City of Hamilton-Recreation-Public-Use Study Sept2007

APPENDIX A TO REPORT ECS07068 (CITY-WIDE): PUBLIC-USE FACILITIES STUDY
Use, Renovation and Replacement Study for Hamilton Recreation and Public-Use Facilities
Phase I Report
September 2007
planni ng c onsul t ants
Monteith Brown
mbpc
Tucker-Reid & Associates
Contents
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1 1.1 Study Overview .............................................................................................................1 1.2 Study Scope ..................................................................................................................1 1.3 Study Goals and Objectives ..........................................................................................2 1.4 Report Organization ......................................................................................................3 1.5 Limitations .....................................................................................................................3 SECTION 2 COMMUNITY PROFILE........................................................................................4 2.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................4 2.2 Historic and Projected Population Figures ....................................................................4 2.3 Growth Strategy ............................................................................................................6 2.4 Age Composition ...........................................................................................................8 2.5 Age Composition by Community .................................................................................10 2.6 Income.........................................................................................................................16 2.7 Education ....................................................................................................................18 2.8 Community Diversity ...................................................................................................18 2.9 Summary Profile of Hamilton Communities..............................................................20 SECTION 3 CONSULTATION SUMMARY ............................................................................22 3.1 Overview .....................................................................................................................22 3.2 Household Survey .......................................................................................................22 3.3 User Group Survey......................................................................................................31 3.4 Community Input Workshops/Focus Groups...............................................................45 3.5 Key Informant Interviews.............................................................................................52 SECTION 4 FACILITY PROFILE............................................................................................59 4.1 Overview .....................................................................................................................59 4.2 Arenas .........................................................................................................................60 4.3 Indoor Pools ................................................................................................................71 4.4 Outdoor Pools .............................................................................................................84 4.5 Seniors Centres..........................................................................................................88 4.6 Community Centres.....................................................................................................93 4.7 Community Halls .........................................................................................................98 4.8 Stadiums ...................................................................................................................103
ATTACHMENT I ATTACHMENT II
Background Review Public Consultation
List of Maps
Map 1 Map 2 Hamilton Communities Demographic Profile - Age Profile of Hamilton Communities
Map 2A Demographic Profile 2006 Population of Persons 0 to 9 Years, Percent of Total Map 2B Demographic Profile 2006 Population of Persons 10 to 19 Years, Percent of Total Map 2C Demographic Profile 2006 Population of Persons 20 to 49 Years, Percent of Total Map 2D Demographic Profile 2006 Population of Persons 50 to 59 Years, Percent of Total Map 2E Map 3 Map 4 Demographic Profile 2006 Population of Persons Over the Age of 60, Percent of Total Demographic Profile Current and Forecast Population Demographic Profile 2000 Average Annual Income by Community
Map 4A Demographic Profile 2000 Average Annual Income by Census Tract Map 5 Map 6 Map 7 Map 8 Map 9 Map 10 Map 11 Map 12 Map 13 Demographic Profile Highest Level of Education by Community Facility Inventory of Public-Use Facilities Arena Inventory Indoor Pool Inventory Outdoor Pool Inventory Seniors Centre Inventory Community Centre Inventory Community Hall Inventory Stadium Inventory
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Study Overview

Monteith Brown Planning Consultants (MBPC) in association with Totten Sims Hubicki Associates (TSH), The JF Group and Tucker Reid and Associates (TRA) were retained by the City of Hamilton to complete a city-wide assessment of public indoor community/recreation facilities. The Study stems from a recognized observation that the Citys current facility portfolio is not sustainable due to high rehabilitation costs, and that it may not fully meet the current and anticipated needs of Hamiltons residents. The Citys indoor recreation infrastructure is aging and in need of rehabilitation. A physical condition assessment of the Citys facilities has revealed the Citys inventory of indoor recreation and community facilities requires significant capital investment. The costs of facility rehabilitation exceed the planned capital budget, and based on the infrastructure deficit the Citys portfolio of recreation and public-use facilities is not sustainable at current spending levels. A comprehensive community needs assessment is required to ensure that continued capital investment in the Citys existing community and recreation infrastructure is targeted to maximize benefits to the citizens of Hamilton. In addition, the six former municipalities that now form the City of Hamilton each brought with them a diverse mix of community and recreation facilities of varying ages built to different standards. Furthermore, many of the older facilities are single-purpose in design and do not meet the functional requirements of a modern multi-use community recreation facility. The Public-Use Facilities Study is needed to look at the City as a whole to create a strategy for reaching an appropriate distribution and supply of facilities across the City of Hamilton while addressing the current and future needs of each community within.
1.2 Study Scope

The study involves a range of City-owned recreation and public-use facilities, including: 25 Community/Recreation Centres including 17 indoor pools 20 Arenas1 4 Seniors Centres2 21 Community Halls 2 Stadiums 10 Outdoor Pools. Also included are private and semi-private facilities such as the Boys & Girls Club, Mohawk Aren and YM/YWCA facilities that are available to and used by the community. Athletic fields, tennis courts, play lots, splash pads and other outdoor components associated with the indoor facilities listed above have been inventoried to provide information on multi-use opportunities at indoor facility locations. Museums, historical sites, municipal golf courses, parks, trails or other facilities operated by the City are not included in the scope of this project.
There are 20 City-owned public arenas in Hamilton; in addition there are 2 private arenas, 1 arena operated under a public-private partnership (Mohawk 4-pad) and Copps Colliseum, for a total of 24 arenas with 33 ice pads. There are 4 stand-alone City-owned seniors facilities, including 2 with City staff and 2 operated by seniors clubs; there are also 2 City-funded seniors facilities/programs owned/operated by the YWCA, 3 seniors clubs located in other municipal recreation buildings, 2 located in public housing buildings, 1 in leased space and 1 other non-municipal seniors facility for a total of 13.
2 1
Use, Renovation and Replacement Study for Hamilton Recreation and Public-Use Facilities PHASE I REPORT
1.3 Study Goals and Objectives

The goals of the Study are: To ensure the Citys public-use facility portfolio is responsive to the current and future needs of the community in a responsible and cost effective manner; and, to provide a long term sustainable strategy and fiscally sound business case for managing the City of Hamiltons public use facilities in support of an appropriate level of community-based services. Based on these overall goals for the study, the work program for the project has been divided into two phases. Phase I of the Public-Use Facilities Study involves gathering the information needed to complete a comprehensive facility needs assessment and inform the actions and recommendations to be developed in Phase II. The purpose of Phase II is to develop a longterm sustainable strategy and fiscally sound business case for managing Hamiltons public-use facilities. This current report summarizes the findings of Phase I of the Study. The specific objectives for Phase I are:
To confirm current community usage of each facility and highlight usage issues and opportunities identified through review of the data and consultation with the public including users and non-users; To assess community demographics and recreational trends to gain an understanding of how these factors will influence facility and service provision now and in the future (25year timeframe); To identify issues related to facility amenities vs. industry standards and anticipated future requirements as determined by recreational and demographic trends and best practices; To review and analyze barriers to the use of the Citys facilities and consider a variety of related socio-demographic factors; To identify the accessibility issues related to full compliance of the Citys recreation and public-use facilities with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act (ODA); To review relevant background materials such as the Citys Culture and Recreation Master Plan and assess their implications on future facility provision strategies; and, To provide the information necessary to complete an objective evaluation of the Citys public-use facilities to guide study recommendations leading to the development, renovation, consolidation, closure or reuse of public use facilities in the City of Hamilton.
Community consultation is a fundamental component of the work programs for both Phase I and Phase II of the Public-Use Facilities Study. Section 3 of this report summarizes the findings of the Phase I consultation program.
1.4 Report Organization

This report summarizes the findings of Phase I of the Public-Use Facilities Study. The report is organized as follows:
Section 1 Introduction
Provides an overview of the purpose, goals, objectives and scope of the study and content of the Phase I Report. Summarizes the socio-demographic characteristics of Hamiltons population at both the City-wide and local community levels, including historic, current and forecast population, age composition, income, education and ethnicity, and identifies related trends and implications on public-use facility provision. Summarizes the results of the Phase 1 consultation program, including analysis of input received from public household surveys, stakeholder focus groups, user-group surveys, Council and staff interviews. Profiles the Citys current inventory of public-use facilities by facility type, benchmarking current facility provision levels per population against comparator municipalities and providing an analysis of current facility usage and physical condition of building assets. Related trends and best practices in facility provision are also identified. Highlights important information drawn from relevant documents/studies reviewed as part of Phase I research. Contains a copy of the household and user-group surveys used to obtain input from the community during Phase 1 consultations.
Section 2 Community Profile
Section 3 Consultation Summary
Section 4 Facility Profile
Attachment I Background Review
Attachment II Public Consultation
1.5 Limitations
No recommendations are made in this report based on the findings of Phase I of this Study; recommendations and strategies will be a product of Phase II of the Use, Renovation and Replacement Study for Hamilton Public-Use Facilities.
SECTION 2
2.1 Overview
COMMUNITY PROFILE
Hamilton is a community of communities, formed as a single-tier municipality on January 1, 2001 through the amalgamation of the Towns of Ancaster, Dundas and Flamborough, the Township of Glanbrook and the Cities of Hamilton and Stoney Creek. In order to identify the specific needs of current and future residents, it is essential to understand and integrate important demographic factors such as age composition, population projections, household income and education. This Study looks at the population characteristics of Hamilton as a whole as well as those of the communities within to assist in understanding both city-wide and more local needs. For the purposes of this Study, Hamilton is divided into nine (9) communities defined by the geographic areas illustrated on Map 1. The data provided in this section is based on Statistics Canada Census Data for 2001 and 2006, population forecasts provided by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, and information from the documents included in the Background Review for the Public-Use Facilities Study (see Attachment I).
2.2 Historic and Projected Population Figures

Population forecasts provided by the Province anticipate that Hamiltons population will grow from 504,470 in 2006 to 660,190 in 2031, for a total increase of over 155,000 new residents3. Figure 2-1 identifies the historic growth in the Citys population from 1981 to 2006 and the projected growth from 2006 to 2031. The chart shows that Hamilton has seen steady growth over the past 20 years and continued growth is anticipated at an even faster rate. Figure 2-1.
City of Hamilton, Historic and Forecast Population, 1981-2031 700,000 650,000 600,000 Population 550,000 500,000 450,000 411,445 400,000 1981 1991 2001 Year 2011 2021 2031 451,665 490,268 540,200
658,900
2006 Population: 504,470
563,900
SOURCE: Statistics Canada Census Data 1981, 1991, 2001, 2006; and The Greater Golden Horseshoe Forecasts, Province of Ontario, 2006-2031.
SOURCE: Statistics Canada, Census 2006 and The Greater Golden Horseshoe Forecasts, Province of Ontario, 2006-2031.
Figure 2-2 shows the current and forecast population for the communities within Hamilton. The former Cities of Hamilton and Stoney Creek are the most populace, comprising 75% of the total population of the City of Hamilton. The rural communities of Glanbrook and Beverly have the lowest population and are the only communities with fewer than 20,000 residents. Figure 2-2.
Community Ancaster Flamborough Glanbrook Hamilton Mountain Lower Hamilton Lower Stoney Creek Upper Stoney Creek Beverly West Hamilton/ Dundas TOTAL Hamilton Population 2006* 29,230 23,340 13,729 151,171 133,855 75,585 20,470 17,675 39,415 504,470 2011 33,251 23,594 15,782 151,817 139,972 81,025 23,295 18,717 43,927 531,381 Forecast Population** 2016 2021 2026 37,505 38,935 38,817 26,513 34,370 37,875 21,511 25,757 29,075 152,654 161,606 161,176 137,485 144,436 144,138 89,844 91,182 92,486 29,584 34,943 57,556 18,311 19,628 19,599 43,009 44,153 44,047 556,014 595,011 624,770 2031 39,042 37,771 28,985 167,065 155,001 95,233 72,336 19,527 45,229 660,190
*Source: Adapted from: Statistics Canada, Population of Census Tracts (100% Data), Cat. No. 97-551-X2006007, 2006 Census. **Source: City of Hamilton, 2007.
Figure 2-3.
Population Forecasts 2006-2031 by Community
180000 160000 140000 120000
Population
100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031
Year
Ancaster Hamilton Mountain Upper Stoney Creek Flamborough Lower Hamilton Wentworth Glanbrook Lower Stoney Creek West Hamilton Dundas
Figure 2-4.
Percentage Growth by Community 2006-2031 70% 60% 50% 40% % Increase 30% 20% 10% 0% -10% 2006-2011 2011-2016 2016-2021 Year
Ancaster Hamilton Mountain Upper Stoney Creek Flamborough Lower Hamilton Wentworth Glanbrook Lower Stoney Creek West Hamilton Dundas
2021-2026
2026-2031
Figures 2-3 and 2-4 highlight the geographical distribution of residents by community and forecasted areas of growth and decline in the City. The two communities with the largest populations, Hamilton Mountain and Lower Hamilton, will continue to be the most populated areas. In terms of growth rates, Upper Stoney Creek will undergo significant increases in its population by 2026. Stable growth rates are forecasted for Hamilton Mountain and Lower Hamilton, while Glanbrook and Flamboroughs growth rates will decrease by 2016. The current and forecast population by community is illustrated on Map 3.
2.3 Growth Strategy

In accordance with Provincial planning policy and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, Hamiltons growing population will be accommodated through intensification and redevelopment of existing urban areas and, where necessary, new development through urban expansion. The Citys Growth Related Integrated Development Strategy (GRIDS) process identified and evaluated a series of urban structure growth options to accommodate the anticipated population and employment growth and development over the next 30 years.
Figure 2-5 illustrates Hamiltons preferred growth option identified through the GRIDS process. The Citys preferred growth option is based on an urban structure comprised of a series of nodes and corridors as well as vacant land areas within the existing urban areas and some urban expansions. The growth option accommodates the planned development of 80,000 new housing units as required to address anticipated population growth to 2031. Of these new housing units, 26,500 new units would occur through residential intensification, 31,900 units on vacant lands within the existing urban boundary and 21,600 units through urban boundary expansion. The populations accommodated by each of these types of housing development will affect the demands on existing indoor recreation facilities and services as well as the need for additional leisure infrastructure in various locations. The growth strategy targets a vibrant, compact, transit-supportive form of development that facilitates the efficient delivery of social services and efficient use of existing infrastructure. Nodes are described as community hubs accommodating mixed land use; the location and planned function of these nodes is a key consideration in planning the future of the Citys recreation facilities and potential locations for new facilities. Intensification corridors are also envisaged to contain a range of land uses, including institutional and recreation uses to serve the increased housing densities planned for these areas. In addition to the nodes and corridors, the location of vacant lands within the existing urban area and planned urban expansion areas also need to be carefully considered in relation to future indoor recreation facility provision. Figure 2-5. City of Hamilton GRIDS Preferred Growth Option
2.4 Age Composition

Age can be a significant factor in determining what kinds of recreation facilities and services are needed lower age groups tend to partake in more physically active forms of recreation while the propensity to participate in more passive activities tends to increase as a person ages. The older adult (residents 55 years of age or older) population is generally more likely to participate in cultural activities, such as live theatre and art galleries. Figure 2-6 illustrates the current (2006) age composition of Hamiltons population by five year cohort. For comparison, the chart also includes the forecast age composition of the citys population in 2016 and 2031. Consistent with trends across the Province, Hamiltons population will continue to age over the next 20-25 years as the baby boom generation reaches retirement. The age profile and magnitude of the aging trend of Hamiltons population closely mirror those of Ontario as a whole (see Figure 2-7). Figure 2-6.
City of Hamilton, Current and Forecasted Population by Age
70000
60000
50000
Population
40000
30000
20000
10000
0-4
5-9
10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74
75+
2006 26940 29410 33535 34895 34385 30330 30620 34760 41230 40840 36125 31865 24225 19740 17855 37800 2016 28300 29200 30700 35200 40900 38900 37500 37200 36600 38700 43300 41100 34900 29800 21300 40300 2031 33700 34700 35300 38400 43100 43800 44500 46600 45000 43000 40600 37400 37100 39500 35200 61000
Age Cohorts
SOURCE: The Greater Golden Horseshoe Forecasts, Province of Ontario, 2006-2031
Based on the population projections provided by the Province, the percentage of Hamiltons population age 60 or greater is expected to increase from 20% in 2006 to 26% in 2031, for a total growth of 73,000 in the seniors age category. In addition, the forecast shows that the number of older adults between the ages of 50 and 60 will increase by over 10,000 to the year 2031. These increases in the older adult/senior population will trigger a greater demand for passive forms of leisure and cultural opportunities and passive park spaces. It is anticipated that the majority of the new seniors will pursue their leisure interest and will focus on active living
as opposed to traditional senior activities. This group will be more active than previous generations and will wish to participate in many of the same activities they did at an earlier age, albeit at a gentler pace. However, demands for traditional senior activities will also continue to increase as the number of seniors over 80 continues to climb. Figure 2-7. Age Profile of Population as a Percentage of Total Population, Hamilton and Ontario, 2001 and 2006.
HAMILTON Age 0-4 years 5-9 years 10-14 years 15-19 years 20-24 years 25-29 years 30-34 years 35-39 years 40-44 years 45-49 years 50-54 years 55-59 years 60-64 years 65-69 years 70-74 years 75-79 years 80-84 years 85+ 2001* 5.8% 13.4% 6.8% 6.5% 29.8% 2006 5.3% 5.8% 6.6% 6.9% 6.8% 6.0% 6.1% 6.9% 8.2% 8.1% 7.2% 6.3% 4.8% 3.9% 3.5% 3.2% 2.5% 1.8% Change -0.5% -1.0% +0.1% +0.3% -2.6% 2001* 5.9% 13.7% 6.7% 6.3% 30.8% ONTARIO 2006 5.5% 5.9% 6.7% 6.9% 6.6% 6.1% 6.5% 7.3% 8.5% 8.2% 7.1% 6.4% 4.8% 3.8% 3.3% 2.8% 2.1% 1.6% Change -0.4% -1.1% +0.2% +0.3% -2.4%
14.0% 9.3% 7.7% 5.2% 1.4%
+1.3% +1.8% -0.3% +0.5% +0.4%
14.3% 9.3% 7.2% 4.4% 1.3%
+1.0% +1.9% -0.1% +0.5% +0.3%
SOURCE: Statistics Canada, Census of Population 2001 and 2006. *Note Population data not provided for all 5-year age cohorts in 2001 census.
Changes in the population of the younger age groups will be much more subtle. The projections anticipate an increase in the number of children (age 5 to 9) and youth (age 10 to 19), but as a percentage of total population this group will decline from 19% to 16%. While the stable numbers in this age group suggest that the volume of children and youth activities in Hamilton will not see significant increases in demand in the future (unless participation rates increase), it is anticipated that new and different recreation facilities will be needed to accommodate a greater diversity of interests among children and youth. The number of adults age 20-49 in Hamilton will see modest increases, with an overall growth of approximately 53,000 new residents in this age group by 2031, but will decrease as a percentage of total population from 42% to 40%. The bulk of this increase will occur in those between the ages of 30 and 49, while the total number of young adults age 20 to 29 and older adults age 50-54 will remain relatively stable. It is anticipated that the demands for adult recreational programs and activities in Hamilton will increase both in volume and diversity. Figure 2-8 illustrates the age distribution of Hamiltons current and forecast population among the children (0-9), youth (10-19), adults (20-49), older adults (50-59) and seniors (60+) age categories.
Figure 2-8.
Forecasted Population Age Cohorts, 2006-2031
100% 90% Percentage 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2006 2011 2016 Year 0-9 10-19 20-49 50-59 60+ 2021 2026 2031
SOURCE: The Greater Golden Horseshoe Forecasts, Province of Ontario, 2006-2031
2.5 Age Composition by Community

As a percentage of population by community, Upper Stoney Creek and Flamborough have proportionally the most children and youth. Of the nearly 125,000 children and youth who live in Hamilton, approximately 30% live in the Hamilton Mountain area and nearly 25% live in Lower Hamilton. The West Hamilton/Dundas, Glanbrook, Lower Hamilton, Lower Stoney Creek and Beverly communities have proportionally fewer children than the city-wide and provincial averages; Glanbrook and Beverly also have the fewest children as a percentage of the Hamilton total (these areas are also the least populated overall). Lower Hamilton, Lower Stoney Creek, West Hamilton/Dundas and Glanbrook have proportionally fewer youth than the city-wide and provincial averages. Lower Hamilton (46%) and Lower Stoney Creek (44.5%) have the highest proportion of adults as a percentage of their own population; Beverly (37.9%), Glanbrook (38%) and Ancaster (38.3%) have the lowest proportion of adults. As a percentage of the city total, the majority of adults live in Lower Hamilton (29%) and Hamilton Mountain (28.5%). Beverly (15.8%) and Ancaster (15%) have the most older adults age 50-59 as a percentage of their population while the remaining communities generally have similar proportions of adults ranging from 13-14% of their total population. Hamilton Mountain (27.6%) and Lower Hamilton (25.9%) have the greatest number of older adults in the city.
10
Glanbrook (24.4%), West Hamilton/Dundas (23.1%) and Lower Stoney Creek (22.3%) show proportionately more seniors than other communities, while only 11% of Upper Stoney Creeks population is over the age of 60 compared to nearly 20% for Hamilton as a whole. Overall the need of the youth today will not change dramatically based on the shear number of youth but rather social and cultural trends. The demographic experiencing the most dramatic shift is the over-60 group. Dedicated space to meet the social and cultural needs of this age group will need to be considered in the programming/development of community centres. Figures 2-9 to 2-12 show the age composition for each of the nine communities within Hamilton based on 2006 Census data obtained from Statistics Canada. Figure 2-9.
Age Groups by Community
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Seniors (60+) Older Adults (50-59) Adults (20-49) Youth (10-19) Children (0-9)
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% Ancaster FlamboroughGlanbrook Hamilton Mountain Lower Hamilton Lower Stoney Creek Upper Stoney Creek Beverly West Hamilton Dundas
Maps 2 to 2E illustrate the geographic distribution of Hamiltons current population for each age category.
11
Figure 2-10. Age Profile of Hamilton Communities

Ancaster AGE 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+ TOTAL Children (0-9) Youth (10-19) Adults (20-49) Older Adults (50-59) Seniors (60+) 1,590 1,895 2,265 2,420 1,935 1,135 1,390 1,880 2,320 2,530 2,375 2,020 1,405 1,045 815 825 745 640 29,230 3,485 4,685 11,190 4,395 5,475 Flamborough 1,465 1,860 1,970 1,770 1,300 900 1,325 1,940 2,320 2,135 1,690 1,345 1,050 670 585 455 320 240 23,340 3,325 3,740 9,920 3,035 3,320 Glanbrook 910 930 1,180 1,155 905 835 990 1,140 1,395 1,360 1,150 1,250 1,125 935 910 660 415 210 17,455 1,840 2,335 6,625 2,400 4,255 Hamilton Mountain 8,020 9,010 10,525 10,630 9,775 8,470 8,510 9,855 11,915 11,915 10,135 8,625 6,510 5,665 5,570 5,475 4,070 2,770 147,445 17,030 21,155 60,440 18,760 30,060 Lower Hamilton 7,115 7,045 7,565 8,250 9,790 10,265 9,725 9,745 11,310 10,780 9,535 8,105 5,920 4,815 4,320 3,895 3,335 2,340 133,855 14,160 15,815 61,615 17,640 24,625 Lower Stoney Creek 4,055 4,100 4,685 4,855 4,760 4,620 4,530 5,020 5,640 5,755 5,485 5,225 4,305 3,725 3,140 2,600 1,870 1,215 75,585 8,155 9,540 30,325 10,710 16,855 Upper Stoney Creek 1,210 1,545 1,760 1,780 1,435 1,085 1,320 1,585 1,855 1,835 1,515 1,225 680 435 370 325 260 250 20,470 2,755 3,540 9,115 2,740 2,320 Beverly 865 1,085 1,325 1,335 1,075 675 780 1,115 1,495 1,550 1,420 1,375 1,150 815 670 500 285 160 17,675 1,950 2,660 6,690 2,795 3,580 West Hamilton/ Dundas 1,715 1,935 2,280 2,655 3,410 2,355 2,050 2,475 2,940 2,980 2,820 2,695 2,090 1,615 1,450 1,490 1,320 1,140 39,415 3,650 4,935 16,210 5,515 9,105 TOTAL* 26,945 29,405 33,555 34,850 34,385 30,340 30,620 34,755 41,190 40,840 36,125 31,865 24,235 19,720 17,830 16,225 12,620 8,965 504,470 56,350 68,405 212,130 67,990 99,595
SOURCE: Statistics Canada, Census (2006).
*totals may not add due to rounding.
12
Figure 2-11. Age Profile of Hamilton Communities, Population by Age as a Percent of Community Total
Ancaster AGE 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+ Children (0-9) Youth (10-19) Adults (20-49) Older Adults (50-59) Seniors (60+) 5.4% 6.5% 7.7% 8.3% 6.6% 3.9% 4.8% 6.4% 7.9% 8.7% 8.1% 6.9% 4.8% 3.6% 2.8% 2.8% 2.5% 2.2% 11.9% 16.0% 38.3% 15.0% 18.7% Flamborough 6.3% 8.0% 8.4% 7.6% 5.6% 3.9% 5.7% 8.3% 9.9% 9.1% 7.2% 5.8% 4.5% 2.9% 2.5% 1.9% 1.4% 1.0% 14.2% 16.0% 42.5% 13.0% 14.2% Glanbrook 5.2% 5.3% 6.8% 6.6% 5.2% 4.8% 5.7% 6.5% 8.0% 7.8% 6.6% 7.2% 6.4% 5.4% 5.2% 3.8% 2.4% 1.2% 10.5% 13.4% 38.0% 13.7% 24.4% Hamilton Mountain 5.4% 6.1% 7.1% 7.2% 6.6% 5.7% 5.8% 6.7% 8.1% 8.1% 6.9% 5.8% 4.4% 3.8% 3.8% 3.7% 2.8% 1.9% 11.6% 14.3% 41.0% 12.7% 20.4% Lower Hamilton 5.3% 5.3% 5.7% 6.2% 7.3% 7.7% 7.3% 7.3% 8.4% 8.1% 7.1% 6.1% 4.4% 3.6% 3.2% 2.9% 2.5% 1.7% 10.6% 11.8% 46.0% 13.2% 18.4% Lower Stoney Creek 5.4% 5.4% 6.2% 6.4% 6.3% 6.1% 6.0% 6.6% 7.5% 7.6% 7.3% 6.9% 5.7% 4.9% 4.2% 3.4% 2.5% 1.6% 10.8% 12.6% 40.1% 14.2% 22.3% Upper Stoney Creek 5.9% 7.5% 8.6% 8.7% 7.0% 5.3% 6.4% 7.7% 9.1% 9.0% 7.4% 6.0% 3.3% 2.1% 1.8% 1.6% 1.3% 1.2% 13.5% 17.3% 44.5% 13.4% 11.3% Beverly 4.9% 6.1% 7.5% 7.6% 6.1% 3.8% 4.4% 6.3% 8.5% 8.8% 8.0% 7.8% 6.5% 4.6% 3.8% 2.8% 1.6% 0.9% 11.0% 15.0% 37.9% 15.8% 20.3% West Hamilton/ Dundas 4.4% 4.9% 5.8% 6.7% 8.7% 6.0% 5.2% 6.3% 7.5% 7.6% 7.2% 6.8% 5.3% 4.1% 3.7% 3.8% 3.3% 2.9% 9.3% 12.5% 41.1% 14.0% 23.1% Hamilton 5.3% 5.8% 6.6% 6.9% 6.8% 6.0% 6.1% 6.9% 8.2% 8.1% 7.2% 6.3% 4.8% 3.9% 3.5% 3.2% 2.5% 1.8% 11.2% 13.6% 42.0% 13.5% 19.7% Ontario 5.5% 5.9% 6.7% 6.9% 6.6% 6.1% 6.5% 7.3% 8.5% 8.2% 7.1% 6.4% 4.8% 3.8% 3.3% 2.8% 2.1% 1.6% 11.5% 13.6% 43.1% 13.5% 18.3%
13
Figure 2-12. Age Profile of Hamilton Communities, Population by Age as a Percent of Hamilton Total
Ancaster AGE 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+ TOTAL Children (0-9) Youth (10-19) Adults (20-49) Older Adults (50-59) Seniors (60+) 5.9% 6.4% 6.8% 6.9% 5.6% 3.7% 4.5% 5.4% 5.6% 6.2% 6.6% 6.3% 5.8% 5.3% 4.6% 5.1% 5.9% 7.1% 5.8% 6.2% 6.8% 5.3% 6.5% 5.5% Flamborough 5.4% 6.3% 5.9% 5.1% 3.8% 3.0% 4.3% 5.6% 5.6% 5.2% 4.7% 4.2% 4.3% 3.4% 3.3% 2.8% 2.5% 2.7% 4.6% 5.9% 5.5% 4.7% 4.5% 3.3% Glanbrook 3.4% 3.2% 3.5% 3.3% 2.6% 2.8% 3.2% 3.3% 3.4% 3.3% 3.2% 3.9% 4.6% 4.7% 5.1% 4.1% 3.3% 2.3% 3.5% 3.3% 3.4% 3.1% 3.5% 4.3% Hamilton Mountain 29.8% 30.6% 31.4% 30.5% 28.4% 27.9% 27.8% 28.4% 28.9% 29.2% 28.1% 27.1% 26.9% 28.7% 31.2% 33.7% 32.3% 30.9% 29.2% 30.2% 30.9% 28.5% 27.6% 30.2% Lower Hamilton 26.4% 24.0% 22.5% 23.7% 28.5% 33.8% 31.8% 28.0% 27.5% 26.4% 26.4% 25.4% 24.4% 24.4% 24.2% 24.0% 26.4% 26.1% 26.5% 25.1% 23.1% 29.0% 25.9% 24.7% Lower Stoney Creek 15.0% 13.9% 14.0% 13.9% 13.8% 15.2% 14.8% 14.4% 13.7% 14.1% 15.2% 16.4% 17.8% 18.9% 17.6% 16.0% 14.8% 13.6% 15.0% 14.5% 13.9% 14.3% 15.8% 16.9% Upper Stoney Creek 4.5% 5.3% 5.2% 5.1% 4.2% 3.6% 4.3% 4.6% 4.5% 4.5% 4.2% 3.8% 2.8% 2.2% 2.1% 2.0% 2.1% 2.8% 4.1% 4.9% 5.2% 4.3% 4.0% 2.3% Beverly 3.2% 3.7% 3.9% 3.8% 3.1% 2.2% 2.5% 3.2% 3.6% 3.8% 3.9% 4.3% 4.7% 4.1% 3.8% 3.1% 2.3% 1.8% 3.5% 3.5% 3.9% 3.2% 4.1% 3.6% West Hamilton/ Dundas 6.4% 6.6% 6.8% 7.6% 9.9% 7.8% 6.7% 7.1% 7.1% 7.3% 7.8% 8.5% 8.6% 8.2% 8.1% 9.2% 10.5% 12.7% 7.8% 6.5% 7.2% 7.6% 8.1% 9.1%
14
In order to anticipate changes to the age composition of each of the 9 communities over the next 25 years, a cohort survival model was used to produce forecasted age cohorts using the 2006 census age composition by census tract as a base. This aging of the existing population was combined with the forecast population numbers by community derived from the GRIDS analysis by the City to arrive at an age distribution by community for each of the forecast years including 2011, 2016, 2021, 2026 and 2031. Figures 2-13 to 2-21 illustrate the forecast changes in the age structure of the population of each of the 9 communities defined for the purposes of this study. Figure 2-13.
Lower Hamilton - Population Growth by Age
70,000 60,000 Population
Population
Figure 2-14.
Lower Stoney Creek - Population Growth by Age
70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0
50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 2006 2011 2016 Year 0-9 10-19 20-49 50-59 60+ 2021 2026 2031
2006
2011
2016
2021 Year
2026
2031
0-9
10-19
20-49
50-59
60+
Figure 2-15.
Hamilton Mountain - Population Growth by Age
70,000 60,000 Population
Figure 2-16.
Glanbrook - Population Growth by Age
20,000 16,000 Population 12,000 8,000 4,000 0
50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 2006 2011 2016 Year 0-9 10-19 20-49 50-59 60+ 2021 2026 2031
2006
2011
2016
2021 Year
2026
2031
0-9
10-19
20-49
50-59
60+
Figure 2-17.
Flamborough - Population Growth by Age
20,000 Population
Figure 2-18.
Ancaster - Population Growth by Age
20,000 16,000 Population 12,000 8,000 4,000
16,000 12,000 8,000 4,000 0 2006 2011 2016 2021 Year 0-9 10-19 20-49 50-59 60+ 2026 2031
0 2006 2011 2016 Year 0-9 10-19 20-49 50-59 60+ 2021 2026 2031
15
Figure 2-19.
Upper Stoney Creek - Population Growth by Age
40,000 Population 32,000
Figure 2-20.
Beverly - Population Growth by Age
10,000 8,000 Population 6,000 4,000 2,000 0
24,000 16,000 8,000 0 2006 2011 2016 Year 0-9 10-19 20-49 50-59 60+ 2021 2026 2031
2006
2011
2016 Year
2021
2026
2031
0-9
10-19
20-49
50-59
60+
Figure 2-21.
West Hamilton/Dundas - Population Growth by Age
30,000 25,000 Population 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 2006 2011 2016 Year 0-9 10-19 20-49 50-59 60+ 2021 2026 2031
2.6 Income
Research suggests that participation in recreational activities is directly influenced by income, with a higher degree of participation associated with higher levels of income and greater barriers to participation associated with lower levels of income. Based solely on recreation trends related to income, areas with higher incomes generally have greater means of accessing and participating in recreation and also express significantly higher expectations for both the quality and quantity of recreation facilities, compared to the level of accessibility and expectations in lower income communities. Lower-income areas face greater barriers to participation in recreational activities due to costs such as user fees, equipment costs and lack of transportation choices/mobility. While subsidies are often available to assist lower income households in gaining access to recreational facilities and programs, there are barriers to the use of the subsidies themselves such as the stigma associated with the process of applying for financial assistance as well as the lack of awareness/communication of subsidies available, eligibility, and how to participate. In addition, subsidies typically address only one component of the cost of the program or activity (ie. user fees) while the total cost is often affected by other factors such as equipment, transportation, etc. As shown in Figure 2-22, the average income of households in Hamilton is similar to the National average but below the Provincial average. The Citys 2005 Social and Health Issues Report indicates that, compared to Ontario, a substantially higher proportion of the population in
16
the City of Hamilton live below the low income cut-off (18.8% in the City of Hamilton vs. 13.6% in Ontario) and that this is true for all age groups, but is worse for those aged 75 years or older (28.3% in Hamilton vs. 17.7% in Ontario). Figure 2-22. 2000 Average Household Income - All Households Area 2000 Avg Household Income Hamilton $57,110 Ontario $66,836 Canada $58,360 Ancaster Flamborough Glanbrook Hamilton Mountain Lower Hamilton Lower Stoney Creek Upper Stoney Creek Beverly West Hamilton/Dundas
Source: Statistics Canada, Census (2001)
$108,758 $94,446 $76,509 $63,330 $48,881 $62,806 $77,680 $83,410 $73,136
Figure 2-22 shows the average household income for each community within Hamilton. There is significant variation in average household incomes across the city. Ancaster has the highest average household income, more than double the average household income in Lower Hamilton which is below the National, Provincial and City-wide averages. Lower Stoney Creek and Hamilton Mountain are the only other communities in Hamilton with an average household income below the Provincial average. Looking more closely at the areas within the communities of Hamilton, the Hamilton Early Years Reporting Project indicates that the highest percentage of low income families is found in Lower Hamilton, including Central Lower Hamilton (32.8%), North Lower Hamilton (26%), South West Lower Hamilton (23.3%) and East Lower Hamilton (23.3%), while the lowest percentage of low income is found in the Flamborough, West Hamilton/Dundas and Ancaster communities, including Greensville (3%), Ancaster (4.1%) and Waterdown (4.5%). The report also indicates that Rural Hamilton (Glanbrook, Beverly and Flamborough communities) also has a low percentage of low income households (3.9%). These geographic trends in income distribution are illustrated on Maps 4 and 4A, which confirm that the suburban and rural areas of Hamilton located above the Niagara Escarpment generally have higher average household incomes and lower incidences of low income households than the more central/urban locations located below the escarpment. Typically the demands in lower-income areas are for unstructured, low cost, drop-in type programs/activities. Low income families also traditionally rely more heavily on the municipality to meet their recreational requirements as they have less ability to pay to join private clubs. Consideration of free program opportunities is one way to offset the impacts of low income on opportunities for participation. Greater communication of low-cost/free programs, facilities available and subsides is also a way to increase participation of lower-income households.
17
2.7 Education
A persons level of education also has a bearing on participation, with many studies correlating increased participation with higher education. As shown in Figure 2-23, when compared to the 2001 census education levels in Ontario, the City of Hamilton has a higher percentage of its population with less than a high school graduation certificate and a lower percentage of its population with a university certificate, diploma or degree. The percentages of Hamiltons population with a high school, trades or college certificate closely mirror the provincial averages. Figure 2-23. Highest Level of Education for Population Age 20-64
Area Hamilton Ontario Ancaster Flamborough Glanbrook Hamilton Mountain Lower Hamilton Lower Stoney Creek Upper Stoney Creek Beverly West Hamilton/ Dundas Less than High School Certificate High School Certificate or Some PostSecondary 28% 27% Trades Certificate or Diploma 11% 10% College Certificate or Diploma 20% 19% University Diploma or Degree 19% 24%
23% 20% 9% 12% 21% 22% 32% 27% 17% 18% 11%
23% 26% 30% 29% 28% 28% 29% 26% 23%
8% 12% 17% 12% 10% 13% 13% 15% 8%
23% 25% 23% 22% 16% 18% 24% 21% 19%
37% 25% 9% 15% 14% 13% 17% 20% 39%
Source: Statistics Canada, Census (2001)
Figure 2-23 also shows that there is significant variation in the highest level of education achieved among the populations of each community within Hamilton. A significantly higher percentage of residents living in the Ancaster and West Hamilton/Dundas have achieved a university degree and these communities also have the lowest percentage of residents without a high school graduation certificate. Lower Hamilton and Lower Stoney Creek have the greatest percentage of residents with less than a high school education and other than Glanbrook these communities also have the lowest percentage of residents with a university degree. The rural communities of Glanbrook and Beverly have the highest percentage of their populations with a trades certificate or diploma. Map 5 graphically depicts the geographic differences in highest level of education achieved in Hamilton. The level of education in each community has a close correlation to income level; again, greater communication of programs and facilities available and how to participate is a way to increase participation to offset these factors.
2.8 Community Diversity

Many municipalities in Ontario and particularly the Greater Golden Horseshoe Area are experiencing increased diversity in the ethnic composition of their populations as new Canadians choose the region for its economic and social supports. While research has shown
18
that immigrants in Hamilton generally want to assimilate into traditional Canadian programs, sports and activities, greater program diversity and facility design that is sensitive to the needs of culturally/ethnically diverse populations are increasingly important considerations in providing equal opportunities for participation. At the time of preparation of this report, up-to-date data on ethnic origin was not yet available from the 2006 Census. Figure 2-24 shows the largest ethnic groups in Hamilton compared to Ontario, as reported by the 2001 Census: Figure 2-24. Ethnic Origin of Population, Hamilton and Ontario (2001) Ethnic Origin North American British Isles South European East European West European East and South East Asian % of Hamilton Population 24% 23% 22% 9% 7% 5% % of Ontario Population 23% 18% 14% 9% 13% 7%
SOURCE: Statistics Canada, 2001 Census.
In 2001, 74% of Hamilton residents were Canadian-born (compared to 72% for Ontario), 25% were immigrants born outside of Canada (compared to 27% for Ontario), and 1% were nonpermanent residents (Statistics Canada, 2001 Census). Figures 2-25 and 2-26 show the number of immigrants as a percentage of the population in each of the nine communities. Lower Stoney Creek, Hamilton Mountain, Lower Hamilton and West Hamilton/Dundas have the most residents born outside of Canada while Glanbrook, Flamborough, Upper Stoney Creek and Beverly have proportionally the fewest immigrants. Figure 2-25. Number of Immigrants as a Percent of Total Population by Community (2001) # of Total Immigrants Population 4,720 29,230 3,130 23,340 1,595 17,455 37,260 147,445 32,120 133,855 25,960 75,585 3,030 20,470 2,615 17,675 9,365 39,415 119,795 504,470 % of Population 16.2% 13.4% 9.1% 25.3% 24.0% 34.4% 14.8% 14.8% 23.4% 23.8%
Community Ancaster Flamborough Glanbrook Hamilton Mountain Lower Hamilton Lower Stoney Creek Upper Stoney Creek Beverly West Hamilton / Dundas City of Hamilton Total
19
Figure 2-26.
Number of Immigrants by Community as a Percent of Total Population
40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% Ancaster Hamilton Mountain Lower Hamilton Glanbrook Lower Stoney Upper Stoney Creek Creek Beverly Flamborough West Hamilton/ Dundas
2.9 Summary Profile of Hamilton Communities

Based on the preceding information and analysis provided in this section, the 9 communities defined for the purposes of this Study can be characterized as follows: Ancaster The community of Ancaster, situated on the west side of the City of Hamilton, has a current population of 29,230. Population projections indicate that Ancaster will grow by 33.6% over the next 25 years, with the strongest growth occurring between 2006 and 2016. The majority of growth will be in the 60 years or older age cohort. Declines will occur in the youth population, particularly after 2016. Residents in Ancaster have high average household incomes, as well as the highest levels of education attainment. Flamborough Flamborough has a 2006 population of 23,340. Located on the north end of the City, Flamborough is largely a rural community. Population projections suggest that moderate growth will occur in the next 25 years, with the majority of growth between 2011 and 2016 in the Waterdown area. Population growth will stabilize after 2016. Flamborough currently has a young population profile, but this is anticipated to shift after 2016. This community has the second highest average household income in the City of Hamilton matched with high levels of education attainment. Glanbrook Glanbrook is a predominantly rural community in Hamilton with a population of 13,729 in 2006. The largest settlement area in this area is Binbrook. Located in the south end of Hamilton, Glanbrook will experience strong growth in the Binbrook area that will result in a doubling of the communitys population by 2031. However, population growth will stabilize after 2016. Current age cohort data and future projections both indicate that Glanbrook has and will continue to
20
have an older population profile. It is anticipated that the 60 years or older age group will represent that largest portion of the growth in the community over the coming years. Hamilton Mountain Hamilton Mountain has a 2006 population of 151,171 and is the largest community in this regard. Population forecasts identify a lower growth rate in this community than the other 8 communities. While the growth rate is lower, the total number of additional residents in the community will be significant. Over 16,000 additional residents will locate in Hamilton Mountain with the majority of this growth occurring in the 60 year of older age group. Lower Hamilton Lower Hamilton has the second largest population and will experience moderate growth over the next 25 years primarily through intensification and redevelopment. As of 2006, the population of Lower Hamilton was 133,855. Population projections anticipate a growth rate of 15.8% in this area between 2006 and 2031 with the majority of the added population being 60 years of age or older. Lower Hamilton has the lowest average household income in the City at $48,881 and the greatest percentage of residents with less than a high school degree. Lower Stoney Creek Lower Stoney Creek is a medium sized community with a population of 75,585 and is located on the east side of the City. Population growth of 26.0% is forecast for this community between 2006 and 2031. The percentage of residents between the ages of 20 and 49 will level off by 2016, but the number of older adults will continue to increase. Upper Stoney Creek Upper Stoney Creek has a 2006 population of 20,470. This community will have the largest growth rate in the City at 253% over the next 25 years (10% per year). Rapid growth will occur in the 60 plus age group, with this segment of the population growing by 745%. The growth rate in Upper Stoney Creek will peak in 2026. The income and education levels of residents in Upper Stoney Creek are representative of City averages. Beverly With a current population of 17,675, the predominantly rural community of Beverly has one of the lowest populations in Hamilton. With no urban settlement areas designated within its boundary, Beverly has a projected growth rate of only 10.5% over the next 25 years. Most of the growth will occur in the 60 years of age or older cohort. Residents of Beverly have moderate levels of household incomes and education attainment compared to the rest of Hamilton. West Hamilton/Dundas The community of West Hamilton/Dundas is a medium sized, established urban community of 39,415 with a projected growth rate of 14.8% between 2006 and 2031.The older adult population represents the largest portion of the population. Growth in this age group will continue, but peaks in 2026. West Hamilton/Dundas has the highest education attainment in the City with 39% of residents having either a University Diploma or Degree. The high education levels are matched with above-average household incomes.
21
SECTION 3
3.1 Overview
CONSULTATION SUMMARY
Fundamental to developing the Use, Renovation, and Replacement Study for Hamilton Recreation and Public-Use Facilities Study is the comprehensive public consultation program. Phase I included the following consultation elements: Key informant interviews with city staff involved in the delivery of recreation services and management of indoor recreation facilities, members of Council, and other service providers in Hamilton; A random sample household telephone survey (800 responses) to gather statistically significant data on participation patterns, facility/program needs, barriers to use, willingness to pay and travel, priorities for future facility changes, etc.; A facility user group survey mailed to organizations involved in the use or programming of the Citys indoor recreation facilities to obtain input on past, current and anticipated participation numbers, facility usage, needs, priorities and other issues; and, Community Input Workshops/Focus Groups with key stakeholders, service providers, resident associations, volunteer committees of Council, and other organizations and Hamilton residents to obtain insight and opinions on the strengths and opportunities for improvement of Hamiltons indoor recreation facilities and programs, issues, needs and priorities. This section provides a summary of the input obtained through the consultation initiatives completed during Phase I of the Study.
3.2 Household Survey

3.2.1 Purpose To assist in the preparation of the Public-Use Facilities Study, a statistically significant household telephone survey of Hamilton residents was conducted in April and May of 2007. This section of the Phase 1 Report summarizes and correlates the principal findings of this survey. The survey collected information on respondents attitudes towards various aspects of indoor recreation facilities and priorities (e.g., satisfaction level of existing indoor facilities, facility needs, barriers to participation, priorities, etc.). Where significant, correlations with geographic data have been identified to assist in creating a more complete profile of the community. A copy of the survey is included in Attachment II.
22
3.2.2 Methodology A telephone survey of 801 randomly selected households within Hamilton was conducted by Monteith Brown Planning Consultants between April 10 and May 3, 2007. The sample size yields a confidence level of 95% with a confidence interval of 5% (i.e. the survey provides for an accuracy of 5%, 19 times out of 20). To qualify, respondents were required to reside in the City of Hamilton and to be 16 years of age or older. 3.2.3 Demographics This section of the report presents a profile of the survey sample based on responses to the demographic questions.
Statistics Household Canada** Survey Average Household Size 2.61 3.09 Percentage Female* 49% 59% Percentage Male* 51% 41% * A slight gender bias is common in phone surveys of this type. **2001 Census Data. Demographic Statistic
The average respondent age is 47-48 (year of birth: 1959). The following table identifies the age distribution of respondent households.
Age 0-9 years 10-19 years 20-34 years 35-54 years 55+ years **2006 Census Data. Statistics Canada* 11% 14% 19% 30% 26% Household Survey 13% 16% 17% 32% 21%
46% of households contain youth under the age of 20. The following table summarizes the location of residence of the 95% of respondents who provided the first three digits of their postal code:
Neighbourhood Ancaster Dundas Hamilton Stoney Creek Rural Hamilton % 7% 8% 61% 13% 11%
This is representative of the distribution of households within the City, as identified by Canada Post data.
23
The following table summarizes the income distribution of the 61% of respondents who provided their households total annual income before taxes. The average household income identified in the 2001 Census Data was $47,855 for the City of Hamilton.
Total % 25% 19% 16% 14% 26% Central Ancaster Hamilton 32% 3% 21% 7% 16% 7% 13% 28% 18% 55% Stoney Rural Dundas Creek Hamilton 17% 21% 9% 23% 11% 19% 12% 21% 23% 15% 11% 11% 33% 37% 38%
Reported Household Income Under $40,000 Between $40,000 and $60,000 Between $60,000 and $80,000 Between $80,000 and $100,000 Over $100,000
*Dont Know/No Response have been excluded.
3.2.4 Indoor Recreation Facility Usage & Assessment This section outlines the survey results that relate to the type of indoor facilities that Hamilton residents use, their assessment of the facilities and the barriers that inhibit their involvement in leisure activities. Household Usage of Indoor Recreation Facilities 69% of survey respondents indicate that their household used or visited a public or private indoor recreation facility in the past two years. Respondents who have an annual average household income over $60,000 are more likely to indicate that they have used or visited an indoor recreation facility. Those who indicated that they have used or visited a public or private indoor recreation facility in the past two years were subsequently asked to rate each type of facility they used based on how well it is meeting their households needs. These results are identified in the table below.
24
Usage of Indoor Recreation Facilities and Ability of Facility to Meet Household Needs
Indoor Pools Arenas Stadium Fitness, Weight Training or Aerobics Auditoriums or Community Halls Gymnasiums Multi-Purpose Rooms YMCA Indoor Sports Field Youth Centres or Youth Space Senior's Centre or Senior's Space
52% 38% 29% 27% 24% 24% 23% 16% 11% 10% 10% 59% 76% 71% 76% 74% 77% 66% 71% 77% 65% 72% 29% 2% 0% % of Respondents Using Indoor Facilities 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 83% 73%
Indoor Raquet Sport Facilities 6% Boys & Girls Club Indoor Bocce Courts
6%
% Satisfied with Facility
C C
The most frequented indoor recreation facilities include: indoor pools (52%); arenas (38%); stadiums (29%); and fitness, weight training and aerobics facilities (27%). Respondents generally indicated a high level of satisfaction with indoor recreation facilities in Hamilton. Similar surveys in other municipalities have found satisfaction rates for indoor recreation facilities between 56% to 74%. Respondents felt that indoor pools, seniors centres or seniors space, YMCA, and fitness, weight training and aerobics facilities are best meeting the needs of their household. Respondents rated indoor bocce courts, stadiums and indoor racquet courts the lowest in terms of meeting the needs of their household. Respondents from Ancaster are most satisfied with auditoriums and community halls. Rural Hamilton and Stoney Creek respondents are least satisfied with Seniors Centres. Dundas and central Hamilton are most satisfied with Indoor Pools.
25
C C C C
The following table summarizes the top 5 facility types that respondents from each community have used/visited in the last two years. The averages noted below represent the top facilities used by all respondents to the survey.
1 Central Hamilton Ancaster Stoney Creek Dundas Rural Hamilton AVERAGE Indoor Pools Indoor Pools Indoor Pools Indoor Pools Indoor Pools Indoor Pools 2 Arenas Arenas Arenas Arenas Arenas Arenas 3 Stadium Fitness/Aerobics Stadium Auditorium / Community Halls YMCA Stadium 4 Multi-Purpose Rooms Auditorium / Community Halls Auditorium / Community Halls Multi-Purpose Rooms Fitness/Aerobics Fitness/Aerobics 5 Fitness/Aerobics Gymnasium Multi-Purpose Rooms Stadium Stadium Auditorium / Community Halls
The table above shows that indoor pools and arenas are the most frequented indoor recreation facilities. The YMCA only appeared in the top five for Rural Hamilton (located in Flamborough).
The following table summarizes the frequency of visits by respondents to Hamilton indoor recreation facilities.
Frequency (# of visits per year) Less than 6 times 7-12 times 13-24 times 25+ times Percentage of Respondents* 16% 10% 13% 61%
*Percentage of respondents who have used or visited a public or private indoor recreation facility in the past two years
Respondents from Ancaster and Rural Hamilton are most likely to visit an indoor recreation facility more than 25 times per year. Respondents between the ages of 50 and 64 are the least likely to visit an indoor facility more than 25 times per year.
56% of respondents indicated that they or members of their household are able to participate in leisure activities in Hamilton as often as they would like, while 42% stated they could not. Research from other communities suggests that on average 6 out of 10 households participate in leisure activities as often as they would like; as such, Hamilton follows the trend. The following chart illustrates the main reasons why residents are unable to participate in recreation and leisure activities, despite their desire to do so.
26
Barriers to Participation in Leisure Activities (up to 2 responses)* # of % of Barrier Respondents Respondents Lack of personal time/Too busy 59% 217 Health problems/Disability/Age 18% 68 Program not offered at convenient time 6% 21 Lack of money/Too expensive 5% 20 Lack of desired facilities or programs 5% 18 Lack of transportation/Facility too far away 4% 13 Lack of information/Unaware of opportunities 0% 1 *Barriers stated by respondents who are not able to participate as often as they would like.
Of those who indicated that they cannot participate in leisure activities as often as they would like, 59% said it was due to the fact that they were too busy or had a lack of personal time to participate. Respondents with an income of at least $60,000 are more likely to report that lack of time is a barrier to participation. This question produced similar results as other surveys from across Ontario. Lack of time is continually cited as the number one barrier, and unfortunately, there are often no direct strategies that a municipality can employ to significantly address this (but convenience is important). 18% of respondents cannot participate due to health problems, disability, and/or age. Municipalities could respond by ensuring that programs and facilities accommodate persons with disabilities, as well as ensuring the availability of passive leisure opportunities. Respondents with an income less than $60,000 are more likely to report that health problems, disability, and/or age are a barrier to participation. Only 5% indicated a lack of facilities or programs are inhibiting their participation. This low percentage suggests that there may be fewer significant gaps in facility or program provision. Respondents from Rural Hamilton are more likely to state that they are not able to participate as often as they would like due to a lack of desired facilities or programs. Respondents with an average annual household income under $60,000 are significantly less likely to be able to participate in leisure activities as often as they would like.
Respondents were asked to indicate the approximate number of minutes they are willing to travel to certain types of indoor recreation facilities. The responses are as follows:

The majority of respondents are not willing to travel over 30 minutes to any indoor recreation facility. On average respondents are willing to travel a maximum of: 21 minutes to an auditorium or community hall; 20 minutes to an arena; 19 minutes to a seniors centre; and 17 minutes to a gymnasium, aquatic centre, or fitness, weight training or aerobics facility.
27
On average, respondents from Ancaster are willing to travel 13.0 minutes to an indoor leisure facility, while respondents from all other communities in Hamilton are willing to travel at least 17.7 minutes to an indoor leisure facility.
3.2.5 Future Directions & Priorities This section identifies the respondents level of agreement towards various statements and the survey results related to future capital and service delivery priorities for the City. General Opinions Related to Indoor Recreation Facilities Respondents were asked to state whether they agree or disagree with a series of statements (Dont know responses have been excluded).
Statement The City's indoor recreation facilities are clean and well-maintained. The quality of indoor recreation facilities is more important than quantity. It is easy to find and recognize the City's indoor recreation facilities in your community. Seniors' recreational needs should be met at multi-use facilities rather than providing standalone facilities exclusively for seniors. The needs of local residents should be given priority over tournaments and other occasional sporting events. The City does a good job of informing the community about its indoor recreation facilities and programs. Indoor recreation facilities in Hamilton compare favourably with those in other cities. Other municipal services should be offered at community centres, such as the ability to pay property taxes or purchase bus tickets. Indoor recreation facilities are distributed equitably across the entire City of Hamilton. Indoor recreation facilities for child and youth programs should have priority over facilities for adult programs. The provision of fitness facilities should be left to the private sector. Agree 73% 72% 63% 62% 60% 59% 54% 54% 52% 51% 23% Disagree 9% 11% 22% 23% 20% 24% 28% 33% 29% 29% 65%
* The percentages of respondents who indicated that they are Neutral on specific statements are not included in this table.
Respondents from Ancaster are less likely to support the statement that the provision of fitness facilities should be left to the private sector. Respondents from Rural Hamilton are less likely to support the statement that indoor recreation facilities for child and youth programs should have priority over facilities for adult programs. Those respondents from Rural Hamilton and Dundas are less satisfied with the distribution of indoor recreation facilities in Hamilton. Respondents from Central Hamilton stated that more awareness of indoor recreation facilities and programs is needed.
28
There is a higher level of satisfaction with the indoor recreation facilities in Hamilton from respondents who indicated that they have an average annual household income over $60,000.
Preferences for New Indoor Pools and Indoor Recreation Facilities To determine the type of indoor pools that the City of Hamilton should construct in the future, respondents were asked to indicate if they prefer:
1. A leisure pool design with a slide and other features that would be primarily for
recreational swimming; or
2. A traditional rectangular pool design primarily for lane swimming, lessons, and
aquatics.
49% of respondents preferred a leisure pool with a slide, while 38% of respondents indicated a preference for a traditional rectangular pool (dont know responses have been excluded). Respondents from Ancaster, Central Hamilton, and Stoney Creek indicated a preference for a leisure pool design.
Given that Hamilton has many aging indoor recreation facilities, respondents were asked to choose between three options for addressing older facilities. The table below summarizes the responses.
Options 1 2 3 Replace older facilities with fewer but larger and more multi-purpose facilities serving a larger area. Renovate older facilities to extend their useful life. Replace older facilities with similar facilities serving the exact same area % of Respondents 42% 34% 23%
Respondents from Dundas, Stoney Creek, and Ancaster indicated a preference for the replacement of older facilities with fewer but larger and more multi-purpose facilities serving a larger area. Respondents from Rural Hamilton and Central Hamilton were divided between the three options presented.
Financial Priorities for Development or Improvement of Indoor Recreation Facilities Respondents were asked to indicate the priority level for spending money to either improve or develop new indoor recreation facilities in Hamilton. Respondents were asked to indicate a priority level using a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 indicated that money should not be spent to improve and/or build a new facility and 5 meant definitely spend. As a follow-up, the survey also asked respondents to indicate which two facilities should be the highest priority for spending. In this way, we see not only what residents want, but also their greatest need. The following table identifies the responses.
29
Priority for Municipal Funds to Improve of Develop Facilities

Youth Centres or Youth Space Indoor Pool for Leisure Senior's Centre or Senior's Space Arena Multi-Purpose/Activity Room Fitness, Weight Training or Aerobics Indoor Pool for Elite Aquatics, Gymnasiums Stadium Indoor Sports Field Indoor Racquet Sport Facility Auditorium or Community Hall Indoor Bocce Court 23% 22% 15% 9% 6% 6% 4% 4% 4% 3% 2% 2% 1% 0% 10% 20% 40% 60% 80% Top Priority 100% 25% 28% 36% 45% 40% 34% 34% 38% 46% 59% 67% 70%
Definitely Spend
*Dont Know responses have been excluded.
The chart above illustrates the strong support for Youth Centres (67% high priority, 23% greatest need), Indoor Pools (70% high priority, 22% greatest need), Seniors Centre or Seniors Space (59% high priority, 15% greatest need), and Arenas (38% high priority, 9% greatest need). The high priority placed on youth centres should be interpreted with caution as it may relate more to perception than reality (i.e., is this really what youth want or are there alternative ways to meet their needs?). Moderate support was indicated for: - Multi-purpose or Activity Rooms; - Fitness, Weight Training and Aerobics; - Indoor Pool for Elite Aquatics; and - Gymnasiums. The lowest priorities according to respondents are: - Stadiums; - Indoor Sports Field; - Indoor Racquet Sports Facility; - Auditorium or Community Hall; and
30
- Indoor Bocce Courts.
Respondents from Dundas, Stoney Creek and Central Hamilton indicated that a Youth Centre should be the highest priority for spending, while respondents from Rural Hamilton and Ancaster indicated a preference for municipal spending on Indoor Pools. The priority for spending municipal dollars on Seniors Centres is ranked higher from those respondents with an annual average household income less than $60,000.
3.3 User Group Survey

3.3.1 Purpose & Methodology A self-administered survey was mailed to approximately 200 groups involved in the organized use of indoor recreation facilities in Hamilton, including groups such as sports associations, leagues and teams, seniors clubs, service clubs, social service organizations, and similar groups. The purpose of the survey was to collect information on:

Past, current and anticipated enrollment/membership; Programs and services offered by the organization; Adequacy of facility hours currently made available to the group; Factors limiting participation in the activity/program; Facilities used, frequency of use and suggested improvements; Rating of location, hours of operation, physical condition, costs and similar factors for facilities used; Modes of transportation and distance traveled to participate/use facilities; Use of facilities outside of Hamilton and reasons; Preferences for future facility provision options and priorities for the future.
This section contains a summary of the input received from the user groups participating in the survey. A copy of the survey is included in Attachment II. 3.3.2 Respondent Profile The survey captured a good cross-section of the groups and organizations using the Citys indoor recreation facilities to run their programs and activities. A total of 52 surveys were completed and returned by representatives from the following list of organizations:
Aquatic Clubs Ancaster Alligators Ancaster Masters Swim Team Dundas Seahawks Steel City Sport Divers of Hamilton Inc Hamilton Aquatic Water Polo Club Arts/Culture Village Theatre Boards / Recreation Sub-Committees Freelton Recreation Sub-Committee Millgrove Parks and Recreation Private Sector Facilities Mountain Sports Complex Ringette Hamilton Ringette Association Schools/Varsity Redeemer University College
Strabane Parks Board
31
Children and Youth Organizations 735 Firebird Squadron RC(AIR)CS First Carlisle Scouts First Winona Scouts, Cubs & Beavers Hamilton East Kiwanis Boys & Girls Club Fitness Joslins Mixed Martial Arts Gymnasium Sports Ancaster Basketball Club Hamilton Gymnastics Academy Masters Basketball Hockey Ancaster Minor Hockey League Beverly Mens Hockey League Beverly Oldtimers Hockey Club Carlisle Old Timers Hockey Chedoke Peewee Express Dundas Cyclones Dundas Fun Hockey Flamborough Christian Hockey League Flamborough Girls Hockey Association Glanbrook Minor Hockey Association Glanbrook Rangers Jr. C Hamilton & District Sledge Hockey Association Heads Up Sports Academy Lawfield Minor Hockey Association Mohawk Minor Hockey Association Parkdale Coaches Association Scott Park Community Stoney Creek Girls Hockey Valenosi Power Skating & Hockey Development
Seniors Clubs Dundas Senior Citizen Club Rosedale Seniors Club Winona Seniors Warden Park Seniors Club 60 Service Clubs Optimist Club Optimist Club of Greensville Optimists Club of Strabane Rotary Club of Waterdown West Lions Club (Ancaster) Skating Clubs Hamilton Skating Club Inch Park Skating Club Social Service Organizations Alcoholics Anonymous Special Need Groups Stoney Creek Disabled Sports Association
Figure 3-1 summarizes the composition of survey respondents by type of organization/area of interest. Figure 3-1. User-Group Survey Respondents by Type of Organization
Group Type Arena Sports Groups (hockey, ringette, skating) Aquatics or Pool Activities Groups Other Indoor Sports Groups Other Outdoor Sports Groups Groups Offering a Variety of Activities/Programs Visual or Performing Arts Groups Service or Fundraising Groups Seniors Clubs Total # 23 5 4 1 6 1 8 5 52 % 43% 9% 8% 2% 11% 2% 15% 9% 100%
32
Aquatic Clubs Ancaster Alligators Ancaster Alligators is a pre-competitive swim team currently serving 55 members between the ages of 6 and 17. Membership has remained stable since 2005. They have no plans for expansion and expect participation to remain stable over the next 5 to 10 years. Factors limiting the groups capacity to expand include number of coaching staff and size of the pool. The group primarily uses the Ancaster Aquatic Centre and generally gave the facility an overall rating of good with suggestions to improve the maintenance/cleanliness of the changeroom floors, condition of the meeting room and consideration of physical accessibility improvements. Ancaster Masters Swim Team The Ancaster Masters Swim Team currently serves 28 members between the ages of 23 and 73. Membership has increased since 2005. They expect participation to remain stable over the next 5 to 10 years and have identified pool size as a limiting factor. They have identified that finding a permanent coach, renovating the facility and avoiding increased fees are their top three priorities over the next 5 years. They suggest having users help in the designs of future facilities. Dundas Seahawks The Dundas Seahawks is a competitive swim club that currently has 45 members between the ages of 11 and 42. The number of members has not changed since 2005. The club swims at the Dundas Community Pool, but would also like to use the Sir Allan MacNab Recreation Centre at 10:00 am on Sunday mornings. They have indicated they are unable to expand their club as the pool is at capacity. Concerns with the Dundas Community Pool include the unexpected shutdowns and the absence of diving blocks. The group suggests that the City should provide a multi-lane swimming facility with a divable pool to encourage residents to take up swimming. Hamilton Aquatic Water Polo Club The Hamilton Aquatic Water Polo Club currently serves 120 members between the ages of 8 and 38. They have indicated a need for additional pool time in the early evenings. They plan to expand all levels of their programming and expect participation to increase over the next 5 to 10 years. They have identified a need for pool time as a limiting factor to growth. Their top priorities over the next 5 years are facility development, expansion of membership and extended training. They also identify a need for a competition and training facility for all aquatic disciplines and suggest this be taken into consideration for future planning. Steel City Sport Divers of Hamilton Inc. The Steel City Sport Divers offers all levels of scuba diving instruction. They currently serve between 60 and 70 members between the ages of 12 and 70. Membership has remained constant since 2005. They have no plans for expansion and expect that participation will remain stable over the next 5 to 10 years as they will be limited by the size of the pool and membership numbers. They have identified training, marketing, and establishing a volunteer base as three of their top priorities over the next 5 years. They expressed appreciation for the staff at Dalewood Recreation Centre and strongly hope that the center will be maintained for continued service.
33
Arts/Culture Village Theatre The Village theatre currently serves 81 members between the ages of 8 and 78. Membership has increased slightly since 2005. The group puts together 3 theatrical productions per year as well as a range of workshops. They have identified a need for additional facility hours and would like more access to the Waterdown Memorial Hall to better prepare for their productions. They expect participation to remain constant over the next 5-10 years as membership is limited by the number of roles available in the productions. They have identified facility improvement, development and skills training as their top three priorities over the next 5 years. They point out that Waterdown Memorial Hall has been dedicated as the Arts and Culture Centre for the Flamborough area and suggest that the City consider this in their planning. They also suggest a partnership with the City to develop and plan renovations for the Hall. Boards / Recreation Sub-Committees Freelton Recreation Sub Committee The Freelton Recreation Sub-Committee currently serves 150 members between the ages of 6 and 80 in activities including softball, skating, tennis and hockey. They have no plans to expand and expect participation to remain stable over the next 5 to 10 years. The group uses facilities outside of Hamilton for old-timers hockey because their ice time in Hamilton was allocated to minor hockey. Lack of a recreation hall was cited by the group as a limiting factor. Millgrove Parks and Recreation MIllgrove Parks and Recreation provides minor baseball and adult baseball, school activities and other seasonal activities. They have plans to expand the scope of their programming, services and membership but expect participation to remain stable over the next 5 to 10 years. The group does not currently use any indoor recreation facilities but have identified the need for facility improvements at outdoor facilities such as ball diamonds as one of their top priorities over the next 5 years. Strabane Parks Board The Strabane Parks Board has 7 board members. The board serves the community with baseball and other parks activities/facilities. The group does not currently use any indoor recreation facilities as there are no indoor components to the park that they use. Children and Youth Organizations 735 Firebird Squadron RC(AIR)CS The Firebird Squadron currently serves 40 members between the ages of 12 and 19 in their Royal Canadian Air Cadets program which provides physical fitness, citizenship, aviation and other youth-oriented services. Membership has decreased since 2005. They have indicated a need for additional facility hours and have plans to increase membership to 60 members. They have identified recruiting, expansion and training as their top three priorities over the next 5 years. They are quite pleased with the staff at the current facility (Dundas Lions Memorial Community Centre) and suggest that access to facilities be taken into consideration for future planning. They gave the facility an overall rating of average with the hours of operation and physical condition of the facility receiving a rating of poor and the location and staff receiving a rating of good.
34
First Carlisle Scouts The First Carlisle Scouts currently serves 46 members between the ages of 5 and 14. Membership has increased since 2005. They have identified a need for occasional access to ice time so they can maintain the variety of activities offered. They have plans to expand if the volunteer resources are available to them and if the availability of facilities will accommodate expansion. They expect participation to increase in the next 5 to 10 years. They have identified marketing, expansion and establishing a volunteer base as their top three priorities over the next 5 years. The group currently uses the Carlisle Community Centre and gave the facility an overall rating of average to good. First Winona Scouts, Cubs & Beavers The First Winona Scouts Club offers scouting, beavers and cubs activities to both genders. They currently serve 50 members between the ages of 5 and 13. Membership has remained stable since 2005. The group has identified several areas of repair needed in the Winona Scout Hut, including furnace repairs and kitchen upgrades. They feel that with a little expansion and upgrading the facility could be used more effectively. The group has also expressed an appreciation for the staff at the facility. Hamilton East Kiwanis Boys & Girls Club The Hamilton East Kiwanis Boys & Girls Club offers a variety of activities for children and youth in the Hamilton area. They currently serve over 4000 members ages 18 and under. Membership has increased slightly since 2005. The club plans to expand the scope of their services by opening another location in Hamilton and expects participation to increase in the next 5 to 10 years. They have identified funding and facility space as limitations to expansion. They have also identified expansion and promotion of the Boys & Girls Club as two of their top priorities. Fitness Joslins Mixed Martial Arts Joslins Mixed Martial Arts offers tournaments, instruction and guidance in the martial arts. They currently serve 1300 members between the ages of 5 and 65. Membership has increased since 2005. They have indicated a need for a larger tournament venue as their current facility (Sherwood School) limits their ability to expand the scope of their services, programming and membership. They have identified that continued quality programming is their main priority over the next 5 years and suggest larger, more professional tournament areas and promotion of martial arts for the future. Gymnasium Sports Ancaster Basketball Club The Ancaster Basketball Club currently serves 400 members between the ages of 5 and 18 including an Ontario Basketball Association Rep Team as well as house league basketball. Membership has remained stable since 2005. They expect participation to remain constant over the next 5 to 10 years. They have identified marketing and an increased volunteer base as two of their top priorities over the next 5 years. The Club uses the Ancaster Rotary Centre and gave the facility an overall rating of extremely good. They have always been satisfied with their relationship with the staff at the Rotary Centre.
35
Hamilton Gymnastics Academy The Hamilton Gymnastics Academy currently serves 1,280 members ages 2 and older. Membership has increased since 2005. They have their own facility in Ancaster which is open seven days a week. Some of the factors which limit their capacity to expand are cost to maintain the facility and space. They have identified facility development, partnership and expansion as their top three priorities over the next 5 years. While the group does not currently use any Cityowned facilities, they suggest that the City consider partnerships with community organizations and the development of multi-use facilities incorporating local gymnastics clubs citing examples of other municipalities such as Milton, Mississauga and Orangeville where this has been done successfully. Masters Basketball Masters Basketball currently serves 40 members between the ages of 40 and 75. Membership has remained stable since 2005. The group has indicated a need for additional facility hours on Thursday evenings from 6:30 to 8:30 and has identified this as a limiting factor in increased participation over the next 5 to 10 years. They have identified this need for additional time on Thursdays as one of their top three priorities over the next 5 years and suggest that the city give additional consideration to the availability of facilities. Hockey Ancaster Minor Hockey League Ancaster Minor Hockey League currently serves 1,060 players between the ages of 5 and 20. Membership has increased since 2005. They have expressed a need for more ice time. The league needs at least 25 hours a week minimum and is currently displeased with the way ice time has been allocated between clubs. They would like to expand the scope of their programming, services or membership but are unable to under the current ice availability. They have identified expansion of the league, expansion of facilities and establishing a volunteer base as their top three priorities over the next 5 years. The primary facilities used by the league include the Morgan Firestone Arena and Spring Valley Arena in Ancaster and the Mohawk 4Pad. Spring Valley Arena was given an overall rating of very poor by this group and was noted as being too small for teams above peewee level. They suggested twinning of Morgan Firestone Arena and construction of a new arena in Meadowlands to provide additional ice. Beverly Mens Hockey League The Beverly Mens Hockey League currently serves 112 members between the ages of 24 and 65 in 8-team recreational hockey league. Membership has remained stable since 2005 and they expect participation to remain stable over the next 5 to 10 years. They have identified that continuing to offer accessible, affordable programming is their top priority over the next 5 years. They suggest that better promotion of facilities and programs and greater use of arena floors for indoor soccer, ball hockey, lacrosse, flea/farmers markets and day-care/after-school programs in the off-season be considered in future planning. The league uses Beverly Arena and indicated general satisfaction with the facility, giving it an overall rating of good. Beverly Oldtimers Hockey Club The Beverly Oldtimers Hockey Club offers recreation and physical fitness for men ages 40 and older. They currently serve 19 members between the ages of 42 and 63. Membership has remained stable since 2005. The group has no plans to expand or reduce services, programming or membership and expects participation to remain stable over the next 5 to 10
36
years. The club uses Beverly Arena and indicated general satisfaction with the facility, giving it an overall rating of good. Carlisle Old Timers Hockey Carlisle Old Timers Hockey offers recreational hockey for men over the age of 35 in the Dundas and Flamborough areas. They currently serve 60 members between the ages of 35 and 65. Although membership has remained constant since 2005, the number of persons on the waiting list has increased. The group expects participation to remain stable as they are limited by the amount of available ice time. They have indicated that solving this to allow for expansion is one of their top priorities for the next five years, and suggested that additional arena facilities are needed to resolve ice-time shortages. The group uses Carlisle Arena and indicated a high level of satisfaction with the facility, giving it an overall rating of extremely good. Chedoke Peewee Express The Chedoke Peewee Express is a hockey team for 12 year old children. They have indicated a need for additional ice time in the evenings and feel that this is a limiting factor in their ability to expand. The team uses the Chedoke Arena, Mohawk 4-pad and Wentworth Triple Rinks (private facility). They are pleased with the Chedoke Arena but indicated that there is not enough ice time in the City to accommodate all teams. They suggested that the Citys arenas should be open during school holidays to give the kids something to do. Dundas Cyclones The Dundas Cyclones is an Ontario Womens Hockey Association team with 19 members between the ages of 15 and 21. Membership has remained stable since 2005. They expect membership to remain constant over the next 5 to 10 years and have identified ice time as a limiting factor. They suggest larger dressing rooms, spectator seating, heat and sound systems be considered in future planning of facilities. The team uses the Market Street (Dundas) Arena, which they gave an overall rating of extremely good, and the Olympic (Westoby) Arena which was not rated. Dundas Fun Hockey Dundas Fun Hockey offers non instructional, no rules hockey for young children. They currently serve 52 members between the ages of 3 to 6. Membership has remained stable since 2005. They have no plans for expansion and have never turned away an interested child. They have expressed concern that an elevator to the change rooms in the Dundas Arena has still not been installed; installing it would increase access to those with more limited mobility such as the elderly bringing grandkids. The group uses the Market Street (Dundas) Arena, which they gave an overall rating of extremely good. Flamborough Christian Hockey League The Flamborough Christian Hockey League currently serves 60 members between the ages of 25 and 45. Membership has increased slightly since 2005. The group expects participation to remain stable over the next 5 to 10 years and has not identified any priorities or limitations. They indicated general satisfaction with the Carlisle Arena, giving it an overall rating of good. Flamborough Girls Hockey Association The Flamborough Girls Hockey Association currently serves 170 members between the ages of 6 and 20. Membership has increased since 2005. They offer hockey and hockey instruction for all skill levels. They plan to expand the scope of their programming, services and membership with the growth of the Waterdown area. They expect participation to increase in the next 5 to 10
37
years and have identified available ice time as a limit to this growth. They have also indicated that expansion and ice time are their top priorities in the next 5 years. They have expressed a concern that demand in the area will grow quickly and that a new arena will be needed in the near future. The primary facilities used by the group include the Carlisle Arena, North Wentworth Arena and Beverly Arena but inner-city facilities are also used for practices and games which is a barrier to participation for some of their players due to location. An overall rating of good was given to the Carlisle Arena and other two facilities were not rated. The group is considering use of the Burlington Wave Private Twin Rink (likely at a higher cost) due to lack of ice time in Hamilton and superior quality of the Burlington facility. Glanbrook Minor Hockey Association Glanbrook Minor Hockey Association currently serves 450 members between the ages of 4 and 19. Membership has increased since 2005. They have indicated a need for additional facility hours and have identified a need for more ice time as a limiting factor in expansion and increased membership. They have identified expansion, training, and establishing a volunteer base as their top three priorities over the next 5 years. They suggest more consideration be given to small communities in future planning. The primary facilities used by the teams include the Glanbrook Arena, the Mohawk 4-pad and other Mountain Arenas such as Lawfield and Morgan Firestone. Glanbrook Arena was given an overall-satisfaction rating of good by this group. Glanbrook Rangers Jr. C The Glanbrook Rangers are an Ontario Hockey Association Junior C team offering competitive junior hockey for ages 16 to 20. They have no future plans to expand or reduce programming, services or membership and they expect participation to remain stable over the next 5 to 10 years. They have identified marketing and establishing a volunteer base as two of their top priorities over the next 5 years. They suggest that better facilities for ice sports are needed. The team uses the Glanbrook Arena and has indicated general satisfaction with the facility, giving it an overall rating of good. Hamilton & District Sledge Hockey Association The Hamilton & District Sledge Hockey Association offers ice hockey for individuals with physical or intellectual disabilities and is played on sledges. They currently serve 55 members between the ages of 6 and 45. Membership has increased since 2005. They have expressed a need for additional ice time to accommodate increased membership. They hope to expand membership and reach out to as many people as they can in the future. They expect participation to increase over the next 5 to 10 years but expect to be limited by availability of ice time. They have identified public awareness, expansion and community support as their top three priorities over the next 5 years and suggest accessibility of facilities for those with physical challenges should be considered in future planning. The primary facility used by the group is the Chedoke Arena which was given an overall-satisfaction rating of good by this group. Heads Up Sports Academy The Heads Up Sports Academy currently serves 900 members ages 4 and up with hockey schools, power-skating and 3-on-3 hockey programs. Membership has decreased since 2005. They have plans to expand their programs during winter hours and expect participation to increase over the next 5 to 10 years. They have identified quality instruction, marketing and partnerships as their top three priorities over the nest 5 years. They suggest opening Chedoke Arena during the summer months to allow participants to stay in their own community, indicating that they are losing many participants in the Dundas, Waterdown and Ancaster areas to arenas
38
in Burlington, Oakville and Caledonia. The primary facility used by the group is the Mohawk 4pad which was given an overall-satisfaction rating of extremely good with a rating of very poor for the cost to use the facility. Lawfield Minor Hockey Association The Lawfield Minor Hockey Association currently serves 1000 members ages 5 to 17, providing house league hockey for 46 teams and select hockey for 5 teams. Membership has remained stable since 2005. They expect participation to remain stable over the next 5 to 10 years. They have identified training and establishing a volunteer base as two of their top priorities over the next 5 years. They suggest larger rooms and internet connections be considered in future planning. The primary facility used by the group is the Lawfield Arena which was given an overall-satisfaction rating of good. Mohawk Minor Hockey Association Mohawk Minor Hockey Association served 156 members between the ages of 5 and 14 in 2006. They plan to expand their services to include 4 teams in all divisions and expect participation to increase in the next 5 to 10 years. They have identified expansion, training and establishing a volunteer base as their three top priorities over the next 5 years and suggest using the Mohawk 4 Pad as a template for future facilities. They rated the Mohawk 4-pad as extremely good overall with a rating of average for cost to use and a concern over lack of office space at the facility. Parkdale Coaches Association The Parkdale Coaches Association offers minor hockey and hockey instruction programs. They currently serve 555 members between the ages of 4 and 17. Membership has increased since 2005. The group would like to expand as the interest arises but expects participation to remain stable over the next 5 to 10 years. They have identified improvements to existing facilities, increasing membership and staff training as their top three priorities over the next 5 years. They have observed a decline in facility maintenance in recent years and suggest this be remedied. They also suggest low ice rental rates to allow a wider range of children to participate. This group indicated an overall rating of average for the Pat Quinn Parkdale Arena, identifying the need for improvements to the community and coaches rooms. Scott Park Community Scott Park Community offers recreational and beginners hockey for children and youth. They currently serve 260 members between the ages of 3 and 17. They hope that with aggressive advertising they will be able to expand the scope of their membership. They have identified facility development, expansion and establishing a volunteer base as their top three priorities over the next 5 years. They suggest that a new twin pad be built in the lower city within close proximity to Scott Park Arena. The group is not satisfied with the existing Scott Park Arena, giving it an overall rating of poor and indicating that the building has reached the end of its useful life. They suggested that a new, multi-use arena and recreation facility is needed to serve Central Hamilton. Stoney Creek Girls Hockey Stoney Creek Girls Hockey currently serves 660 members between the ages of 2 and 60 with programs including hockey fundaments/initiation program, pre-hockey, junior house league (novice to midget), senior house league (adult recreational), master (old-timer) and competitive (novice to senior) hockey. Membership has increased since 2005. They have indicated a need for additional facility hours and have identified ice time as a limiting factor in their ability to
39
expand. They have identified ice time, as one of their top priorities over the next 5 years and suggest multi-use facilities be taken into consideration for future planning. Facilities used by the organization in Hamilton include Saltfleet Arena (no issues noted), Valley Park Arena (no issues noted), Mohawk 4-pad (lack of seating noted as an issue), Parkdale Arena (noted as poor quality), Eastwood Arena (no issues noted) and Scott Park Arena (noted as poor quality). They gave an overall rating of extremely good to the Saltfleet Arena. Valenosi Power Skating & Hockey Development Valenosi Power Skating & Hockey Development currently serves more than 1000 members between the ages of 4 and 18 with year-round programs such as power skating, full day camps, and Christmas and March Break programs. They have plans to expand the scope of their programming, services and membership and expect participation to increase over the next 5 to 10 years. They have identified ice time as a limiting factor. They have also identified ice time and partnerships as two of their top priorities over the next 5 years and suggest consulting with users on the designs of any new facility. The organization uses the Mohawk 4-pad and Stoney Creek Arena to run its programs and has indicated an overall-satisfaction rating of extremely good for these facilities. Private Sector Facilities Mountain Sports Complex Mountain Sports Complex is a private indoor playing field facility currently serving approximately 5000 members between the ages of 8 and 50. Membership has remained constant since 2005. They expect participation to remain stable over the next 5 to 10 years but have plans to expand the scope of their programming and services. They have identified marketing, partnerships and risk management as their top three priorities over the next 5 years. Ringette Hamilton Ringette Association The Hamilton Ringette Association currently serves 185 members ages 4 and up with programs including learn-to, house league, recreational and rep leagues. Membership has increased since 2005. They plan to expand membership and improve programs on an annual basis and expect participation to increase over the next 5 to 10 years. They have identified cost of facilities and equipment as a limiting factor in this increase. Expansion, marketing and training are noted as their top three priorities over the next 5 years. They have no complaints regarding existing facilities but would like to see more built in the future. Facilities used include Inch Park and Chedoke Arena which were given overall-satisfaction ratings of good by this group. Schools/Varsity Redeemer University College Redeemer University College currently serves 20 members between the ages of 17 and 25 with varsity sports, club/extramural and intramural hockey. Membership has remained stable since 2005. They have identified a need for additional facility hours to accommodate tournaments and special events. They expect participation to increase over the next 5 to 10 years. Morgan Firestone Arena received an overall satisfaction rating of extremely good from this group.
40
Seniors Clubs Club 60 Club 60 is an organization for seniors which currently serves 340 members. They have noticed a decrease in membership over recent years and as such have no plans to expand the scope of programs or services. The club primarily organizes games (bridge, cribbage, euchre, etc.) and provides a nail clinic. They currently use Stoney Creek Seniors Centre as their primary facility and have identified a need for more parking at this facility, as well as better accessibility, and improvement to the physical condition. Dundas Senior Citizen Club The Dundas Senior Citizen Club currently serves 300 members ages 55 to 95 with programs ranging from aquatic/pool activities to cards and shuffleboard. Membership has increased since 2005. They expect participation to increase in the next 5 to 10 years. They have identified expansion, partnerships and establishing a volunteer base as their top three priorities over the next 5 years. The Club uses the Dundas Lions Memorial Community Centre and indicated an overall-satisfaction rating of extremely good for this facility. Rosedale Seniors Club The Rosedale Seniors Club currently serves 179 members over the age of 55 with activities such as euchre, bridge and trips. Membership has decreased since 2005. They group plans to expand the scope of their services and expect participation to increase in the next 5 to 10 years. They have identified room size as a limiting factor in expansion. They have also identified expansion, partnerships and establishing a volunteer base as their top three priorities over the next 5 years. The club uses a meeting room at the Rosedale Arena and indicated an overallsatisfaction rating of extremely good for this facility with the condition of the facility rated as average. Warden Park Seniors Warden Park Seniors currently serves 150 members ages 55 and up with activities such as euchre, line dancing and bingo. Membership has increased since 2005. They expect participation to remain stable over the next 5 to 10 years. They have identified good volunteers and remaining in their present facility as two of their top priorities over the next 5 years. They have also identified a need for wheelchair access and improved kitchen facilities which they hope are taken into consideration in future planning The organization uses the Warden Park Seniors Centre (storefront) space which is leased by the City, and rated this facility as average under overall satisfaction. Winona Seniors Winona Seniors currently serves 360 members between the ages of 60 and 95 with a variety of activities and programs. Membership has decreased slightly since 2005. The group has identified a need for additional facility hours to accommodate additional demand for line dancing and art classes. They have plans to expand the scope of their programming, services and membership and expect participation to increase over the next 5 to 10 years. They have identified available facility time and space as limits to expansion. They have also identified improvements to the facility, including expansion, to be one of their top priorities in the next 5 years. The organization expressed a concern regarding tables and chairs some activities require tables and chairs while others do not and the existing setup requires that they be moved frequently which is difficult for many members. An expansion might allow separate locations for
41
seated activities and non-seated activities. The group uses the Winona Senior Centre which they rated as average in term of overall satisfaction. Service Clubs Optimist Club The Optimist Club currently serves 500 members between the ages of 5 and 65 with littleleague baseball and seniors activities/programs. Membership has increased since 2005. They have indicated a need for additional facility hours in the evenings. They have plans to expand the scope of programming, services and membership but expect participation to remain stable over the next 5 to 10 years. They have identified marketing, expansion and establishing a volunteer base as their top three priorities over the next 5 years and suggest partnerships with service clubs be considered in future planning. The group uses the Optimist Community Centre 7 nights per week and indicated an overall satisfaction rating of good for this facility. Optimist Club of Greensville The Optimist Club of Greensville currently serves 35 members between the ages of 35 and 80, supporting local youth group, baseball/softball activities as well as the local tennis club and special events. Membership has increased since 2005. They have plans to expand the scope of their programming and expect participation to increase over the next 5 to 10 years. They have identified the current facility (Greensville Hall) as a limiting factor in their capacity to expand. They have also identified improved facilities, expansion and increased community usage as their top three priorities over the next 5 years. Greensville Hall was given an overall-satisfaction rating of poor by this group with suggestions including kitchen, washroom and accessibility improvements. For the longer term, the group suggests replacement of the Hall with a new Community Hall adjacent to the Greensville Public School. Optimist Club of Strabane The Optimists Club of Strabane currently serves 22 members between the ages of 30 and 80 with fundraising for youth groups and youth sports, community festivals and offering other supports to the area. Membership has decreased slightly since 2005. The group expects participation to remain stable over the next 5 to 10 years however, new members are always welcome. Their top priority over the next 5 years is to raise funds for the youth in the community. The club uses outdoor facilities and local churches for their meetings and activities. Rotary Club of Waterdown The Rotary Club of Waterdown offers financial support to a variety of organizations in the community. They currently serve 41 members between the ages of 30 and 96. Membership has decreased slightly since 2005 and it is estimated that 39% of current members live outside the City of Hamilton. The club expects participation to increase over the next 5 to 10 years and have identified the size of their current facility (Waterdown Memorial Hall) as a limit to this growth. They suggest a need for a hall in Waterdown which would be able to accommodate 100 to 500 people. An overall-satisfaction rating of average was given to the Waterdown Memorial Hall by this group. West Lions Club (Ancaster) The West Lions Club organizes and participates in a variety of charity and fundraising projects. They currently serve 220 members. They hope to expand the scope of their membership as expanding membership will allow them to expand programming and services. They find their
42
current facility (Old Town Hall) to be quite cold in winter but gave an overall-satisfaction rating of good to the facility. Skating Clubs Hamilton Skating Club The Hamilton Skating Club currently serves 832 members between the ages of 3 and 60 with a range of skating programs, off-ice training and 3 synchro-skating teams. Membership has increased since 2005. They have indicted a need for 5 to 6 additional facility hours throughout the week. They intend to expand programming throughout the city and expect participation to increase over the next 5 to 10 years. They have identified the lack of ice time as a limiting factor in this increase. They have identified expansion and working with others to establish consistency in skate programs as two of their top priorities over the next 5 years. The Club uses the Dave Andreychuk Mountain Skating Centre and Eastwood Arena. An overall-satisfaction rating of good was given to the Mountain Skating Centre by this group. Inch Park Skating Club The Inch Park Skating Club currently serves 140 members between the ages of 3 and 17 with a learn-to-skate program. Membership has decreased since 2005. They have indicated a need for additional ice time and suggest that this is a limiting factor in their ability to increase membership. They have identified an increase in ice time, expansion of programming and improved facilities as their top three priorities over the next 5 years. Storage, office space and seating were suggested as important considerations for new developments and the group noted that small improvements can have a large impact. They have been quite happy with the staff at the current facility, Inch Park Arena which they gave an overall-satisfaction rating of good. Social Service Organizations Alcoholics Anonymous Alcoholics Anonymous currently serves 135 members between the ages of 17 and 78. Membership has increased since 2005. All new members are welcome and they expect participation to increase over the next 5 to 10 years. They have expressed a strong need for consistent access to facilities in order to maintain consistent times and locations for their meetings. They have identified consistent meetings as one of their top priorities over the next 5 years. The organization hosts their meetings at the Waterdown Memorial Hall and gave the building an overall satisfaction rating of extremely good. Special Needs Groups Stoney Creek Disabled Sports Association The Stoney Creek Disabled Sports Association currently serves 35 members between the ages of 5 and 33 with a range of activities from non-competitive fun games to participation in various sports. Membership has increased since 2005. They plan to expand the scope of their membership but can only accommodate up to 50 members. They have identified membership, finding volunteers and increased family involvement as their top three priorities over the next 5 years. They suggest more handicap washrooms need to be considered in future planning. The organization uses Orchard Park High School which they rated as extremely good under overall-satisfaction.
43
3.3.3 Input Summary In addition to profiling the types of organizations and groups using the Citys indoor recreation facilities, the following results were collected from the survey questionnaire:
45% of groups responding have grown in membership numbers since 2005; 62% have plans to expand the scope of their programming, services or membership; 43% were ice/arena related groups (hockey, ringette or figure skating); 31% identified insufficient time at existing facilities as a limiting factor in their capacity to
accommodate increased membership. Of those, the majority were arena users indicating specifically that there is not enough ice time and that this is a limiting factor to growth in participation (11 out of 15). This accounts for almost half of all arena user groups responding to the survey (11 out of 23);
most groups are satisfied with the facilities they are currently using; the majority of groups (69%) indicated that participants use private automobiles only to get to
recreation facilities, some included walking/cycling (20%) and few included public transit (7%);
34% of groups responding indicated that their members are willing to travel 16-30 minutes,
26% said 11-15 minutes, 6% said 31 minutes or more, and 6% said 6-10 minutes;
the most common response for those using facilities outside of Hamilton was for
tournaments, competitions, special events or travel required (20%);

the most preferred option for aging facilities was renovate the existing facility to extend its
useful life (64%) followed by maintaining the facility as is in its current location (55%);
the most common top priorities were expanding programs, services or membership (40%),
expanding volunteer base or staffing (32%), expanding or improving existing facilities (30%) and increasing promotion/marketing of programs or services (23%);
collectively, the organizations responding to the user-group survey use 44 different facilities
within Hamilton for their programs/activities;

Ratings (scale of 1 to 5) were provided for 44 different facilities that are used by survey
respondents, yielding the following average scores for each criteria listed in the survey:
CRITERIA 1. Location 2. Hours of Operation 3. Cooperation/Helpfulness of Staff 4. Maintenance/Cleanliness 5. Physical condition/State of repair 6. Accessibility 7. Cost to use 8. Comparison to other City of Hamilton Facilities 9. Overall satisfaction AVG. RATING 4.39 4.39 4.67 4.04 3.61 3.89 3.71 3.57 3.93 44
3.4 Community Input Workshops/Focus Groups

3.4.1 Overview In June 2007, four (4) community input workshop/focus group sessions were held with representatives of organized facility user groups, residents, volunteer committees of Council, and other interested participants to introduce the Public-Use Facilities Study and gather important input to the study. To provide an opportunity for input at various geographic locations in the City, the sessions were held at Valley Park Community Centre, Gage Park, Ancaster Rotary Centre and Bennetto Community Centre. A session was scheduled for the community of Dundas, but due to lack of registration, the meeting was cancelled. At each session, the consultants gave a brief presentation providing an overview of the study and key background information related to the age and inventory of the Citys facilities, demographics and public input received to-date. Following the presentation, the consultants engaged participants with a series of four questions. The questions were structured to solicit input and opinions on strengths and weaknesses of the Citys indoor recreation facilities and programs, trends and barriers affecting the use of facilities and program participation, and key priorities for the future. 3.4.2 Input Summary Participants offered and generally agreed upon a number of suggestions for improving indoor recreation facilities and programs and increasing benefits to the community, such as:
Improve awareness, communication and signage participants indicated that people generally dont know what is available and how to become involved, where facilities are located and who may use them, who owns the facility and whether the building is open to the public, the cost of use and what subsidies/programs are available, etc.; Determine and respond to local community needs some participants felt that many facilities are local in scale but primarily serve needs generated from outside the immediate area/neighbourhood (or are not meeting needs at all). Some participants also felt that for many activities, potential users will not go beyond their local area to seek out a facility that provides the desired program/service; Facilities are rarely built and last a long time, so do it right! some facility users cited examples of existing facilities that are not suitable for the current uses and indicated that many of these issues could have been avoided if groups were consulted in the design phase before the facilities were built; at the same time, participants acknowledged that costs are a limiting factor on how much can be included in the design and construction of new facilities; Break down the barriers participants indicated that there are too many real or perceived barriers to facility usage, access and program participation, including economic, social, cultural, some physical barriers. Some people indicated that they feel like they cannot walk into a facility without a pass or money in hand; Do more at facilities many participants agreed that facilities should be more multi-use, combined with services from other organizations and levels of government, libraries, health and wellness, social services, etc. to better meet the needs of the whole community;
45
Embrace new ideas computer labs, WI-FI networks, equipment loans (e.g. sports closet), community gardens, skateparks, flexible space for a wide range of uses now and in the future were all cited as ideas for new/modern public-use facilities; Resolve gaps in facility types/availability indoor soccer, roller derby, arts and culture, indoor fitness and walking tracks, womens hockey, and European handball were all cited as current or emerging sports/activities/facility types that are not accommodated or available in Hamilton; Support the needs of organized sport user groups facility users participating in the workshops indicated that they need more support spaces such as offices, secure storage, meeting rooms, dedicated change rooms for elite level teams, etc. Obtain input from user groups to assist in monitoring and improvement some participants felt that user groups should be consulted on an ongoing basis to assist in monitoring facility maintenance and condition, issues, usage, etc. For example, it was suggested that the City should consult the primary facility users/operators before cleaning contracts are renewed; Leverage access to school facilities some workshop participants indicated that too many buildings/resources such as schools are sitting unused in Hamilton and that the City needs to do a better job of working with its partners to open the doors of these buildings to the community. Concerns were also raised about the future of recreation centres when schools are closed, suggesting that the City needs to stay on top of this and come up with a plan before it happens; Do better at serving all ages participants generally felt that children are well served in Hamilton but youth, adults and seniors are not. While it was acknowledged that children should be the top priority in recreational service provision, some indicated that the City could do a better job at providing opportunities for all age groups without reducing the level of service to children. Providing sufficient opportunities for seniors was identified as the biggest challenge moving forward.
Figure 3-2 provides a summary of the input received by topic area. It is important to note that summary provided below reflects qualitative input from participants and is not considered scientific.
46
Figure 3-2. Summary of Phase I Community Input Workshops/Focus Groups

TOPIC AREA Aquatics / Indoor Pools STRENGTHS swimming programs range, number, price, availability scaled down, local level pools pools are accessible, well supervised, appropriate operating hours low cost ($75/yr)

NEEDS IMPROVEMENT pools are costly to run at local level gaps no City pool in Flamborough (but YMCA serves as public facility), no pool in Glanbrook some maintenance/ safety issues due to physical condition (e.g. locker room floors are slippery at Valley Park)
TRENDS
BARRIERS
PRIORITIES Salt water pool (78, lane ropes, 25 m/ six lanes, windows, clean) Indoor pool in Glanbrook
Arenas / Ice and Floor Activities
hockey is well supported Stoney Creek Womens Hockey is willing to help build new facilities access to arenas low costs arenas are well kept
cannot accommodate figure skating competitions most arenas do not meet the new requirements for judged skating events problems finding facility staff during competitions some elite level hockey teams not able to play in preferred arena (e.g. Stoney Creek Warriors play at Valley Park but would prefer Stoney Creek Arena) vs. arenas suitable for elite level teams but no team (e.g. Morgan Firestone) Junior womens hockey team would like own dressing room (if junior men moved to Stoney Creek, women could use Valley Park) Not enough ice pads Ice surface at North Wentworth Arena is too small (Grimsby or Caledonia might make a good model) Many local residents can not afford to play hockey/ skate (Eastwood Arena) Parking (Eastwood Arena) Summer ice locations fail to serve local populations No floor time made available, limited by staffing and rental restrictions
Stoney Creek Womens Hockey growing very rapidly (expect significant numbers over the next 10-15 years, projecting 30-40 teams in next 5 years) Hockey is a drive to sport (maybe arenas dont need to be so central) Many people cant afford to play hockey
Lack of ice time (adults late night only, huge barrier for full time workers and those with kids) No equipment rental (need to own skates to participate)
Retrofit Stoney Creek for Junior A and minor hockey (increase seating etc) New arena capable of hosting figure skating competitions and elite hockey tournaments Replace Spring Valley Arena Update facility to avoid losing hockey teams (Glanbrook Junior C team) More availability of Floor time
47
TOPIC AREA Arts & Culture
STRENGTHS
NEEDS IMPROVEMENT
TRENDS
BARRIERS
PRIORITIES
Theatre group contributes to the facility (Waterdown Memorial Hall)
Funding for arts and culture is out of balance compared to level received for other areas Need an Arts Centre for all of Flambourough (Waterdown Memorial Hall?) General lack of awareness of available facilities and programs (a need for more media involvement) Inequitable awareness campaigns (Spectator subscribers receive brochures and others do not - e.g. Ancaster) Advertising is not user friendly (not clear where to go to advertise) People are not aware of available subsidies Poor signage at facilities Sometimes it is overlooked that some people dont have access to the internet Leisure Guide is not reaching everyone City needs to maintain a better record of facility users/organizations, (more efficient communication system) Insufficient public consultation in facility decisions Poor communication in regards to fee assistance policies
Awareness/ Communication
Camps are well promoted
Use of computers is increasing
Lack of awareness (of low costs, availability, programs, facilities, etc)
Community based or district arts centres equitably distributed Theatre group would like sole use of Waterdown Memorial Hall Signage at Facilities Neighbourhood specific directory Use all available tools (facebook) Further public consultation (youth, users, seniors, etc)
Cost, Fundraising & Finances
Community makes a good fundraising effort
Funding/fund raising for groups is difficult Too many dollar-driven decisions
User Fees (affordability) Stigma of subsidies
Free programming & Access
48
TOPIC AREA Demographics
STRENGTHS
NEEDS IMPROVEMENT
TRENDS
BARRIERS
PRIORITIES
More effort should be made to meet the needs of ethnic diversity (ethnic groups not currently welcome) Incorporate all changes/factors into facility planning
Facility Construction & Maintenance
Facilities well maintained Multi-use of some buildings (e.g. Waterdown Memorial Hall) Successful skate park (Beasley Community Centre)
Poor quality construction, facilities are rarely built, they need to be done well in the first place Lack of foresight, facilities need to be able to adapt to changing needs and possible future trends. Facility users should be consulted before changes in maintenance contracts are made (e.g. cleaning contracts) Need a reporting/monitoring mechanism Hamilton Facilities do not compare well with those in other areas Insufficient public consultation on facility design and components Facilities need renovating and updating Some centres fail to reflect meet the needs of their communities Exterior maintenance is sometimes poor Each group wants a separate space to lock away equipment and amenities
Working poor is a growing segment of the population Increasing income disparity A lot of poverty Increasing ethnic diversity (are we reaching out enough?) Computers seem to equalize personal differences in kids (common ground) Decisions often dont respond to user group input Groups are willing to participate in the financing of new facilities People are more willing to pay for better facilities Lost sense of community Risk/liability issues distract from community development
Equal access for all
Poor Aesthetics (unwelcoming) Accessibility
Create a facility that Hamilton can be proud of Multi-use facility (arena, indoor soccer, waking track, fitness, weight training, speed skating, sound system, etc) New stadium Multi-Use Centre in Glanbrook Computer labs in all community centres Should add senior and youth centres to Bennetto Health & Wellness Youth Centres Keep up with growth Identify need/gaps Increase access for all
49
TOPIC AREA Geographic Areas/Gaps Indoor Soccer and Field Sports Organization, Partnerships, Relationship with other Service Providers, Facility Users, etc.
STRENGTHS
Children in Ancaster are well served
NEEDS IMPROVEMENT Some facilities are underused
TRENDS
BARRIERS
PRIORITIES
Hamilton needs a regional level indoor soccer facility Community groups sometimes fail to submit the required statements (E.g. financial statements) 18 high schools being reduced to 9 (could have major impact on leagues) Need better co-ordination between school board and the City (too many building left empty) Too many facilities are underused Need intergenerational programs (need to keep everyone in the same building so they can learn from each other) Need more seniors programs Perception that there are very few young childrens programs Free programs fill up too quickly Limited program options (not offered: music, arts, boxing) Need more seniors programs and centres Not enough services Existing facilities too small (Ancaster Seniors Centre) Centres not equipped for the fitness needs of younger seniors
City does a good job of booking buildings (Waterdown Memorial Hall) Used to have good use of schools
Increased demand for indoor soccer (eg. Flamborough soccer club)
Escarpment acts as a physical barrier, people stay in their own areas
Need to create districts and cluster facilities accordingly
Programs, Activities and Events
Kids club well organized Camps well promoted Festivals Variety of programs Good programming (Beasley Community Centre)
Combine services from multiple levels of government Better use of school gyms When schools closed they should be converted to recreation centres
European Handball (emerging sport?)
Seniors
Seniors becoming isolated Membership declining, but those using facilities use them more (crowded facilities in spite of declining numbers) Growing segment of the population
Few opportunities for adults in the evenings Most programs are limited to an age group or ability level Ethnic groups not currently welcomed by programs offered Transportation (eg. no bus service)
New centre to update/ replace Club 60 Centre with full sized gym, stage, fitness, City water and sewage connections
50
TOPIC AREA Staff
STRENGTHS

NEEDS IMPROVEMENT
TRENDS
BARRIERS
PRIORITIES
Pool staff are good (Valley Park) Staff friendliness (especially at Bennetto) Staff understand their surrounding communities (Beasley Community Centre)
Staff were unable to meet specific requests made by organization during a skating event Some facilities are insufficiently staffed
Attitudes of Staff members (especially when working with youth) Staffing contracts sometimes interfere with efficient operation of facilities (liability, evening staff, janitorial) Access limited without the ability to drive Glanbrook limited transportation options Amalgamation (was easier to attract volunteers in small communities)
Youth Centre with right staff & more staff
Transportation
Additional transportation (Glanbrook)
Volunteers
Many seniors support volunteering
Need to attract people and help them get involved
Smaller communities tend to attract volunteers more easily
51
3.5 Key Informant Interviews

3.5.1 Overview In order to further inform Phase I of the Public-Use Facilities Study, the consultants conducted a series of key informant interviews with City staff, members of Council (13 Councillors and the Mayor), and stakeholders in the community involved in recreation facility and service provision in Hamilton. City staff were engaged through a range of venues, including meetings with the project Steering Committee, a group interview with the Citys four (4) District Recreation Managers, a focus group/workshop session with the Citys Area Supervisors as well as individual consultation with the facility supervisors and other facility staff during the facility tours, and a one-on-one interview with the General Manager of the Citys Community Services Department and the Director of Recreation. Meetings were also held with the Citys Long-Range Planning Division to ensure that the study is informed by and coordinated with related planning initiatives, and with staff involved in the collection and monitoring of facility usage data to leverage available information available on activity and program registration/participation data. Members of City Council were also engaged individually in semi-structured interviews as a means of sharing information about the Public-Use Facilities Study and gathering input on issues/complaints and ideas expressed by residents, to build an understanding of the characteristics, needs and priorities of the communities within Hamilton, and to discuss the strengths and opportunities for improvement of the Citys recreation infrastructure. In addition to City Staff and Council, the consultants conducted telephone interviews with representatives of other recreation facility/service providers/community partners in Hamilton such as minor sports associations and councils, the Boys and Girls Club, and the Mohawk 4pad. The interviews included discussion on topics such as facility usage patterns, future building projects, leisure service initiatives, and partnership opportunities and constraints. The input from all key informants has been combined and summarized in this section by type of facility/activity/topic area. 3.5.2 Input Summary The following discussion is a summary of input received and observations that will require further analysis before any recommendations are formulated. Arenas North Wentworth Arena The construction of a new twin pad arena in Flamborough has recently been approved by Council. The question raised by the area Councillor was whether or not the new building should be just a twin pad arena or should it be a recreation / community complex with multi-use function. The consultants review of the land use pattern would indicate that the current North Wentworth arena site is only accessible by automobile. Although acceptable for an arena which is considered a drive-to facility, it is not the best location for a multi-use facility. Located in an industrial park and separated from the residential community by a Provincial Highway, the North Wentworth Arena site is not the most ideal location for a community centre/recreation complex to which children and peoples of all ages are enticed to walk or ride their bicycle. Multi-use facilities should be built adjacent to the residential population
52
they are intended to serve and should be accessible by foot and by bicycle as well as transit and automobiles. The Councillor for the area also identified that the community feels there is a lack of pool facilities even though they do have the YMCA. The YMCA is built next door to the high school but even the principal at the high school has expressed an interest in seeing a municipal pool, even if it was an outdoor pool. Given the school season of Canada and the short summer months, the consultants would not recommend an outdoor pool. Perhaps a better solution would be to work on improved access arrangement with the YMCA. Stoney Creek Arena and Saltfleet Arena Stoney Creek Minor Hockey Association have advised that they could use more ice time. They also noted that with the development of the Dofasco Arena they have lost some of their players to the Dofasco league. There was general agreement to the idea of re-purposing either the Stoney Creek and/or the Saltfleet Arenas, however, the re-purposing of either arena was considered conditional on the building of a new twin pad complex in the lower east end of Hamilton. It was noted that the Stoney Creek Winona area has a Secondary Plan underway and it was suggested that the new secondary plan area would be an ideal location for a new twin pad arena/recreation complex to serve the Lower Stoney Creek area. There was also agreement with the idea of twinning the Valley Park Arena site but not as an alternative to building a new twin pad complex in the Stoney Creek community. All persons interviewed agreed that both the Saltfleet and Stoney Creek Arenas need to be retrofitted, replaced or re-purposed. Stoney Creek Arena has a great central location as well as a wonderful high wooden roof line and there is great ambiance to this arena. The arena has that classic arena feel. Its central location has made it of interest to the Stoney Creek Warriors Junior Hockey Team. They found that when they play exhibition games at this arena they have significantly larger attendance. The manager of the team believes the increased attendance is as a result of the more central location to the greatest concentration of their fan base who are mainly older adults. Should this arena become the Warriors home arena there would be the need for significant improvements. The primary improvement need would be the creation of two major change rooms that are not located next to each other. One of the change rooms would be for the exclusive use by the Warrior team. Parking would also need to be improved. A local developer has offered to build a facility for the storage of the parks equipment that took over the Warriors former dressing room. There is a ball field on the site that was noted as not being used very often that could be removed to permit either additional parking and/or to accommodate an addition to the front of the building. As an alternative use of the Stoney Creek Arena, it could be considered for redevelopment as a community centre with special emphasis on youth and seniors. The structure is large enough to accommodate indoor basketball or volleyball or even an indoor skate park as well as meeting rooms for a wide variety of functions from cards, to crafts to computer labs. The very attributes that make the site desirable to the Warriors, its central location in a well established neighbourhood, would also make it desirable as a community centre with an emphasis on the older adult community and youth. Suggestions were also made that Club 60 and the Scouts
53
would be ideal tenants for such a re-purposed facility. The physical feasibility of re-purposing the existing arena to suitably accommodate such uses would need to be determined. It was also suggested that Stoney Creek Arena does not really lend itself to hockey due to its size, however, it would be a great curling rink attached to a seniors facility. The Councillor for the area suggested that the consultants need to look very carefully at who is going to live in this area and who therefore would be using the facilities. He sees hockey declining and seniors increasing and that in the long term this should be a seniors multi-use facility. He also noted the shrinking demand for the ball diamond. He felt that curling would be a great use and should be a growth sport given the aging population. Valley Park Arena both concern and support were expressed over the idea of twinning the Valley Park Arena. Hockey associations like the idea of more ice while concern was expressed that it should not be at the expense of a new twin pad for Lower Stoney Creek as well as a concern over declining hockey numbers. It was suggested that Hamilton needed to balance emotions with a sound budget and that they needed to look more than just 4 years down the road. Saltfleet Arena was also noted as being not up to current arena standards. Some felt that the arena should never have been built where it is, i.e. hidden in a residential area without enough parking with the end result being parking on residential streets. In addition, it was noted that the dressing rooms are small and the ice surface ceiling is very low. The Stoney Creek Minor Hockey Association thinks of it more as a practice arena. There is an indication that adult hockey leagues would be content to use this facility. Saltfleet Arena is located in Sherwood Meadows Park and is linked by open space to Brewster Pool located in the High School. If not maintained as an arena, Saltfleet could become either an indoor soccer facility or a facility to serve the need of both seniors and youth, subject to an assessment of the physical feasibility of such re-programming of the space. Another Councillor felt that Saltfleet was done as an arena and that the development charges (DCs) should be used for the building of recreational facilities in the newly developing areas. He did not believe the older areas of the City should be brought up to standard first. There is a fear that because the school boards are closing inner city schools and because those school sites are an integral part of the recreational / open space resource of the inner city that the DCs will be used to address the losses in the inner city before the shortfalls of the new developing areas are addressed. Glanbrook Arena the Glanbrook area had over 500 homes built east of Fruitland Road in 2006 alone. Prior to amalgamation their area had a DC ratio of one arena for every 10,000 to 15,000 people. Now that Hamilton is part of the equation they have a DC ratio of 1 arena per 22,000 people. The local Councillor believes the Glanbrook area needs another ice pad but under the new DC they wont get it. Hamilton used to have a ratio of 1 ice pad per 30,000 population. The biggest problem facing the Glanbrook Arena is the fact that it is in the Greenbelt and outside of the defined Settlement Area. As the Greenbelt Act prohibits bringing services to this area, the City cannot extend urban services to the arena. The arena is on a well and septic tank system which limits the holding of any major events due to partially overloading the septic system. The Councillor believes the answer would be to somehow put in a holding tank and then pump the sewage up the road to where there are services. The Recreation Department is testing the water regularly and they are putting in a filtration system on the water.
54
Although all agree that the Youth come first policy is good there have been teams displaced from local arenas under the new policy. In addition, it was noted that there are two associations, the Ontario Alliance and the Minor Hockey Association, and there are some who choose to not belong to any association and just want to play hockey. There has been pressure politically to have the Alliance get the use of the Glanbrook Arena and move the Minor Hockey Association to the Mohawk 4-pad. The result would be less time for Minor Hockey at the Glanbrook arena and the displacing of the mens team who always had Sunday time slot. It was also noted that there needs to be better access to the arena / park site as there are 9,000 people living south of Reno Road and the only way to get to the arena is to drive. Currently there is no bicycle path or pedestrian path along Fletchers Road to the Glanbrook Arena and there is no bus service in the Glanbrook area. Concern was expressed as to how kids or seniors are to get to the facility. Spring Valley Arena It was noted by the Councillor that this arena is very tired and needs redevelopment. He noted that the kids from Ancaster are now having to play outside their area and he did not feel that is right. The Ancaster area cannot afford to loose an ice pad unless it is replaced with another facility. They would like a twin pad arena. The Ancaster area has had a 70% increase in assessment and has not had any increase in the level of services provided. They still only have two arenas yet they have had all kinds of new growth. Some think they need a third ice pad. When asked if Spring Valley could be eliminated the answer was no as they need ice time up there and there is no ice time in Dundas. The only ice time is at the Mohawk 4pad and girls hockey is forced to leave the area to find ice time. In addition, because they have gone to this equity system it means the men have been kicked out of the local arenas. Coronation Arena The local Councillor and a representative from the hockey association both noted that there was a problem with the local hockey association but they are now back on line and do not want to lose this arena. They believe it is important for area. It was noted that the facility is in need of upgrades. It was suggested that one possibility would be to work with McMaster University as they are getting into varsity hockey and have even talked about building an arena. It was suggested that they may wish to participate in making the upgrades to Coronation in exchange for being able to use it. There is also not enough family skate time in the area and the suggestion was for Sunday afternoons from 2 to 4 as family skate time. There has been dialogue for some time about whether or not to close one or all of Coronation and Eastwood and to a lesser extent Scott Park Arenas. The topic has been debated for 10 years as to what to do demolish or retrofit as well as whether or not this is an area of the City that even wants or needs an arena. The overall belief of the local Councillors is that you cannot take a facility away from these neighbourhoods. If you do you keep adding to their deterioration rather then to their potential to revitalize. You cannot chip away their resources. Although the demographics of the area are changing and there are more immigrant populations moving to the area you cannot tear down either Eastwood or Coronation without building a new facility it is the only way to attract families back into the area. People are already leaving the area for the upper mountain communities because of amenities and facilities. Whatever one does with Eastwood or Coronation will be controversial; neither can be removed unless they are replaced. The replacement could be something different like a multi-use facility or like what was done in Turner Park but you cannot sacrifice one political area for another.
55
Turner Park is believed to be a perfect model as it contains the new police station, a YMCA, a skate park, a seniors building and a library all on one site. The hockey program at the Eastwood arena did fall apart and the local Councillor is not sure it is what the neighbourhood needed in the first place as the neighbourhood is so diverse. There does need to be something there and if it is an arena then there is a real need to find skates for the kids. One suggestion was a technique that works in the local high school where they buy soap and deodorant and have an open door policy where the kids self monitor the use of the goods and it works. Maybe something like that could be done with sports equipment but the equipment needs to be new. These kids do not have a lot and what they really need is some glitter something new for them. When the suggestion was put forward that the arena could be replaced with indoor soccer it was felt that it could work as soccer is year round and would fit the needs of this ethnically diverse area. It was also suggested that there could be an outdoor rink developed at Bayfront Park. Community Centres Dalewood Recreation Centre the local Councillor believes that the Dalewood Recreation Centre is critical to the neighbourhood and it is in need of upgrades. It needs more meeting space and air conditioning and basically it just does not work well for the community. The number one priority, however, for this area is that they must keep the school in the area. Attached to the Dalewood Recreation Centre is a school and according to the school boards point system this school is beyond repair. It is an important walk-to school and it is under threat of not being replaced. The local Councillor feels the City needs to work with the Board to keep this school or a replacement in the area. Even if the City has to financially participate they need to keep the school in the area or they will lose families. At the school is a gym and auditorium. The school gym needs upgrading but is needed in the area and it would make good meeting space in the classrooms. Their decision is probably 2-3 years out but need to be positive in the solutions. Overall there is not a lot of community meeting space in the ward. Ryerson Recreation Centre is well used but also needs upgrades just old and has some mechanical problems. There are no recreational facilities in the Strathcona area except for the outdoor pool in Victoria Park. Bernaise School is still standing and it would also make a good recreation centre. The school is moving over to Lawfield and when it is up and ready and they will move over from Bernaise and then it will be empty and would make a great recreation centre. Community Halls There was a general feeling that the rural community halls need to be maintained as they are often the only thing the area has. Section 4.0 provides a description of the current usage.
56
Seniors Centres The development of a senior centre is the number one requirement identified in the Stoney Creek portion of Hamilton by one of the area Councillors. It was noted that there is a Seniors facility in Winona further to the east and another one downtown but neither of these facilities address the needs of seniors in Stoney Creek. What is being requested is something more like what is on the Mountain (Sackville Hill Seniors Centre). The Stoney Creek seniors want shuffleboard, tennis, badminton, walking track, fitness facility and other amenities that will allow them to be active. Older adults want to do things but want to do it indoors. It was suggested that the ideal location may not just serve Ward 10. Possibly something that could serve both Upper and Lower Mountain older adults could be considered but generally feel they need something more central, it being noted that Stoney Creek is bound to expand. Options considered were a re-purposing of either Saltfleet Arena or Stoney Creek Arena as a community centre to serve the needs of seniors. Winona has a Seniors space and they want to put an addition on the building. They have $100,000 to invest to make the building more of a community building. The building needs a kitchen and youth room and office and space for the volunteers. Possibly they could add their investment to a new community centre east of Fruitland Road should it be developed. Winona Peach Festival is in the park across the road from Winona Seniors building and they want to be able to use the facility. If a new complex is developed within the Secondary Plan area of east Stoney Creek it may be able to include a mens club in a new arena complex. In the Dalewood community area the seniors use churches and there are a lot of churches in the area and some even have gyms. The Churches are also in need of help and there is the possibility that some of them could become seniors centres. There is no dedicated seniors housing in the area. If the Dalewood Recreation Centre is expanded it should have a seniors room or things they would like to do. They do use the pool but it too needs upgrading. There was some concern as to whether or not many people know about the various recreation facilities that exist including Sackville Hill Seniors Centre. There may be the need to have more exposure of what resources are available and where they are and what they offer. The only negative comment the Councillor gets is that there is not enough room for classes. Meeting space is needed and it is hard to find a room. There is a big auditorium at Lawfield Arena and it could be used as a seniors recreation centre. Lawfield Arena area has a high population but the facilities dont get used enough. Lower city needs something like Sackville they do have three centres that are fee for service Hess, McNab and Ottawa but it is not the same as what is at Sackville. At the same time the Councillor noted that although there are lots of seniors in the ward they are not the type to go to Sackville. There is a lot of seniors housing being built above the escarpment and the escarpment is a real barrier. It was suggested that a perfect location for more seniors facilities would be at Valley Park. The addition of a seniors room attached to the library end of the complex would suit the
57
seniors needs well. It was suggested that the library be allowed to program the space when not in use by the seniors. The local Councillor has already talked to the library board and feels they are receptive to seniors programming as seniors are very supportive of library functions. Youth Facilities The second greatest need in the Stoney Creek area is a youth centre if you do not count the need for soccer fields. Few people in the Dundas area have asked for a youth centre but they do want a skate board park and BMX bike facility. It was noted that it was not necessary that it be in Dundas. The City was going to have one in the east and one in the west and then decided on Turner Park and although it will be great it takes three transfers and 90 minutes to get there from Dundas or Ancaster to the park. If it is too hard to get to the kids from Dundas and Ancaster just wont go. Another site that would work well for both Dundas and Ancaster would be the sewer overflow location at Main, King, and Dundurn and the 403 Cathedral Park. It is 2.49 hectares in size and there are bus stops all around it. One of the biggest problems is teenagers need opportunities to be active. Turner Park will be wonderful with the skate park going in as well as a real mix of uses library, YMCA, police, soccer and oval track but there also needs to be activities for youth in other areas of the City. Another suggestion was to take out baseball diamonds as no one is playing and replace with more soccer or skate parks or bmx or basketball facilities. Pool Facilities The Stoney Creek area noted that they only have Brewster Pool which is located in the high school and is leased space. The local Councillor felt that they need something better. What they would like is a new community centre complex within the new Secondary Plan area of Stoney Creek with a pool and either a twin or 4 pad arena. They want something more like Valley Park. Upgrades were also requested for the pool at the Dalewood Recreation Centre. In the Strathcona area, intensification is planned for York Boulevard and with that intensification may come the need for more recreational uses in the area with one suggestion being the possibility of enclosing the outdoor pool at Victoria Park to make it a year-round facility. There are two pools in the Lower Hamilton area (Central Memorial and Bennetto). The kids who live just a few blocks away do not feel like it is their pool but someone elses pool. The local Councillor believes they would get more out of a water park than a pool. If any pool is being considered it should be the water park style pool with slides and buckets that dump as that would be better than two little pools.
58
SECTION 4
4.1 Overview
FACILITY PROFILE
Hamilton has a wide range of types of public-use recreation facilities. All City-owned publicuse/recreation facilities included in the scope of this study are identified on Map 6. The Cityowned facilities included in the scope of this study have been grouped into one or more of the following facility categories: Arenas include public facilities containing one or more indoor ice sheets predominantly used and programmed for ice sports/activities such as hockey, figure skating, public skating, etc. Depending on the length of the ice season, arenas may also provide opportunities for floor uses such as ball hockey, lacrosse, special events and other activities. Some arenas in Hamilton are combined with other types of facilities such as a community hall and/or outdoor pool, or form part of a multi-use community recreation centre containing facilities such as an indoor pool and/or gymnasium. Indoor Pools include public facilities containing one or more indoor pool basins available year-round for recreational swimming and a range of other aquatic activities and programs. Many indoor pools in Hamilton are located within or adjacent to public school facilities and some form part of multi-use community/recreation centres. Many pool facilities also include meeting rooms or space for related programs and/or community rentals. Outdoor Pools include outdoor pool basins and related indoor facilities generally available through the summer months for public recreational swimming. Some also accommodate swimming lessons and other aquatic programs. Outdoor pools in Hamilton are located at City parks or at the site of an indoor recreation facility such as an arena. For the purposes of this Study, this category does not include wading pools, fountains, splash/spray pads, or natural swimming areas (e.g. lakes, beaches, ponds, etc). Community Centres include public indoor recreation facilities that combine multiple types of recreation facilities and/or are predominantly used to provide a range of recreational, social and/or cultural programs. Facilities that are designed or function primarily for a single type of recreational activity (e.g. ice sports, aquatics) and/or where the space is primarily made available to users through rentals (e.g. community halls) are not included as community centres. Community centres include multi-use recreation facilities combining various facility types such as an indoor pool and/or arena with space that is programmed or generally available to all members of the public for other types of public recreational, social or cultural activities such as publicly accessible gymnasiums located in the same building or on the same site (may be part of a school facility), multiuse rooms, fitness facilities, seniors centres, youth centres and/or other facilities. In addition to multi-use recreation facilities, community centres also include buildings containing flexible space primarily used for a range of registered and drop-in programs generally available to all members of the public. Note that this definition of a community centre is intended to facilitate the categorization of existing City facilities for the purposes of Phase 1 of this study and an alternate definition identifying the components of a true community centre may be developed as part of the recommendations in Phase 2.
59
Community Halls include public indoor facilities designed or primarily made available to the community through rentals to accommodate public or private recreational, social and/or cultural functions/events organized by a third party. The use of many of these facilities is managed in conjunction with a community association, service club and/or volunteer committee. Generally these facilities contain one or more main rooms with supporting service space such as a kitchen and washrooms. Seniors Centres include public indoor facilities containing space generally dedicated to seniors programs and activities run by the City and/or a seniors organization. This includes stand-alone seniors facilities and dedicated space located within other facilities. Stadiums include major playing fields with large spectator seating capacity.
For each type of facility identified, the following facility profile provides information about national and provincial trends and best practices in the provision and use of those facilities, the Citys current inventory and facility provision levels and a review of the capacity and usage of these facilities. The review of the existing supply, capacity and usage of each facility by type is pertinent in determining the current and future needs of recreational facilities in a community. Although the capacity/usage review is but one element in a full analysis, it must be completed in order to determine: If the facility inventory is meeting current needs in the community; What the full capacity of the facility is and to what extent it is being utilized; To determine if the facility should remain a viable component in the offering of the range facilities; Whether there are enough facilities of various types or an over supply; An indication as to whether the City should look to other potential uses; and, Whether there is pent up demand in activities in the various facility types.
In addition, the facility profile provides an overall assessment of the current physical condition of the existing facilities in Hamilton which is another important factor in evaluating the ability of the existing inventory to meet existing and future needs.
4.2 Arenas
4.2.1 Trends and Best Practices Changing Demographics Canadians are aging and the new senior is showing a strong commitment to fitness. Recent trend data from the U.S indicates that the 55+ age bracket is now the fittest age group (based on analysis of frequent participants). Evidence of this trend is being seen in many municipalities where one of the main groups reporting waiting lists are adults / old timers hockey looking for prime time hours. That is not to say that there will be more adult hockey participants than youth in the foreseeable future. However, it can be expected that there will be a greater proportion of adult hockey participants using arenas in the future. Historically, it was expected that the adult market would be satisfied to occupy non-prime time hours, thereby reducing demands for the more desirable weekday evening and weekend time
60
slots. However, recent participant preference data indicates that active older adults are experiencing time pressures similar to younger cohorts, which effectively reduces their capacity to adopt a flexible participation profile. In certain cases, municipalities are attempting to moderate this demand issue by proactively organizing adult leagues and other pre-established programs to channel adult participation into acceptable time slots, which in turn provides for more efficient scheduling. Outside of hockey, one implication of a fitter older population with a commitment to fitness is the potential of greater demand for public skating. Youth participation in hockey has remained relatively stable in recent years (soccer has now surpassed hockey as the number one team sport for children and youth). Figure skating, on the other hand, has generally experienced a decline in many jurisdictions in recent years due in part to the time pressures on both youth and adults and the expense associated with this program. A slight decline in ringette participation has also been experienced, which is largely due to the increased popularity of womens hockey. Throughout the central and southern Ontario, not to mention the entire Country, there has been a tremendous growth in both girls and womens hockey fuelled partially by the 1998 Winter Olympics. For example, female hockey registration in Ontario increased by 150% over the five year span between the 1993/94 and 1998/99 seasons. Female participation in hockey has increased dramatically over the past decade and further increases are expected. There are direct facility implications stemming from a greater number of women using arenas as every arena facility operator is well aware. Consumer Demand for High Quality Facilities Research conducted in other municipalities illustrates that residents generally place more emphasis on quality facilities rather than the quantity of facilities. Therefore, new facilities should be of high quality design and construction and they must be properly maintained. From an arena standpoint, there is a strong desire for first class dressing rooms, showers and washrooms, as well as high quality ice. Input from user groups in Hamilton places a particularly high priority on one aspect of aspect of arena design, that being dressing rooms. Increased Demand for Ice Time Although demographers and industry pundits have for some time been predicting a significant reduction in participation in ice sports as a result of the aging population, an appreciable slump in pressure for ice time has not materialized. Almost without exception, municipalities across the province and across the country continue to have difficulty meeting ice time demands. While the population is aging, participation levels among older cohorts as well as the emergence of the babyboom echo generation has added to the number of potential participants and heightened arena demand pressures. Many municipalities report playing catch up rather than staying ahead of the curve. The increased demand or expectation for ice time may also be attributed to the increased competitiveness of the game of hockey, even at the house league level. In order to compete, players require more ice or practice time and individual teams/coaches aggressively seek additional ice time to supplement their allocated ice times.
61
Growth In Off-Season Arena Uses In some municipalities, in-line hockey is beginning to add to the "off-season" revenues of arenas. Most recently, the Consulting Team has noted a resurgence of interest in ball hockey, a summer sport which has been in decline. Another off-season sport enjoying some growth at this time is lacrosse, although it is field hockey which is seeing the greatest growth. Tournaments & Sports Tourism: An Important Market Segment Throughout Ontario, municipalities are vying for the lucrative tournament market as a means of supporting and enhancing the local economy but from an arena management perspective, revenues from tournaments do not necessarily flow into the arena operations budgets. However, despite the high-profile nature of tournaments and other major of events, there continues to be very little credible evidence that supports the economic value of these initiatives - especially when they occur in facilities normally used for community programming. Facility managers frequently face the dilemma of balancing tournament requests with the need to remain consistent with the ice use schedule and the desire to keep bumping to a minimum. Bumping is a contentious issue in some jurisdictions. For example, the Town of Markham has a policy that prohibits the cancellation of public skating to accommodate special events and tournaments. A solution may lie in a decision to design and develop tournament facilities an approach recently adopted by the City of London. It is noteworthy that London has recently engaged in an aggressive building/renovation program that now allows the City to meet 100% of its ice demands and enables it to direct tournament play to its newest 4 pad facility. Willingness to Travel to "Value Added" Recreational Facilities Through research collected from a number of other Ontario municipalities, as well as comments received through the user group survey undertaken for this study, it is apparent that residents are willing to travel a fair distance (ie. 15 minutes or more) for quality arena facilities, programs and events. Demand for Personal Attention Sport and physical activity enthusiasts are increasingly interested in accessing personalized levels of service and individual or more one-on-one attention. As a result, semi-private lessons in learn to skate programs (a development also influencing aquatic programs) are becoming more popular. On a related theme, there is growing popularity of three on three hockey as well as a three-skater program during non prime-time hours. Increased Demand/Interest for Family Recreation Opportunities Recreation literature supports the emergence of increased interest in recreation opportunities that families can pursue as a unit. This has caused some shifts in approaches to the design and development of recreational facilities as well as changes to operational practices, such as facility scheduling. For example, many municipalities are now developing multi-purpose complexes where families can engage in a wide variety of activities at the same time - either
62
individually or together. Time slots scheduled specifically for family skates are becoming commonplace. Moreover, creative recreation facility designs that promote passive yet enjoyable family leisure experiences are increasingly popular. Facility Trends Design, Scheduling While a considerable amount of the municipal inventories consist of single pad arenas, twin pads, 3 pads and 4 pads appear to be the design trend for new facilities. Single pads are being retired, converted to arena floor based activities (e.g. ball hockey, in-line skating) or are being twinned. The operational efficiencies of multi-pad facilities have been realized and are the way of the future. With respect to innovative designs and ideas, the City of Brampton advised that they are developing a box design facility. This convertible facility will initially accommodate two ice pads, an indoor soccer venue as well a volleyball facility. As trends and needs change over time, the facility can be converted to either accommodate up to 4 ice pads or 4 floors. Twin pads are planned/being developed in Markham (now open), London (twinning of existing facility), Oakville and Vaughan. Hours of Operation The range of operational hours is extensive. Overall, the hours of 6 a.m. to midnight are the most frequently reported. Due to the low level of daytime usage, the City of Sudbury has restructured the operating hours and manpower requirements at 4 of its facilities which resulted in considerable savings. These 4 arenas now do not open until 2 p.m. Summer Usage More teams are seeking to play ice hockey during the summer. However, the majority of municipalities only maintain ice in a fraction of their facilities. The operational costs associated with summer ice is a significant factor. Most major urban municipalities offer arena floor rentals in the summer and also offer summer ice but only at a fraction of the available pads and there is not a strong demand for summer ice. Summer camps and hockey schools are the major users of summer ice. Ice Allocation Minor hockey is typically the most significant user of prime-time ice but there is some variation in the amount of prime-time ice that municipalities allocate to this group. Brampton (45%), Markham (49%), Oakville (44%), Vaughan (48%) and Waterloo (50%) allocate 50% or less of the available prime-time ice to minor hockey, while London (65%), Oshawa (58%) and Mississauga (59%) allocate more than 55% of available prime time ice to minor hockey. Oakville (23%) and Markham (20%) have the highest allocation for recreational programming while Brampton (29%) and Waterloo (25%) have the largest adult prime time allocation. It is estimated that up to 90% of Hamiltons prime time ice is allocated to affiliated ice users including minor hockey, figure skating and other children/youth sports.
63
4.2.2 Current Arena Inventory/Supply There are 20 municipally owned and operated arenas in Hamilton providing a total of 22 ice sheets. All but 2 of the City-owned arenas are traditional single ice-pad facilities, with exception to the Dave Andreychuk/Mountain Skating Arena which was originally constructed as a singlepad hockey arena with later addition of a second ice pad designed (without boards) for public skating, figure skating and other programs, and Chedoke Twin-Pad Arena. In addition, the Mohawk 4-Pad Arena was constructed by the City in 2004 and is managed/operated under a public-private partnership, bringing the total public supply to 26 ice sheets. The City also owns Copps Coliseum, a 17,500-seat arena and multi-event/entertainment venue, however this facility is unique in the type of service/opportunities it provides to the community and is not included in the scope of the Public-Use Facilities Study. There are also three privately owned and operated arena facilities providing an additional 6 ice pads, bringing the total supply of indoor ice facilities in Hamilton to 33 ice sheets. Map 7 lists and shows the location of all public and private arena facilities in Hamilton. Figure 4-1 calculates the supply of public ice sheets provided at municipal arenas by community: Figure 4-1. Arenas: Current Level of Public Ice Sheet Provision by Community
# of City Arenas 2 2 1 5 4 2 1 1 3 21 # of Public Ice Sheets* 2 2 1 10 4 2 1 1 3 26 6 2 2 # of Private Ice Sheets 2 Total Ice Sheets 4 2 1 10 6 2 3 1 3 32 Population Per Public Ice Sheet 14,615 11,670 13,729 15,117 33,464 37,793 20,470 17,675 13,138 19,403 Population Per Total Ice Sheets 7,308 11,670 13,729 15,117 22,309 37,793 6,823 17,675 13,138 15,765
Community Ancaster Flamborough Glanbrook Hamilton Mountain Lower Hamilton Lower Stoney Creek Upper Stoney Creek Beverly West Hamilton/ Dundas Hamilton Total
Population** 29,230 23,340 13,729 151,171 133,855 75,585 20,470 17,675 39,145 504,470
*Excluding Copps Colliseum as this is a specialized venue serving needs City-wide and beyond. **Source: Adapted from Statistics Canada, Age and Sex for the Population of Census Tracts (100% Data), Cat. No. 97-551X2006007, 2006 Census.
As shown in Figure 4-2, Hamiltons current supply of ice sheets is on par with the provision levels found in other comparable Ontario municipalities.
64
Figure 4-2. Arenas: Ice Sheet Provision in Ontario Municipalities

Municipality Waterloo Sudbury London Hamilton (including private ice sheets) Burlington Ottawa Hamilton (public ice sheets) Markham Oakville Oshawa Brampton Windsor Edmonton Mississauga Vaughan St. Catharines Toronto Population Per Ice Sheet 10,817 11,095 15,000 15,765 16,778 19,350 19,403 20,861 23,123 23,175 25,032 26,125 26,644 29,184 30,337 30,750 41,351
Source: Monteith Brown Planning Consultants; City of Hamilton Parks, Culture and Recreation Master Plan (PERC, 2002).
The City of London, which has a standard of supply of 1:15,000, has an arena supply which correlates with demand. A decision was made that the City would provide enough facilities to meet all of the pent up ice demand. This is achieved not through the direct provision of municipal arena facilities alone but also by the City renting ice time from non-municipal facilities. Markham has conveyed that it will be meeting demand when its new twin pad comes on line at a standard of 1:20, 861. 4.2.3 Arena Usage and Programming Analysis Figure 4-3 summarizes community utilization of hours of ice time potentially available at each of the Citys arenas. Note that the actual hours of ice time available at each arena varies from one arena to the next. The purpose of the analysis in Figure 4-3 is to remove this variability in the operating hours of each arena in order to provide a comparison of hours booked at each arena against a common standard of potential hours available. Potential hours available are based on a core season of ice demand from October 1 to March 31 and the following definition of prime and non-prime hours of ice time provided by the City as defined for the ice rental rates:
Prime Time Monday to Friday, 5 pm to 12 am Saturday and Sunday, 6 am to 12 am Total Potential Prime-Time Hours Non-Prime Time Monday to Friday, 6 am to 5 pm Total Potential Hours Available Hours Per Week 35 36 71 Total Hours Oct1-Mar31 910 936 1846
55 126
1430 3276 65
Figure 4-3. Comparison of Arena Usage 2006-2007 vs. Potential Ice Hours Available
Hours of Ice Time Booked NonPrime Prime Total 1522 178 1700 1482 151 1633 1474 81 1555 1463 267 1730 1457 142 1599 1457 42 1499 1435 156 1591 1430 247 1677 1426 73 1499 1415 227 1642 1413 378 1791 1398 118 1516 1388 270 1658 1387 156 1543 1370 106 1476 1366 98 1464 1348 113 1461 1327 107 1434 1319 82 1401 1267 60 1327 1150 3 1153 1011 298 1309 783 2 785 715 715 625 8 633 400 12 412 32828 3375 36203 1263 135 1392 Potential Ice Time Hours Available** NonPrime Prime Total 1846 3276 5122 1846 3276 5122 1846 3276 5122 1846 3276 5122 1846 3276 5122 1846 3276 5122 1846 3276 5122 1846 3276 5122 1846 3276 5122 1846 3276 5122 1846 3276 5122 1846 3276 5122 1846 3276 5122 1846 3276 5122 1846 3276 5122 1846 3276 5122 1846 3276 5122 1846 3276 5122 1846 3276 5122 1846 3276 5122 1846 3276 5122 1846 3276 5122 1846 3276 5122 1846 3276 5122 1846 3276 5122 1846 3276 5122 47996 85176 133172 1846 3276 5122 Hours Booked as % of Potential Available NonPrime Prime Total 5.4% 33.2% 82.4% 4.6% 31.9% 80.3% 2.5% 30.4% 79.8% 8.2% 33.8% 79.3% 4.3% 31.2% 78.9% 1.3% 29.3% 78.9% 4.8% 31.1% 77.7% 7.5% 32.7% 77.5% 2.2% 29.3% 77.2% 6.9% 32.1% 76.7% 76.5% 11.5% 35.0% 3.6% 29.6% 75.7% 8.2% 32.4% 75.2% 4.8% 30.1% 75.1% 3.2% 28.8% 74.2% 3.0% 28.6% 74.0% 3.4% 28.5% 73.0% 3.3% 28.0% 71.9% 2.5% 27.4% 71.5% 1.8% 25.9% 68.6% 0.1% 22.5% 62.3% 9.1% 25.6% 54.8% 0.1% 15.3% 42.4% 0.0% 14.0% 38.7% 0.2% 12.4% 33.9% 0.4% 21.7% 8.0% 68.4% 4.0% 27.2%
Arena Chedoke - Blue Chedoke - Green Glanbrook Morgan Firestone Carlisle Spring Valley Coronation Dave Andreychuk Beverly Inch Park Market Street Lawfield North Wentworth Saltfleet Valley Park Westoby Rosedale Pat Quinn Parkdale Stoney Creek Eastwood Scott Park Mountain Mohawk 1* Mohawk 2* Mohawk 3* Mohawk 4* TOTAL AVERAGE
*Hours booked at Mohawk 4-Pad reported in the table above include hours booked by the City of Hamilton only. Additional hours are booked by the private operator of the facility. **Potential hours available based on standard operating hours. Actual hours of ice time available varies at each arena.
Figure 4-3 above compares hours used at each arena against a common assumption of potential hours available. The utilization of actual prime and non-prime hours available is much higher, with facility staff reporting that available prime time ice at each arena is fully booked and hours of available ice under current operating schedules is generally during non-prime time or prime shoulder hours only. The definition of prime hours used in the above analysis may not reflect actual prime-time demands at each arena as some user groups, minor sports for example, would generally not consider certain shoulder hours (e.g. 10 pm to 12 am) as hours that they can use or would have strong demand for. Further analysis of arena utilization will be completed prior to completing Phase II of the study.
66
Observations: Comparing arena usage against a universal standard of potential operating hours for a core ice season of October 1 to March 31 reveals the following: the 2 ice sheets at the Chedoke Arena had the highest usage of potential prime time hours available and the Olympic-size (Blue) ice sheet was booked slightly more than the NHL-size (Green) ice sheet; all arenas with the exception of Eastwood, Scott Park and Mountain Skating Centre show greater than 70% utilization of potential prime-time ice hours available; additional data is needed to complete the ice usage analysis for the Mohawk 4-Pad as Figure 4-3 only reflects the hours of ice time booked by the City for that facility while hours are also booked by the private operator of the building; the Dundas/Market Street/Grightmire Arena had the most total hours booked in 20062007 with 35% booking of all ice time potentially available, followed by Morgan Firestone (33.8%) and Chedoke Blue (33.2%); Staff have indicated that there are no known pent up demands for ice; It is anticipated that any available ice is accessible during non-prime hours or prime shoulder hours only.
4.2.4 Arenas Physical Condition Review Of the inventory, arenas account for approximately 53% of the total asset value and represent 50% of the total quantity of assets by floor area. Of the total quantity of arenas, it is noted that 70% were constructed prior to 1980 and are 27 years of age or older. 8 of 20 arenas (40% arena inventory) were built in one decade (1970-1978) and are 27 to 37 years old. The average life for a concrete ice pad is 38 years. The average size of an arena has increased since 1980 to 58,481 square feet where those built previous to 1980 averaged 34,502 square feet. Figure 4-4 illustrates the age of construction of the Citys arena facilities.
67
Figure 4-4. Arenas by Age of Construction

Asset Name GRIGHTMIRE ARENA EASTWOOD ARENA SALTFLEET ARENA SCOTT PARK ARENA DAVE ANDREYCHUK ARENA & SKATING CENTRE STONEY CREEK ARENA SPRING VALLEY ARENA ROSEDALE ARENA NORTH WENTWORTH ARENA BEVERLY ARENA LAWFIELD ARENA GLANBROOK ARENA CARLISLE ARENA WESTOBY ARENA CORONATION ARENA VALLEY PARK ARENA MORGAN FIRESTONE ARENA CHEDOKE TWIN PAD ARENA PAT QUINN PARKDALE ARENA INCH PARK ARENA Structure Size (sq ft) 35,327 27,096 26,368 23,950 75,296 31,851 27,308 28,751 28,432 31,032 31,183 36,915 34,708 27,986 27,727 35,009 38,643 89,460 34,600 34,500 726,142 Construction Year (YYYY) 1952 1955 1960 1962 1966 1969 1970 1973 1973 1974 1975 1975 1978 1978 1981 1981 1992 1994 1995 1995
% of Total sq ft
Total sq ft by Facility Type
% Of Total sq ft by Construction Period 8.60%
21.69%
33.92% 8.64%
726,142
50%
27.16% 100.00%
Some older arenas were purpose built to minimum standards with subsequent additions (such as a roof) put on over time. Opportunities for new uses at these locations are limited. With changing demographics and population growth, sites are not necessarily located where user demand requires. Emerging technologies such as green design will be difficult to implement at these facilities. As previously noted, the City of Hamilton owns 20 arenas, with 70% of the inventory constructed before 1980. Most arenas are constructed as a concrete pad with seating to one or more sides, non-insulated wall membrane, concrete block change rooms, mechanical rooms, concession and lobby and frequently an upstairs viewing room, often known as the Blue Line Room and accessible by stairs. The roof is typically a steel or wood truss configuration surmounted by purlins, decking and membrane. Loadbearing walls or columns support the trusses. Walls are often non-insulated due to the seasonal nature of hockey. Opportunities to improve existing arenas include constructing larger and more appropriate change rooms, showers and washroom facilities and making these available to accommodate barrier free access. However, these improvements may not be practical/feasible in many cases. Larger and improved lobbies and concessions including meeting rooms and storage are also required.
68
Emerging Technologies: Lighting in arenas has typically been provided by artificial light. The Green Building Council of Canada recommends the use of natural light in its LEED program for energy efficiency and environmental design. Special glazing panels offering diaphanous white light can be retrofitted into existing arenas and designed to suit new arenas. All arenas extract heat to produce ice and this heat is typically exhausted to the exterior. This waste product could be cycled through a heat exchanger and used to heat the change rooms and preheat domestic hot water. The Ontario Building Code also requires that all changerooms exhaust 100% of supply air to the exterior. If a heat exchanger were introduced prior to exhausting to the exterior, this heat could be used to preheat the new supply air. There was no evidence that any arenas were using this technology. The adaptive reuse of arenas is difficult as the structure is very unique. Other sports activities such as indoor soccer, tennis or lacrosse would be suited to using the facility without significant alteration although the demands of individual sports or activities make it increasingly difficult for any one facility to be easily converted to use for another. It becomes more difficult to house activities that are more unrelated to the activity for which the facility was intended. Maintenance Cost vs. Replacement Value of Facility The ratio of replacement value to 20 year maintenance is less for older structures (eg. Eastwood Arena = 1.74) and greater for newer ones (eg Valley Park = 3.92) reflecting a smaller difference between replacement value and (larger/greater) maintenance cost in older structures and a greater difference between the two for newer or more recently renovated structures. It is understood that aging infrastructure depreciates in value, requires a greater range of physical intervention to bring it up to date for appropriate use and public function and incurs greater maintenance costs over time. Inversely, newer structures have greater replacement value with lower maintenance costs resulting in a higher ratio of replacement value to maintenance cost. Newer buildings are also more compliant with current trends in public use and functional requirements. A review of all arenas indicates that most of the older facilities require updating of cramped changerooms and associated washroom facilities. Figure 4-5 compares the replacement value of each arena to the forecast 20-year maintenance costs. The table has been organized by descending value of the quotient of replacement value versus 20 year maintenance cost. There is a general correlation associated with the descending quotient and the age of the structure (year of construction). As the value of the replacement cost versus 20 year maintenance cost approaches 1.0, the age of the building increases, in general. If the quotient descends below 1.0, then the 20 year maintenance cost exceeds the replacement value.
69
Figure 4-5. Arenas Replacement Value vs. 20-Year Required Capital Maintenance Costs
Structure Replacement Value $5,175,000 $13,419,000 $10,804,950 $5,190,000 $11,294,400 $4,677,450 $4,197,900 $4,777,650 $4,096,200 $4,813,800 $4,159,050 $6,266,250 $3,955,200 $5,706,000 $5,299,050 $5,400,900 $4,312,650 $4,064,400 $3,592,500 $13,885,500 $125,087,850 20 Year Maintenance Total $1,070,600 $2,833,071 $2,757,210 $1,374,221 $3,477,306 $1,499,764 $1,579,272 $1,827,786 $1,685,771 $2,073,469 $1,859,752 $2,840,606 $1,878,158 $2,848,367 $2,792,500 $2,995,549 $2,477,692 $2,338,631 $2,630,591 $39,363,010 Construction Year 1995 1994 1981 1995 1966 1975 1978 1969 1970 1973 1981 1975 1960 1978 1952 1974 1973 1955 1962 1992 Replacement Value vs. 20 year Maintenance 4.83 4.74 3.92 3.78 3.24 3.12 2.66 2.61 2.43 2.32 2.24 2.21 2.11 2.00 1.90 1.80 1.74 1.74 1.37 Maintenance as % of Replacement Value 21 21 26 26 31 32 38 38 41 43 45 45 47 50 53 55 57 58 73 Accessibility N = Not P = Partial F = Full F F F F P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P F
Asset Name INCH PARK ARENA CHEDOKE TWIN PAD VALLEY PARK ARENA PAT QUINN/PARKDALE DAVE ANDREYCHUK LAWFIELD ARENA WESTOBY ARENA STONEY CREEK SPRING VALLEY NORTH WENTWORTH CORONATION ARENA GLANBROOK ARENA SALTFLEET ARENA CARLISLE ARENA GRIGHTMIRE ARENA BEVERLY ARENA ROSEDALE ARENA EASTWOOD ARENA SCOTT PARK ARENA MORGAN FIRESTONE TOTAL
Accessibility A very general review of accessibility reveals that the majority of arenas are partially accessible without being fully accessible. Changerooms and associated shower and washroom facilities in older arenas are not accessible. Replacement of existing changeroom and washroom to reflect current standards would cost in the order of $1.5 to $2 million per arena depending on the scope of work, site conditions, finishes and other conditions. In some cases, the cost of such an intervention added to the existing 20 year maintenance burden could produce an overall project cost exceeding the current replacement value. Figure 4-5 identifies the level of accessibility of each arena as not accessible, partially accessible or fully accessible. 4.2.5 Arenas Summary of Key Observations 38% of households surveyed in Hamilton use the arenas and of those 73% were satisfied with the facilities; Overall arenas are the second most frequently used recreational facility in the City second only to indoor pools; Staff have indicated that there is no known pent up demand; It is anticipated that any available ice is accessible during non-prime or prime shoulder hours only; Spending money on improving arenas was in the 4th priority location preceded by youth centres, indoor leisure pool and senior centres;
70
Several hockey groups have expressed an interest in expanding their programs but are unable to get additional ice time; Concerns over dressing room size and accessibility issues were also expressed by some groups; Overall satisfaction was shown by hockey organizations who rated the arenas as good to extremely good; Figure skaters expressed concerns that none of the arenas were designed for figure skating competitions (sound systems, lack of computer access or internet access, no judges change rooms etc); Hamilton sits at about the mid range in the ice pad provision ratios with a supply of 1 ice sheet per 19,403 persons (1 per 15,765 persons including private ice sheets); The age of certain facilities, the size of certain ice pads, the condition of some change rooms, the fact that most of the facilities are single pad facilities and that none of the facilities were built with figure skating as part of the design criteria may be reason enough to consider repurposing certain arenas to other uses and building a new twin pad facility to service new growth areas of the City; Most of the Citys arenas are used for 6 to 8 months of the year depending on the length of the ice season, with some floor use during the spring and/or summer months.
4.3 Indoor Pools

4.3.1 Trends and Best Practices The benefits of indoor pools are many. They offer year-round swimming opportunities, in a climate-controlled environment that appeals to all ages. They tend to be more cost effective to operate than outdoor pools due to the greater number of participants. However, while operating costs per user are typically lower than outdoor pools (which have a short operating season), indoor pools have significantly greater annual operating costs and also cost more to construct. Indoor pools also serve as community facilities and people show a willingness to travel to use them (although the historic/current local-level of indoor pool provision in Hamilton has produced related public expectations of close proximity and access to these facilities). When combined with other leisure and recreation amenities (e.g., fitness facility, ice surfaces, gymnasiums, sports fields, library, etc.), indoor pools become prominent destinations, resulting in even greater usage. Indoor pools are also available for year-round public use. Swimming continues to be one of the most popular recreation activities for all ages, nationwide. Pre-school (parent accompanied) programs are very popular. Changes in pool design, including the development of the leisure pool, have led to increased participation by all ages including older adults. Warmer water temperature and other design features like whirlpools and therapeutic pools, are some of the factors attracting users. The modern leisure pool, which can include teaching steps, ramps (beach entry), whirlpools, waterslides and larger, more comfortable change rooms, is better able to meet the needs of a more active, elderly population than a traditional lane pool. This has resulted in greater daytime usage of this type of facility. A leisure pool generally has a bigger capture area than the standard rectangular fitness pool because it appeals to a larger cross-section of the population and can physically accommodate more people.
71
While pools are highly desired and swimming is a popular activity, the issue with respect to pool development is their high costs. Both the capital and operating costs associated with aquatic facilities are among the highest of any recreation facility. It is very costly to staff an indoor pool and non-peak usage (daytime hours) may not be fully utilized. Outdoor pools, on the other hand, have a very short operating season and maintenance costs are very high. Aging Trend Canadians are aging, and while a trend towards less vigorous physical activity is predicted, the aging baby boomer is fitter and more interested in maintaining an active lifestyle than past generations. Swimming and aqua exercise are popular because they are not weight-bearing activities and can be done with some flexibility, before and after work or during the day for retirees. The Consultants research indicates that the demand for lane swimming is increasing. For older persons, the demand for therapeutic pools is also growing. Masters Swimming (a program designed to promote adult swimming) is also growing provincially and locally. Hamiltons greatest growth area will be in the population age group of the over 50 crowd. With swimming one of the most popular areas of interest to this age group provision of lap and warmer water pools will need to be considered in assessing the existing pool inventory. Swimming: A Favoured Activity for People of All Ages Swimming has consistently been identified as a favoured recreation activity for people of all ages, ranking in the top 5 activities for adults according to the Canadian Institute for Fitness and Lifestyle Activity Monitor Series (2000) and as the number one activity for children, ages 5 to 17. Swim Canada promotes swimming as a cradle to the grave sport and the trend data supports that Canadians of all ages are using aquatic facilities for a range of activities. Swimming participation declines with age, however, there is no age group that does not swim. Recreational swimming (non-structured, drop-in swimming) is the fastest growing segment of indoor pool usage. Recreational Swimming Pools as Entertainment Facilities With the advent of the leisure pool has come a new class of aquatic user those who come for entertainment, not lessons or programs. Slides, wave pools and a wide range of water toys including basketball hoops, balls, and water sprays can now be found in aquatic facilities. The leisure pool concept was first developed in the 1980s and is now commonplace in municipalities across the province. Although indoor pool use traditionally peaks during the winter months (particularly post-Christmas), the emergence of the leisure pool concept has helped to increase the usage of aquatic facilities year-round. Newer hybrid designs that incorporate both leisure and lane elements are also popular because fitness (lane) swimming remains a popular activity, particularly amongst the active living set. Swimming Lessons Swimming lessons are the primary market for most indoor pools. In many cases, participation begins to level off at around age 10 and decreases fairly dramatically at 13. This trend is very much reflected in a detailed study of swimming lessons undertaken recently by the City of Saskatoon, which found that 88% of participants were actually 10 years and under and that the average age for swim lessons was age 6.
72
Competitive Swimming Swim Ontario has indicated that enrollment in their organization has been relatively stable for several years, with approximately 10,000 swimmers under the age of 18 registered in 133 affiliated clubs. Participation in competitive swimming declines significantly at age 13. Nationally, there are over 50,000 competitive swimmers registered with Swimming Canada. According to Swim Ontario, the major obstacle the sport faces is the lack of suitable facilities as the trend towards developing leisure pools has not been one that addresses the needs of competitive swimmers. McMaster University in Hamilton has a competitive (50 metre) indoor pool. Diving, Masters Swimming, Water Polo, and Synchronized Swimming Each of these sports are specialized competitive activities that have undergone modest growth in the past few years at a Province-wide level. These activities all have specific pool requirements, not the least of which is a 25-metre (or larger) rectangular pool. Therapeutic Uses With the aging of the population has come an increased demand for therapeutic pools and programs aimed at rehabilitation. As health professionals are predicting joint replacement to be a growth industry in the future, this is a component of pool usage that will likely continue to grow. Exercise programs such as aqua fitness and water aerobics are also an increasingly significant component of aquatic participation. The Evolution of Pool Design Most pools twenty years or older are 25-yard or 25-metre rectangular tanks. Beginning in the late 1980s, municipalities began to develop the leisure pool, featuring zero depth access, waterslides, water toys and usually higher water temperatures. The chief attribute of the leisure pool is the ability to accommodate a larger number of bathers than the rectangular pool. The leisure pool suits recreational swimming (particularly amongst children), learn to swim programs, and aquatic therapy, but has not been popular with competitive aquatic clubs. Pool design continues to evolve. The newest template is the multi-purpose pool, which can accommodate the traditional programs associated with a conventional competitive pool (e.g., lessons, laps, deep-water aqua fitness, competitive swimming, etc.) with the entertainment/fun elements of a leisure pool. The most successful indoor aquatic centres include a variety of features that are designed to accommodate all ages and abilities, with an increasing emphasis on the needs of the aging population. Economics of Pool Operation: Leisure Pools versus Rectangular Pools In 1995, the JF Group undertook a comparative study of the revenues and operating expenses of 18 leisure and rectangular pools from 9 municipalities in southern Ontario. That study provides the best available comparative data on the operational costs of the two major pool designs. Among the key findings of that study:
Leisure pools generated 56% more total revenue than the rectangular pools but were 89% more expensive to operate;
73
Rectangular pools recovered 71% of the total operating costs through revenues while leisure pools recovered 59%; Leisure pools attracted twice as many recreational swimmers and generated more than three times the recreational swim revenue than rectangular pools; Recreational swim fees were as much as 80% higher at leisure pools than at rectangular pools; Leisure pool operators allocated 11% more program hours to recreational swimming than rectangular pool operators. Municipal pools generate their highest revenues from instructional programs; the revenue from instructional programs at the leisure and rectangular pools studied differed very little; and Rectangular pools generated more rental revenue and attracted more participants during rental hours. Leisure pools charge higher rental rates and produced more rental revenue on a participant per hour basis.
User Fees Shrinking municipal budgets and increased competition for the municipal dollar have led to more aggressive user pay policies in municipalities across the Province. For groups using municipal and school facilities, rising user fees are a real concern. At the same time, municipalities are increasingly adopting a business case approach to facility management; developing strategies to optimize facility use, reduce operational costs and seeking cost recovery where feasible. In the aquatics area, it is generally recognized that full cost recovery is not feasible for indoor aquatic facilities, however, when developed in combination with other facilities, opportunities for cost recovery may be improved. Sport Tourism: A New Role for Recreation Facilities Sport tourism is being recognized for its contribution to the local economy. The Canadian Sport Tourism Commission estimates that $1.3 billion is spent annually on sport travel. The challenge is balancing local and non-resident needs and directing some of the broad economic benefits that are derived by the local economy back to the sports facilities that are funded by local government and taxpayers. Swim meets are definitely a sport tourism event. Unfortunately, there is no data base available at this time that quantifies the economic spin-off associated with swim meets and the spending profile for a swim meet has not been generated. According to Swim Ontario, a very conservative estimate is that a Provincial meet could draw upwards of 800 swimmers for a three-day event and that each family would spend up to $1000. The Canadian Sport Tourism Alliance has just developed a new economic model that can be applied to predict the economic impact of a sporting event. This model, STEAM (sport tourism economic assessment model) incorporates over 60 measures. It will be applied, initially, to major national and international events. It is a web-based model and will be available to any member of the Sport Tourism Alliance. The Alliance is building its database and anticipates that the model will be able to be used to predict the economic benefit of smaller events.
74
School Participation in Aquatics Swim Ontario identifies the lack of support for swimming within the school setting as a major issue. Their remarks focused primarily on the Toronto area, where the ongoing funding commitment to pools in school settings has been a political issue. It is anticipated that fewer children will be involved in aquatic programming as part of their physical education program at school for reasons related to the funding crunch that is affecting all school boards. There is no strong provincial database that documents the extent to which aquatic programming is included in school-based athletic programs, however, a study (2001) of Physical Activity in Canadian Schools found that less than half of schools (41%) have access to a municipal pool. Elementary schools are less likely to have access to a pool than secondary schools. This is certainly the experience in Hamilton where the many municipal pools are located within the school buildings and some high schools have integrated aquatics into their physical education programs. If bussing is required, for reasons of cost and time, schools are unlikely to use the pool. Therapeutic Uses With the aging of the population has come an increased demand for therapeutic pools and programs aimed at rehabilitation. As health professionals are predicting joint replacement to be a growth industry in the future, this is a component of pool usage that will likely continue to grow. Aqua Fitness Emerging in the late 1980s and early 1990s, aqua exercise programs such as aqua fitness and water aerobics are an increasingly significant component of aquatic participation. Lane Swimming or Fitness Swimming The popularity of lane and fitness swimming is a trend that can be attributed to the active living phenomenon. Pool Design: The Evolution in Design: Rectangular, Leisure, Multi-Purpose The following are some of the leading indoor pool design trends that have been observed. Beginning in the late 1980s, municipalities began to develop the leisure pool, featuring zero depth access, waterslides, water toys and usually higher water temperatures. The chief attribute of the leisure pool is the ability to accommodate a larger number of bathers than the rectangular pool. The leisure pool suits recreational swimming, learn to swim programs, and aquatic therapy, but has not been popular with competitive aquatic clubs (including swimming, diving, water polo and synchronized swimming). Pool design continues to evolve. The newest template is the multi-purpose pool, which can accommodate the traditional programs associated with a conventional competitive pool (e.g., lessons, laps, deep-water aqua fitness, competitive swimming, etc.) with the entertainment/fun elements of a leisure pool. Successful aquatics facilities are multi-tasking and offering different activities simultaneously, often in different tanks. At the London Aquatic Centre for example, a number of activities are
75
offered at the same time (e.g., aqua fitness, lane swimming, lessons). This practice also extends beyond the pool walls by combining aquatic facilities with other leisure facilities. 4.3.2 Current Inventory/Supply of Indoor Pools There are 17 municipal indoor pools in Hamilton. In addition, there are several public indoor pool facilities operated by service clubs including the Flamborough YMCA, Downtown Family YMCA, McNab St YWCA, Ottawa Street YWCA and the proposed West Mountain (Turner Park) YWCA, as well as the East Kiwanis Boys and Girls Club facility (city owned). Map 8 lists and identifies the location of all public indoor pools in Hamilton. Many of the Citys indoor pools were built into or attached to school facilities, with exception to Central Memorial Recreation Centre, Dundas Community Pool, Huntington Park Recreation Centre and Valley Park Community Centre. The school attached to Bennetto Recreation Centre has closed and the City has taken ownership of the former school building; similarly the school attached to Jimmy Thompson Pool has closed but the building is now in private ownership, while Norman Pinky Lewis is attached to an older school building that is scheduled to be demolished. Sir Wilfrid Laurier Recreation Centre is located between two schools (one public and one private). Figure 4-6 calculates the supply of public indoor pools by community: Figure 4-6. Indoor Pools: Current Level of Public Indoor Pool Provision by Community
Community Ancaster Flamborough Glanbrook Hamilton Mountain Lower Hamilton Lower Stoney Creek Upper Stoney Creek Beverly West Hamilton/Dundas Hamilton Total # of City Pools 1 0 0 4 6 3 1 0 2 17 # of Other Public Pools 0 1 0 1 4 0 0 0 0** 6 Total Public Pools 1 1 0 5 10 3 1 0 2 23 Population* 29,230 23,340 13,729 151,171 133,855 75,585 20,470 17,675 39,415 504,470 Population Per Municipal Pool 29,230 37,793 22,309 25,195 20,470 19,708 29,675 Population Per Total Public Pools 29,230 23,340 30,234 13,386 25,195 20,470 19,708 21,933
*Source: Adapted from Statistics Canada, Age and Sex for the Population of Census Tracts (100% Data), Cat. No. 97-551X2006007, 2006 Census. **excludes McMaster University indoor pool.
As shown in Figure 4-7, Hamilton current provision standard for indoor pools is significantly higher than that found in comparable urban centres in Ontario.
76
Figure 4-7. Indoor Pools: Provision Levels in Comparable Ontario Municipalities

Municipality Hamilton Richmond Hill Burlington Ottawa Barrie Mississauga Windsor London1 St. Catharines # of Indoor Pools 17 4 4 15 2 11 3 3 1 Population 504,470 132,030 151,000 774,000 103,710 613,000 209,000 336,539 123,000 Population Per Indoor Pool 29,675 33,008 37,752 51,600 51,855 55,727 69,667 112,180 123,000
*Source: Monteith Brown Planning Consultants; City of Hamilton Parks, Culture and Recreation Master Plan (PERC, 2002) Statistics Canada, 2001 and 2006 Census; municipalities of Burlington, Cambridge and Richmond Hill, 2003. 1 The City of London has adopted a provision standard of 1 municipal indoor pool per 60,000 population and has adopted a master plan that has identified the need for 3 additional indoor pools in the next ten years. Sources:
One pool per 35,000 is a common provision standard in mid-sized communities (e.g., 50,000 to 250,000), while one indoor pool per 50,000 population is more typical for large metropolitan areas. The City of London, for example has a ratio of one municipal pool per 110,000 residents; this ratio drops to 1:35,000 when YMCA and institutional pools are included. While research on pool design and development indicates that there is a trend towards building leisure and multiuse pools, most municipal aquatic facilities are aging, with the majority being 25+ years old. This is reflective of the considerable price tag associated with developing and operating an indoor aquatic facility. 4.3.3 Indoor Pools Facility Usage and Programming Analysis Indoor pools are mainly constructed to address the need for swimming lessons and public swim opportunities and from a secondary priority to augment these uses with exposure at a minimum to competitive opportunities in diving, competitive swimming, synchronized swimming and water polo. The intensity of programming in pools is generally reflective of the interest, response and access from the surrounding community in the learn to swim and aquatic leadership development opportunities. One primary comparison in determining the use of a pool is the capacity of lesson offerings in pools as compared to the registrations. Various shapes and depths of pools may change the lesson capacity of the pool; however, as a rule of thumb an average rectangular 25 metre pool should be able to offer a range of between 3,000 to 4,500 lessons at a minimum for the community on an annual basis with most lessons occurring on evenings and weekends. Figures 4-8 and 4-9 compare lesson registrations to the lesson offerings of the pools in Hamilton in 2005 and 2006.
77
Figure 4-8. Indoor Pools Aquatic Lesson Offerings Compared to Registrations (2006)
Pool Valley Park Ancaster Sir Allan MacNab Dundas Huntington Park Sir Wilfrid Laurier H.G. Brewster Dominic Agostino Riverdale Hill Park Westmount Ryerson Dalewood Jimmy Thompson Norman Pinky Sir Winston Churchill Central Memorial Bennetto Total Average Annual Lesson Offerings 7,574 5,255 6,797 2,419 7,284 2,717 3,141 2,436 2,828 2,736 3,350 3,443 394 1,456 765 2,093 2,726 57,414 3,377 Annual Lesson Registration 6,729 4,631 5,701 1,985 5,814 2,028 2,333 1,800 1,996 1,908 2,195 2,235 252 917 458 1,106 1,254 43,342 2,549 % of Registrants Compared to Offerings 89% 88% 84% 82% 80% 75% 74% 74% 71% 70% 66% 65% 64% 63% 60% 53% 46% 71%
Figure 4-9. Indoor Pools Aquatic Lesson Offerings Compared to Registrations (2005)
Pool Ancaster Valley Park Sir Allan MacNab Huntington Park Dundas H.G. Brewster Norman Pinky Hill Park Westmount Dalewood Dominic Agostino Riverdale Ryerson Sir Wilfrid Laurier Bennetto Sir Winston Churchill Central Memorial Jimmy Thompson Total Average Annual Lesson Offerings 4,888 7,842 6,111 6,780 2,594 2,971 1,163 2,748 2,228 3,106 2,513 3,533 2,880 2,392 321 2,151 1,224 55,405 3,259 Annual Lesson Registration 4,391 6,807 5,246 5,861 2,092 2,357 870 2,026 1,630 2,099 1,681 2,264 1,758 1,108 149 977 384 41,700 2,453 % of Registrants compared to Offerings 90% 87% 86% 86% 81% 79% 75% 74% 73% 68% 67% 64% 61% 46% 46% 45% 31% 68%
Source Class Report - Registration Statistics Betty Anne Major
78
Observations: A year to year analysis of the lesson registrations as compared to the lesson offerings demonstrates that: The lesson offerings have increased by 2,009 lessons or by 4% of the lesson spaces from 2005 to 2006; Lesson registration has also increased by 1,642 registrants or by 4% in the same timeframe. It is too early to determine if this increase in lesson registrations is a trend however it is a positive sign that programming is responsive to the needs of the community and that a slight increase in interest in learn to swim opportunities is evident; A standard of 80% of lesson registrations as compared to lesson offerings demonstrates that the respective pool is well utilized and has some capacity to respond to emerging trends. This being the standard in 2006, 4 pools or 24% of the 17 pool inventory can be considered as beginning to reach lesson capacity based on offerings. These pools are listed as Valley Park, Ancaster, Sir Allan MacNab, Dundas and Huntington Park pools; Pools meeting a 60-79% standard of take-up of registrations as compared to the lesson offerings can be considered of average to below average utilization. Pools that fall into this category include Bennetto, Central Memorial, Jimmy Thompson, Sir Winston Churchill and Sir Wilfrid Laurier; Two pools are considered underutilized: Ryerson and Jimmy Thompson; There is adequate capacity to meet any pent up demands within the lesson registration offerings. In 2006 there were over 14,000 lessons offered of the total offerings of over 57,000 lessons with no take up in registrations; All aquatic clubs responding to the user-group survey indicated a need for more pool time.
Figure 4-10. Utilization of Pools in Lesson Registrations as Compared to Lesson Offerings

Highly Utilized Pools Operating at 80 100% of Lesson Offerings Valley Park Ancaster Sir Allan McNab Dundas Huntington Park Below Average Utilization to Average Operating at 60 79% of Lesson Offerings Sir Wilfrid Laurier H.G. Brewster Dominic Agostino Riverdale Hill Park Westmount Ryerson Dalewood Jimmy Thompson Norman Pinky Sir Winston Churchill On average these pools operate at 61% of offerings 59% or 10 indoor pools operate at a below average to an average percent of offerings Underutilized Pools Operating at below 59% of Lesson Offerings Central Memorial Bennetto
On average these pools operate at 85% of offerings 29% or 5 indoor pools are highly utilized
On average these pools operate at 50% of offerings 12% or 2 indoor pools are underutilized 79
Figure 4-11. Indoor Pools Public Swim Offerings to Visits Comparison

Pool H.G. Brewster Norman Pinky Bennetto Huntington Park Sir Allan MacNab Valley Park Sir Wilfrid Laurier Hill Park (Leisure Pool) Westmount Ancaster Dalewood Dundas Dominic Agostino Riverdale Central Memorial Sir Winston Churchill Ryerson Jimmy Thompson Total Annual Visit Offerings 47,230 47,229 109,491 96,778 66,776 147,691 48,922 38,155 28,974 55,802 40,314 61,671 71,767 59,192 38,342 69,078 83,087 1,080,317 Annual Visits 49,973 49,973 110,936 69,785 41,075 83,701 26,534 18,293 12,408 26,256 15,860 24,303 19,219 15,024 9,722 15,365 11,514 593,270 % of Visits as compared to Offerings 106% 106% 101% 72% 62% 57% 54% 48% 43% 47% 39% 39% 27% 25% 25% 22% 14% 55% Year Built 1972 1981 1966 1993 1983 1981 1977 1973 1965 1978 1965 1980 2002 1900 1966 1971 1930 Pool Age in years 35 26 41 14 24 26 30 34 42 29 42 27 5 107 41 36 77 Avg 37 years
Source 2007 OMBI Program Sport and Recreation Service Area SREC113 Number of Public Swimming Visits per Capita SREC222 Overall Capacity of Public Swims per Capita
Observations: Bennetto, Brewster and Pinky pools are listed as having more visits than the offerings would allow for. The annual visit offerings calculations would need to be revisited before the facility usage report is finalized; 60% of Hamilton public swims are at less than 50% of offerings; The average age of the pools in Hamilton equals 37 years. While often there is correlation between the age of a pool and its utilization due to aesthetics and leisure components and design; there does not appear to be a correlation between age and declining use in Hamilton pools; There is an average public swim utilization rate of 55%; which will allow for a greater number of visits if demand increases; The provision of annual swims per capita equals 2.14 opportunities (1,080,317 annual visit offerings divided by the 2006 population of 504,559). The actual visits per capita equal 1.17 per resident per annum. The number is low compared to other municipal swim visits per capita which rest at between 2-6 visits per capita. There is clearly capacity in the system to encourage an increase in the number of bathers utilizing Hamiltons indoor pools;
80
Staff has indicated that there are no apparent pent up demands in swimming lessons and public swims in Hamilton. It will be important to capture any pent up demands (waiting lists/line ups for public swims) in all pools. There are opportunities to reschedule pool use to accommodate any potential pent up demand and continually seek to maximize the use of pools; Attractiveness, facility conditions and leisure appeal of more modern facilities typically play a part in the increased use of pools. It is common to see migration to newer pools with leisure components. Upgrading of pools may play a part in increasing usage; It would be helpful to the study to map out the underutilized pools in terms of their proximity to at risk areas recognizing a concentration of lower income, diversity and lone parent families at a minimum. Special approaches may be appropriate in attracting more bathers to Hamilton pools located in at risk communities.
4.3.4 Indoor Pools Physical Condition Review Indoor pools account for approximately 19% of the total asset value and represent 17% of the total quantity of assets by floor area. The age of construction of the Citys indoor pools is similar to that of arenas, with nearly 70% constructed prior to 1980. 6 of 17 indoor pools (35% indoor pool inventory) were built in one decade (1970s) and are 27 to 37 years old. The average size of an indoor pool facility is approximately 16,000 square feet; ranging from the smallest pool facility (Dundas Community Pool) at 10,000 square feet to the largest pool facilities at over 22,000 square feet (Jimmy Thompson and Valley Park). Figure 4-12 illustrates the age of construction of the Citys indoor pool facilities. Figure 4-12. Indoor Pools by Age of Construction
Structure Size (sq ft) 12,023 23,129 18,000 12,175 12,414 16,103 12,698 16,685 16,617 16,825 10,364 19,724 22,753 18,901 13,790 16,401 Construction Year (YYYY) 1900 1930 1961 1965 1966 1971 1972 1973 1977 1978 1979 1981 1981 1983 1993 2002
% of Total sq ft
Asset Name CENTRAL MEMORIAL JIMMY THOMPSON POOL KIWANIS BOYS & GIRLS CLUB WESTMOUNT SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL RECREATION CENTRE RYERSON RECREATION CENTRE BREWSTER POOL HILL PARK RECREATION CENTRE SIR WILFRID LAURIER ANCASTER AQUATIC CENTRE DUNDAS COMMUNITY POOL NORMAN PINKY LEWIS VALLEY PARK SIR ALLAN MACNAB HUNTINGTON PARK DOMINIC AGOSTINO RIVERDALE
% Of Total sq ft by Construction Period 4.88% 9.38%
17.27%
36.21%
246,579 17%
24.89% 5.59% 6.65% 100.00% 81
Many indoor swimming pools in Hamilton have been constructed in partnership with school facilities. Various pools have created limited access to the facility they share. Some have closed the access (e.g. Ancaster Aquatic Centre). Many pools have no natural light and may benefit from translucent energy efficient glazing to provide some natural light. Some pool locations may benefit from relocation to a more centralized sport and fitness complex (e.g. Ancaster Aquatic Centre to Morgan Firestone Arena and Rotary Centre). Most indoor swimming pools were busy with programming and well used. Many pool facilities have lobbies, staff rooms and change rooms that appear cramped and inappropriate. A staff lunch room doubles as a Red Cross training room and as the barrier free change room at one pool location. None of the pools feature LEED initiatives. Opportunities include natural lighting, solar preheating of tank water and domestic water. Venues that include both indoor pools and arenas (Valley Park) could use heat extracted from ice making to preheat ventilation air supply to the pool, or preheat water. Indoor pool venues with large outside park or playfield areas could consider geothermal heating as an energy saving device for pool pre-heating of tank water as well as pre-heating of domestic and change room ventilation. Maintenance Cost vs. Replacement Value of Facility The ratio of replacement value to 20 year maintenance is less for older structures (eg. Westmount Recreation Centre = 1.01) and greater for newer ones (eg Dominic Agostino Riverdale Community Centre = 3.25) reflecting a smaller difference between replacement value and (larger/greater) maintenance cost in older structures and a greater difference between the two for newer or more recently renovated structures. It is understood that aging infrastructure depreciates in value, requires a greater range of physical intervention to bring it up to date for appropriate use and public function and incurs greater maintenance costs over time. Inversely, newer structures have greater replacement value with lower maintenance costs resulting in a higher ratio of replacement value to maintenance cost. Newer buildings are also more compliant with current trends in public use and function requirements. Figure 4-13 compares the replacement value of indoor pools versus 20 year maintenance costs. There is a general correlation associated with the descending quotient and the age of the structure (year of construction) notwithstanding some idiosyncrasies. As the value of the replacement cost versus 20 year maintenance cost approaches 1.0, the age of the building increases, in general. If the quotient descends below 1.0, then the 20 year maintenance cost exceeds the replacement value. Accessibility A very general review of accessibility reveals that the majority of pools are partially accessible without being fully accessible. Figure 4-13 identifies the level of accessibility of each indoor pool.
82
Fig 4-13. Indoor Pools Replacement Value vs. 20-Year Capital Maintenance Costs
Structure Replacement Value $4,748,960 $3,024,160 $2,624,160 $2,576,480 $3,609,440 $1,986,240 $2,160,000 $2,658,720 $3,700,640 $1,658,240 $2,669,600 $3,155,840 $2,031,680 $2,692,000 $1,948,000 $41,244,160 20 Year Maintenance Total $532,013 $917,171 $806,400 $878,938 $1,308,470 $773,180 $892,400 $1,106,602 $1,559,295 $778,200 $1,308,746 $1,555,670 $1,029,725 $1,447,519 $1,924,780 $16,819,109 Construction Year 1993 1983 2002 1971 1900 1966 1961 1977 1930 1980 1973 1981 1972 1978 1965 Replacement Value vs 20 yr Maintenance 8.93 3.30 3.25 2.93 2.76 2.57 2.42 2.40 2.37 2.13 2.04 2.03 1.97 1.86 1.01 Maintenance as % of Replacement Value 11 30 31 34 36 39 41 42 42 47 49 49 51 54 99 Accessibility N=Not P=Partial F=Full F P F P P P F P P F P F P P P
Asset Name HUNTINGTON PARK SIR ALLAN MACNAB D.A. RIVERDALE RYERSON CENTRAL MEMORIAL WINSTON CHURCHILL KIWANIS B&G CLUB SIR WILFRID LAURIER JIMMY THOMPSON DUNDAS COMMUNITY HILL PARK NORMAN PINKY LEWIS BREWSTER POOL ANCASTER AQUATIC WESTMOUNT TOTAL
4.3.5 Indoor Pools Summary of Key Observations Other then Valley Park there are no modern leisure pools in Hamilton; Indoor pools are the number one used recreational facility in the City with 52% of the population using the pools and 83% of those people being satisfied with the facilities; In 2006, of the Citys 17 indoor pools, 5 pools or 29% can be considered as beginning to reach lesson capacity based on offerings; 10 pools can be considered of average to below average utilization and 2 pools are considered underutilized; There is adequate capacity to meet any pent up demands within the lesson registration offerings; 60% of Hamilton public swims are at less than 50% utilization of offerings and the average public swim utilization rate is 55%, which will allow for a greater number of visits if demand increases; Staff has indicated that there are no apparent pent up demands in swimming lessons and public swims in Hamilton; there are opportunities to re-schedule pool use to accommodate any potential pent up demand and continually seek to maximize the use of pools; The average age of the pools in Hamilton equals 37 years. While often there is correlation between the age of a pool and its utilization due to aesthetics and leisure components and design; there does not appear to be a correlation between age and declining use in Hamilton pools; Special approaches may be appropriate in attracting more bathers to Hamilton pools located in at risk communities; If a new indoor pool was to be built the public would prefer a leisure style pool with 70% of those surveyed placing the building of an indoor leisure pool as their 2nd priority for municipal expenditure; a new competitive indoor pool was the least requested facility;
83
Attractiveness, facility conditions and leisure appeal of more modern facilities typically play a part in the increased use of pools. It is common to see migration to newer pools with leisure components. Upgrading of pools may play a part in increasing usage; Accessibility issues were noted by some user groups as an issue at the older pools and lack of pool time restricting their ability to expand their programming.
4.4 Outdoor Pools

4.4.1 Trends and Best Practices Outdoor pools are still considered to be important assets by the public, however, they are recognized as being costly from an operational perspective (e.g., cost of water and chemicals, staffing, limited season, etc.). For reasons of efficiency, many municipalities have adopted a policy to maintain their outdoor pools only as long as they are economically feasible. Once the favoured location for lessons, the indoor facilities are more popular venues for lessons. The short season, susceptibility to changing weather and the ability to build summer patios into the design of newer indoor pools, reduces the desirability of building outdoor pools. Outdoor pools are still very attractive recreational amenities for the public during hot summers but older pool designs did not accommodate the need for shade for lifeguard and patrons. 4.4.2 Current Inventory/Supply of Outdoor Pools The Citys current aquatic facility inventory includes 10 outdoor pools. In addition there are 5 non-municipal public outdoor pools in Hamilton. Three of the Citys outdoor pools are located adjacent to arena facilities including Coronation, Inch Park and Parkdale. For these pools, the arena building houses the mechanical systems and change rooms for the pools. The remaining municipal outdoor pools are located in City parks and have associated buildings with change/washroom facilities. All public outdoor pools in Hamilton are shown on Map 9. Figure 4-14 calculates the supply of public indoor pools by community: Figure 4-14. Outdoor Pools: Current Level of Public Outdoor Pool Provision by Community
# of City Outdoor Pools 1 0 0 3 4 1 0 0 1 10 # of Other Public Outdoor Pools 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 5 Total Public Outdoor Pools 2 1 0 3 4 3 0 1 1 15 Population Per Municipal Outdoor Pool 29,230 50,390 33,464 75,585 39,415 50,447 Population Per Total Public Outdoor Pools 14,615 23,340 50,390 33,464 25,195 17,675 39,415 33,631
Community
Population*
Ancaster Flamborough Glanbrook Hamilton Mountain Lower Hamilton Lower Stoney Creek Upper Stoney Creek Beverly West Hamilton/Dundas Hamilton Total
29,230 23,340 13,729 151,171 133,855 75,585 20,470 17,675 39,415 504,470
*Source: Adapted from Statistics Canada, Age and Sex for the Population of Census Tracts (100% Data), Cat. No. 97-551X2006007, 2006 Census.
84
As shown in Figure 4-15, Hamiltons current provision standard for outdoor pools is mid-range when compared to other major urban centres in Ontario. Figure 4-15. Outdoor Pools Provision Levels in Comparable Ontario Municipalities
Municipality Windsor London St. Catharines Burlington Hamilton Ottawa Mississauga # of Indoor Pools 8 12 4 3 10 9 7 Population 209,000 326,000 123,000 151,000 504,470 774,000 613,000 Population Per Indoor Pool 26,125 27,167 30,750 50,333 50,447 86,000 87,571
*Source: Monteith Brown Planning Consultants; City of Hamilton Parks, Culture and Recreation Master Plan (PERC, 2002) Statistics Canada, 2001 and 2006 Census.
4.4.3 Outdoor Pools Facility Usage and Program Analysis The outdoor pools in Hamilton are mainly utilized for public swimming, a minimal learn to swim lesson program is offered. The current trend is for families to register at indoor pools for lessons where they can be guaranteed a full lesson set uninterrupted due to weather conditions. Public swim hours are offered during peak times of the day (afternoon and early evenings) and have been scheduled to maximize bather loads and minimize expenditures associated with outdoor pools. Figure 4-16 captures the hours that each pool could be available for public use in a given week. The number of hours on a weekly basis is calculated at Monday through Saturday from 8:00 to 12:00 p.m., 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. and on Sundays from 9:00 to 5:00 p.m. or 68 hours per week. The pool operation is estimated at an 8 week season. Figure 4-16. Hours Utilized as Compared to Hours Available (Season)
Pool Green Acres Rosedale Walker Victoria Park Chedoke Birge Coronation Inch Park Parkdale Total Hours Available 544 544 544 544 544 544 544 544 544 4,896 Hours Utilized 520 328 304 278 248 224 220 220 208 2,550 % of Hours Utilized 96% 60% 56% 51% 46% 41% 40% 40% 38% 52%
Source OMBI Program- Public Swim Visits per Capita
Observations: Green Acres Pool is well utilized as it utilized 96% of the available hours; Rosedale Pool experiences average usage with 60% of the available hours utilized;
85
All other outdoor pools are considered underutilized with an average utilization rate of 45%.
The further analysis of the usage of outdoor pools is based on comparing the average number of bathers per public swim hour as compared to the capacity of the pool. It is noted that averaging has been utilized and this is not reflective of varied weather conditions, and the peak bather loads and line ups experienced at the various pools; however this will offer an indication of the intensity of use during the hours that the pool is open. Figure 4-17. Outdoor Pools Public Swim Usage
Pool Birge Chedoke Coronation Green Acres Inch Park Parkdale Rosedale Victoria Park Walker Total Public Swim Hours per Week 28 31 28 37 28 26 26 26 28 258 Average Weekly Visits 3,815 4,789 3,835 5,744 2,649 3,044 2,041 4,830 4,841 31,588 Average Visit per Hour 136 154 137 155 95 117 79 186 173 137 Pool Capacity
Observations: The pool capacities are needed in order to compare what percentage of the pools are reaching capacity on average during public swim times.
4.4.4 Outdoor Pools Physical Condition Review Figure 4-18 illustrates the age of construction of the Citys outdoor pool facilities. Figure 4-18. Outdoor Pools by Age of Construction
Structure Size (sq ft) 700 2,777 27,727* 6,495 34,500* 2,100 Construction Year (YYYY) 1965 1974 1981 1988 1995 2005
% of Total sq ft
Asset Name BIRGE VICTORIA CORONATION ANCASTER LIONS INCH PARK WALKER
% Of Total sq ft by Construction Period 0.94% 3.74% 46.06% 46.43% 2.83% 100.00%
74,299 5%
*represents total square footage of arena facilities; only a small portion used for outdoor pool change/washroom facilities.
(need data for Chedoke, Green Acres, Parkdale, Rosedale and Victoria Park pools)
86
Maintenance Cost vs. Replacement Value of Facility Figure 4-19 compares the replacement value of the outdoor pool facilities versus 20 year maintenance cost. Where the value of the replacement cost versus 20 year maintenance cost is less than 1.0, the 20 year maintenance cost exceeds the replacement value. Forecast capital maintenance costs were not available for the Ancaster Lions Outdoor Pool and Walker Outdoor Pool at the time of preparing this report. Data was also not available on the year of construction and structure replacement value for Chedoke, Green Acres, Parkdale, Rosedale and Victoria Outdoor Pools. Accessibility A very general review of accessibility reveals that the majority of outdoor pools are partially accessible without being fully accessible. Figure 4-19 identifies the level of accessibility of each outdoor pool. Figure 4-19. Outdoor Pools Replacement Value vs. 20-Year Capital Maintenance Costs
Asset Name CORONATION ANCASTER LIONS VICTORIA BIRGE WALKER* TOTAL Structure Replacement Value $4,159,050 $649,500 $277,700 $70,000 $210,000 $5,366,250 20 Year Maintenance Total $1,859,752 $891,600 $636,700 $289,800 $2,786,252 Construction Year 1981 1988 1974 1965 2005 Replacement Value vs 20 yr Maintenance 2.24 0.72 0.44 0.24 Maintenance As % of Replacement Value 45 137 229 414 Accessibility N=Not P=Partial F=Full P P P P
*20-year capital maintenance requirements not available for Walker Outdoor Pool.
4.4.5 Outdoor Pools Summary of Key Observations Of the 10 outdoor pools in the Citys inventory, Green Acres Pool is well utilized, Rosedale Pool experiences average usage and all other outdoor pools are considered underutilized; The pool capacities are needed in order to compare what percentage of the pools are reaching capacity on average during public swim times; The anticipated 20-year capital maintenance requirements for Ancaster Lions, Victoria and Birge outdoor pools exceed the replacement value of these facilities; Additional data is needed on age of construction, structure size and replacement value and required capital maintenance for certain outdoor pools in order to complete the physical condition review.
87
4.5 Seniors Centres

4.5.1 Trends and Best Practices The largest group demographically in Canada is the adult baby boomer population (currently 39 to 58 years of age) who will reach retirement age over the next 5 to 20 years. This will likely lead to a greater demand for programs and activities aimed at older adults. According to the Canadian Community Health Survey, 2000/2001, the most popular physical activities for adults over the age of 20 are: Walking for exercise Gardening, yard work Home exercise Bicycling Swimming Social dancing Weight training Golfing Jogging, running Fishing 65% 41% 24% 19% 18% 15% 11% 11% 11% 8% Bowling Exercise classes, aerobics In-line skating Skating Baseball, softball Ice hockey Basketball Downhill skiing Tennis Volleyball 8% 7% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3%
Adults who have reached midlife and beyond are likely to have more discretionary time than the younger population. These factors indicate that the nature of the programming and facility expectations will change over time. For example, it is expected that: there will be a shift to less physically rigorous activities as well as personal skill development (this trend is already evident in many communities across the Province); there will be a shift away from participation in traditional recreation activities towards activities that are more informal, casual and self-scheduled; in this regard, it is expected that older adults will prefer a drop-in approach to recreation activities; older adults will have higher expectations in terms of quality services and facilities; demand for outdoor programs (e.g., gardening, bird watching, etc.) will increase; there will be a desire for more arts and cultural activities to serve this age group (the demand for high quality creative and cultural activities is more prevalent amongst those 45 years and older as the desire to be creative and express individuality increases as people age); swimming and golf will remain a popular activity (interest in golf typically increases with age); and opportunities for life long learning will be a consistent demand (e.g., as a means of developing new skills and gaining knowledge to cope with life transitions).
A focus on physical activity and healthy living is beginning to create three distinct groups of seniors: younger seniors (age 55 to 65) who will be more physically active; middle seniors (age 65 to 75) who are the type that are currently well served by most traditional seniors clubs; and older frail seniors (age 75+) who require more support and specialized programs. As the population ages, there will be a need to alter programming and services to reflect the needs of each distinct group. In general, the seniors of today and tomorrow are expected to be more physically active than past generations.
88
The clear message for trends relating to the new older adult is that one size does not fit all. Not only will the next generation of older adults be more culturally diverse, but many have the financial resources to participate in any type of activity or program they choose. The active living concept and a great focus on the mind, body and soul will need to be reflected in the types of programs and services offered as the baby boom population ages. An example of the growth in active living is the rise in the participation rate for both yoga and pilates. This new generation of older adults is predicted to cycle through periods of work and leisure. While they may retire from their career, many will go on to work part-time or start new endeavours. This will shift the traditional hours that municipal services, facilities, and programs are needed to be offered. Lifelong learning (the continuation and extension of education) will be considered a leisure pursuit, as opposed to work by many older adults, potentially creating pressures on library services. Furthermore, boomer women are more educated and independent than previous generations. It is predicted that there will be a larger shift in demand for City services, facilities and programs from women as there role in society has changed dramatically in the last 30 years. Hamiltons greatest growth area will be in the population age group of the over 60 crowd with almost all increases in the population numbers being assigned to this age category. The percentage of Hamiltons population age 60 or greater is expected to increase from 19% in 2006 to 26% in 2031 for a total growth of 73,000 people in the seniors age bracket. The third priority for municipal funding to improve or develop facilities, according to the household survey undertaken in Hamilton, was the development of seniors centres or seniors space within community centres. Given that older adults are the most vulnerable group to illness and injury, research has shown that it is critical that this age group continue to participate in physical activity. Creating opportunities for older adults to come out and attend programs designed for their areas of interest and at their activity level will be important in overcoming both mental and physical issues associated with this age group. With rising rate of diabetes, cancer and heart diseases, the importance of regular physical exercise and/or regular movement has never been stronger. Canadian older adults that are most at risk for poor health include those: with low incomes, living in institutions, low income women, and/or are isolated individuals. Particular focus should be placed on ensuring that women become more physically active, as they tend to participate less in physical activities than men. The Seniors Health Report Card in 2006 found that 45% of persons age 65-74 and 72% of those aged 75 plus, face activity limitation in their daily lives. This underscores the necessity to ensure that barriers to participation are addressed. According to the literature review, there are six key factors that, in general, prevent the older adults from participating in municipal services, facilities, and programs: C C C C Poor accessibility, which can include a lack of transportation or a lack of available facilities; Safety concerns, including fear of injury and a lack of a safe place to be active; Lack of available or accessible information on available programs and services. This is a particular concern for those who are not able to understand English; Little physical and emotional support from family or friends;
89
C C
Lack of motivation, which is often a result of lower self-worth and view that they are not valuable to society; Unable to afford the cost of participating in programs or receiving particular services.
Furthermore, barriers in the physical landscape can prevent older adults from participating. Examples of tools that assist in mitigating barriers in the physical landscape include: power sliding doors, escalators, edge warning tiles, elevators, wayfinding tiles, improved lighting, railing and hand hold markings, Braille at designated waiting areas, accessible washrooms and low floor buses. To assist in providing more information to older adults, emphasis should be placed on outreach activities where there are clusters of older adult housing arrangements. Partnering with community organizations will aid in ensuring that information is provided the more vulnerable older adult groups. The 2001 Canadian Census Data demonstrated that the largest percentages of immigrants in Canada are between the ages of 30 and 55. In the next 20 years, this cohort will move towards retirement and will form a significant portion of the older adult population. As it is has been shown that immigrants in the 55 to 64 age group are significantly more likely to report poor health compared to non-immigrants, it is critical that their needs be identified and assistance provided to them. The poor rating of personal health is primarily a result of loneliness, depression, or lack of understanding of the dominant culture. There is a need to be sensitive to cultural preferences in developing appropriate programs and activities. 4.5.2 Current Inventory/Supply of Seniors Facilities There are 7 seniors centres located in City-owned public-use buildings in Hamilton, including 4 stand-alone seniors centre facilities (Sackville Hill, Club 60, Ancaster and Winona) as well as dedicated space for seniors clubs in Dundas Lions Memorial Community Centre, Rosedale Arena and Binbrook Hall. In addition the City leases space in a plaza for the Warden Park Seniors Club. There are also 2 City-funded seniors facilities/programs owned/operated by the YWCA (Hamilton Senior Active Living Centre at the MacNab Street YWCA and space at the Ottawa Street YWCA), seniors space located in 2 public housing buildings (Main Hess Seniors Club and First Place Seniors), and 1 other non-municipal facility offering programs for seniors (Jewish Social Services) for a total of 13 locations. The City-owned and other public seniors facilities in Hamilton are shown on Map 10. There are additional seniors clubs/organizations in Hamilton that do not have dedicated space for their programs and activities. Figure 4-20 calculates the supply of seniors facilities by community:
90
Figure 4-20. Seniors Centres: Current Level of Public Senior Space Provision by Community
Community # of City Seniors Centres 1** 0 1 1 3 3 0 0 1 10 # of Other Public Seniors Centres 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 Total Seniors Centres 2 0 1 1 5 3 0 0 1 13 Population Age 60+ * 5,475 3,320 3,346 30,060 24,625 16,855 2,320 3,580 9,105 98,686 Population Age 60+ Per Municipal Seniors Centres 5,475 3,346 30,060 8,208 5,618 9,105 9,869 Population Age 60+ Per Total Seniors Centres 2,378 3,346 30,060 4,925 5,618 9,105 7,591
Ancaster Flamborough Glanbrook Hamilton Mountain Lower Hamilton Lower Stoney Creek Upper Stoney Creek Beverly West Hamilton/Dundas Hamilton Total
*Source: Adapted from Statistics Canada, Age and Sex for the Population of Census Tracts (100% Data), Cat. No. 97-551X2006007, 2006 Census. **The Ancaster Seniors Achievement Centre is geographically located outside of the Ancaster Community as defined by this Study but is counted under Ancaster for the purposes of determining existing facility inventory by community as this facility predominantly serves Ancaster residents.
Another important measure of the provision of seniors space is to compare the amount of dedicated seniors space (floor area) available to the population in each community. In order to determine the current supply of seniors space based on floor area, additional data is required including floor area calculations for the Main-Hess, Rosedale, Binbrook Hall and Warden Park facilities. 4.5.3 Seniors Centres Facility Usage and Program Analysis (awaiting further information) 4.5.4 Seniors Centres Physical Condition Review The senior centres were all well attended at times when the reviewer made a site visit for this study. Structures housing the seniors centres ranged from an old school (Ancaster Senior Achievement Centre), a former police station (Winona) and a former telephone building (Club 60) to a purpose built structure of new construction (Sackville Seniors Centre). The Ancaster Seniors Centre, while housed in a converted school structure, was no less vital, it appeared, than Sackville Seniors Centre which is a completely new structure. The Sackville facility was beautiful in appearance and efficient in operation. Its urban location and large user population allows it to have a variety of attractive features including a full production kitchen and support staff. Abundant natural light and variety of materials made it welcoming and interesting to occupy. Proportions of the building were appropriate. The Seniors Centre in Dundas in contrast, is a conversion of a former armoury drill hall with some inappropriate tall spaces while areas contained in the new addition are more suitable. The Ancaster Seniors Centre features excellent adaptive reuse of a former school building. Additions and alterations over the years have served to make the facility perform as desired and further additions are planned by the club. It is a well attended facility and is located in a rural setting.
91
The Sackville Seniors Centre is a testament to the social and cultural benefits of design. It offers seniors, visitors, staff and any user, the comfort and grace of a well planned and well intentioned environment. It is modern, cohesive and serves its purpose with clarity and distinction. Its youthful vigour complements the aging population it serves. Physical condition opportunities for seniors centres include constructing additions with use and programming mandate, relocation (Club 60) and compatible use additions (program rooms etc.). Figure 4-21 illustrates the age of construction of the Citys Senior Centre facilities. Figure 4-21. Seniors Centres by Age of Construction
Structure Size (sq ft) 3,559 14,377 3,938 4,056 24,452 Construction Year (YYYY) 1936 1965 1971 1982 1992
% of Total sq ft
Asset Name DUNDAS SENIORS CENTRE ANCASTER SENIORS ACHIEVEMENT CENTRE CLUB 60 SENIOR CITIZEN CENTRE* WINONA SENIOR CITIZEN CENTRE SACKVILLE SENIORS CENTRE
% Of Total sq ft by Construction Period 7.06% 28.54% 7.82% 8.05% 48.53% 100.00%
50,382 3%
*Actual age of structure is much older, 1971 may represent the year of City acquisition of the building.
The City of Hamiltons 4 stand-alone seniors centres and dedicated space in Dundas have an average gross floor area of 10,076 square feet. Three of these seniors centres were constructed prior to 1980. The most recent was constructed in 1992 (Sackville) and appears to be as popular an urban seniors facility as the Ancaster Seniors Achievement Centre is in the rural community. All the seniors facilities with the exception of Sackville, are older buildings which served other uses and have been adapted for re-use as a seniors facility. Materials vary and lack of clarity for the intended use is apparent as one travels through each facility. Sackville Seniors Centre is the sole exception and exceeds expectation and delivery of service in every possible category of function, use, utility, beauty and decorum. Maintenance Cost vs. Replacement Value of Facility The ratio of replacement value to 20 year maintenance is unreliable for this application. Club 60 has an unrealistically low 20 year maintenance total and unrealistic structure replacement value. Inversely, Sackville Seniors Centre has an unrealistic structure replacement value of $2,943,240 representing 24,452 square feet of relatively new structure in excellent condition. Figure 4-22 compares the replacement value versus 20 year maintenance cost for the Citys seniors centres. There is a general correlation associated with the descending quotient and the age of the structure (year of construction) notwithstanding some idiosyncrasies. As the value of the replacement cost versus 20 year maintenance cost approaches 1.0, the age of the building increases, in general. If the quotient descends below 1.0, then the 20 year maintenance cost exceeds the replacement value.
92
Accessibility A very general review of accessibility reveals that the majority of seniors centres are fully accessible with the exception of Club 60 which is partially accessible. Fig 4-22. Seniors Centres Replacement Value vs. 20-Year Capital Maintenance Costs
Asset Name Structure Replacement Value $472,560 $1,725,240 $1,732,200 $2,934,240 $486,720 $7,350,960 20 Year Maintenance Total $257,600 $952,550 $1,089,600 $2,034,500 $478,900 $4,813,150 Const. Year Replace. Value vs 20 yr Maint. 1.83 1.81 1.59 1.44 1.02 Maint. as % of Replace. Value 55 55 63 69 98 Accessibility N=Not P=Partial F=Full P F F F F
CLUB 60 SENIOR CITIZEN CENTRE ANCASTER SENIORS ACHIEVEMENT CENTRE DUNDAS LIONS MEMORIAL COMMUNITY CENTRE SACKVILLE SENIORS CENTRE WINONA SENIOR CITIZEN CENTRE TOTAL
1971 1965 1936 1992 1982
4.5.5 Seniors Centres - Summary of Key Observations Need additional data to complete analysis.
4.6 Community Centres

4.6.1 Trends and Best Practices Without question the leading community centre facility trend has been towards larger high quality multi-purpose facilities. Lack of time and rising expectations for quality service and value for money are also responsible for the trend towards high quality multi-purpose facilities. What this has translated to in the City of Mississauga, for example, is the recognition that consumers will travel to quality facilities and the creation of service areas, which are based on the length of travel time, rather than a prescribed market area. One area of change is in Senior Citizen facilities as the younger, fitter, senior (aging boomer) becomes a significant cohort, the traditional stand alone Seniors Centre cannot meet all of the programming needs of this age group. Multi-purpose community centres will, therefore, be in greater demand. Recognizing the costs and difficulties associated with retrofitting facilities that were designed to serve a single client group, the emphasis in facility design in the future will be on flexible space. The 1990s saw the emergence of the multi-pad arena facility, for reasons related to tourism marketing as well for well documented operational and hence cost efficiencies.
93
Recreational facilities are being built to serve the entire family, with opportunities for crossprogramming. However, the reality is that today, the primary target market for most facilities is children. This will need to be adjusted as the seniors market grows in size. Municipalities will also need to adjust to longer hours of operation (e.g., earlier start and closing times and more weekend opportunities). While we envision the active senior, in the longer term facilities will have to deal with increasing numbers of special needs senior citizens a factor that must be taken into consideration in facility design. Youth needs are a preoccupation of recreation departments across the province as the group is generally identified as a neglected cohort. We are at a point where the baby boom echo generation are in their teen years. This has translated into a surge in the construction of skateboard parks across the province. The trend data presented in the previous section indicates that gymnasiums are in demand for youth. Schools provide a range of indoor and outdoor facilities most significantly gyms and this becomes a significant concern as they become more expensive and inaccessible. The new community centre needs to be able to serve the family, youth, and seniors. The more multi-purpose the building is the opportunities and synergies for more activities will result in the creation of a hub or gathering place for the community. Multi-purpose, multi-use, multi-cultural, multi-generational community centre facilities offering integrated service delivery and that are flexibly designed for many uses will be the most widely used and consequently have the greatest potential to maximize value to the community, create synergies in programming and use, and offset costs through revenue generation. Locations combining indoor and outdoor recreation facilities also provide enhanced multi-use opportunities, allow for expanded programming and promote year-round use/activities.
4.6.2 Current Inventory/Supply of Community Centres A total of 17 City-owned public-use recreation facilities are considered community centres for the purposes of this study, including one facility operated by the Boys and Girls Club. In addition the YM/YWCA operates 4 facilities with a 5th Y facility (West Mountain YWCA) at Turner Park. All of these community centres are shown on Map 11. All but 3 of the Citys community centres contain indoor pools, the exceptions being the Ancaster Rotary Centre/Morgan Firestone Arena which includes a gymnasium, fitness centre, arena and multi-purpose rooms, the Dundas Lions Memorial Community Centre which includes a gymnasium, seniors and youth space, and the Beasley Community Centre which is the smallest facility and is included under this category not for the range of facilities it provides but rather because it is used to run a range of drop-in and registered community programs. The largest of the community centres is the Valley Park Community Centre which is a citywide/regional level multi-use facility containing an arena, indoor pool, gymnasium and multipurpose space. Gymnasiums are provided for public-use at all of the community centres (except Beasley) and in many cases the gymnasium forms part of an attached school with exception to Huntington Park, Valley Park, Ancaster Rotary Centre, Central Memorial, Dundas Lions Memorial and the East Kiwanis Boys and Girls Club.
94
Figure 4-23 calculates the supply of gymnasiums by community. The number of gyms is expressed as single gym equivalents (ie. a double gym counts as 2 single gym equivalents). Figure 4-23. Gymnasiums: Current Level of Public Gym Provision by Community
# of City Gyms 2 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 1 8 # of School or Y Gyms** 0 1 0 10 4 2 0 0 2 19 Total Gyms 2 1 0 11 7 2 1 0 3 27 Population Per City Gym 14,615 151,171 44,618 20,470 39,415 63,059 Population Per Total Public Gyms 14,615 23,340 13,742 19,122 37,792 20,470 13,138 18,684
Community Ancaster Flamborough Glanbrook Hamilton Mountain Lower Hamilton Lower Stoney Creek Upper Stoney Creek Beverly West Hamilton/Dundas Hamilton Total
Population* 29,230 23,340 13,729 151,171 133,855 75,585 20,470 17,675 39,415 504,470
*Source: Adapted from Statistics Canada, Age and Sex for the Population of Census Tracts (100% Data), Cat. No. 97-551X2006007, 2006 Census. ** only includes school gymnasiums attached to a municipal recreation centre.
4.6.3 Community Centres Facility Usage and Program Analysis Figure 4-24 summarizes the annual visits to community centres as compared to annual visit capacity. Figure 4-24. Community Centres Annual Visit Capacity Compared to Actual Annual Visits
Community Centre, Gym/Club Beasley Valley Park Sir Allan McNab Dominic Agostino Riverdale Sir Wilfrid Laurier Westmount Hill Park Dalewood Ryerson Ancaster Rotary Centre Norman Pinky Lewis Sir Winston Churchill Central Memorial Dundas Lions Memorial Bennetto Huntington East Kiwanis B&G Club Total Annual Visit Capacity 1,020 27,903 57,217 20,024 22,647 23,024 24,130 24,365 23,934 30,261 9,192 6,071 16,547 31,080 26,000 Annual Visits 1,055 24,848 48,158 14,997 16,954 16,323 16,777 16,925 16,024 19,794 5,985 3,560 8,587 13,617 10,477 % of Annual Visits as Compared to Capacity 103% 89% 84% 75% 75% 71% 70% 69% 67% 65% 65% 59% 52% 44% 40%
343,415
234,081
69% 95
Observations Beasley has more annual visits than the capacity as indicated. The capacity figure will need to be revisited before the facility usage report is complete; 3 facilities or 19% are nearing capacity; 8 facilities or 50% are of average utilization with significant capacity to accommodate increased use; 5 facilities or 31% are considered underutilized; There is capacity to accommodate 111,470 visits annually in the gyms, clubs and community centres.
4.6.4 Community Centres Physical Condition Review The City of Hamilton has 7 community centres which are distinguished as larger communal facilities featuring a variety a public use facilities such as library, pool, arena, meeting rooms, fitness and so on. The average asset value is $5,242,400 and the average size of a community centre is 34,859 square feet. Ancaster Community Centre for example, offers meeting rooms, fitness, an arena, youth centre, gymnasium and can seat up to 800 persons in the gymnasium with a warm-up kitchen. Attendance at these multi-use facilities is relatively high on a daily basis. A modern community centre such as Ancaster Rotary Centre offers the prospect of being used as an emergency housing centre in the event of a natural or other disaster. Ancaster Community Centre has the sanitary and washing facilities to support such a use however it does not have a production kitchen (warm-up kitchen only) which would be required to be able to feed the people it houses. Larger centres (e.g. Valley Park Community Centre, Chedoke Twin Pad) would offer a similar opportunity to support emergency housing but do not have the sanitary or cooking facilities that such a use may require. The Citys inventory of smaller structures will be less well suited for use as emergency shelter but this would be conditional upon use demand. Several of the community centres include outdoor playing fields for soccer, baseball and other field sports. Figure 4-25 illustrates the age of construction of the Citys Community Centre facilities.
96
Figure 4-25. Community Centres by Age of Construction

Structure Size (sq ft) 22,558 14,435 18,000 11,601 12,175 27,681 12,414 16,103 16,685 16,617 19,724 72,033 18,901 92,570 29,681 3,168 16,401 Construction Year (YYYY) 1900 1936 1961 1965 1965 1966 1966 1971 1973 1977 1981 1981 1983 1992 1993 1994 2002 % of Total sq ft Total sq ft by Facility Type % Of Total sq ft by Construction Period 5.36% 3.43%
Asset Name CENTRAL MEMORIAL DUNDAS LIONS MEMORIAL KIWANIS BOYS & GIRLS CLUB DALEWOOD REC CENTRE WESTMOUNT REC CENTRE BENNETTO REC CENTRE SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL RYERSON REC CENTRE HILL PARK REC CENTRE SIR WILFRID LAURIER NORMAN PINKY LEWIS VALLEY PARK SIR ALLAN MACNAB REC CENTRE ANCASTER ROTARY CENTRE HUNTINGTON PARK REC CENTRE BEASLEY COMMUNITY CENTRE DOMINIC AGOSTINO RIVERDALE
19.46%
11.74%
26.30%
420,747 29%
29.81% 3.90% 100.00%
Community centres are distinguished from community halls by their larger size which is required to accommodate a diversity of public uses. Community centres offer programme activities for fitness, wellness and self-improvement as well as a venue for social interaction. The City has 14 community centres with an average gross floor area of 26,323 square feet. Approximately 64% of those structures pre-date 1980 comprising 41% of the total floor area of community centres. All but three of the community centres feature an indoor swimming pool. In addition to inclusion of a pool, almost all community centres feature a gymnasium or indoor sportroom or have access to a gymnasium through a sharing arrangement where there is an attached school. Maintenance Cost vs. Replacement Value of Facility The ratio of replacement value to 20 year maintenance is less for older structures (eg. Westmount Recreation Centre = 1.01) and greater for newer ones (eg Valley Park = 3.92) reflecting a smaller difference between replacement value and (larger/greater) maintenance cost in older structures and a greater difference between the two for newer or more recently renovated structures. Figure 4-26 shows the replacement value versus 20 year maintenance costs for Hamiltons community centres. There is a general correlation associated with the descending quotient and the age of the structure (year of construction) notwithstanding some idiosyncrasies. As the value of the replacement cost versus 20 year maintenance cost approaches 1.0, the age of the building increases, in general. If the quotient descends below 1.0, then the 20 year maintenance cost exceeds the replacement value.
97
Accessibility A very general review of accessibility reveals that the majority of community centres are partially accessible without being fully accessible. Though generally accessible, items noted during site visits by the consultant group included lack of required clearances at doors, vision panels and miscellaneous items throughout. Figure 4-26 notes those community centres that are fully accessible and those that are partially accessible. Figure 4-26. Community Centres Replacement Value vs. 20-Year Maintenance Costs
Asset Name Structure Replacement Value $4,748,960 $10,804,950 $4,428,960 $3,024,160 $2,624,160 $2,576,480 $3,609,440 $1,986,240 $2,160,000 $2,658,720 $2,669,600 $3,155,840 $1,732,200 $1,856,160 $1,948,000 $380,160 $13,885,500 $64,249,560 20 Year Maintenance Total $532,013 $2,757,210 $1,317,600 $917,171 $806,400 $878,938 $1,308,470 $773,180 $892,400 $1,106,602 $1,308,746 $1,555,670 $1,089,600 $1,655,800 $1,924,780 $388,700 $19,213,280 Construction Year Replace. Value vs 20 yr Maint. 8.93 3.92 3.36 3.30 3.25 2.93 2.76 2.57 2.42 2.40 2.04 2.03 1.59 1.12 1.01 0.98 Maint. as % of Replace. Value 11 26 30 30 31 34 36 39 41 42 49 49 63 89 99 102 Accessibility N=Not P=Partial F=Full F F F P F P P P F P P P F P P F F
HUNTINGTON PARK VALLEY PARK BENNETTO SIR ALLAN MACNAB D.A. RIVERDALE RYERSON CENTRAL MEMORIAL WINSTON CHURCHILL KIWANIS B&G CLUB SIR WILFRID LAURIER HILL PARK NORMAN PINKY LEWIS DUNDAS LIONS DALEWOOD WESTMOUNT BEASLEY ANCASTER ROTARY TOTAL
1993 1981 1966 1983 2002 1971 1900 1966 1961 1977 1973 1981 1936 1965 1965 1994 1992
4.7 Community Halls

4.7.1 Current Inventory/Supply There are 27 City-owned community halls in Hamilton. These facilities range from historic school houses and town halls to large community rooms within arenas to meeting space for service clubs. 17 of 27 or 63% of the facilities in this category are located in Rural Hamilton. Map 12 lists and identifies the location of the City-owned community halls in Hamilton. In total the community halls together provide space for a wide range of users and types of activities. Many of the community halls can be rented for licensed events/fundraisers and are often the only local facility available for licensed functions particularly in the rural portion of Hamilton. Part or all of some facilities are used exclusively by a specific organization for a specific use; for example the Waterdown Memorial Hall is used by the local theatre group while the lower level of the Normanhurst Community Hall is used by a boxing club. Some provide
98
space for child care services/preschools during weekdays. Other users fitness/dance/yoga groups, service clubs and girl guides/scouts and similar groups. 4.7.2 Community Halls Facility Usage and Program Analysis
include
Community Halls are typically utilized to meet immediate local needs. They house opportunities for local service clubs, guiding and scouting, social events, and some leisure programming. Since they are run by local volunteer committees for the most part, revenues offset operational expenditures and few staff are hired and compensated if any. To determine capacity and usage a calculation of annual potential available hours was utilized as all community halls open only to accommodate rentals and meetings. A weekly schedule was extrapolated on an annual basis to approximate the hours utilized. Figure 4-27 compares the hours available at community halls to hours used. Figure 4-27. Community Halls Hours Utilized as Compared to Hours Available
Community Hall Waterdown Memorial Hall Stoney Creek Scout Hall Woodburn Kiwanis Nigel Charlong Carlisle Fruitland Copetown Optimist Youth Centre Sealy Park Scout Hall Valens Ancaster Old Town Hall Sheffield Normanhurst Millgrove Carluke Eastmount Mountsberg Beverly Township Binbrook Greensville Beverly Arena Hall Carlisle Arena Hall North Wentworth Arena Hall Glanbrook Arena Hall Winona Scout Hut Stoney Creek Optimist Hall Total Hours Available Hours Available per Year 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 Approximate Hours Utilized 3,624 2,500 1,900 1,656 1,344 1,329 1,056 936 912 768 696 672 580 550 480 475 336 270 220 % of Hours Utilized 91% 63% 48% 41% 34% 33% 26% 23% 23% 19% 17% 17% 15% 14% 12% 12% 8% 7% 6%
72,000 *
20,304 *
27%*
Source Staff Document July 2007 - Wendy Arnott *Calculations do not include Ancaster, Binbrook and Greensville Halls (information to be submitted) **Beasley Community Centre is not included as a community hall - this facility is included in the community centres listing for the purposes of this study due to the nature of its use/programming.
The potential availability of the community halls was calculated as Monday through Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and Sundays from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. or 80 hours per week. It was estimated that the community halls would be available 48 weeks of the year by excluding 2 weeks for annual maintenance and 2 weeks for statutory holidays.
99
It is estimated that a well utilized community hall would be in use at 50% of the available hours. This calculation takes into account that these facilities are typically run by volunteers, are not staffed for all of the available hours and do not have staff who are continually assessing the leisure needs of the surrounding community and advocating the use of the community hall. Observations: Weekly (average weekly schedules) usage for Ancaster, Binbrook, Greensville, Beverly Arena, Carlisle Arena, North Wentworth Arena, Glanbrook Arena and Winona Scout Halls is needed to complete the usage analysis; While many community halls are reaching their life expectancy in Ontario, they still serve a very immediate local purpose, especially when access to public spaces is at a premium. Volunteer oversight of the hall combined with full time staff from the municipality to assist with maximizing the use of the facility is proving to be a responsive partnership; There is significant capacity available within the community halls other than at Waterdown Community Hall which is reaching its capacity at 91% usage on an annual basis; 16 or 89% of the community halls are underutilized; A full strategy that analyzes structural adequacy, use lifespan, distribution and use is needed. In the meantime, is in the publics interest to maximize the use of the community halls and staff liaisons would best serve the community by assessing the needs and enabling use by assisting with the development of programs and opportunities to maximize their use.
4.7.3 Community Halls Physical Condition Assessment The community halls in the City of Hamilton have an average asset value of $460,188 and an average size of approximately 3,000 square feet. Community halls are distributed throughout urban and rural communities in the City and are important in that they offer local meeting locations. Most offer a structure (enclosed space) for cultural events such as weddings or club meetings and many uses of these facilities are often associated with the consumption of food. Valens Community Centre serves a small rural user group and features a wonderful family kitchen filled with natural light and direct access. Community hall facilities, both old and new, offer venues for local community members to gather communally. Many of the community halls were developed by local community members searching for a communal venue. Some like Valens Community Centre still feature a strong community interest while others like the Ancaster Town Hall offer a more ceremonial use. Few structures contain LEED energy initiatives as part of the original design or converted design. Several of the community halls have limited outdoor playing fields for sports related activities. Most of the facilities are accessible for barrier free use (ramps, front door width and access to primary venue) but many of the bathroom facilities in these older community halls are not ODA compliant. All but a few of the Community Halls are on individual on-site water and/or waste disposal systems which can limit the use of these facilities in terms of number of people and length of time used. Figure 4-28 illustrates the age of construction of the Citys Community Hall facilities.
100
Figure 4-28. Community Halls by Age of Construction

Structure Size (sq ft) 3,348 2,713 2,863 2,368 2,964 8,508 4,004 3,003 2,965 2,500 2,885 2,100 2,588 2,920 3,786 2,634 2,953 7,244 3,659 4,974 4,859 3,414 3,331 4,000 8,541 95,124 Construction Year (YYYY) 1850 1855 1875 1877 1898 1920 1921 1922 1925 1940 1940 1955 1960 1960 1960 1965 1969 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1978 1982 1992
% of Total sq ft
Asset Name ANCASTER OLD TOWN HALL SEALY PARK SCOUT HALL GREENSVILLE COMMUNITY HALL SHEFFIELD COMMUNITY HALL WOODBURN / CENTENNIAL HALL BINBROOK MEMORIAL HALL CARLISLE MEMORIAL HALL WATERDOWN MEMORIAL HALL CARLUKE COMMUNITY CENTRE MOUNTSBERG HALL NORMANHURST VALENS COMMUNITY HALL EASTMOUNT COMMUNITY HALL FRUITLAND COMMUNITY CENTRE NIGEL CHARLONG HALL OPTIMIST YOUTH CENTRE STONEY CREEK SCOUT HALL KIWANIS COMMUNITY CENTRE NORTH WENTWORTH ARENA BEVERLY ARENA HALL GLANBROOK AUDITORIUM BEVERLY TOWNSHIP HALL CARLISLE ARENA HALL MILLGROVE COMMUNITY HALL COPETOWN & DISTRICT HALL
% Of Total sq ft by Construction Period
14.99%
19.43% 5.66% 2.21%
15.64%
28.89% 95,124 7% 13.18% 100.00%
The City has an inventory of 25 community halls with 92% being constructed prior to 1980 (no data available for Winona Scout Hut). Many of the halls are located in the rural or formerly rural parts of Hamilton and serve an associated rural population. Most of the community halls feature adaptive re-use of older buildings such as conversion of a one room school house or conversion of a former municipal hall. Several are located in the original town hall of the community they serve. Several of the community halls are heritage structures. Almost all the halls have an open plan main floor with a basement below although some, like Valens Community Hall, a former school, consist of a slab on grade building and does not have a basement. Most halls include a kitchenette or kitchen facility of some kind for production of meals for social events. The average gross floor area of a community hall is 3,805 square feet with an asset value considerably less than a community centre. The observer found the physical condition of community halls to be varied because of the range of age of the structures. Many halls did not rely on the range of mechanical devices to cool the facility as other structures do. The daily or monthly use of the halls appears to be significantly less than that of community centres and this can be attributed to the more rural population base and function they serve.
101
Maintenance Cost vs. Replacement Value of Facility The ratio of replacement value to 20 year maintenance is less for older structures (eg. Normanhurst Community Centre = 0.76) and greater for newer ones (eg Waterdown Memorial Hall = 1.91) reflecting a smaller difference between replacement value and (larger/greater) maintenance cost in older structures and a greater difference between the two for newer or more recently renovated structures. It is understood that aging infrastructure depreciates in value, requires a greater range of physical intervention to bring it up to date for appropriate use and public function and incurs greater maintenance costs over time. Inversely, newer structures have greater replacement value with lower maintenance costs resulting in a higher ratio of replacement value to maintenance cost. Newer buildings are also more compliant with current trends in public use and function requirements. Figure 4-29 compares the replacement value of community halls versus their 20 year maintenance costs. There is a general correlation associated with the descending quotient and the age of the structure (year of construction) notwithstanding some idiosyncrasies. As the value of the replacement cost vs 20 year maintenance cost approaches 1.0, the age of the building increases, in general. If the quotient descends below 1.0, then the 20 year maintenance cost exceeds the replacement value. Accessibility A very general review of accessibility reveals that the majority of community halls are partially accessible without being fully accessible. A very few are not accessible. Figure 4-29 notes the accessibility of each community hall building.
102
Figure 4-29. Community Halls Replacement Value vs. 20-Year Capital Maintenance
Asset Name Structure Replacement Value $480,000 $343,560 $284,160 $454,320 $4,813,800 $6,266,250 $5,706,000 $360,360 $5,400,900 $869,280 $409,680 $1,024,920 $355,800 $355,680 $346,200 $310,560 $350,400 $669,600 $325,560 $1,020,960 $480,480 $300,000 $252,000 $316,080 $354,360 $31,370,910 20 Year Maintenance Total $130,348 $94,981 $98,737 $177,707 $2,073,469 $2,840,606 $2,848,367 $189,015 $2,995,549 $690,900 $325,800 $954,150 $338,700 $463,870 $453,868 $497,150 $700,500 $104,067 $554,930 $104,619 $35,535 $198,080 $343,600 $261,800 $17,476,348 Construction Year Replace. Value vs 20 yr Maintenance 3.68 3.62 2.88 2.56 2.32 2.21 2.00 1.91 1.80 1.26 1.26 1.07 1.05 0.77 0.76 0.62 0.50 3.12 1.83 4.59 8.44 1.27 0.92 1.35 Maint. as % of Replace. Value 27 28 35 39 43 45 50 52 55 79 80 93 95 130 131 160 200 32 54 22 12 79 109 74 Accessibility N=Not P=Partial F=Full F P P P P P P P P P P F P P P F F F P F N P F P P
MILLGROVE GREENSVILLE SHEFFIELD NIGEL CHARLONG NORTH WENTWORTH GLANBROOK ARENA CARLISLE ARENA WATERDOWN HALL BEVERLY ARENA KIWANIS HALL BEVERLY TWP HALL COPETOWN HALL CARLUKE HALL WOODBURN HALL NORMANHURST HALL EASTMOUNT HALL FRUITLAND HALL ANCASTER HALL SEALY PARK SCOUT BINBROOK HALL CARLISLE HALL MOUNTSBERG HALL VALENS HALL OPTIMIST HALL STONEY CREEK HALL TOTAL
1982 1875 1877 1960 1973 1975 1978 1922 1974 1972 1976 1992 1925 1898 1940 1960 1960 1850 1855 1920 1921 1940 1955 1965 1969
4.8 Stadiums
4.8.1 Current Inventory/Supply of Stadiums There are 3 City-owned stadium facilities in Hamilton, including Ivor Wynne Stadium and Brian Timmis Stadium for football and soccer, and Bernie Arbour Stadium for baseball. Ivor Wynne Stadium is the largest facility with approximately 30,000 seats and is home to the Hamilton Tigercats of the Canadian Football League (CFL). Brian Timmis Stadium is much smaller and located on the same site as Ivor Wynne. Bernie Arbour Stadium is located at the Mohawk Sports Complex. Map 13 shows the location of the City-owned stadium facilities in Hamilton. The City has 3 stadiums with Ivor Wynne Stadium serving as a regional level facility consisting of 132,546 square feet. The Bernie Arbour Stadium is considered a district level facility.
103

City of Hamilton-Recreation-Public-Use Study Sept2007

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

City of Hamilton-Recreation-Public-Use Study Sept2007

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

APPENDIX A TO REPORT ECS07068 (CITY-WIDE): PUBLIC-USE FACILITIES STUDY

planni ng c onsul t ants

Tucker-Reid & Associates

APPENDIX A TO REPORT ECS07068 (CITY-WIDE): PUBLIC-USE FACILITIES STUDY

Background Review Public Consultation

APPENDIX A TO REPORT ECS07068 (CITY-WIDE): PUBLIC-USE FACILITIES STUDY

APPENDIX A TO REPORT ECS07068 (CITY-WIDE): PUBLIC-USE FACILITIES STUDY

1.1 Study Overview

1.2 Study Scope

APPENDIX A TO REPORT ECS07068 (CITY-WIDE): PUBLIC-USE FACILITIES STUDY

1.3 Study Goals and Objectives

APPENDIX A TO REPORT ECS07068 (CITY-WIDE): PUBLIC-USE FACILITIES STUDY

1.4 Report Organization

Section 2 Community Profile

Section 3 Consultation Summary

Section 4 Facility Profile

Attachment I Background Review

Attachment II Public Consultation

APPENDIX A TO REPORT ECS07068 (CITY-WIDE): PUBLIC-USE FACILITIES STUDY

2.2 Historic and Projected Population Figures

2006 Population: 504,470

APPENDIX A TO REPORT ECS07068 (CITY-WIDE): PUBLIC-USE FACILITIES STUDY

APPENDIX A TO REPORT ECS07068 (CITY-WIDE): PUBLIC-USE FACILITIES STUDY

2.3 Growth Strategy

APPENDIX A TO REPORT ECS07068 (CITY-WIDE): PUBLIC-USE FACILITIES STUDY

APPENDIX A TO REPORT ECS07068 (CITY-WIDE): PUBLIC-USE FACILITIES STUDY

2.4 Age Composition

APPENDIX A TO REPORT ECS07068 (CITY-WIDE): PUBLIC-USE FACILITIES STUDY

14.0% 9.3% 7.7% 5.2% 1.4%

+1.3% +1.8% -0.3% +0.5% +0.4%

14.3% 9.3% 7.2% 4.4% 1.3%

+1.0% +1.9% -0.1% +0.5% +0.3%

APPENDIX A TO REPORT ECS07068 (CITY-WIDE): PUBLIC-USE FACILITIES STUDY

Forecasted Population Age Cohorts, 2006-2031

SOURCE: The Greater Golden Horseshoe Forecasts, Province of Ontario, 2006-2031

2.5 Age Composition by Community

APPENDIX A TO REPORT ECS07068 (CITY-WIDE): PUBLIC-USE FACILITIES STUDY

Figure 2-10. Age Profile of Hamilton Communities

SOURCE: Statistics Canada, Census (2006).

*totals may not add due to rounding.

SOURCE: Statistics Canada, Census (2006).

SOURCE: Statistics Canada, Census (2006).

APPENDIX A TO REPORT ECS07068 (CITY-WIDE): PUBLIC-USE FACILITIES STUDY

APPENDIX A TO REPORT ECS07068 (CITY-WIDE): PUBLIC-USE FACILITIES STUDY

APPENDIX A TO REPORT ECS07068 (CITY-WIDE): PUBLIC-USE FACILITIES STUDY

$108,758 $94,446 $76,509 $63,330 $48,881 $62,806 $77,680 $83,410 $73,136

APPENDIX A TO REPORT ECS07068 (CITY-WIDE): PUBLIC-USE FACILITIES STUDY

23% 26% 30% 29% 28% 28% 29% 26% 23%

8% 12% 17% 12% 10% 13% 13% 15% 8%

23% 25% 23% 22% 16% 18% 24% 21% 19%

37% 25% 9% 15% 14% 13% 17% 20% 39%

Source: Statistics Canada, Census (2001)

2.8 Community Diversity

APPENDIX A TO REPORT ECS07068 (CITY-WIDE): PUBLIC-USE FACILITIES STUDY

SOURCE: Statistics Canada, 2001 Census.

APPENDIX A TO REPORT ECS07068 (CITY-WIDE): PUBLIC-USE FACILITIES STUDY

SOURCE: Statistics Canada, Census (2001).

2.9 Summary Profile of Hamilton Communities

APPENDIX A TO REPORT ECS07068 (CITY-WIDE): PUBLIC-USE FACILITIES STUDY

APPENDIX A TO REPORT ECS07068 (CITY-WIDE): PUBLIC-USE FACILITIES STUDY

3.2 Household Survey

APPENDIX A TO REPORT ECS07068 (CITY-WIDE): PUBLIC-USE FACILITIES STUDY

APPENDIX A TO REPORT ECS07068 (CITY-WIDE): PUBLIC-USE FACILITIES STUDY

*Dont Know/No Response have been excluded.