to future buildings should be planned. Partners can be attracted as the building is a unique structure.
*Capital costs will vary significantly within each building type depending on factors such as building heights, quality of finishes on the exterior, and the amount of windows and glazing walls included in the project. For the purposes of this comparison, the “building shell” in all three cases is considered to be raw space with no foundation, building systems, windows, or interior fit-ups on the assumption that regardless of the building shell, it will be a similar cost to add these elements. Order of magnitude costs provided later in this section better represent the full costs of the above noted options.
5.3 BUILDING TYPE COMPARISON
The following table compares the building type selection criteria outlined in the above section with differing construction methods. The comparative analysis identifies the costs and benefits associated with traditional, pre-engineered and insulated membrane structures in order to best determine next steps.
23
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
5.4 CONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS
Based on the information provided above, the following statements can be made:
• The fastest and least expensive option from both a capital and an energy efficiency perspective is an Insulated Membrane structure
• The life expectancy of the Insulated Membrane structure is the shortest. After 25 years, the insulated membrane should be replaced. The cost of this is similar to the cost of re-roofing a conventional building. The process could involve replacement or simply the addition of another membrane clipped into the structural system. This also allows for a new look or a change in graphics.
• Pre-engineered and traditionally constructed buildings will certainly have costs to maintain as they age, but these costs are more fluid and unpredictable in nature.
• If an insulated membrane structure alone is to be the preferred construction type, all aspects of the building should be identified and planned as it will be more difficult to properly integrate them in future additions.
• For a building of this size, it is suggested that Pre-Engineered structure(s) be used in combination with Traditional construction if this is the preferred method of building
• Traditional construction provides the most flexibility and ability to expand.
• The image and the ability to attract donors is a subjective question that depends more on the feeling within the community towards the building types being proposed.
No final decision regarding the type of construction methodology has been made at this time. The insulated membrane solution will be used in subsequent sections to identify the opportunities with an alternate building system. At this stage, facilities can be readily changed to a traditional or pre-engineered structure.
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
24
A number of design options are provided to highlight the possible ways in which the facility could proceed. Each option has advantages and drawbacks to take into consideration. These options are preliminary, and have been included to identify the different amenities and adjacencies that can be considered throughout a recreation facility design.
Each option contains a variety of building components and opportunities. An illustrated conceptual plan and order of magnitude construction cost has been provided for each option.
6.1 OPTION 1: Ice Arena with Amenity Space
Option 1 has been designed as a conservative approach to providing core recreation amenities to the region. The major amenity provided in option 1 is an ice arena that accommodates approximately 300 seats. This option can be constructed as either a single or a two storey structure, providing additional flex space that can work to accommodate a small training area, food services, and leasable commercial space. The insulated membrane structure would be designed with a width of 130ft and a length of approximately 300ft. With an area of approximately 36,000 ft2, this facility would offer a conservative approach to providing the community with an arena and support amenities. If a partnership is available, a museum wall could be integrated into the foyer.
» Option 1 Amenity Summary
• Ice Arena: 300 Seats• Commercial Space• Museum Wall• Food Services• Limited Fitness Area
» Order of Magnitude Construction Cost:
• Arena: 36,000 ft2
• Approximate Building Construction Cost: $7,300,000.00• Approximate Cost for Site Work: $500,000.00• Approximate Total Construction Cost: $7,800,000.00
6.0 DESIGN OPTIONS
Indoor Ice ArenaAmenity Space
Seating for 300
Width: 130 ft
25
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
» Option 2 Amenity Summary
• Ice Arena: 500 Seats• Fitness Centre• Commercial Space• Food Services• Walking/Running Track Around Arena• Museum• Potential for Childcare
» Order of Magnitude Construction Cost:
• Arena: 48,000 ft2
• Approximate Building Construction Cost: $10,800,000.00• Approximate Cost for Site Work: $500,000.00• Approximate Total Construction Cost: $11,300,000.00
6.2 OPTION 2: Expanded Ice Arena with Amenity Space
Option 2 has been designed to provide slightly more amenities than option 1, while remaining financially conservative in the approach. This option accommodates an arena with seating of approximately 500. This option can also be constructed as either a single or a two storey structure, providing additional flex space that accommodates a fitness center, food services, commercial space and multi-purpose space. This option allows for a walking/running track around the arena. Additional amenities that can be considered in this option include space for a childcare centre and a community museum.
The insulated membrane structure would be designed to be larger than the first option, with a width of 160 ft and a length of approximately 340 ft. By increasing the width of the facility there is opportunity to provide a running track around the arena as well as additional amenity space behind the seating. The area of this facility would be approximately 48,000ft2, offering additional amenities and the ability to handle future growth.
Running Track round Arena
Width: 160 ft
Seating for 500
Amenity Space
Additional Amenity Space
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
26
» Option 3 Amenity Summary
• Ice Arena 600-1000 Seats• Fieldhouse • Fitness Centre on 2nd Level• Commercial Space• Childcare/Pre-School• Museum Wall• Food Services• Walking/Running Track Around Arena or
Fieldhouse
» Order of Magnitude Construction Cost:
• Arena: 40,000 ft2
• Fieldhouse: 48,000 ft2
• Building Construction Cost: $19,500,000.00• Approximate Cost for Site Work: $500,000.00• Approximate Total Construction Cost: $20,000,000.00
6.3 OPTION 3: Ice Arena + Fieldhouse with Amenity Space
Option 3 has been designed to provide all core and support building components identified in Section 4.4. This option is designed for future growth, and offers a number of amenities in an integrated multi-plex facility. The two major amenities provided in this option are an ice arena and a fieldhouse. Because additional amenity space would exist in the fieldhouse, the arena could accommodate as many as 1,000 seats. The fieldhouse offers a recreation sports field that can be divided for rentals. This option can also be constructed as either a single or a two storey structure, providing additional flex space that can accommodate a fitness center, a walking track, food services, commercial space and multi-purpose space. The jogging track could be designed either around the arena, or on the 2nd floor above the field. Additional amenities that can be considered in this option include space for a childcare centre and a community museum.
The structure would be designed to be larger than the first two options, with a width of 160 ft and a length of approximately 580 ft. The width is driven by accommodating a full-size indoor soccer field. The total area of this facility would be approximately 86,000 ft2. This fully integrated option would require an interior separation as well as an expanded structure, resulting in a higher initial cost. This option provides the community with a number of recreation amenities up front, and does not require future phases or linkages to other buildings.
Indoor Ice Arena
Indoor Sports Field
Amenity Space
27
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
» Order of Magnitude Construction Cost:
• Arena: 36,000 ft2
• Fieldhouse: 48,000 ft2
• Building Construction Cost: $18,000,000• Approximate Cost for Site Work: $500,000.00• Approximate Total Construction Cost: $18,500,000.00
6.4 OPTION 4: 300-500 SEAT ICE ARENA + FIELDHOUSE WITH AMENITY SPACE
Option 4 has been designed to provide all core and support building components, but with a more conservative arena size. This option is designed as two structures connected through a link in order to avoid the need for an interior fire separation, while also providing the opportunity for phased construction. Similar to Option 3, the major amenities provided are an ice arena and a fieldhouse. This option can also be constructed as either a single or a two storey structure, providing additional flex space that can work to accommodate a fitness center, walking track, food services, commercial space and multi-purpose space. The jogging track could be designed either around the arena on the main floor, or on the 2nd floor above the sports field. Additional amenities that can be considered in this option include space for a childcare centre and a community museum.
Two structures would be constructed, with the arena being sized the same as in Option 1 and the Fieldhouse sized the same as in Option 3. This would allow for an arena of 36,000 ft2 and a fieldhouse of 40,000 ft2. This option allows for a level of integration through a building link, and provides a more cost-effective approach to providing the community with both an arena and fieldhouse. This option could also easily be developed in 2 phases, with the arena being constructed in phase 1 and the fieldhouse being constructed in phase 2.
» Option 4 Amenity Summary
• Ice Arena 300-500 Seats• Fieldhouse • Fitness Centre on 2nd Level• Commercial Space• Childcare/Pre-School• Museum Wall• Food Services• Walking/Running Track around Arena or
Fieldhouse Seating for 300-500
Amenity Space
Building Link
Indoor Ice Arena
Indoor Sports Field
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
28
6.5 DESIGN OPTION CONCLUSIONS
Each of the four options described above work to provide the Bow North Recreation District with additional recreation amenities that will serve the growing population. The options range from a basic arena facility to a multi-plex that houses an arena, fieldhouse and additional amenities. All options have been developed based on an insulated membrane structure. Each of the options identified are given an order of magnitude cost in order to best assist in determining the best fit for the community. Conclusions for each option are as follows:
» OPTION 1
Because the need for an arena has been identified as a top priority, Option 1 allows for a conservative arena with limited additional amenity space. The amenities in this option would include food services and a small commercial retail unit. The approximate area would be 36,000 ft2 with an approximate construction value of $7.8M.
» OPTION 2
Option 2 is an expansion on Option 1. In this option the core facility component is also an arena. In order to provide additional amenities, the building span has been expanded which allows for a running track and additional commercial retail units. This option may allow for a small fitness centre and accommodate a portion of the foyer for a museum wall. The approximate area would be 48,000 ft2 with an approximate construction value of $11.3M.
» OPTION 3
This option allows for all of the components recommended in Section 3.4. This option allows for all recreation components to be integrated into one multi-plex facility, offering an arena, fieldhouse, fitness centre, jogging track, food services, commercial retail units and area for a museum and flex space. In order for this facility to be fully integrated, an interior fire separation is required. The approximate area would be 88,000ft2 with an approximate construction value of $20M.
» OPTION 4
Option 4 offers the amenities identified in Option 3 but within two separate buildings. This option allows the community to benefit from all core and supporting amenities identified in Section 3.4 without the capital costs required to develop an integrated multi-plex. This option also allows for the components to be developed in two phases, with the ability to integrate additional components in the future if required. This approximate area of the arena would be 36,000 ft2 with the fieldhouse being approximately 48,000 ft2. The approximate construction value would be $18.5M.
Based on the above conclusions, it is recommended that Option 4 be pursued for future consideration. This option provides the community with a variety of amenities through the most cost effective approach. It would be recommended to develop the arena in phase 1, with an initial capital cost of approximately 7.8M. The fieldhouse could be developed in phase 2 once funding is acquired. Phase 2 would have an approximate capital cost of $10.7M.
29
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
7.0 LOCATION ANALYSIS
Where the new recreation complex is located is a crucial decision to be made. Facilities like the one proposed have the potential to be very positive for a community, but also come with some drawbacks. Recreation complexes have been shown to drive development in the surrounding area. Community residents appreciate the option of being able to access a recreation facility quickly, potentially being able to walk or cycle there as opposed to being forced to use a vehicle. Commercially, businesses will look to develop close to a facility such as this because of the opportunity for cross-clientele. This is also a chance to serve people from the entire region while they are using the complex for recreation, community festivals, events or tournaments.
While it is preferable as a resident to have a facility such as this in close proximity, it is not desirable to place it directly into a neighbourhood as one might do with a school. Recreation facilities drive a large amount of traffic at all hours of the day which can lead to congestion, safety concerns and noise. Therefore, it is important to locate a facility like this close to residential areas; they should not be placed directly within any neighbourhood. It is preferable to have a buffer space, which could be existing infrastructure like a park, roadway, railway or new planned infrastructure.
To properly provide space for the design options identified in the previous section, the parcel needs to have a minimum of 10 acres. This will provide the necessary area for a recreation complex that includes the infrastructure identified in the 4 options presented in the previous section, along with opportunity for future growth. This size of site will also require 300 stalls of parking. This does not include any area for outdoor recreation infrastructure or area for the proposed high school.
» Hamlet of Langdon Map
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
30
7.1 CRITERIA FOR LOCATION SELECTION
To make an informed decision on the preferred location for the Recreation Facility, an extensive list of criteria has been identified by the project team. These items are listed below. Each point is examined in the context of the new facility, providing a background for each within the context of the project.
Being able to get to the new facility easily is very crucial to the success of the recreation complex. The access must work within the context of Langdon, but also for the other uses who will be coming from other parts of the region. As a result, access will be examined from the perspective of Langdon, the greater North Bow Recreation District and Calgary. The access criteria will also take into consideration having to develop new infrastructure to service a facility versus utilizing existing infrastructure.
The traffic patterns directly around the new facility are to be examined to ensure the roadways are properly designed to handle the type and volume of traffic anticipated. Vehicle traffic is examined, but alternate transportation methods, such as walking or cycling, is also considered.
A recreational facility should have a presence within the community. This helps visitors from out of town easily find the complex. It gives the potential developments around the facility visibility to help them succeed. Sponsorship is easier to secure for a facility when it is highly visible to both users and people passing by.
As noted, a recreation facility drives a large number of people to a single point on a daily basis. It is important that new developments can be fostered as a result of this, but it also important to consider established businesses that have a long history in Langdon so they can benefit as well.
Langdon has two potential parcels that could be used for the new facility. With parcels already purchased, the cost of land should not be an inhibiter to development.
A general sense if the preferred location is obtainable; one of the parcels has been purchased in a joint venture, while the other currently offers outdoor recreation amenities for Langdon.
Major project costs can be incurred if a project cannot be serviced. A very preliminary look at where in the community existing services are located will identify the potential opportunities and issues.
This facility will drive development, so its placement should fall in line with where the Langdon plans to expand in the future.
Examine the ability of existing community infrastructure to share resources with or better utilize the new recreational facility. This ranges from a commercial business partner to a school being able to easily access the facility.
The physical size of the location is to be examined to ensure all current planned and future components will fit on the site. This is a crucial component, as the Town would not want to limit the type of development possible due to site constraints.
ACCESS
TRAFFICFLOW
VISIBILITY
ECONOMICDEVELOPMENT
COST OF LAND
ABILITY TO OBTAIN LAND
SERVICING
FUTURE GROWTH
PARTNERSHIPS
PARCEL SIZE
31
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
SITE OPTION 1: EXISTING
Site Option 1 is located in the centre of Langdon, bordered by Centre Street North and Wilson Road Northeast. The site currently houses a small fieldhouse, and outdoor ice arena, baseball diamonds, an elementary school and a walking path.
SITE OPTION 2: GREENFIELD
Site Option 2 is a greenfield site located in the Langdon’s southwest. It is bordered by Centre Street South, Railway Avenue West and agricultural land. New subdivisions are being planned to the north and east of the site.
7
3 26
62
468
9753
8
8
9
9
75
9
7
5
3 3
37
8
7
8
1
3
57 9
4
2 8
5
7
9
1
3
8
6
4
2 1
3
5
7 8
6
4
2
9
7531
864
9
864
2
9753
864
57
9
4864
4 6 8
97533
5
7
9
3 5 7 9
1
2
864
97
53
7
84
8
4
2
3579
9
753
68
8
8 6 4 2
86
6
4
4
34
8
7
8
3
75
59
6763
71
7983
8791
9599
11 10
6157
1410
49
41
53
22
30 2633
45
37
18
11
101416182226
33353943454951535559
6163
323438424448505456
5862
2927232117
101214
1618
20
2224
26
2830
32
34 3331
2927
2523
21
19
17
1113 15
17
19
23
21
23
21
19
17
1513
11
7472
7068
6664
6260
5961
636971
73
76
272523
21
262422
20
65 25 5957
33 432549
5132
4446
4850
52542829
6062
6466
6870
55
56
6159
5755
5351
4947
4543
4139
3735 34
36
3840
42
44
48
5052
5456
58
6062
21
17
2529
33
3741
454953
5761
6569
7377
3034
3842
4650
7478
8286
909498
81858993
97
26
1115
19 2327
31
35
38
40
40
20
343230
282624
12
49 51 53 55 57
11 13 15 22
20
181612
10
1214
16
18
11
15
17
19
21
23222055
53514947
54525048
57 55 51 49 47 45
232119171311
61595755535145
58 56 52 50 48 46 44 42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28262422201812
5856545250
61 59 57 55
40
3836
3432
3028 26 24 22 20 18
16
14
12 1113
15
1719
201816
14
12
10
49
5153
43
29 27 25 23
46
48
5052
545658
2018161412
10
4139 11 13 15 17 33
35
374749515355
56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 4038
3634
323028
2624222018141210
67 65 63 61 59
68 66 64 62 60
38
36
3432
30
28
4341393735
10
35 37 39 41 43
4442403836
4543413937
11
36
444240383634323028
2624
2220
20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
333129
2725
2321
19
20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
1431292725232119
3331292725232119
1816141210
10 12 14 16 18
17151311
13
1111 13 15 17
5755535149474543
26
24
5856545250484644
181614121015
17
27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41
171513
1119
21
23
25
4240383634323028262422
12 16
12
20
24
285
43
46
2220
1816 10
11131719
19
1715
13
11
2826
2422
2018
16
19
1012
14
59
57
55
53
51
49
47
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
3937
3533
31
17
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
30 28
22201816
26 24272523211917
20 18 16 14 12 10
68676665
65
646463
63
62
61
61
60
59
59
58
57
57
56
55
55
54
54
53
53
52
52
51
51
5049
48
47
47
46
46
45
45
44
44
44
43
43
43
42
42
42
41
41
41
40
40
40
39
39
38
38
37
37
36
3635
34
3433
32
3239
30
284026252423
22212019
1817
16 3915 141210
4850
16
23
15
15 11
2319
130
170166
103107
111115
119121
125129
133137
141145
151155
159163
167171
175
138
162
154150
142146
158
134
728
293
375371
367
363359
347
343339
335331
327323
380376
372368
364360
356352
348344
340336
332
328324
236232 240
256 280264 272276268
244216 224
220 228252 260
284
289305
309
213205221
217209
285
233245
281273269
225 257 265229
241253
249261237 277
486484
494498482492
478474472
206
539
110218
551
118214
114
106
102234
226222
202
508
545
509
505
516130230
535557525
122
210
134
126512513
517
533
521
559561537
504
529
401 426 534
612624
434 502506
510514
518522
526616530405 422
620
608604430
515439527
523535435 503
531519511
507
609621
613
617
539601
605
724720
139139
489485
481477
473469
465461
457453
456
426422
429
417
409
441437
445
430
418
434
425
410
464
414
421
433
413
452
549577
597
525 533
542530
561
593
537557
585538
573565529
521
517
553541
545
554546550534
569
589
581
558562
566513509
505501
905
107161
221 303 317315
313311309
203205207
209211
213215 217
219 305307
123125
127129
131133
135137
139141
143
106108
110112
114116
118120122124
126128
130
162160
158156
154152
150148 146
144142
140138
136134
132
129127
125
123
121
119117 115
113
111
109107
105103
439435431427
423
419
415411 403
407339
335331
327323319
315
311
307
303260204
220 250
263
259255
251
247243
239235231
227223
219215
211
207
203
627623
102
101105109
113117
121
823
819815811
807743
739
735731727
723719
715711
707703
740
720
736
716
732
712
728
836
724
708
832
704
812
820816
804
828824
808
333
508
140
148
355
537
535533
531529527
525523
521519517
515513511
509
512
514516518520
522
524526
528530
532534536
538
163
159155
151147
143139
135131
127123
119115
111107
103
312308
304224
220216
212208
204120
116112
108
724720720716
708
708
211
136
220
104
108
112116
120
704
208228
344328
112
115
424304
151
112
103
124
107
119
507505
115
108104
116
108
215
209
204
116
207
420412332320308
235
251258
254
228228228
216
123
120
216132
147
115
127 131
111116
140
150
227
223
151
212
103106
120116
103
128124
156145
139
123
104
128
216
307
136
124108
226
344
503
425423
421415
409407
405
303305
307309
315317
319321
225221219
209207
205203
105107115
119121
125
106108
110112
114116
118120122
121
119117115113111109107105103
103
105
107
109111
113
115
117119
234
232
230
228226
224
222220 218
216
214
212210
208206204
502
355355
355355355355355
355355355355
355
111
133
115
116
124
104
312320
112
116
139
255
132
136
123
103
144
155
143
123
111
128
324
311
259
111
27023
272074 272070
270252
271129
271050
272071
232145
232141
232234
232186
232178
270241
212
42
375
379
383 387391
395
399
101105109113117
121125129133137645649 653
320316
312308304
309305301
600
171175
15
192327313539
43475155596367
717579
83
87
14182226
3034384246
50
58
6266
70747882
869091
555147
4339
353127231915
11
244 248252256260264268272276280284288292296
297293289285281277249253257261265269273
608203211215219
223227231235239
625629
616620624628632636640
337
20
7
40
22
22
501
68
97
97
9797
97
97979797
8
97979797 979797 979797104
107
111
604
235
612207
97
231
227
223
219
215
211207
203199
195191
187183
179 556552548544540536532528524
520516512508504500
452448444440 436 432428424
420416412408404400
216
220224
BE
SS
E C
ON
W
HA
NS
ON
HO
LLO
W N
E
RAILWAY AV WEST
RA
ILWAY
PTSE
SEC
HW
Y 79
7
1 AV NW
2 AV NW
DA
INPL
NW
HA
NSO
NC
OU
RT
NE
RAILWAY
PL
SE
MC
CAN
N S
TSE
MCDOUGALL PL NW
DEAD HORSE RD
VAN HORN CO NW
CR
ILLY
CL
NE
NESBITT CL NE
HE
ND
ER
SON
CL
NE
MC
DO
UG
ALL
ST N
W
MC
INTY
RE
PL N
W
3 S
T N
E
MOE AV NW
NE
WTO
N S
T N
W
1 AV SE
WH
ITN
EYS
TN
E
2 AV SE
HA
NSO
NW
YN
E
DOUGLAS AV NE
BESSE AV NW
2 AV NE
NESBITT AV NE
COPELAND AV NW
BAR
BE
RST
NW
THO
MA
S S
T N
W
HENDERSON RD NE
WILSON RD NE
BRANDER AV NW
RAILWAY AV EAST
SEC HWY 560
ANDERSON AV NE
CE
NTR
E S
T N
OR
TH
DEAD HORSE RD SE
TWP RD 234
CO
PEL
AN
DC
LN
W
HENDERSON
BA NE
BOTS
FOR
DST
NW
RA
ILW
AYAV
NE
RA
ILWA
Y
CL SERAILWAY CR SE
CO
LWEL
L ST
NE
CO
WA
NS
TN
W
BISHOP CR NW
BOULDER CREEK CI SE
BOU
LDER
CR
EEK
MR
SEBOULDER CREEK WY SE
WENSTROM CR NE
MC
KIN
NO
N S
T N
W
WELSHIMER CR NE
HA
NSO
ND
R N
E4 S
T N
E
CE
NTR
E ST
SO
UTH
BOULDER CREEK DR SE
S T797
ST560
LANGDON MAP
Primary Highway
Secondary Highway
Paved
Chip-Sealed
Oil
Gravel
Dirt
Unbuilt
Subdivision Applications
Approved Subdivisions
Environmental Reserve
Municipal Reserve
Municipal School Reserve
Public Utility Lot
Hamlet
REV: Mar, 2014
7
3 26
62
468
9753
8
8
9
9
75
9
7
5
3 3
37
8
7
8
1
3
57 9
4
2 8
5
7
9
1
3
8
6
4
2 1
3
5
7 8
6
4
2
9
7531
864
9
864
2
9753
864
57
9
4864
4 6 8
97533
5
7
9
3 5 7 9
1
2
864
97
53
7
84
8
4
2
3579
9
753
68
8
8 6 4 2
86
6
4
4
34
8
7
8
3
75
59
6763
71
7983
8791
9599
11 10
6157
1410
49
41
53
22
30 2633
45
37
18
11
101416182226
33353943454951535559
6163
323438424448505456
5862
2927232117
101214
1618
20
2224
26
2830
32
34 3331
2927
2523
21
19
17
1113 15
17
19
23
21
23
21
19
17
1513
11
7472
7068
6664
6260
5961
636971
73
76
272523
21
262422
20
65 25 5957
33 432549
5132
4446
4850
52542829
6062
6466
6870
55
56
6159
5755
5351
4947
4543
4139
3735 34
36
3840
42
44
48
5052
5456
58
6062
21
17
2529
33
3741
454953
5761
6569
7377
3034
3842
4650
7478
8286
909498
81858993
97
26
1115
19 2327
31
35
38
40
40
20
343230
282624
12
49 51 53 55 57
11 13 15 22
20
181612
10
1214
16
18
11
15
17
19
21
23222055
53514947
54525048
57 55 51 49 47 45
232119171311
61595755535145
58 56 52 50 48 46 44 42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28262422201812
5856545250
61 59 57 55
40
3836
3432
3028 26 24 22 20 18
16
14
12 1113
15
1719
201816
14
12
10
49
5153
43
29 27 25 23
46
48
5052
545658
2018161412
10
4139 11 13 15 17 33
35
374749515355
56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 4038
3634
323028
2624222018141210
67 65 63 61 59
68 66 64 62 60
38
36
3432
30
28
4341393735
10
35 37 39 41 43
4442403836
4543413937
11
36
444240383634323028
2624
2220
20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
333129
2725
2321
19
20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
1431292725232119
3331292725232119
1816141210
10 12 14 16 18
17151311
13
1111 13 15 17
5755535149474543
26
24
5856545250484644
181614121015
17
27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41
171513
1119
21
23
25
4240383634323028262422
12 16
12
20
24
285
43
46
2220
1816 10
11131719
19
1715
13
11
2826
2422
2018
16
19
1012
14
59
57
55
53
51
49
47
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
3937
3533
31
17
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
30 28
22201816
26 24272523211917
20 18 16 14 12 10
68676665
65
646463
63
62
61
61
60
59
59
58
57
57
56
55
55
54
54
53
53
52
52
51
51
5049
48
47
47
46
46
45
45
44
44
44
43
43
43
42
42
42
41
41
41
40
40
40
39
39
38
38
37
37
36
3635
34
3433
32
3239
30
284026252423
22212019
1817
16 3915 141210
4850
16
23
15
15 11
2319
130
170166
103107
111115
119121
125129
133137
141145
151155
159163
167171
175
138
162
154150
142146
158
134
728
293
375371
367
363359
347
343339
335331
327323
380376
372368
364360
356352
348344
340336
332
328324
236232 240
256 280264 272276268
244216 224
220 228252 260
284
289305
309
213205221
217209
285
233245
281273269
225 257 265229
241253
249261237 277
486484
494498482492
478474472
206
539
110218
551
118214
114
106
102234
226222
202
508
545
509
505
516130230
535557525
122
210
134
126512513
517
533
521
559561537
504
529
401 426 534
612624
434 502506
510514
518522
526616530405 422
620
608604430
515439527
523535435 503
531519511
507
609621
613
617
539601
605
724720
139139
489485
481477
473469
465461
457453
456
426422
429
417
409
441437
445
430
418
434
425
410
464
414
421
433
413
452
549577
597
525 533
542530
561
593
537557
585538
573565529
521
517
553541
545
554546550534
569
589
581
558562
566513509
505501
905
107161
221 303 317315
313311309
203205207
209211
213215 217
219 305307
123125
127129
131133
135137
139141
143
106108
110112
114116
118120122124
126128
130
162160
158156
154152
150148 146
144142
140138
136134
132
129127
125
123
121
119117 115
113
111
109107
105103
439435431427
423
419
415411 403
407339
335331
327323319
315
311
307
303260204
220 250
263
259255
251
247243
239235231
227223
219215
211
207
203
627623
102
101105109
113117
121
823
819815811
807743
739
735731727
723719
715711
707703
740
720
736
716
732
712
728
836
724
708
832
704
812
820816
804
828824
808
333
508
140
148
355
537
535533
531529527
525523
521519517
515513511
509
512
514516518520
522
524526
528530
532534536
538
163
159155
151147
143139
135131
127123
119115
111107
103
312308
304224
220216
212208
204120
116112
108
724720720716
708
708
211
136
220
104
108
112116
120
704
208228
344328
112
115
424304
151
112
103
124
107
119
507505
115
108104
116
108
215
209
204
116
207
420412332320308
235
251258
254
228228228
216
123
120
216132
147
115
127 131
111116
140
150
227
223
151
212
103106
120116
103
128124
156145
139
123
104
128
216
307
136
124108
226
344
503
425423
421415
409407
405
303305
307309
315317
319321
225221219
209207
205203
105107115
119121
125
106108
110112
114116
118120122
121
119117115113111109107105103
103
105
107
109111
113
115
117119
234
232
230
228226
224
222220 218
216
214
212210
208206204
502
355355
355355355355355
355355355355
355
111
133
115
116
124
104
312320
112
116
139
255
132
136
123
103
144
155
143
123
111
128
324
311
259
111
27023
272074 272070
270252
271129
271050
272071
232145
232141
232234
232186
232178
270241
212
42
375
379
383 387391
395
399
101105109113117
121125129133137645649 653
320316
312308304
309305301
600
171175
15
192327313539
43475155596367
717579
83
87
14182226
3034384246
50
58
6266
70747882
869091
555147
4339
353127231915
11
244 248252256260264268272276280284288292296
297293289285281277249253257261265269273
608203211215219
223227231235239
625629
616620624628632636640
337
20
7
40
22
22
501
68
97
97
9797
97
97979797
8
97979797 979797 979797104
107
111
604
235
612207
97
231
227
223
219
215
211207
203199
195191
187183
179 556552548544540536532528524
520516512508504500
452448444440 436 432428424
420416412408404400
216
220224
BE
SS
E C
ON
W
HA
NS
ON
HO
LLO
W N
E
RAILWAY AV WEST
RA
ILWAY
PTSE
SEC
HW
Y 79
7
1 AV NW
2 AV NW
DA
INPL
NW
HA
NSO
NC
OU
RT
NE
RAILWAY
PL
SE
MC
CAN
N S
TSE
MCDOUGALL PL NW
DEAD HORSE RD
VAN HORN CO NW
CR
ILLY
CL
NE
NESBITT CL NE
HE
ND
ER
SON
CL
NE
MC
DO
UG
ALL
ST N
W
MC
INTY
RE
PL N
W
3 S
T N
E
MOE AV NW
NE
WTO
N S
T N
W1 AV SE
WH
ITN
EYS
TN
E
2 AV SE
HA
NSO
NW
YN
E
DOUGLAS AV NE
BESSE AV NW
2 AV NE
NESBITT AV NE
COPELAND AV NW
BAR
BE
RST
NW
THO
MA
S S
T N
W
HENDERSON RD NE
WILSON RD NE
BRANDER AV NW
RAILWAY AV EAST
SEC HWY 560
ANDERSON AV NE
CE
NTR
E S
T N
OR
TH
DEAD HORSE RD SE
TWP RD 234
CO
PEL
AN
DC
LN
W
HENDERSON
BA NE
BOTS
FOR
DST
NW
RA
ILW
AYAV
NE
RA
ILWA
Y
CL SERAILWAY CR SE
CO
LWEL
L ST
NE
CO
WA
NS
TN
W
BISHOP CR NW
BOULDER CREEK CI SE
BOU
LDER
CR
EEK
MR
SEBOULDER CREEK WY SE
WENSTROM CR NE
MC
KIN
NO
N S
T N
W
WELSHIMER CR NE
HA
NSO
ND
R N
E4 S
T N
E
CE
NTR
E ST
SO
UTH
BOULDER CREEK DR SE
S T797
ST560
LANGDON MAP
Primary Highway
Secondary Highway
Paved
Chip-Sealed
Oil
Gravel
Dirt
Unbuilt
Subdivision Applications
Approved Subdivisions
Environmental Reserve
Municipal Reserve
Municipal School Reserve
Public Utility Lot
Hamlet
REV: Mar, 2014
2
1
21
7.2 LOCATION OPTIONS
To properly explore the possibilities of a location for the new recreation facility, two sites have been selected for further consideration. One site is existing, while the other is a greenfield site; details of each site are described below. The two sites were selected for further study based on the following criteria:
• Site servicing is readily available for both sites• The locations are accessible for vehicular traffic and also pedestrian/cycling traffic• Both sites are easily accessed by the highway for users outside of Langdon• Each parcel offers a large enough area to accommodate a recreation facility• Both sites are relatively easy to obtain for development of a recreation facility• Servicing and infrastructure is either existing or available
The two parcels are outlined on the Langdon Map developed by Rocky View County below:
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
32
7.3 LOCATION ANALYSIS
With the two sites identified, it is now possible to examine each site against the set criteria to try and determine a preferred site for the recreation complex in Langdon. Both locations offer a number of opportunities and constraints, and it is important that they be carefully considered throughout this analysis. The site not only needs to serve the community and region today, but also needs to take into consideration future growth. It is also important to consider costs associated with land, servicing and infrastructure for each option, as well as the ability to acquire the land. Each location and criteria have been placed into the table below. A rating of Excellent, Good, Moderate or Poor have been assigned to each location based on the information currently available for each criterion. These ratings have been given a weighted score as follows:
EXCELLENT 5GOOD 4MODERATE 3POOR 1
When all the criteria are examined for each location, the weighted scores are tallied to give a total for each site. These totals can then be compared to highlight which site is the most preferred based on the information and assumptions made at this time. The table below shows the weighted scores for each location:
Table 8: Location Selection: Weighted Scoring
SELECTION CRITERION SITE 1 SITE 2
ACCESS: COMMUNITY EXCELLENT GOOD
ACCESS: COUNTY GOOD EXCELLENT
ACCESS: CALGARY GOOD EXCELLENT
TRAFFIC FLOW: VEHICULAR GOOD GOOD
TRAFFIC FLOW: ALTERNATE EXCELLENT GOOD
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: NEW GOOD EXCELLENT
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: EXISTING EXCELLENT GOOD
LAND: COST EXCELLENT EXCELLENT
LAND: ABILITY TO OBTAIN GOOD EXCELLENT
SERVICING EXCELLENT MODERATE
EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE EXCELLENT GOOD
FUTURE GROWTH POOR EXCELLENT
PARTNERSHIPS POOR EXCELLENT
SIZE OF PARCEL MODERATE EXCELLENT
WEIGHTED SCORE 55 63
33
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
7.4 LOCATION CONCLUSIONS
Based on the information provided in the previous table, it is evident that both proposed sites are desirable locations for a new recreation facility. There are, however, features of Site 2 that make it more amenable for a future recreation facility. From the weighted analysis, the following conclusions can be drawn:
» SITE 1
Site 1 offers approximately 20 acres of land, and is currently owned by Rocky View County. The County leases the land to the Langdon Community Association, and is currently being utilized by a small field house, walking paths, open space and baseball diamonds. The existing field house is not sized appropriately sized to provide recreation amenities, and therefore is a good opportunity to better utilize this parcel of land.
The site’s central location allows for excellent access for the community, and would link well within the existing neighbourhoods. While the site is easily accessed by Langdon residents, it is also easily accessible for those traveling from other parts of the region as it is located on a main arterial roadway. The existing roadways will be able to effectively support vehicular traffic. In addition, this site is already serviced by walking/biking trails which would support the use of alternate modes of transportation to the facility.
The existing site infrastructure and servicing makes this option attractive. It is anticipated that the existing infrastructure would be able to support a development of this kind, with the exception of a need for a larger parking lot. With the site owned by the County, the rental rate is reasonable and it would be easy to obtain. The drawbacks of this site come in its size. The parcel of land does not lend itself well to future growth, adjacencies or partnerships. With little-to-no opportunity to explore shared facility components, partners and future growth strategies, the recreation facility would essentially be stand-alone. This is a significant drawback to the site as it will have an effect on the facility’s ability to generate revenue, share operating costs, encourage adjacent developments and plan for future growth.
» SITE 2
The site offers 45 acres of land, and is currently owned by the North Bow Community Facility Board, Rocky View School Division and Rocky View County. The site was purchased for the purpose of housing a secondary school, indoor recreation facility and outdoor recreation components. With this site already being master planned as a joint-use site, this parcel offers a number of features that prove to be advantageous.
With new residential development occurring to in the south, this parcel of land is well positioned to support the Hamlet’s future growth pattern. Being less than a kilometer from the core business district, this site will work to benefit future residential growth while also being accessible for existing neighborhoods. The site is served by an arterial roadway, which is complimented by pedestrian linkages that allow for active transportation. The drawback to this site is the requirement for infrastructure and servicing; as a greenfield site, there is no supporting infrastructure currently in place to serve a future development.
Since the land is already purchased jointly, there are a number of opportunities to share costs with the School Division. Should a new school be developed, a joint-use facility and site would be mutually beneficial for both parties. This would allow for further integration, and the potential for additional amenities on the site. The size of the parcel allows for significant outdoor recreation amenities, as well as space for future growth. With the Hamlet growing to the south, there are supporting residential developments, and the opportunity for adjacent commercial/retail developments to support the joint-use facility. This site is, however, reliant upon the School Division and funding for a new school. This provides a limitation as the site may not be easy to obtain if a new school is not approved by the Ministry.
If a new school is approved for funding, Site 2 lends itself as being the most desirable in terms of location, partnership opportunities and ability to support future growth.
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
34
This section presents each of the site options together with each of the design options identified in the previous section. The intent of this analysis is to visualize a potential site layout, and identify the opportunities and constraints of each combination. Each of the two sites presented in Section 8 would be amenable to housing a recreation facility of this kind, and would be able to accommodate each of the three design options presented in Section 7.
» OPTION 1/2 ICE ARENA WITH AMENITIES
8.0 SITE + DESIGN OPTIONS
8.1 SITE 1 OPTIONS
Site 1 is located within the core of Langdon, and provides a number of opportunities for adjacencies. Being close to a school, residential area and existing businesses is a strong feature for this site. In addition, there is existing infrastructure in place that can support the development. There are, however, drawbacks to this site. Although each of the three design options can be accommodated by the parcel, there are some limitations to the extent of potential development. The site could allow for an arena and fieldhouse combination, but the site size does not allow for the facility to consider future growth or a partnership with the high school. A connection to the community and the school are important, but potential partnerships on this site or adjacent retail/commercial developments would not be possible.
Because the site currently serves the community as a parks and recreation space, it would be the intent to keep as much open space on the site as possible. Each of the below options allow for the outdoor arena, the existing Langdon fieldhouse and skate park to remain on the site. Two baseball diamonds are provided, although in order to accommodate the new facility along the main roadway one of the diamonds would need to be relocated to the east side of the site . Where possible, existing linkages and pathways would be preserved. Parking can be accommodated, but it would not be recommended to expand in the future.
The following depicts the four design options integrated within Site 1. These are preliminary site plans, and are intended to provide a general depiction of what the site might look like if a recreation facility were developed there. Further consideration to connectivity, municipal bylaws, site topography and linkages to existing infrastructure will be further explored if Site 1 is selected for development.
35
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
» OPTION 3: INTEGRATED ICE ARENA + FIELDHOUSE WITH AMENITIES
» OPTION 4: ICE ARENA + FIELDHOUSE WITH AMENITIES
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
36
8.2 SITE 2 OPTIONS
Site 2 is located to the South of Langdon’s core, and provides a number of opportunities for adjacencies with a new development. This site’s strongest features are the opportunity for partnership with Rocky View Schools, and its potential to support future growth. The size of the parcel is a strong feature, as it allows for a fully integrated facility that could support long-term growth.
Not only can each of the four design options be easily accommodated by the large parcel of land, but they can each be seamlessly integrated with a future school. The two entities could share both indoor and outdoor recreation amenities, and future amenities such as a gymnasium or a theatre could be developed in a future phase. Each of the options allow for ample parking, and four baseball diamonds, two soccer pitches, a football field and an outdoor running track.
Langdon’s future growth is planned to the south, so this site offers a unique opportunity for a potential joint-use facility. This would work as a tool to spur on future growth, and likely attract new residential, commercial and retail developments to the south. The site is less than a kilometer from the community’s core business district. As such, it would still support existing businesses and be easily accessible for the existing residential neighbourhoods to the North.
The following depicts the three design options integrated within Site 2. These are preliminary site plans, and are intended to provide a general depiction of what the site might look like if a recreation facility were developed there. Further consideration to connectivity, municipal bylaws, site topography and expansion to infrastructure will be further explored if Site 2 is selected for development.
» OPTION 1/2: ICE ARENA WITH AMENITIES
37
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
» OPTION 3: INTEGRATED ICE ARENA + FIELDHOUSE WITH AMENITIES
» OPTION 4: ICE ARENA + FIELDHOUSE WITH AMENITIES
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
38
9.0 CONCLUSIONS + RECOMMENDATIONS
The recreation facility feasibility study has touched on a number of different factors that all must be considered when making decisions around how to proceed with a new recreation complex. Information around potential partnerships, amenities, ongoing sustainability, construction type, costs, and location have all been examined exclusive of each other. The conclusions reached must all be viewed together so holistic recommendations can be made on how to move forward.
With the population of the Hamlet nearing 5,000 and a division population exceeding 6,500, it is fair to say that there is a population base that is able to support a recreation complex. Furthermore, the annual predicted growth rate of 7.0% will bring more people who in turn will be looking for more services. Finally, Langdon’s location near the southeast quadrant of the City of Calgary means that the demand for services will remain strong into the future, as more people move to this quadrant and desire recreational services. Based on all these factors, the timing to proceed on a new facility appears to be very good.
» RECOMMENDED PARTNERSHIPS
There are a number of smaller partnerships that can support a new facility through items like sponsorships, facility rentals, and community support, but the larger partnership opportunity exists between the county and school division. The site on the south side of Langdon has been purchased jointly by the County and School Division with the goal of developing a joint-use high school and recreation facility. These facilities have proven to be very successful in other locations as they provide wide-ranging benefits to a community. Utilization of a joint-facility increases as amenities are used by both students during the day and residents in the evenings, and joint funding arrangements can be mutually beneficial. For these reasons, a partnership between the County and the School Division is important to maintain, even if all the planned amenities are not constructed in the short-term.
» RECOMMENDED FACILITY COMPONENTS
Facilities such as this have core components that could in theory stand on their own, but they also have components designed to support the core components. The core components suggested in Section 3 were selected based on a combination of community desire and revenue/expenses. An arena, fieldhouse, fitness area and indoor track are the core components recommended for development. These amenities would be supported by food and beverage services, commercial space, multi-purpose space, and a child care.
If partners can be found, some additional developments can be contemplated. This includes a community library, gymnasium, or performing arts centre. These amenities would be closely linked to the development of a high school. The Museum is an amenity that should be actively pursued as a partnership. For very little ongoing operating costs, an area of the facility can be designed to tell the history of the region. This can be incorporated within the facility’s common space.
The above components can only be considered if they can prove to be economically sustainable from an operational perspective. By doing an initial analysis of potential operating costs for each amenity, it appears that the typical rental rates charged by facilities in the area will allow for each amenity to run cost-neutral or turn a small operating surplus. The case study presented in section 4.2 is a preliminary assessment. If further assurances are desired a more thorough study should be performed.
39
RECREATION FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
» RECOMMENDED DESIGN OPTION
Four design options have been provided for a potential facility in Langdon. The options range from providing the most basic recreation amenities to a fully integrated multi-plex facility. It is recommended that Option 4 be considered as it proves to be the most amenable option at this time. This option provides the opportunity for phasing which will allow for additional amenities to be built in the future as capital costs become available. This is the preferred option for the project, as it provides a number of benefits. The arena can be constructed first, while the fieldhouse, fitness, and jogging track can be deferred until funding as available. This project, with an overall projected cost of $18.5M, would require an initial capital investment of approximately $7.8M for the arena and $10.7M (in 2014 dollars) for the fieldhouse component.
» RECOMMENDED LOCATION
Two locations have been analyzed within the study as both are available to the Hamlet to develop. The first site, which is located near the center of Langdon, scores higher in the connections it has to the community and the infrastructure that is already in place. The second site, located on the southwest edge of the Hamlet, scores better with regards to partnership opportunities and the size of the parcel. In the end, the ability to place all desired amenities on a single site, including a future high school, makes Site 2 the preferred choice. A schematic layout of the recommended design option and site in the context of the desired long-term partnerships with the county and school can be examined on page 32. With this determined, the final recommendation is to continue to pursue a partnership with the school division on Site 2, selecting Design Option 4 to allow for future phasing of amenities. The recommended option is outlined again below:
» SUMMARY
The following table provides a breakdown of the main elements analyzed throughout the study, offering a summary of the conclusions and recommendations for a new recreation facility in Langdon. The table summarizes the information provided throughout this report, including potential costs for construction, operations and revenue generating potential.
SITE Site 2; Undeveloped Greenfield
PARTNERSHIPS Rocky View County, Rocky View Schools
FACILITY COMPONENTS Arena; Fieldhouse; Fitness; Running Track; CRU’s; Food & Beverage
PHASING OPTIONS Phase 1: Arena; Phase 2: Fieldhouse/Running Track
CONSTRUCTION COST: Arena Est. $7,800,000
ANNUAL OPERATING COST: Arena Est. $375,000
ANNUAL REVENUE POTENTIAL: Arena Est. $425,000
CONSTRUCTION COST: Fieldhouse Est. $10,700,000
ANNUAL OPERATING COST: Fieldhouse Est. $120,000
ANNUAL REVENUE POTENTIAL: Fieldhouse Est. $120,000