City of Ottawa

[Richard Eade]

Building anything of great weight above an arena is expensive. All of the weight needs to be transferred out to the periphery since there can be no columns in the middle of the arena - obviously. (Even a green-roof was too much for the future arena at Lansdowne.) Building a new Tom Brown arena in the podium of a tower would probably not be practical.

I wonder, though, if it would be economical to put three 40m x 80m community rinks (ice size is 26m x 61m each) side by side to create a 120m x 80m roof that could support a soccer pitch (size 105m x 68m)? I would be fine with it encroaching on the O-Train corridor a bit. In fact, it could be integrated into the Bayview Station entrance – including a 2nd-level passage from the new ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ to Albert Street. That could allow the east-bound bus stop to move up to the O-Tran station.

Imagine that. An additional two, new, ice sheets and a soccer pitch for the urban core. And it all connected to the intersection of the O-Train lines. It would be close to where thousands (if the promises are to be believed) of new residents will be living. Maybe it (and the Sen’s facilities across the street) could even be used to attract major curling bonspiels or figure skating competitions to ‘The Sports District’ – apart from The Bell Capital Cup and other big, junior tournaments.

Of course, it would mean that the city would need to market the complex. And, as we saw with the old Lansdowne, the city is not very good at promoting their facilities.

[LRTeverywhere]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I would be fine with it encroaching on the O-Train corridor a bit. In fact, it could be integrated into the Bayview Station entrance – including a 2nd-level passage from the new ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ to Albert Street. That could allow the east-bound bus stop to move up to the O-Tran station.

Imagine that. An additional two, new, ice sheets and a soccer pitch for the urban core. And it all connected to the intersection of the O-Train lines.

There is also a planned active use bridge over the tracks from Hintonburg Pl when City Centre redevolops, could be connected to that as well to create a really cool elevated section.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

What about pop-up rinks? With climate change and cheap mainteance the outdoor rinks have shorter and worse seasons but cover them and add coolant and you can get a lot more use for a lot less money than a fixed rink. +15 daytime temprature isn't a big deal if you chill the ice. Some of the outdoor rinks even have skating lessons and no reason you can't let people book especially the late night time for rec hockey.

Could be valuable to have a chilled rink at the LeBreton Park, but it's not a replacement for an indoor facility. Again though, could be a supplement for Sensplex community hours.

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Building anything of great weight above an arena is expensive. All of the weight needs to be transferred out to the periphery since there can be no columns in the middle of the arena - obviously. (Even a green-roof was too much for the future arena at Lansdowne.) Building a new Tom Brown arena in the podium of a tower would probably not be practical.

I wonder, though, if it would be economical to put three 40m x 80m community rinks (ice size is 26m x 61m each) side by side to create a 120m x 80m roof that could support a soccer pitch (size 105m x 68m)? I would be fine with it encroaching on the O-Train corridor a bit. In fact, it could be integrated into the Bayview Station entrance – including a 2nd-level passage from the new ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ to Albert Street. That could allow the east-bound bus stop to move up to the O-Tran station.

Imagine that. An additional two, new, ice sheets and a soccer pitch for the urban core. And it all connected to the intersection of the O-Train lines. It would be close to where thousands (if the promises are to be believed) of new residents will be living. Maybe it (and the Sen’s facilities across the street) could even be used to attract major curling bonspiels or figure skating competitions to ‘The Sports District’ – apart from The Bell Capital Cup and other big, junior tournaments.

Of course, it would mean that the city would need to market the complex. And, as we saw with the old Lansdowne, the city is not very good at promoting their facilities.

I imagine the towers would be at the corner of the podium, with the rink in the middle with no tower directly over it, so under the tower could be the entrance, concessions, washrooms, meeting rooms... That's probably the plan for the NHL arena, towers in the corner strategically placed to not impede the arena bowl or concourse.

Interesting idea, rooftop soccer pitch. We need to say more if that.

Originally Posted by LRTeverywhere

There is also a planned active use bridge over the tracks from Hintonburg Pl when City Centre redevolops, could be connected to that as well to create a really cool elevated section.

That would be cool.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Could be valuable to have a chilled rink at the LeBreton Park, but it's not a replacement for an indoor facility. Again though, could be a supplement for Sensplex community hours.

I mean maybe we sell Tom Brown for housing and support 10 community outdoor rinks instead. These are all over the central part of the city but are becoming less and less usable (weather). How many kids from York St public housing have even been to Tom Brown once. Let's double the number of days they can skate at the rink right in their backyard.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I mean maybe we sell Tom Brown for housing and support 10 community outdoor rinks instead. These are all over the central part of the city but are becoming less and less usable (weather). How many kids from York St public housing have even been to Tom Brown once. Let's double the number of days they can skate at the rink right in their backyard.

Not a great idea given our climate trendlines.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Not a great idea given our climate trendlines.

A shorter season yes but let's not exxagerate by 2070 we are predicted to have the climate of Chicago.

They have plenty of outdoor rinks. Add some coolant and we could get a very long season.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

A shorter season yes but let's not exxagerate by 2070 we are predicted to have the climate of Chicago.

They have plenty of outdoor rinks. Add some coolant and we could get a very long season.

Community rinks are a good idea and definitely part of the solution for downtown, but they aren't a substitute for indoor arenas. For one, they don't have dressing rooms or other facilities that are pretty crucial for a lot of the activities that take place there.

That said, you can put a rink beside a single pad urban arena, share staff and equipment (like a zamboni) and make them more efficient.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by phil235

Community rinks are a good idea and definitely part of the solution for downtown, but they aren't a substitute for indoor arenas. For one, they don't have dressing rooms or other facilities that are pretty crucial for a lot of the activities that take place there.

That said, you can put a rink beside a single pad urban arena, share staff and equipment (like a zamboni) and make them more efficient.

Yes they aren't a full subsititute but I think for downtown they are as important or more than an indoor rink. The people who use the indoor rinks drive there anyway so can go to suburban rinks. That's not the case for users of the outdoor rinks. Suburbs have backyard rinks and lots of other outdoor activities so don't need outdoor rinks as much. Yes in an ideal world they are all renovated and brought up to standard and we maintain the outdoor rinks and pools and lessons and..... We are broke. Maybe each ward should get it's own funds and disperse as it sees fit. We get very much shortchanged downtown on the lesson front.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

We are broke.

We're not broke.

We're cheap.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

We're not broke.

We're cheap.

Could test that theory. Would a ward level tax increase for recreation pass in any ward? Actually probably downtown it's less likely to pass. A transit one might have a better chance but hard to target funds only for one ward.

OK We are broke at current taxation rates which we do not want to exceed.

[dougvdh]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

OK We are broke at current taxation rates which we do not want to exceed.

Broke at tax rate increases that fall short of inflation. Which one could consider 'intellectually broke' since clearly that sort of policy is neither intelligent or sustainable.

[DTcrawler]

Originally Posted by dougvdh

Broke at tax rate increases that fall short of inflation. Which one could consider 'intellectually broke' since clearly that sort of policy is neither intelligent or sustainable.

Intellectually broke would be accurate considering many residents actually think they’re paying too much in taxes, and in fact they should be paying less, especially for services they “don’t use” like transit. Just like the how the fire hydrant in front of my building has never been used on my apartment so I shouldn’t be paying for its upkeep.

But in all seriousness, we need a mayor and council who have the balls to be frank about our budget pressures AND how we got here, instead of resorting to blaming upper levels of gov out of panic. Show a simple comparison of Ottawa vs. Canada’s other five major cities, that would make things pretty evident.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Yes they aren't a full subsititute but I think for downtown they are as important or more than an indoor rink. The people who use the indoor rinks drive there anyway so can go to suburban rinks. That's not the case for users of the outdoor rinks. Suburbs have backyard rinks and lots of other outdoor activities so don't need outdoor rinks as much. Yes in an ideal world they are all renovated and brought up to standard and we maintain the outdoor rinks and pools and lessons and..... We are broke. Maybe each ward should get it's own funds and disperse as it sees fit. We get very much shortchanged downtown on the lesson front.

I really hope the city doesn't go further down the road of making urban dwellers drive to the suburbs to access facilities. That is such a backwards way of planning. And I think you'd actually be surprised at how many people walk to the various skating programs and hockey at downtown rinks. Even more in the summer when they are used for skateboarding and ball hockey and lacrosse. Not the majority, but a significant minority.

I suspect that the urban rinks could all be renovated and have an outdoor pad added for less than it costs to acquire land in the suburbs and build a multiplex. Unfortunately the city seems to be eyeing the land values of those facilities, which just worsens the problem.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by phil235

I really hope the city doesn't go further down the road of making urban dwellers drive to the suburbs to access facilities. That is such a backwards way of planning. And I think you'd actually be surprised at how many people walk to the various skating programs and hockey at downtown rinks. Even more in the summer when they are used for skateboarding and ball hockey and lacrosse. Not the majority, but a significant minority.

I suspect that the urban rinks could all be renovated and have an outdoor pad added for less than it costs to acquire land in the suburbs and build a multiplex. Unfortunately the city seems to be eyeing the land values of those facilities, which just worsens the problem.

Totally agree. It's actual been my only reason to have a car during some periods. The hunger games of registration means even if there is one in walking distance you are often stuck driving across town to another "downtown" location.

Tom Brown is absolutely a prime piece of land. Maybe into 9 figures. We would of course never pay that much for land to put a underused rink on that site were we doing it again. Personally I might take the LRT there this winter and I get the desire to have transit accessible stuff but that is really a waste of a prime potential TOD location. I know the money would just get swallowed up in general revenues so absolutely locals will fight any change and rightly so but if we were thinking holistically I don't see how it survives. St Laurent or Sandy Hill are different cases for sure.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

OK We are broke at current taxation rates which we do not want to exceed.

Fun fact: no one wants to exceed the current level of taxation. In any jurisdiction. Anywhere. Ever.

[DTcrawler]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Fun fact: no one wants to exceed the current level of taxation. In any jurisdiction. Anywhere. Ever.

Yup. The difference between cities that work and cities that don't are mayors and councillors who have metaphorical balls and are willing to make tough decisions for the long term benefit of residents. Unfortunately, here in Ottawa, we have a bunch of cowards making short-sighted decisions to avoid backlash from residents while blaming other levels of gov when those decisions blow up in our faces.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by DTcrawler

Yup. The difference between cities that work and cities that don't are mayors and councillors who have metaphorical balls and are willing to make tough decisions for the long term benefit of residents. Unfortunately, here in Ottawa, we have a bunch of cowards making short-sighted decisions to avoid backlash from residents while blaming other levels of gov when those decisions blow up in our faces.

Yeah pesky democracy not like utopian cities in dictatorships.

[DTcrawler]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Yeah pesky democracy not like utopian cities in dictatorships.

A democracy where politicians mislead residents to save face isn't exactly something to be proud of either. Did Sutcliffe campaign on the promise that half way into his term, transit would be facing a crippling budgetary shortfall that will potentially require massive fare or levy hikes to fix? But I bet the "efficiencies" (cuts) he found in the transit budget surely aren't part of the hole that we now have to plug.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by DTcrawler

A democracy where politicians mislead residents to save face isn't exactly something to be proud of either. Did Sutcliffe campaign on the promise that half way into his term, transit would be facing a crippling budgetary shortfall that will potentially require massive fare or levy hikes to fix? But I bet the "efficiencies" (cuts) he found in the transit budget surely aren't part of the hole that we now have to plug.

Well the situation is worse than predicted and nobody promises bad news. But it was pretty clear what we were going to get. He promised 2.5% and mild austerity. Mckenney promised 3.5% and no cuts. Clearly we would be looking at big tax increases if she had been elected and smaller cuts. We will now get a bit more tax increases than promised and bigger cuts.

All of this is clearly what the bulk of voters in the city who pay taxes drive to work a couple days of week and rarely use transit want. You can claim better service takes cars off the road and makes their commute better but this is mostly not true and certainly doens't resonate. Even if it was true most suburbanites aren't going to pay $300 a year more in taxes to save 5 minutes. Of course transit users might but even many of them are not impacted by cuts or just prefer the cash.

[DTcrawler]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Well the situation is worse than predicted and nobody promises bad news. But it was pretty clear what we were going to get. He promised 2.5% and mild austerity. Mckenney promised 3.5% and no cuts. Clearly we would be looking at big tax increases if she had been elected and smaller cuts. We will now get a bit more tax increases than promised and bigger cuts.

All of this is clearly what the bulk of voters in the city who pay taxes drive to work a couple days of week and rarely use transit want. You can claim better service takes cars off the road and makes their commute better but this is mostly not true and certainly doens't resonate. Even if it was true most suburbanites aren't going to pay $300 a year more in taxes to save 5 minutes. Of course transit users might but even many of them are not impacted by cuts or just prefer the cash.

Anecdotal sure but if you read the comments on posts by the City or local politicians across all platforms (mainly FB) it's overwhelmingly people complaining about the state of transit or traffic (which is tied to transit). I simply don't believe most residents understand the real-world consequences of tax promises that may initially seem appealing on paper.

Yes I agree people voted for 2.5% and that's democracy but who isn't going to take the carrot when you dangle it in front of them? My point is that politicians need to recognize their place as stewards of the city and understand that residents who vote for low taxes are doing so with a degree of trust that politicians aren't handicapping our city in the process.

Instead, Sutcliffe wanted to be the hero who could keep taxes low while maintaining a functional city and now that it's blowing up in his face, he's running around pointing fingers, further misleading the average resident who doesn't know any better.