Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
i
A
Infrastructure Services: Operations Design and Development
April 2012
City of Kitchener:
Skatepark Planning Study
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
ii
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
i
Acknowledgements
Project Managers
Dan Ritz Supervisor of Design & Development ‐ Infrastructure Services / Parks Operations
Yvonne Westerveld Cardoso Landscape Architectural Intern ‐ Infrastructure Services / Parks Operations
Sarah Longstaff Policy Analyst ‐ Community Services / Long Range and Policy Planning
Staff Technical Team
Tim O’Brien Landscape Architect ‐ Infrastructure Services / Parks Operations
Andy Brand Risk and Claims Analyst ‐ Waterloo Region Municipalities Insurance Pool
LoriAnn Livingston Communications and Marketing Associate ‐ Communications & Marketing
Breanna Pilon Youth Services Coordinator ‐ Community Services / Youth Services
Dannon Vasey Youth Services Coordinator ‐ Community Services / Youth Services
Bob Cheyne Supervisor of Athletics ‐ Community Services / Athletics
Greg Hummel Manager of Park Planning, Development and Operations ‐ Infrastructure Services / Operations
Shayne Turner Director of Bylaw Enforcement ‐ Community Services / Enforcement
Debbie Campbell Manager of Community Resource Centres – Community Services / Community Resource Centres
Lenore Ross Urban Designer – Community Services / Site Development
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
ii
Table of Contents
1.0 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 WHY BUILD MORE SKATEPARKS? .................................................................................................................................................................. 2
1.3 ADDRESSING COMMON CONCERNS ............................................................................................................................................................. 3
1.3.1 Crime Prevention .................................................................................................................................................................................. 3
1.3.2 Noise ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
1.3.3 Injuries .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3
2.0 SITE SELECTION AND EVALUATION .................................................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 SITE SELECTION CRITERIA .............................................................................................................................................................................. 5
2.2 INVENTORY OF POTENTIAL SITES .................................................................................................................................................................. 6
2.3 DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 6
2.4 SITE VISIT AND EVALUATION ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6
2.5 INTERNAL REVIEW AND SHORTLISTED SITE SELECTION ............................................................................................................................... 8
3.0 PUBLIC COMMUNICATION .............................................................................................................................................................. 11
3.1 WITH WHOM DID WE COMMUNICATE? ..................................................................................................................................................... 11
3.2 HOW DID WE GET THE WORD OUT? ........................................................................................................................................................... 12
3.3 HOW DID WE OBTAIN FEEDBACK? .............................................................................................................................................................. 13
3.3.1 Online Survey ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
iii
3.3.2 Surveys Completed at Open Houses .................................................................................................................................................. 13
3.3.3 Surveys Completed by Skateboarders at Existing Skateparks ............................................................................................................ 13
3.3.4 Feedback Obtained from Sportsfield Users and Adjacent Businesses and Organizations ................................................................. 13
3.4 GENERAL ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................................ 14
4.0 SHORTLISTED SITE ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................................................................................... 16
4.1 SITE SELECTION CRITERIA OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................................................................... 16
4.2 WEIGHTED MATRIX ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 17
4.3 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19
4.3.1 Site 1 – Fischer Park ............................................................................................................................................................................ 20
4.3.2 Site 2 – Gzowski Park .......................................................................................................................................................................... 20
4.3.3 Site 3 – Southwest Optimist Park ....................................................................................................................................................... 20
4.3.4 Site 4 – Wilson Park ............................................................................................................................................................................ 21
5.0 FINAL CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................................................... 22
5.1 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................................................................................. 22
6.0 NEXT STEPS ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 23
6.1 SKATEPARK DESIGN ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 23
6.2 SIZE AND STYLE ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 23
6.3 LOCATION ON SITE ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 24
References ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 67
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
iv
List of Figures
FIGURE 1: INVENTORY OF EVALUATED SITES ........................................................................................................................................................... 7
FIGURE 2: DEMOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION BASED ON PLANNING COMMUNITY ..................................................................................................... 8
FIGURE 3: ‘A’ LISTED SITES ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 10
FIGURE 4: SURVEY RESPONDENTS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 14
FIGURE 5: LOCATIONS WHERE SKATEBOARDERS SKATE ........................................................................................................................................ 14
FIGURE 6: REASONS FOR NOT USING EXISTING SKATEPARKS ................................................................................................................................ 15
FIGURE 7: SKATEPARK PLANNING STUDY WEIGHTED MATRIX .............................................................................................................................. 17
Appendices
Appendix A: Municipal Skatepark Summaries ........................................................................................................................................................ 26
Appendix B: Shortlisted Sites – Public Meeting Poster .......................................................................................................................................... 30
APPENDIX C: Evaluation of 4 Shortlisted Sites ....................................................................................................................................................... 31
Appendix D: Evaluation of potential sites (not shortlisted) ................................................................................................................................... 35
Appendix E: Information Card Handouts ................................................................................................................................................................ 50
Appendix F: Skatepark Advertisement featured in Kitchener’s Leisure Magazine ................................................................................................ 50
Appendix G: Posters at Community Centres ......................................................................................................................................................... 51
Appendix H: Article featured in YOUR KITCHENER ................................................................................................................................................. 52
Appendix I: City of Kitchener Skatepark Webpage ................................................................................................................................................. 53
Appendix J: Skatepark Online Survey ..................................................................................................................................................................... 54
Appendix L: Additional Comments Provided by Online Survey Respondents ........................................................................................................ 62
Appendix M: Email Submissions ............................................................................................................................................................................. 64
Appendix N: Feedback from Sportsfield Contacts and Adjacent Businesses and Organizations ........................................................................... 66
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
1
City of Kitchener: Skatepark Planning Study
1.0 BACKGROUND
In 2005, the Leisure Facilities Master Plan recommended that additional skateboard facilities be developed in Kitchener in an effort to expand on the continued success at that time of the Aud Skatepark, and to address the growing need for opportunities in skateboarding (Recommendation 28, item 8). Currently there are two skateboard parks in Kitchener: The Aud, located at the Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex and Kitchener’s newest skatepark, located at McLennan Park. We also have a portable unit (Skatium) which is rotated to various community centres throughout the summer (Forest Heights, Doon Pioneer Park, Country Hills, Chandler Mowat, Kingsdale, Victoria Hills, Williamsburg and Centreville‐Chicopee). In 2010, the Parks Strategic Plan further recommended that the City shall complete a site selection study for two proposed skateboard park locations and implement through the ten‐year capital budget. (Implementation Action 4.1.6) Council has approved capital budget for two more skateparks to be constructed in 2014/15 and 2016/2017 with budget of $550,000 for the design and construction of each additional skatepark.
The purpose of this study is to identify the two best sites in the city within which to locate the proposed skateparks. To choose the most appropriate location for the proposed facility, an in‐depth site selection process and community consultation on the preferred locations has taken place over the past 18 months. On June 21, 2010 staff provided to Community Services Committee an update on the initiation of the skatepark planning study, and outlined the site selection and community consultation process and site selection criteria (CSD‐10‐39). This study highlights the process followed to determine the four shortlisted sites, gives an overview of the public consultation that took place, examines the four shortlisted sites and outlines the rationale for staff’s ultimate conclusion and subsequent recommendation for the two skatepark locations. The exact location, size and shape of the skatepark on the recommended sites will be determined at the design stage of the process.
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Kitchener has a park system in excess of 348 parks. During the review of our park inventory for potential skate park locations, many were eliminated as they were unsuitable for our purposes, for obvious reasons. A list of 19 potential sites was arrived at and a rating of these sites took place using a site selection matrix introduced to Community Services Committee on June 21, 2010. Ultimately, four potential sites were shortlisted for further review and study. These parks had all received an overall ‘A’ grade. Staff has therefore been challenged with the task to discern among four strong candidates, from which two would be the best choice as we move forward to implement our goal of establishing two additional skateboard parks. Due to the complexity of this decision‐making process, we have decided to approach this study from a holistic perspective in order to determine which sites consistently rate above the others in many areas, and which might rank highest in criteria that are considered to be especially important.
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
2
1.2 WHY BUILD MORE SKATEPARKS?
There are many benefits to developing skateparks within a community. Skateparks provide unstructured opportunities for youth and young‐at‐heart to develop and master skills; engage in physical exercise and activity; and socialize in a constructive environment. This sport is appealing to a large segment of youth who are not otherwise drawn to more traditional (team) sports (City of London, 2010). It also has the advantage of being a low cost sport to the user, which is important as currently one in three Canadian families cannot afford to enroll their children in sport and recreation activities because of financial barriers (Ipsos Reid, 2009).
It is evident that the popularity of skateboarding is growing. Skateboarding has become the third largest participant sport in North America for the 10 to 18 age group. Furthermore, statistics from Canadian and U.S cities show that 4 to 7 percent of the total population is skateboarders (Gomez, 2006). It is important to recognize the needs of this growing segment of the population. Using these figures, we can estimate the number of people we can expect to be skateboarding in Kitchener. With a population of 219,153 (Statistics Canada, 2012), this amounts to between 8,700‐15,000 potential skateboarders within the City (FP Markets—Canadian Demographics, 2009). As noted in the City’s Leisure Facilities Master Plan, based on a community the size of Kitchener, more skateboard facilities are needed to serve the skateboard population in the City.
A survey of various municipalities throughout southwestern Ontario was conducted, and of those that responded, we learned that many had indicated a need for additional skateparks and are either in the planning stages of increasing the number of skatepark facilities or have recently completed one or more. The following list shows the number of current and proposed skateparks in the following municipalities. For more detailed information regarding the skateparks at these municipalities, see Appendix A.
Barrie – 1 existing Guelph – 1 proposed Hamilton – 4 existing London – 11 existing, 1 proposed Mississauga – 8 existing Oakville – 4 existing, 1 proposed Oshawa – 4 existing Richmond Hill – 1 existing Toronto – 13‐15 existing Waterloo – 1 existing, several others proposed Windsor – 2 existing
As mentioned previously, the Doon Skatium Mobile Skate Park currently travels to a different community centre each week, making the sport accessible to boarders across the city. The Skatium provides valuable programming to younger users who might not be able travel to more distant skateparks, and through the equipment loan program, offers the opportunity of skateboarding to youth who might not otherwise be able to participate due to financial constraints. While the Skatium is available to skateboarders who might not live in close proximity to one of
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
3
our permanent skatepark locations, it is geared to the beginner level skateboarder, thus supporting the need for skateparks providing challenge at a greater skill level.
1.3 ADDRESSING COMMON CONCERNS
Staff is aware that there may be community concern over the proposal of two new skateparks in the City. A review of studies completed by other municipalities indicates that this is common. As such, staff has provided responses to the most common concerns.
1.3.1 Crime Prevention
A study conducted by graduate students from Portland State University, in conjunction with the City of Portland, found that there is no correlation between skateboard parks and serious crime (Gomez, 2006). In the case of London, Ontario, it has been reported that police experience no higher degree of issues associated with skateparks than with other park amenities that serve as gathering points such as swing sets and play equipment (City of London, 2010).
1.3.2 Noise
Several skatepark sound studies have been conducted to test the issue of noise. The most notable was done by Portland, Oregon’s Parks and Recreation Department and found that their 10,000‐square‐foot skatepark emitted less constant noise than light automobile traffic (Whitley, 2011). Overall, studies have concluded that skateparks generate noise levels between 65‐70 decibels. These noise levels are comparable to basketball courts and children playing on playground equipment (Gomez, 2006).
1.3.3 Injuries
Skateboarding is a low impact and relatively safe sport compared to most other popular sports. Staff had the opportunity to attend a skatepark workshop pertaining to risk management in February 2011. The guest speaker, Doug Wyseman, shared statistics from Health Canada that indicate that less than 0.3 percent of people who skateboard suffered injuries that required medical attention. These results rank the sport as safer than ice hockey, baseball, basketball, football, soccer, golf, snowboarding, volleyball and fishing (Wyseman, 2011). Soccer players are almost twice as likely to be injured as skateboarders, while basketball players and baseball players are 3 and 4 times, respectively, more likely to be injured (Gomez, 2006). When injuries do occur, they occur more frequently on streets than skateparks. Statistics show that less than 5% of skateboard injuries take place in skateboard parks, while roads account for more than a third of these injuries (Wyseman, 2011). In FIGURE 6, later in the report, survey results show that many skateboarders in Kitchener currently use streets to skateboard. As such, skateparks can provide a consistent and well‐maintained skateboarding atmosphere that helps in reducing the amount of injuries to skateboarders and could help lessen the number of skateboarders skateboarding on streets in Kitchener. Furthermore, evidence shows that there are fewer reported accidents and injuries associated with skate parks than with other outdoor park activities (City of London, 2010).)
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
4
2.0 SITE SELECTION AND EVALUATION
The success of a skatepark is mainly related to the location and design of the facility (Gomez, 2006). As such, much of the work completed to date has been spent on selecting the best location for the City of Kitchener’s two proposed skateparks. This section highlights the site selection process and summarizes key site selection criteria considered important when assessing the appropriateness of a skate facility in the four proposed skatepark locations.
• Staff began the skatepark site selection study by evaluating all city‐owned sites.
• 19 potential sites were evaluated against the site selection criteria and assigned a grade value of A, B or C.
• 4 sites received an “A” grade and were shortlisted for further detailed review and public and stakeholder feedback.
• Through a weighted matrix analysis, staff are recommending 2 sites as approved skatepark locations.
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
5
2.1 SITE SELECTION CRITERIA
By examining existing facilities both in Kitchener and other municipalities, as well as reviewing studies completed by other municipalities, staff developed a site selection criteria matrix to qualitatively evaluate potential sites and to identify optimal locations in Kitchener. It is recognized that there may not be a site that fully satisfies all elements of the criteria and meets all stakeholder and community expectations. This is an inherent challenge in planning for skateparks and this study strives to recommend locations that balance competing interests. The site selection criteria matrix was presented to the Community Services Committee in June 2010 addressing four key themes:
When assessing to what degree a site fulfills the components of the site selection criteria, consideration must be given to achieving an appropriate balance. For example, when considering the visibility of a site, it is desirable to achieve the correct balance between high visibility of the skatepark for reasons of safety and security, while achieving the correct level of privacy, comfort and security for local residents, businesses and community organizations. The proximity of the skatepark to supporting infrastructure and facilities, especially staff supported facilities, also requires deliberation. It is advantageous to have the skatepark close to the facilities for the safety and convenience of skatepark users, but it is also important to maintain a suitable distance from a city facility so that skatepark users are encouraged to a develop an appropriate level of responsibility for the cooperative use of the skatepark between users of different ages and skill levels.
Theme Criteria Considerations
Location
Potential users ‐ Should be located within an area of high demographics for potential users Existing skatepark ‐ Should not be situated too close to the existing skateparks (The AUD and
McLennan) Surrounding environment ‐ Should not occupy/eliminate the only park space in a community Proximity to residential
areas ‐ Should be sufficient setback from a new skatepark to the nearest adjacent residences
Physical Site Conditions
Achievable skatepark area ‐ Site should be large enough that introducing a skatepark would not negatively affect the existing activities already occurring at that location
Topography ‐ Should have minimum construction implications Vegetation ‐ Should provide shade/wind protection
Access & Security
Public transportation ‐ Should be accessible by public transportation Pedestrian access ‐ Should have pedestrian connections Parking ‐ Should have adequate parking available Visibility and surveillance ‐ Should be visible from street
Supporting Infrastructure
Washrooms, drinking water, food, lighting, shelter
‐ Should have surrounding amenities to support users
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
6
2.2 INVENTORY OF POTENTIAL SITES
Staff generated an inventory of sites to consider in the site evaluation process by creating a list of potential city‐owned land parcels. Land parcels too small, such as neighbourhood parks were removed from the list as they provided numerous design and operational challenges. Community centres, arenas, libraries, pools, and plazas, etc. were recognized as facilities that offer supporting infrastructure and amenities that could be utilized by skateboarders. As such, lands that did not have such landmarks within a reasonable distance were also removed from the list. Once refined, the list of potential sites included 19 properties.
2.3 DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
One of the key criteria in the site selection criteria matrix was the consideration of potential users in relation to the potential site. In order to complete this evaluation, an understanding of the demographic makeup of the City’s planning communities was required. A survey conducted by the City of Toronto indicated that 83 percent of skateboarders are between the ages of 10 and 19 (Gomez, 2006). As such, the potential current and future users are primarily considered to be those between the age of 0 and 19.
The percentage of the potential skateboarders that reside in each planning community is displayed in the figure 2. The planning communities that have the highest concentration of Kitchener’s youth (age 10‐19) and a high percentage of youth within their planning community are in the west end of Kitchener in the Laurentian West, Laurentian Hills, Forest Heights, Highland West, and Country Hills West planning communities. There is also a high concentration of the City’s youth in south‐east Kitchener in the Pioneer Park community and also in Vanier and Centreville Chicopee communities. The map in FIGURE 2 graphically shows demographic distribution in the City of Kitchener while also indicating the locations four sites that the staff technical team shortlisted as possible skatepark locations.
2.4 SITE VISIT AND EVALUATION
Each of the 19 potential sites was visited by the staff review committee in the summer of 2010. While at the sites, staff noted possible locations for the skatepark on each site and observed the surroundings to consider whether a skatepark could be integrated at the desired scale with the existing features and have appropriate visibility, accessibility and supporting amenities. Staff also examined the physical site conditions such as topography and existing vegetation to determine if the site would lend itself well to a skatepark. Taking into account the observations from the site visits, each potential site was evaluated against the established site selection criteria matrix and assigned a point value and an overall letter grade of ‘A’, ‘B’ or ‘C’. (‘A’‐High, ‘B’‐Medium, ‘C’‐Low suitability)
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
7
FIGURE 1: INVENTORY OF EVALUATED SITES
Evaluated Sites Grade
1 Fischer Park A
2 Southwest Optimist Park A
3 Wilson Park A
4 Gzowski Park A
5 Forest Heights CC B
6 Doon Park Pioneer CC B
7 Rosenburg Park B
8 Filsinger Park B
9 Queensmount Arena B
10 Morgan Park B
11 South District Park B
12 Budd Park B
13 Biehn Park B
14 Peter Hallman Ball Yard C
15 Idlewood Park C
16 Victoria Park C
17 Breithaupt Park C
18 Kiwanis Park C
19 Lions Park C
20 McLennan Skatepark ‐‐
21 Auditorium Skatepark ‐‐
8
16
17
18
14
19
15
12
11
13
1
6
7
2
3
4
20
21
1059
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
8
FIGURE 2: DEMOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION BASED ON PLANNING COMMUNITY
PLANNING COMMUNITY Pioneer Park, Lower Doon, Doon South, Brigadoon 9.1%Forest Heights 8.2%Laurentian West 7.4%Highland West 6.1%Vanier 5.8%Laurentian Hills 5.6%Centreville Chicopee 5.4%Victoria Hills 5.3%Country Hills West 3.5%Heritage Park 3.2%Idlewood 2.8%Forest Hill 2.8%Grand River North 2.7%Stanley Park 2.5%Rosemount 2.1%Southdale 2.1%Country Hills 2.0%Westmount 1.9%Mt. Hope Huron Park 1.9%Central Frederick 1.5%Mill Courtland Woodside Park 1.5%Alpine 1.3%Victoria Park 1.3%Hidden Valley / Pioneer Tower 1.1%Fairfield 1.1%Cherry Hill 1.0%Grand River South 1.0%Bridgeport East 0.9%Auditorium 0.9%K‐W Hospital 0.9%Meinzinger Park‐Lakeside 0.9%Bridgeport North 0.8%St. Mary's Hospital 0.8%King East 0.8%Cedar Hill 0.8%Southwest 0.7%Victoria North 0.5%Eastwood 0.5%Rockway 0.4%Northward 0.3%Civic Centre 0.3%City Commercial Core 0.3%
CITY‐WIDE 3.9%
GZOWSKI PARK
WILSON PARK
FISCHER PARK
SOUTHWEST OPTIMIST PARK
THE AUD
MCLENNAN PARK
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
9
2.5 INTERNAL REVIEW AND SHORTLISTED SITE SELECTION
On completion of the site evaluations, 4 potential sites scored an ‘A’ and were recommended by the staff technical review team as sites to take forward to the public for further consideration. Of the 19 sites initially selected for consideration, 15 sites scored ‘B’ & ‘C’ and were removed from further consideration for various reasons, such as:
‐ Near existing skateparks (AUD & McLennan) ‐ Close proximity to adjacent residential dwellings ‐ Lower potential user demographics ‐ Site or facility not large enough without negatively impacting existing activities ‐ Skatepark would eliminate the only green space in the neighbourhood ‐ Inadequate public transportation, pedestrian access or parking
Once all these factors were taken in to consideration, only the sites that received a letter grade of ‘A’ (See FIGURE 3) were selected as sites that warranted presentation to the public for further consideration. These shortlisted sites were:
Fischer Park (Fischer Hallman Road – Queens Boulevard)
Southwest Optimist Park (Pioneer Drive – Homer Watson Boulevard)
Gzowski Park (Chopin Drive – Westmount Road West)
Wilson Park (Wilson Avenue – Fourth Avenue)
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
10
FIGURE 3: ‘A’ LISTED SITES
Fischer Park Southwest Optimist Park
Gzowski Park Wilson Park
1 3000 1 4000
1 4000 1 12 450
The purpose
of this study is to
recommend sites
for the two future
skateparks.
The exact location
of the skatepark
on each
recommended site
will be determined
at the design stage
of the process.
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
11
3.0 PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
The City of Kitchener recognizes the benefits of being connected to a diverse community and has worked in partnership with stakeholders to seek mutually beneficial outcomes through building awareness and obtaining feedback.
3.1 WITH WHOM DID WE COMMUNICATE?
Staff engaged in multiple methods of public communication to inform the community about the skatepark planning study project, answer questions and receive feedback.
Skatepark Users, Local Residents and Members of the General Public
Skate park users and parents of skateboarders were given the opportunity to voice their opinions and these primarily revolved around their desired locations for the park, while local residents and the general public had the chance to express their support and/or various concerns.
Sportsfield Users and Adjacent Businesses and Organizations of Shortlisted Parks
To assess the suitability of a site, one of the main considerations is how much impact the new skatepark will have on the existing users and use of the space. The teams, clubs and organizations currently using the sportsfields at the four shortlisted parks were notified about a skateboard park potentially being located at the park where their team/club meets. They were given the opportunity respond with any questions or concerns or to arrange a meeting to further discuss any concerns.
Businesses and organizations adjacent to the shortlisted parks (a high school, community centres, a church, restaurants, libraries and public swimming pool) were given handouts explaining the Skatepark Planning Study and identifying the shortlisted parks. They were also provided with links to additional information on the City website and staff contact information should they have additional questions.
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
12
3.2 HOW DID WE GET THE WORD OUT?
Information regarding the Skatepark Planning Study, upcoming Open Houses and the Online Survey was made available to the community through many different means:
Communication Method
Details
Go Skateboarding Day Staff attended ‘Go Skateboarding Day’ on June 22, 2010 at the Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex (The AUD) skatepark and was on hand to answer questions about the study.
Handouts at the Skatium and The Aud
Informational material was distributed through the summer of 2011 at the Skatium mobile skatepark locations and drop‐bys at the AUD skatepark. Staff took the opportunity to have one‐on‐one discussions with skateboarders and receive feedback.
‘Your Kitchener’ Article An article was featured in the SEPTEMBER‐OCTOBER 2010 issue of ‘YOUR KITCHENER’. It provided background information about the study and also included the dates of the two open houses. (See Appendix H)
Kitchener’s Leisure Magazine Advertisement
The online survey and skatepark project were featured in Kitchener’s Leisure magazine. This publication is delivered door‐to‐door to 62,500 local homes and an additional 11,500 copies are distributed to recreation facilities, community service groups, doctors' offices, churches and libraries throughout our community. (See Appendix F)
Posters at Community Centres
A poster with details about the study and survey was installed at an exterior location at all the community Centres in Kitchener in late summer / early Fall 2010. (See Appendix G)
Handouts with Kitchener Youth Action Council (KYAC)
KYAC is a voluntary committee of young people who support fellow youth and ensure that youth voices are heard throughout Kitchener. Posters and information cards were distributed to members of KYAC to post and circulate at their schools and local skateboard businesses to hand out to their customers.
Handouts for Local Skateboard Business
Information cards and posters were distributed to local skateboard businesses to hand out to their customers.
Public Open House and Media Release
Two public open houses were held in September 2010 in order to receive feedback from the broader community. A media release was advertised in early September 2010.
Social Media Information about the study was posted on the City’s Facebook Page. Skatepark Email An email account, [email protected], was set up to allow people to contact staff with questions and to allow staff to
direct them to the City skatepark webpage for more information. (See Appendix M) Website The shortlist of preferred skatepark locations were posted on the City’s website beginning September, 2010 along with the
dates of the open houses. (See Appendix B) Skatium and Skatepark Visits
Staff visited the various Skatium and skatepark locations to speak with skatepark users and parents as well as to provide them with the opportunity to participate in the Skatepark Survey on digital tablets.
Handouts to Adjacent Businesses and Organizations
Businesses and organizations adjacent to the shortlisted parks were given handouts explaining the Skatepark Planning Study and identifying the shortlisted parks. They were also provided with links to additional information on the City website and staff contact information should they have additional questions.
Email to Current Sportsfield Users of Shortlisted Parks
The current sportsfield users of the four shortlisted parks were notified about the skatepark planning study. They were given the opportunity respond with any questions or concerns or to arrange a meeting to further discuss any concerns.
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
13
3.3 HOW DID WE OBTAIN FEEDBACK? 3.3.1 Online Survey
An online survey was provided at the open houses in September 2010 and posted on the City’s website throughout fall 2010 until fall 2011, to allow respondents to indicate whether they support the development of a skatepark in the recommended locations and indicate their preference of the four shortlisted sites. A total of 355 responded, of which 81% of the respondents were skateboarders or a parent of a skateboarder. Approximately 40% of these skateboarders presently skateboard on the sidewalk or street. Generally the skateboarders were in favor of all of the shortlisted sites identifying that travel distances represented 53% of the respondent’s reason for not using the existing facilities. (See Appendix J and Appendix K for highlights)
3.3.2 Surveys Completed at Open Houses
In order to receive feedback from the broader community, two public open houses were scheduled during September 2010. The open houses were advertised in Your Kitchener, with posters at community centers, and in a City of Kitchener Media Release in early September. The first public open house was held on September 14 at the Doon Pioneer Park Community Centre. The meeting was well attended with approximately 30 people in attendance. The second open house was held on September 28 at the Forest Heights Community Centre and was attended by 5 people. The shortlisted sites (see Appendix B), were on display and staff were on hand to answer questions. An online survey station consisting of 5 computers was also setup to allow people to complete the survey while they were at the open house.
3.3.3 Surveys Completed by Skateboarders at Existing Skateparks
Throughout the summer of 2011, staff equipped with digital tablets, went out to the Aud, McLennan Park and the Doon Skatium locations to make contact with the skateboarders and provide them the opportunity to participate in the Skatepark Survey. The survey on the digital tablets was identical to the online survey and the results were combined. (See Appendix J and Appendix K for highlights)
3.3.4 Feedback Obtained from Sportsfield Users and Adjacent Businesses and Organizations
Current sportsfield users of the four shortlisted parks, as well as adjacent businesses and organizations were notified about a skateboard park potentially being located at a park that could have an impact on team/business/organization. They were given the opportunity respond to and/or arrange a meeting with Staff to further discuss the proposed skatepark.
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
14
3.4 GENERAL ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS
In summary, 355 surveys were completed. The majority who completed the survey have identified themselves as skatepark users or parents of a skateboarder (See FIGURE 4).
FIGURE 4: SURVEY RESPONDENTS
It appears that many of the skateboarders currently use sidewalks and streets to skateboard on and almost half of the respondents make use of the Doon Skatium mobile skatepark and The AUD Skatepark. (See FIGURE 5)
*Note: For most of the duration of the survey, the skatepark at McLennan Park was not yet open.
FIGURE 5: LOCATIONS WHERE SKATEBOARDERS SKATE
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
15
The most frequent responses given by skateboarders for not using the existing skateparks were that they were too small and too difficult to get to. About half of the responses indicated that they lacked the features they want in a skatepark. (See FIGURE 6)
FIGURE 6: REASONS FOR NOT USING EXISTING SKATEPARKS
Fischer and Southwest Optimist Parks ranked highest collectively on survey questions indicating park preference.
FIGURE 7: PROPOSED SKATEPARK SURVEY RESULT COMPARISON (supporting)
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
16
4.0 SHORTLISTED SITE ASSESSMENT
As mentioned earlier in the study, in order to assess four sites which had similarly received a high ranking in the initial site selection evaluation process, a more detailed assessment was required to determine which sites consistently rate above the others in multiple areas, determined to be especially important. Thus, a more detailed site selection matrix was established and criteria ranked to recognize critical criteria. This matrix design also allowed us to review and compare the criteria for all four sites on one document.
4.1 SITE SELECTION CRITERIA OVERVIEW
This section summarizes key site selection criteria considered important when assessing the appropriateness for a skate facility in the four shortlisted locations and is based upon the initial site selection matrix. The specific criteria in the matrix has then been weighted in consultation with the Staff Technical Team in order to determine importance (refer second column in matrix, The Importance of Criteria). This ranking has then been applied to each criterion for each individual site, in order to calculate a preferred location. (See 4.2 Weighted Matrix)
Criteria
Location The location category covers such criteria as demographics and the location of a skatepark in relation to its proximity to users; relationship to other facilities; location with respect to potential conflict; as well as survey support of the proposed location.
Physical Site Conditions This broad criterion is based on the physicality of the various sites and whether they can accommodate a skate park of the required scale, function and typology. It also considers technical implications such as drainage and soil conditions as well as implications to existing natural features.
Access and Security This criterion looks at how easily accessible the site is for users, parents and those viewing the skatepark or events. With the main age group using this facility being children without the ability to drive, it is important to ensure that the facility can be easily accessed by all and it is critical to ensure that the facility is open, safe and easily accessed in the case of an emergency.
The high visibility of a park can be beneficial for a number of reasons. It can be attractive to the community, encouraging community members to stop by and watch the users perform tricks on their lunch break. It sends a clear message that young people and active healthy living are a community priority. It can also provide an aspect of self‐policing. Visibility will reduce the vandalism, can prevent unwanted graffiti from appearing in the park, and may help curtail the suspicion that skateboard parks are places for mischief.
Supporting Infrastructure
An active public sporting facility such as a skatepark should have appropriate ancillary amenities. This includes nearby access to food, water and toilets given users can spend many hours using a skatepark in a single session.
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
17
4.2 WEIGHTED MATRIX
The criteria of the weighted matrix are organized under the same headings as the Site Selection Criteria Matrix that was used earlier in the site selection process to determine the four shortlisted sites. Additional detailed criteria were added as necessary in some categories to enable a more in‐depth examination of each site. A number to gauge importance (Importance column) was assigned to each criterion and is applied against the grading (Meets Criteria column) to deliver a criteria point for each criterion for each location (Criteria Points column). The grading generally falls into the higher end of the spectrum, reflecting once again that these locations are our best potential skatepark locations. Finally, the total weighted assessment of each site is provided as well as the percentage of success of each site considering all criteria.
FIGURE 7: SKATEPARK PLANNING STUDY WEIGHTED MATRIX
The following is an assessment of each of the shortlisted sites based on criteria & questions to ascertain the most appropriate skatepark location.
Fischer Park
Gzowski Park
Sou
thwest
Optim
ist P
ark
Wilson
Park
Fischer Park
Gzowski Park
Sou
thwest
Optim
ist P
ark
Wilson
Park
Consideration/Criteria Importance5‐highest, 1‐lowest
Meets Criteria 5‐highest, 1‐lowest
Criteria Points
Location
1 Is the area currently lacking in service by another skatepark? 5 4 4 5 2 20 20 25 10
2 Are there a sufficient number of users in the service area to warrant skatepark development? 5 5 4 3 4 25 20 15 20
3 Is the proposed site a location where young people want to be or adjacent to where they currently congregate?
4 5 3 5 4 20 12 20 16
4 Are the respondents from Skatium visits (2011) supportive of a skatepark in this area? 5 3 3 5 3 15 15 25 15
5 Is the proposed site in close proximity to shopping centres, sports or recreation facilities or interested schools?
3 5 3 4 3 15 9 12 9
6 Has the site the capacity to have the skate facility placed to maximize noise attenuation and light intrusion if applicable?
4 5 4 5 3 20 16 20 12
7 Is the site location an adequate distance from residential dwellings and incompatible land uses to 5 4 4 5 4 20 20 25 20
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
18
avoid potential noise and light intrusions?
8 Does the feedback from adjacent properties, businesses and organizations support this development?
5 4 4 4 4 20 20 20 20
9 Is the proposed site within or adjacent to a major community hub or central area? 4 5 4 5 4 20 16 20 16
10 Does the online survey and public meeting comments strongly support this location for a proposed skatepark?
5 5 4 5 4 25 20 25 20
Subtotal 200 168 207 158
Physical Site Conditions
1 Is the site adequate size to accommodate a variety of design options and potential expansion? 5 5 3 5 4 25 15 25 20
2
Can the site accommodate access for users and spectators including refuge areas with seating, viewing and adequate separation in an inclusive design?
4 4 5 4 4 16 20 16 16
3
Does the topography at the proposed site require minimal construction implications (i.e. no need for significant earthworks, cut/fill or retaining structures)?
4 4 3 3 4 16 12 12 16
4 Are there minimal complex drainage requirements for the proposed site? 3 5 4 4 5 15 12 12 15
5 Can the proposed site facilitate no net loss of mature or significant trees? 4 4 3 4 5 16 12 16 20
6 Could the site be integrated with the existing surroundings? 5 4 3 5 4 20 15 25 20
Subtotal 108 86 106 107
Access and Security
1 Is there good access to the proposed site using public transit (i.e. number of bus routes)? 4 5 3 3 3 20 12 12 12
2 Are there public transit stops on or adjacent to the site? 4 4 4 4 4 16 16 16 16
3 Are there pedestrian/footpath connections from transport nodes to the proposed site? 3 5 5 5 5 15 15 15 15
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
19
4 Can the proposed site provide safe entry to and from the site and safe setbacks from busy roads and intersections?
4 3 4 4 4 12 16 16 16
5 Is there a safe drop off area? 4 4 4 4 4 16 16 16 16
6 Is there adequate car parking? 2 4 4 4 4 8 8 8 8
7 Can the proposed site provide adequate emergency vehicle access (fire and ambulance)? 5 5 3 4 5 25 15 20 25
8 Is the proposed site visually prominent with good public surveillance for safety and for the promotion of the facility and skate facility?
5 5 3 4 3 25 15 20 15
9 How readily accessible is the proposed skatepark location to regular cleaning and maintenance teams? 3 4 4 4 4 12 12 12 12
Subtotal 149 125 135 135
Supporting Infrastructure
1 Are associated amenities such as public telephone, toilets, water, and shelter existing and available or cost effective to install on the proposed site?
4 4 5 4 5 16 20 16 20
2 Is the proposed site close to shops selling food and drink? 4 5 3 5 3 20 12 20 12
Subtotal 36 32 36 32
Total Weighted Assessment of Each Shortlisted Site 493 411 484 432
Percentage Success of Shortlisted Site Considering all Criteria 88% 73% 86% 77%
4.3 SUMMARY
The four shortlisted sites are spaced around the City, so many of the broader considerations are quite varied. Some of the variance is due to the location of each site in consideration of the population of youth in the vicinity. Another is the proximity to existing skateparks. The following discussion summarizes each of the sites in more detail and then outlines our final recommendation as the preferred location for the skatepark, taking in consideration the weighted matrix contained herein.
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
20
4.3.1 Site 1 – Fischer Park
Fischer Park is located at the corner of Fischer Hallman Road and Queen’s Boulevard. The site is adjacent to Forest Heights Collegiate Institute, Forest Heights Pool and the KPL ‐ Forest Heights Community Library. Currently there are two soccer fields and one baseball diamond at this location. One block to the north is the Highland Hills Mall and the Forest Heights Community Centre is located across the street on Queen’s Boulevard, approximately 250 m away.
‐ Online survey results placed this site as the top choice for support of the site. ‐ Central to a highly populated area with the highest number of youth between 0‐19 years of age (12,398 within a 2.5 km radius). ‐ 4 bus routes serve this site and 3 bus routes are located within one block. ‐ Distance to the two existing skateparks is as follows: The Aud – 5.3 km; McLennan Park – 2.9 km.
Summary Given the highest matrix result of 88%, this site performs well in a number of areas. The greatest number of youth would be served by a skatepark located in this area. With regard to access to the site via transit, as there is a retail hub located one block to the north, there are seven bus routes that pass within one block of this site. Four of these bus routes run adjacent to the site. Also, Fischer Park ranked highest in the online survey results.
4.3.2 Site 2 – Gzowski Park
Gzowski Park is located at the corner of Westmount Road and Chopin Drive. The park is adjacent to the Victoria Hills Community Centre and across the street from AR Kaufman Public School. There is currently one baseball diamond on this site.
‐ This site is on the edge of the area with the highest number of youth between 0‐19 years of age (8198 within a 2.5 km radius). ‐ 2 bus routes serve this site. ‐ Distance to the two existing skateparks is as follows: The Aud – 4.7 km; McLennan Park – 3.9 km.
Summary At 73%, Gzowski Park received the lowest matrix result. While this area showed strongly in the numbers of youth between 0‐19 years, due to lower numbers in other areas, its overall assessment was weaker. While there is a community centre on the site, due to its location this site lacked attractors of youth to the area that some of the other sites provided. These include a shopping centre, shops selling food or drink and/ or a major community hub. There is potential for the loss of trees at locations on this site that may be able to accommodate the skatepark. Lastly, this site rank third of the four shortlisted sites on the online survey.
4.3.3 Site 3 – Southwest Optimist Park
Southwest Optimist Park is located at the corner of Homer Watson Boulevard and Pioneer Drive. The park currently has four baseball diamonds, one T‐ball diamond and the Southwest Optimists of Kitchener’s clubhouse. The Doon Pioneer Park Community Centre is located
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
21
approximately 200 metres from the park. Pioneer Park Plaza is located across the street. This site is in close proximity to St. Timothy Elementary School.
The Doon Skatium mobile skateboard facility was instigated in this community from a desire of local groups and individuals to provide a fun, healthy and safe activity for the youth of this community. Funding was obtained through a Trillium Foundation grant, as well as donations from the City of Kitchener and the Southwest Optimists. Throughout the summer months, this portable park is shared with other community centres on a rotating schedule.
‐ This area is furthest from the two existing skateparks. Distance is as follows: The Aud – 6.6 km; McLennan Park – 5.3 km. ‐ Online Survey results placed this site as the second choice. ‐ Number of youth (0‐19) within a 2.5 km radius is 3748, which is the lowest of the 4 shortlisted sites. ‐ 2 bus routes serve this to site.
Summary With a matrix result of 86%, Southwest Optimist Park runs a very close second to Fischer Park. This site was particularly strong in the various location criteria. As Southwest Optimist Park is located the furthest of all the shortlisted sites from the existing skateparks, not choosing this site would leave the south end youth deficient/too distant from existing and proposed skateparks. This community was spearheaded the Skatium Mobile Skatepark, and has been a strong supporter of this facility/program ever since introduction in 2001.
4.3.4 Site 4 – Wilson Park
Wilson Park is located on Wilson Avenue between Fourth Avenue and Shelley Drive. The park currently has three baseball diamonds, one t‐ball diamond and a soccer field. The Kingsdale Community Centre is also located on the site.
‐ Closest to the two existing parks. Distance is as follows: The Aud –2.4 km; McLennan Park – 2.6 km. ‐ Number of youth (0‐19) within a 2.5 km radius is 6510. ‐ Fewest Skatium visits of the four shortlisted parks. ‐ 1 bus route within one block of this site.
Summary Wilson Park ranks third in the matrix with a result of 77%. This site also received the least support in the online survey. Of all the four shortlisted parks, it is the closest to both The Aud and McLennan Parks. Access to this site using transit, while available was not as abundant as the three other sites. This site facilitates no net loss of mature or significant trees with the proposed skatepark development.
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
22
5.0 FINAL CONCLUSION
As mentioned earlier, the process of evaluating and comparing four strong sites is not a simple task. In a preliminary review, no site stood out above the rest in each and every criterion. In order to effectively assess these sites, an evaluation of multiple criteria was weighted based on importance. That way, the technical team were able to assess true value of criteria where warranted, and ultimately be able to arrive at an outcome directing us to the two most sound choices. Based on this analysis, Fischer Park and Southwest Optimist Park reported the strongest outcomes on the weighted matrix of the four shortlisted sites.
Considering the four shortlisted sites, with Fischer and Gzowski Parks just 2.3 km apart, we can assume that only one of these two could be chosen as one of final two selections. Furthermore, looking at the demographic distribution map, the proximity of Fischer Park to McLennan Park could be questioned, but once the numbers of youth between 0‐19 are taken into consideration in that area, it becomes evident that the number of youth are so high in this area, they are great enough to support or even necessitate an additional skatepark to serve the youth in this area. Wilson Park, although still ranked high as a shortlisted site was also the closest to the two existing skateparks were continued support could be provided.
Currently, and based on a sample service area (2.5 km radius), the population of youth between 0‐19 years is lower in the area of Southwest Optimist Park, however our data is based on census data from 2006, as detailed census data from 2011 is not yet available. As significant development continues throughout the south and western portions of Ward 4, the population of youth in the service area of Southwest Optimist Park is expected to have increased significantly since our 2006 numbers and is expected to continue to grow.
5.1 RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATION #1
As recommended in the Leisure Facilities Master Plan (2005) and Parks Strategic Plan (2010); based on extensive review and study of potential city‐owned sites, the supporting data and implications for skatepark development within these sites as well as the ascertained need in each neighbourhood, staff recommends that Council approve Fischer Park and Southwest Optimist Park as skatepark locations.
RECOMMENDATION #2
That Council direct staff to implement the design/construction of the Fischer Park skatepark in 2014/15 and the Southwest Optimist Park skatepark in 2016/17 subject to final capital budget approval.
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
23
6.0 NEXT STEPS
6.1 SKATEPARK DESIGN
Of the people that indicated support of the skateparks, some expressed the design features they would like included while others expressed the importance of getting design input from the skateboarding community. Once the two site locations have been approved, staff will once again consult with the public on the design of the skateparks and will collect more feedback from the skatepark community and interested members of the public. The review of studies completed by other municipalities has revealed that the involvement of local skateboarder in the design process of a skatepark is crucial for its success. This approach proved extremely successful in 2009 during design workshops for the McLennan Park skatepark. While it is not within the scope of this study to contemplate the exact configuration or design of the two future skateparks, staff has recommendations for items that should be given consideration in the design phase.
6.2 SIZE AND STYLE
Unlike baseball diamonds and tennis courts, skateboard parks can be designed in a variety of shapes and styles and at different sizes to respond to diverse needs (Moore, 2006). In terms of size, it is envisioned that the two future skateparks would be similar in size to McLennan Park. McLennan Park is approximately 1,000m2 and cost $450,000 to construct (excluding adjacent pathways and landscaping) and $45,000 to design/engineer. As a general guide, a 1,000m2 facility can accommodate approximately 40 skateboarders at one time (Moore, 2006).
In order to address the needs of the skateboarding community, it is very important to ensure that the skatepark is an appropriate size and style so it can accommodate the needs of different skill levels. If it is too small, it likely will only serve the needs of beginner to intermediate skill users and the interest and needs of advanced skill users will not be addressed. It is noted that the mobile skatepark (Skatium) already
serves the needs of beginner skill users. As such, the two future skateparks should strive to serve a broader range of skill levels (beginner to advance skill users). Also, the survey results indicated that one of the reasons skateboarders do not use existing skatepark facilities is because they feel they are too small. As such, it is very important that the skateparks are large enough to accommodate many skateboarders of various skill levels at one time. If a park is designed to accommodate different styles and appeal to different skill levels, users will ride much longer. Proper design can also bring a diversity of ages to the park, allowing older, more experienced skateboarders to educate younger skateboarders on park etiquette and provide a space for mentoring to naturally occur (Moore, 2006). In addition, BMX biking comments also came up during the consultation and for the purpose of this study, all were compiled as skate park users. Skateparks can serve many styles of users ‐ boarders, bikers, bladders, scooters, etc. Design input and consideration should be examined for all potential user groups prior to final design.
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
24
6.3 LOCATION ON SITE
As mentioned earlier, the purpose of this study is to recommend two sites for the two future skateparks. The exact positioning of the skatepark on the recommended sites will be determined at the design stage of the process. Interested parties will have the opportunity to provide input into any discussions around location, looking at what location will most benefit skateboarders and the community. With that said, a highly visible location will be selected. The high visibility of a park can be beneficial for a number of reasons. It can be attractive to the community, encouraging community members to stop by and watch the users. It sends a clear message that young people and active healthy living are a community priority. It can also provide an aspect of self‐policing. Visibility will reduce the vandalism of modular ramps, can prevent unwanted graffiti from appearing in the park, and may help curtail the suspicion that skateparks are places for drug and alcohol abuse (Moore, 2006). Additionally, the principles and practices of “Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design” (CPTED) will be applied to the site design.
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
25
Appendices
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
26
Appendix A: Municipal Skatepark Summaries
A survey of various municipalities throughout southwestern Ontario was conducted and of those who responded the following information regarding their municipal skateboard facilities was obtained.
Pop. (2006 census)
Number of skateparks
Proposed skateparks Skatepark Size Cost Completed Other Info
Barrie 128,430 1 1,580 m2
(17,000 sq ft)
$200,000 2001 Area contained within a fenced compound 1,870 m2
Guelph 114,943 1 Currently has no City‐
owned skateparks. Preliminary
budget of. $450,000.
One proposed City‐owned skatepark
Hamilton 504,559 4 Turner Skatepark
1,858 m2 (20,000 sq ft)
$650,000 2007 City‐wide park, street style
Waterdown Memorial Skatepark
550 m2 (5,900 sq ft)
$225,000 2006 Community park, transition style
Beasley Skatepark: Construction budget not yet known.
Proposed rehabilitation date 2015.
Rehab. to existing skatepark.
Small skateboard area within a fourth site.
278 m2 (3,000 sq ft)
approx. $90,000 2003
Kitchener 204,668 2 2 1) The Aud 1,000 m2
(10,000 sq ft)
Approx. $300,000
1995
2) McLennan Park 1,000 m2 (10,000 sq ft)
$450,000 2011
Doon Skatium Mobile Skate Facility
Mobile skateboard facility travels to various community centres in summer months.
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
27
London 352,395 11 1 City Wide (1) Carling Heights Optimist
Centre Skate Park $450,000 ‐ funds
to expand and upgrade existing skatepark.
2010
District (3) Kiwanis Skate Plaza
Approx. 1,700 m2
$460,000 plus $92,000 Kiwanis donation.
2009
Medway Skate Park
$328,000 plus $33,000 Kiwanis donation
2010
c) White Oaks: To be significantly upgraded.
$15,390 2011 a local company made the benches ‐ saved money. The benches can easily be moved by a lift truck.
Neighbourhood (6) Generally $80,000 ‐ $100,000
St. Julien $80,000. 2009 Used precast components. Basil Grover $120,000 2007 Naomi Almedia
Local labour
group donated $62,000; $54,000 City Contribution $116,000
Stronach Poured in place. West Lions Poured in place. Victoria Park Benches only. Serve as
seating during events. Arranged with hoist truck in consultation with boarders.
Springbank $100,000 To be constructed in Spring 2012
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
28
Mississauga 668,549 8 Iceland Arena (1) 2044 m2
(22,000 sq ft)
$400,000
2004 All levels of skill from the beginner. It has street elements, banks and a bowl. It is lit until 11:30 p.m.
Smaller skateparks (7) Each facility costs in the range of $140,000.
5 of the 7 built in 2007 with other two ‐ more recent.
Beginner to intermediate. Built using modular concrete elements on a poured‐in‐place concrete pad None of the smaller facilities are lit.
Oakville 165,613 4 1 1) Shell Park
$350,000 June 2005 Poured in place, in‐ground
facility 2) Glen Ashton Park
$110,000 June 2009 Prefabricated equipment on
concrete pad 3) Glen Abbey Park
$110,000 July 2011 Prefabricated equipment on
concrete pad 4) Kinoak Arena Indoor
Facility Indoor park (set up during
the summer months) 5) North Park (Proposed) (budget to be
determined) Date of installation TBD
Will be their largest facility ‐ similar to Hershey Center in Mississauga
Oshawa 261,573 4 North Oshawa Park $350,000 2010 In‐ground concrete. Legends Centre $35,000 2008 Steel Modular. Donevan Rec Complex $250,000 2003 In‐ground concrete. Lakewoods Park 20,000 2000‐2002? Modular. Richmond Hill
165,613 1 1
Currently has one skateboard park.
$370,000 2004 Equipment is removed each winter with area used as a snow dump facility.
10 Year Capital Forecast anticipates construction of an additional skatepark.
2017
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
29
Toronto 2,503,281 13 ‐15 Many parks ranging in cost, style, size, elements, & skill.
From pre‐fab satellite spots to large scale
‐ Ashbridges Bay Skatepark
6,500 m2 $1.2 Million 2009
Other Skateparks: Alexandra, Ellesmere Park, Greenwood, Stan Wadlow, Vanderhoof, Leonard Linton, Cummer, Port Union, Weston Lions, Scarlet/Lawrence
Waterloo 97,475 1 +? City of Waterloo
Skatepark 929 m2 (10,000 sq.ft)
October 2011 Plaza style park
Plans to implement neighbourhood SkateSpots
No funds currently allocated in 10‐year Capital Budget.
Windsor 216,473 2 Forest Glade 1200 m2 $300,000 1999 Concrete pad and built in
concrete features. Atkinson 1300 m2 $175,000 2005 Concrete pad with portable
steel features.
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
30
Appendix B: Shortlisted Sites – Public Meeting Poster
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
31
APPENDIX C: Evaluation of 4 Shortlisted Sites
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
32
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
33
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
34
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
35
Appendix D: Evaluation of Potential Sites (not shortlisted)
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
36
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
37
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
38
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
39
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
40
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
41
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
42
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
43
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
44
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
45
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
46
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
47
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
48
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
49
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
50
Appendix E: Information Card Handouts
Appendix F: Skatepark Advertisement featured in Kitchener’s Leisure Magazine
51
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
51
Appendix G: Posters at Community Centres
52
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
52
Appendix H: Article Featured in YOUR KITCHENER
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
53
Appendix I: City of Kitchener Skatepark Webpage
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
54
Appendix J: Skatepark Online Survey
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
55
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
56
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
57
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
58
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
59
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
60
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
61
Appendix K: Highlights of Online Survey Results
4. If a skatepark were located in one of the following parks, how likely would you use it? Fischer Park Gzowski Park SWO Wilson Park Very Likely 126 77 113 75 Likely 42 45 31 40 Neutral 17 35 34 30 Unlikely 27 32 46 43 Very Unlikely 28 49 56 55 6. Do you support the proposed changes to the park that will allow for the development of a skatepark? Fischer Park Gzowski Park SWO Wilson Park Fully Support 190 147 179 146 Somewhat Support 36 52 46 60 Do Not Support 33 36 48 47 Undecided 32 51 41 36 7. A skatepark at this location would provide a good place for youth to gather and have fun. Fischer Park Gzowski Park SWO Wilson Park Strongly Agree 156 114 152 112 Agree 57 65 48 60 Neutral 40 55 72 62 Disagree 3 14 14 10 Strongly Disagree 24 26 14 30 9. A skatepark at this location would provide adequate separation from surrounding residences. Fischer Park Gzowski Park SWO Wilson Park Strongly Agree 103 72 112 71 Agree 36 31 34 36 Neutral 29 46 44 41 Disagree 3 5 5 3 Strongly Disagree 21 28 17 36 12. Overall, do you think this is an appropriate location for a skatepark? Fischer Park Gzowski Park SWO Wilson Park Very Appropriate 153 104 135 98 Appropriate 50 59 48 52 Neutral 35 63 78 72 Inappropriate 9 15 12 11 Very Inappropriate 30 29 17 37
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
62
Appendix L: Additional Comments Provided by Online Survey Respondents
Comments
As a fellow skateboard and bike enthusiast I just hope this time around that opinions from the community will be taken into consideration. Even if you think 99% of the ideas aren't good keep your eye's open for the 1% that is amazing. One persons mind can't think of everything, to make a project flow you need a whole city of minds.
Because Fischer‐Hallman/ Forest Heights Community has existed for over 40 years and a large ratio of the population is made up of retirees & middle‐aged folks we feel a better location would be a location where the population consists mainly of younger families and would be the wiser choice.
Fischer park needs a new & better skatepark. Please choose it as the location.
Fisher Park is the best place to have one at because you have the highland hills mall for everything you need when boarding as well as the bus terminal is right close to it making it so much easier for kids to access this park.
http://www.newlineskateparks.com/ **PLEASE LOOK INTO GETTING ONE OF THEM TO DESIGN A PLAZA** http://californiaskateparks.com/ please have a proper skate PLAZA built! we need one, It will get used we have a huge number of quality STREET skaters in this city and the surounding area But no were to skate.Skateparks like these will atract skaters from all over the place.If the budget is to much for a big plaza consider building only one new skatepark and have it built in two or more sections.PLEASE CONSIDER THIS
I do not think a skatepark anywhere in the city is a good use of city funds. It is a small group that does this and a lot of money to build it. If we do this are we also going to fund all specialized sports that kids do? Our daughter rides horses what will you build for her to do this? Why can she not ride the city trails? We feel left out and she can not participate in her sport fully. Please fund all or none
I like South West Optimist because it is close to my house and it will always be open and i dont have wait for it open so i can skate i love to skateboard i skateboard evryday for at leat 12 hours
I think one of the skate parks should be made in Southwest Optimist Sports Fields because there are tons of skateboarders around this area and there are no skate parks near here that us kids can get to.
I think that providing several easy access skate parks in the area (that is NOT the loading dock for say, the local LCBO) provides a safe place for local kids to go and have good clean fun, brush up on their skills and practice safety.
I think that they should build a skatepark in Gzowski Park because it would make lot's of people happy
I think this is a good park because i people around the skate park could come and have insted of having to go fair to a skate park you can go to the optimist
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
63
I would also like more dirtjumps around. Building them with a skatepark would cut down on wasted space and building & insurance costs.
Kitchener youth have the right to engage in their recreation/craft in public spaces. I fully support the development, maintenance of skate parks for youth anywhere ‐ the more visible, the better. I like to see youth in our community and want to ensure they feel welcome and part of the community ‐ like anybody else.
optimist is the best place to build the skatepark beacuse there is no skate park in this area
Out of all the areas I have been the Forest heights area has the bigest population of dedicated skaters skateboarding every single day which is why I think Fischer Park would be the most benificial!!
Some kids are very talented at skateboardingan don't they have a right to have fun and do what they would like to do?
Thanks very much for undertaking a worthwhile initiative. Vehicular parking, trail connections and bus routes should be considered. Parks should be permanent concrete installation, not modular ramps on a asphalt or concrete pad.
The kids skateboard at Forest Heights Community Centre all the time, it would be nice to have another place for them to go so that the younger kids at the playground are not being subjected to their language. Also parks should be for younger kids not teenagers. So to have the skate park a little further away from a playground is IDEAL.
THERE IS A MUCH BETTER DESCION TO PUT THE SKATE PARK AT THE OPTIMIST PARK
We live in Kitchener, near Waterloo on the East side of town. Why is there no proposed location on this side of King Street?
When would the skate park be built?
Would like to see the park in Wilson.
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
64
Appendix M: Email Submissions
Just wanted to give my two cents on locations for the 2 future sites for the skateboard parks. The Chicopee/Lackner Woods area would be suitable as it’s one of the newer subdivisions in Kitchener. Another site in Pioneer Park perhaps at Budd Park or the Optimist Park. The Forest Heights area will be relatively close to McLennan Park and the Auditorium is a central location for downtown and surrounding areas. Please add me to the list for upcoming information seminars. Thank You.
I am a seven year skateboard veteran, as well as a Conestoga College student living in Doon, and I know that the Southwest Optimist Field would make a great location for a new park.
There are TONS of kids skating in and around Doon, and many of them are quite talented. But as a skater living in Doon, your local spots to skate are quite limited, usually groups of kids will skate at the DPPCC parking lot, which is occasionally already used to hold the Skatium. They also like the local mac's parking lot, with its perfectly smooth pavement, and nicely waxed curbs.
College students will also be able to access a skatepark on Pioneer, given that the school residence and the homes that students move into are Centreed around the area.
Skateparks are great places for people to gather, whether they skate, bike, or not. The 'plaza' concept which many cities are using recently is a skatepark built to seem more natural urban terrain, but with obstacles suited for skateboarding ease. Many examples of these designs can be found at http://newlineskateparks.com/Projects/. A great benefit to this design is that places for people to sit and watch, and stay out of the way, are easily integrated and more aesthetically pleasing.
hey there i seen the paper and had to email, i have been skateboarding in Kitchener now for over like ten years now, and the AUD is a place i can call a second home, and i know there’s 100's of kids who feel the same way, even if there was ten amazing parks in town people would still come to the park, it's become i life style. "park life" we call it. It’s good to know that the city is putting in more parks, but you can’t ever take way home. so the best is add on to our home, The aud.
Why haven't you put a skate park downtown? This is not just for tweens and teens ‐ lots of adults would enjoy this.
Suggestions: a) grind bars at the Kitchener market b) skate park at city hall c) skate park across from city hall d) small skate park across from the Kitchener market
In this way you can make the environment more usable by people and attract skaters (their $$$) and like minded friends downtown. This will lead to stores focused on serving their needs and more downtown use of all facilities.
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
65
As the strongest advocate for the AUD Skatepark almost 14‐15 years ago, I have some suggestions. My son retired from skating when he hit college, but is still interested and so I am pooling our ideas. The current AUD park is designed for "experts". There is not enough free and open space for novices to learn the sport, a safe venue for learning techniques. The AUD park is simply too small. Where are the benches for resting or observing? What is the source of shade? Better access to water and toilets and first aid than the AUD provides, the park was shuffled almost as far as it is possible from these provisions, I still don't get that. The AUD was always the wrong location, it took far too long for kids to travel there and back using public transit, the newest locations need to take into account not everyone has a parent available to cart a van full to skate. As far as new locations go, gauge the need based upon the student population within a decent walking distance. I know that Pioneer Park has a huge contingency of skaters, all of them frustrated. Your deadlines are totally off the mark. The kids interested now have nothing until they are 7 years older, in the meantime they will violate current and ridiculous bylaws which ban them from skating anywhere at any time. Move it up the calendar, both up and running by 2012. Trust me, we are taxed to death as it is and will barely notice another ding. You would do it for hockey rinks or soccer fields or baseball diamonds, so do it for the skaters. On a side note, my son is almost 30 and has turned out to the most admirable person I know, highly educated, breaking ground from Conestoga College to UofW. This is what skaters become. Not the perceived notions that float around about them being shiftless and careless, I heard the same thing a long time ago. It was nonsense then and it still is nonsense.
I would love to see a skate park join our facilities. I grew up with a skate park near my house and it was always a fun and productive way to spend an evening. This will give the many students in our area something to actively participate in instead of hanging out at 7‐11. I am all for the skate park, we have lots of space and lots of teenagers. I hope to see it join our community (Forest Heights) soon. Thanks for all of your efforts.
Hello, I was wondering when are the votes going to be counted and if they already have been counted where are the 2 skateparks going to be built?
I have just recently moved to Kitchener for school. I want to become more involved in the development process of the new skatepark(s) and was wondering when the next meeting will be held to discuss their plans, or how I can receive more information on the subject.
Our family would like to vote for a skate park at Wilson Park. We see we missed the meeting, but wanted to have our voice in this discussion. There isn’t a lot at this end of town.
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
66
Appendix N: Feedback from Sportsfield Contacts and Adjacent Businesses and Organizations
Southwest Optimist Club
Staff met with the past president of the Southwest Optimist Club of Kitchener to discuss the club’s concerns: ‐ that a skatepark located close to the Optimist clubhouse would subject the clubhouse to increased vandalism; ‐ that if the T‐ball diamond was chosen as the skateboard site, its loss would have a significant impact on the cost of the baseball program that they operate from that diamond. Currently the Optimist Club is able to use the T‐ball diamond at no cost and passes that savings on to the teams that use this field.
Ideas for the onsite location of the skatepark that the group felt would minimize impact on their facilities were discussed. It was also emphasized that the Southwest Optimist Club was supportive of an additional facility for the youth in the Pioneer Park community.
City of Kitchener – Sportsfields Operations
Staff met with both the Supervisor of Sportsfields and the Manager of Park Planning, Development & Operations to discuss skatepark siting and the implications to existing facilities and operations. Impacts to these sites sportsfield operations perspective are as follows:
Fischer Park: The impact to this park would most likely be to the ball diamond. This is a lit A2 diamond with an aging lighting system. Bookings would need to be accommodated on a lit field elsewhere in the City. Gzowski Park: It is not anticipated that a skatepark at this location would affect the current baseball field. Southwest Optimist Park: By reconfiguring the existing baseball diamonds or utilizing existing brush area, sufficient space is available at his location for a skatepark. Wilson Park: The current soccer field at Wilson Park is heavily used and would be difficult to relocate or accommodate elsewhere. A skatepark could be accommodated in this park if other features were replaced or relocated.
Forest Heights Collegiate
Staff spoke with the principal of Forest Heights Collegiate to discuss the implications of the location of a skatepark on lands adjacent to the school lands. These include: ‐ the possibility that the skatepark may be a draw to students who don’t want to be in class; and ‐ that there would be an expectation that the school would be responsible to police the skatepark over the lunch hour.
KPL – Forest Heights Branch, Forest Heights Pool
Staff met with the manager of the Forest Heights Library and the Supervisor of Aquatics at the Forest Heights Pool. They indicated that parking is currently a major issue on weekdays and especially on Saturdays. They also expressed concern that skateboarders travelling through the parking lot to class would be in conflict with seniors and parents with small children who use the facilities on a regular basis.
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
67
References
City of London. (2010). Skateboarding in London. Retrieved January 31, 2011, from City of London: http://www.london.ca/d.aspx?s=/Sports_and_Recreation/skateboarding.htm
FPInfomart. (2009). FP Canadian Demographics. Postmedia Network Inc.
Gomez, A. (2006). Planning for Youth Skateboard Parks. Ontario Planning Journal.
Moore, K. (2006). Ramping Up: A Nova Scotia Skatepark Resource. Nova Scotia: HeartWood Centre for Community Youth Development.
Statistics Canada. 2012. Kitchener, Ontario (Code 3530013) and Waterloo, Ontario (Code 3530) (table). Census Profile. 2011 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98‐316‐XWE. Ottawa. Released February 8, 2012. http://www12.statcan.ca/census‐recensement/2011/dp‐pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E (accessed February 9, 2012).
Whitley, P. (2011, January 16). Public Meeting FAQ. Retrieved January 30, 2011, from Skaters for Public Skateparks: http://www.skatepark.org/park‐development/advocacy/2011/01/public‐meeting‐faq
Wyseman, D. (2011). Risk Management and Skate Parks. Woodstock: Municipal Risk Services.
City of K
itche
ner: Skatep
ark Planning
Study
68
![Welcome! []€¦ · Carizon Family and Community Services Children’s Planning Table City of Cambridge City of Kitchener City of Waterloo Community members Delton Glebe Counselling](https://img.dokumen.tips/doc/110x75/5fd40b8e99aa8424020618d4/welcome-carizon-family-and-community-services-childrenas-planning-table-city.jpg)
