City of Kitchener: Skatepark Planning Study. Infrastructure Services: Operations Design and Development. April 2012

A City of Kitchener: Skatepark Planning Study i Infrastructure Services: Operations Design and Development April 2012

ii

Acknowledgements Project Managers Dan Ritz Supervisor of Design & Development Infrastructure Services / Parks Operations Yvonne Westerveld Cardoso Sarah Longstaff Staff Technical Team Tim O Brien Andy Brand LoriAnn Livingston Breanna Pilon Landscape Architectural Intern Infrastructure Services / Parks Operations Policy Analyst Community Services / Long Range and Policy Planning Landscape Architect Infrastructure Services / Parks Operations Risk and Claims Analyst Waterloo Region Municipalities Insurance Pool Communications and Marketing Associate Communications & Marketing Youth Services Coordinator Community Services / Youth Services Dannon Vasey Bob Cheyne Greg Hummel Shayne Turner Debbie Campbell Lenore Ross Youth Services Coordinator Community Services / Youth Services Supervisor of Athletics Community Services / Athletics Manager of Park Planning, Development and Operations Infrastructure Services / Operations Director of Bylaw Enforcement Community Services / Enforcement Manager of Community Resource Centres Community Services / Community Resource Centres Urban Designer Community Services / Site Development i

Table of Contents 1.0 BACKGROUND... 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION... 1 1.2 WHY BUILD MORE SKATEPARKS?... 2 1.3 ADDRESSING COMMON CONCERNS... 3 1.3.1 Crime Prevention... 3 1.3.2 Noise... 3 1.3.3 Injuries... 3 2.0 SITE SELECTION AND EVALUATION... 4 2.1 SITE SELECTION CRITERIA... 5 2.2 INVENTORY OF POTENTIAL SITES... 6 2.3 DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS... 6 2.4 SITE VISIT AND EVALUATION... 6 2.5 INTERNAL REVIEW AND SHORTLISTED SITE SELECTION... 8 3.0 PUBLIC COMMUNICATION... 11 3.1 WITH WHOM DID WE COMMUNICATE?... 11 3.2 HOW DID WE GET THE WORD OUT?... 12 3.3 HOW DID WE OBTAIN FEEDBACK?... 13 ii 3.3.1 Online Survey... 13

3.3.2 Surveys Completed at Open Houses... 13 3.3.3 Surveys Completed by Skateboarders at Existing Skateparks... 13 3.3.4 Feedback Obtained from Sportsfield Users and Adjacent Businesses and Organizations... 13 3.4 GENERAL ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS... 14 4.0 SHORTLISTED SITE ASSESSMENT... 16 4.1 SITE SELECTION CRITERIA OVERVIEW... 16 4.2 WEIGHTED MATRIX... 17 4.3 SUMMARY... 19 4.3.1 Site 1 Fischer Park... 20 4.3.2 Site 2 Gzowski Park... 20 4.3.3 Site 3 Southwest Optimist Park... 20 4.3.4 Site 4 Wilson Park... 21 5.0 FINAL CONCLUSION... 22 5.1 RECOMMENDATIONS... 22 6.0 NEXT STEPS... 23 6.1 SKATEPARK DESIGN... 23 6.2 SIZE AND STYLE... 23 6.3 LOCATION ON SITE... 24 iii References... 67

List of Figures FIGURE 1: INVENTORY OF EVALUATED SITES... 7 FIGURE 2: DEMOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION BASED ON PLANNING COMMUNITY... 8 FIGURE 3: A LISTED SITES... 10 FIGURE 4: SURVEY RESPONDENTS... 14 FIGURE 5: LOCATIONS WHERE SKATEBOARDERS SKATE... 14 FIGURE 6: REASONS FOR NOT USING EXISTING SKATEPARKS... 15 FIGURE 7: SKATEPARK PLANNING STUDY WEIGHTED MATRIX... 17 Appendices Appendix A: Municipal Skatepark Summaries... 26 Appendix B: Shortlisted Sites Public Meeting Poster... 30 APPENDIX C: Evaluation of 4 Shortlisted Sites... 31 Appendix D: Evaluation of potential sites (not shortlisted)... 35 Appendix E: Information Card Handouts... 50 Appendix F: Skatepark Advertisement featured in Kitchener s Leisure Magazine... 50 Appendix G: Posters at Community Centres... 51 Appendix H: Article featured in YOUR KITCHENER... 52 Appendix I: City of Kitchener Skatepark Webpage... 53 Appendix J: Skatepark Online Survey... 54 Appendix L: Additional Comments Provided by Online Survey Respondents... 62 Appendix M: Email Submissions... 64 Appendix N: Feedback from Sportsfield Contacts and Adjacent Businesses and Organizations... 66 iv

1.0 BACKGROUND In 2005, the Leisure Facilities Master Plan recommended that additional skateboard facilities be developed in Kitchener in an effort to expand on the continued success at that time of the Aud Skatepark, and to address the growing need for opportunities in skateboarding (Recommendation 28, item 8). Currently there are two skateboard parks in Kitchener: The Aud, located at the Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex and Kitchener s newest skatepark, located at McLennan Park. We also have a portable unit (Skatium) which is rotated to various community centres throughout the summer (Forest Heights, Doon Pioneer Park, Country Hills, Chandler Mowat, Kingsdale, Victoria Hills, Williamsburg and Centreville Chicopee). In 2010, the Parks Strategic Plan further recommended that the City shall complete a site selection study for two proposed skateboard park locations and implement through the ten year capital budget. (Implementation Action 4.1.6) Council has approved capital budget for two more skateparks to be constructed in 2014/15 and 2016/2017 with budget of $550,000 for the design and construction of each additional skatepark. The purpose of this study is to identify the two best sites in the city within which to locate the proposed skateparks. To choose the most appropriate location for the proposed facility, an in depth site selection process and community consultation on the preferred locations has taken place over the past 18 months. On June 21, 2010 staff provided to Community Services Committee an update on the initiation of the skatepark planning study, and outlined the site selection and community consultation process and site selection criteria (CSD 10 39). This study highlights the process followed to determine the four shortlisted sites, gives an overview of the public consultation that took place, examines the four shortlisted sites and outlines the rationale for staff s ultimate conclusion and subsequent recommendation for the two skatepark locations. The exact location, size and shape of the skatepark on the recommended sites will be determined at the design stage of the process. 1.1 INTRODUCTION The City of Kitchener has a park system in excess of 348 parks. During the review of our park inventory for potential skate park locations, many were eliminated as they were unsuitable for our purposes, for obvious reasons. A list of 19 potential sites was arrived at and a rating of these sites took place using a site selection matrix introduced to Community Services Committee on June 21, 2010. Ultimately, four potential sites were shortlisted for further review and study. These parks had all received an overall A grade. Staff has therefore been challenged with the task to discern among four strong candidates, from which two would be the best choice as we move forward to implement our goal of establishing two additional skateboard parks. Due to the complexity of this decision making process, we have decided to approach this study from a holistic perspective in order to determine which sites consistently rate above the others in many areas, and which might rank highest in criteria that are considered to be especially important. 1

1.2 WHY BUILD MORE SKATEPARKS? There are many benefits to developing skateparks within a community. Skateparks provide unstructured opportunities for youth and youngat heart to develop and master skills; engage in physical exercise and activity; and socialize in a constructive environment. This sport is appealing to a large segment of youth who are not otherwise drawn to more traditional (team) sports (City of London, 2010). It also has the advantage of being a low cost sport to the user, which is important as currently one in three Canadian families cannot afford to enroll their children in sport and recreation activities because of financial barriers (Ipsos Reid, 2009). It is evident that the popularity of skateboarding is growing. Skateboarding has become the third largest participant sport in North America for the 10 to 18 age group. Furthermore, statistics from Canadian and U.S cities show that 4 to 7 percent of the total population is skateboarders (Gomez, 2006). It is important to recognize the needs of this growing segment of the population. Using these figures, we can estimate the number of people we can expect to be skateboarding in Kitchener. With a population of 219,153 (Statistics Canada, 2012), this amounts to between 8,700 15,000 potential skateboarders within the City (FP Markets Canadian Demographics, 2009). As noted in the City s Leisure Facilities Master Plan, based on a community the size of Kitchener, more skateboard facilities are needed to serve the skateboard population in the City. A survey of various municipalities throughout southwestern Ontario was conducted, and of those that responded, we learned that many had indicated a need for additional skateparks and are either in the planning stages of increasing the number of skatepark facilities or have recently completed one or more. The following list shows the number of current and proposed skateparks in the following municipalities. For more detailed information regarding the skateparks at these municipalities, see Appendix A. Barrie 1 existing Guelph 1 proposed Hamilton 4 existing London 11 existing, 1 proposed Mississauga 8 existing Oakville 4 existing, 1 proposed Oshawa 4 existing Richmond Hill 1 existing Toronto 13 15 existing Waterloo 1 existing, several others proposed Windsor 2 existing As mentioned previously, the Doon Skatium Mobile Skate Park currently travels to a different community centre each week, making the sport accessible to boarders across the city. The Skatium provides valuable programming to younger users who might not be able travel to more distant skateparks, and through the equipment loan program, offers the opportunity of skateboarding to youth who might not otherwise be able to participate due to financial constraints. While the Skatium is available to skateboarders who might not live in close proximity to one of 2

our permanent skatepark locations, it is geared to the beginner level skateboarder, thus supporting the need for skateparks providing challenge at a greater skill level. 1.3 ADDRESSING COMMON CONCERNS Staff is aware that there may be community concern over the proposal of two new skateparks in the City. A review of studies completed by other municipalities indicates that this is common. As such, staff has provided responses to the most common concerns. 1.3.1 Crime Prevention A study conducted by graduate students from Portland State University, in conjunction with the City of Portland, found that there is no correlation between skateboard parks and serious crime (Gomez, 2006). In the case of London, Ontario, it has been reported that police experience no higher degree of issues associated with skateparks than with other park amenities that serve as gathering points such as swing sets and play equipment (City of London, 2010). 1.3.2 Noise Several skatepark sound studies have been conducted to test the issue of noise. The most notable was done by Portland, Oregon s Parks and Recreation Department and found that their 10,000 square foot skatepark emitted less constant noise than light automobile traffic (Whitley, 2011). Overall, studies have concluded that skateparks generate noise levels between 65 70 decibels. These noise levels are comparable to basketball courts and children playing on playground equipment (Gomez, 2006). 1.3.3 Injuries Skateboarding is a low impact and relatively safe sport compared to most other popular sports. Staff had the opportunity to attend a skatepark workshop pertaining to risk management in February 2011. The guest speaker, Doug Wyseman, shared statistics from Health Canada that indicate that less than 0.3 percent of people who skateboard suffered injuries that required medical attention. These results rank the sport as safer than ice hockey, baseball, basketball, football, soccer, golf, snowboarding, volleyball and fishing (Wyseman, 2011). Soccer players are almost twice as likely to be injured as skateboarders, while basketball players and baseball players are 3 and 4 times, respectively, more likely to be injured (Gomez, 2006). When injuries do occur, they occur more frequently on streets than skateparks. Statistics show that less than 5% of skateboard injuries take place in skateboard parks, while roads account for more than a third of these injuries (Wyseman, 2011). In FIGURE 6, later in the report, survey results show that many skateboarders in Kitchener currently use streets to skateboard. As such, skateparks can provide a consistent and well maintained skateboarding atmosphere that helps in reducing the amount of injuries to skateboarders and could help lessen the number of skateboarders skateboarding on streets in Kitchener. Furthermore, evidence shows that there are fewer reported accidents and injuries associated with skate parks than with other outdoor park activities (City of London, 2010).) 3

2.0 SITE SELECTION AND EVALUATION The success of a skatepark is mainly related to the location and design of the facility (Gomez, 2006). As such, much of the work completed to date has been spent on selecting the best location for the City of Kitchener s two proposed skateparks. This section highlights the site selection process and summarizes key site selection criteria considered important when assessing the appropriateness of a skate facility in the four proposed skatepark locations. Staff began the skatepark site selection study by evaluating all city owned sites. 19 potential sites were evaluated against the site selection criteria and assigned a grade value of A, B or C. 4 sites received an A grade and were shortlisted for further detailed review and public and stakeholder feedback. Through a weighted matrix analysis, staff are recommending 2 sites as approved skatepark locations. 4

2.1 SITE SELECTION CRITERIA By examining existing facilities both in Kitchener and other municipalities, as well as reviewing studies completed by other municipalities, staff developed a site selection criteria matrix to qualitatively evaluate potential sites and to identify optimal locations in Kitchener. It is recognized that there may not be a site that fully satisfies all elements of the criteria and meets all stakeholder and community expectations. This is an inherent challenge in planning for skateparks and this study strives to recommend locations that balance competing interests. The site selection criteria matrix was presented to the Community Services Committee in June 2010 addressing four key themes: Theme Criteria Considerations Location Potential users Should be located within an area of high demographics for potential users Existing skatepark Should not be situated too close to the existing skateparks (The AUD and McLennan) Surrounding environment Should not occupy/eliminate the only park space in a community Proximity to residential areas Should be sufficient setback from a new skatepark to the nearest adjacent residences Physical Site Conditions Achievable skatepark area Site should be large enough that introducing a skatepark would not negatively affect the existing activities already occurring at that location Topography Should have minimum construction implications Vegetation Should provide shade/wind protection Access & Security Public transportation Should be accessible by public transportation Pedestrian access Should have pedestrian connections Parking Should have adequate parking available Visibility and surveillance Should be visible from street Supporting Infrastructure Washrooms, drinking water, food, lighting, shelter Should have surrounding amenities to support users When assessing to what degree a site fulfills the components of the site selection criteria, consideration must be given to achieving an appropriate balance. For example, when considering the visibility of a site, it is desirable to achieve the correct balance between high visibility of the skatepark for reasons of safety and security, while achieving the correct level of privacy, comfort and security for local residents, businesses and community organizations. The proximity of the skatepark to supporting infrastructure and facilities, especially staff supported facilities, also requires deliberation. It is advantageous to have the skatepark close to the facilities for the safety and convenience of skatepark users, but it is also important to maintain a suitable distance from a city facility so that skatepark users are encouraged to a develop an appropriate level of responsibility for the cooperative use of the skatepark between users of different ages and skill levels. 5

2.2 INVENTORY OF POTENTIAL SITES Staff generated an inventory of sites to consider in the site evaluation process by creating a list of potential city owned land parcels. Land parcels too small, such as neighbourhood parks were removed from the list as they provided numerous design and operational challenges. Community centres, arenas, libraries, pools, and plazas, etc. were recognized as facilities that offer supporting infrastructure and amenities that could be utilized by skateboarders. As such, lands that did not have such landmarks within a reasonable distance were also removed from the list. Once refined, the list of potential sites included 19 properties. 2.3 DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS One of the key criteria in the site selection criteria matrix was the consideration of potential users in relation to the potential site. In order to complete this evaluation, an understanding of the demographic makeup of the City s planning communities was required. A survey conducted by the City of Toronto indicated that 83 percent of skateboarders are between the ages of 10 and 19 (Gomez, 2006). As such, the potential current and future users are primarily considered to be those between the age of 0 and 19. The percentage of the potential skateboarders that reside in each planning community is displayed in the figure 2. The planning communities that have the highest concentration of Kitchener s youth (age 10 19) and a high percentage of youth within their planning community are in the west end of Kitchener in the Laurentian West, Laurentian Hills, Forest Heights, Highland West, and Country Hills West planning communities. There is also a high concentration of the City s youth in south east Kitchener in the Pioneer Park community and also in Vanier and Centreville Chicopee communities. The map in FIGURE 2 graphically shows demographic distribution in the City of Kitchener while also indicating the locations four sites that the staff technical team shortlisted as possible skatepark locations. 2.4 SITE VISIT AND EVALUATION Each of the 19 potential sites was visited by the staff review committee in the summer of 2010. While at the sites, staff noted possible locations for the skatepark on each site and observed the surroundings to consider whether a skatepark could be integrated at the desired scale with the existing features and have appropriate visibility, accessibility and supporting amenities. Staff also examined the physical site conditions such as topography and existing vegetation to determine if the site would lend itself well to a skatepark. Taking into account the observations from the site visits, each potential site was evaluated against the established site selection criteria matrix and assigned a point value and an overall letter grade of A, B or C. ( A High, B Medium, C Low suitability) 6

FIGURE 1: INVENTORY OF EVALUATED SITES 18 Evaluated Sites Grade 1 Fischer Park A 2 Southwest Optimist Park A 3 Wilson Park A 4 Gzowski Park A 5 Forest Heights CC B 6 Doon Park Pioneer CC B 7 Rosenburg Park B 8 Filsinger Park B 9 Queensmount Arena B 10 Morgan Park B 11 South District Park B 12 Budd Park B 13 Biehn Park B 14 Peter Hallman Ball Yard C 5 4 1 8 9 16 17 20 19 21 14 3 15 7 10 15 Idlewood Park C 16 Victoria Park C 17 Breithaupt Park C 18 Kiwanis Park C 19 Lions Park C 11 12 2 13 6 20 McLennan Skatepark 21 Auditorium Skatepark 7

FIGURE 2: DEMOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION BASED ON PLANNING COMMUNITY GZOWSKI PARK FISCHER PARK MCLENNAN PARK THE AUD WILSON PARK SOUTHWEST OPTIMIST PARK PLANNING COMMUNITY Pioneer Park, Lower Doon, Doon South, Brigadoon 9.1% Forest Heights 8.2% Laurentian West 7.4% Highland West 6.1% Vanier 5.8% Laurentian Hills 5.6% Centreville Chicopee 5.4% Victoria Hills 5.3% Country Hills West 3.5% Heritage Park 3.2% Idlewood 2.8% Forest Hill 2.8% Grand River North 2.7% Stanley Park 2.5% Rosemount 2.1% Southdale 2.1% Country Hills 2.0% Westmount 1.9% Mt. Hope Huron Park 1.9% Central Frederick 1.5% Mill Courtland Woodside Park 1.5% Alpine 1.3% Victoria Park 1.3% Hidden Valley / Pioneer Tower 1.1% Fairfield 1.1% Cherry Hill 1.0% Grand River South 1.0% Bridgeport East 0.9% Auditorium 0.9% K W Hospital 0.9% Meinzinger Park Lakeside 0.9% Bridgeport North 0.8% St. Mary's Hospital 0.8% King East 0.8% Cedar Hill 0.8% Southwest 0.7% Victoria North 0.5% Eastwood 0.5% Rockway 0.4% Northward 0.3% Civic Centre 0.3% City Commercial Core 0.3% 8 CITY WIDE 3.9%

2.5 INTERNAL REVIEW AND SHORTLISTED SITE SELECTION On completion of the site evaluations, 4 potential sites scored an A and were recommended by the staff technical review team as sites to take forward to the public for further consideration. Of the 19 sites initially selected for consideration, 15 sites scored B & C and were removed from further consideration for various reasons, such as: Near existing skateparks (AUD & McLennan) Close proximity to adjacent residential dwellings Lower potential user demographics Site or facility not large enough without negatively impacting existing activities Skatepark would eliminate the only green space in the neighbourhood Inadequate public transportation, pedestrian access or parking Once all these factors were taken in to consideration, only the sites that received a letter grade of A (See FIGURE 3) were selected as sites that warranted presentation to the public for further consideration. These shortlisted sites were: Fischer Park (Fischer Hallman Road Queens Boulevard) Southwest Optimist Park (Pioneer Drive Homer Watson Boulevard) Gzowski Park (Chopin Drive Westmount Road West) Wilson Park (Wilson Avenue Fourth Avenue) 9

FIGURE 3: A LISTED SITES Fischer Park Southwest Optimist Park The purpose of this study is to recommend sites for the two future Gzowski Park 1 3000 1 4000 Wilson Park skateparks. The exact location of the skatepark on each recommended site will be determined 10 at the design stage of the process. 1 4000 1 12 450

3.0 PUBLIC COMMUNICATION The City of Kitchener recognizes the benefits of being connected to a diverse community and has worked in partnership with stakeholders to seek mutually beneficial outcomes through building awareness and obtaining feedback. 3.1 WITH WHOM DID WE COMMUNICATE? Staff engaged in multiple methods of public communication to inform the community about the skatepark planning study project, answer questions and receive feedback. Skatepark Users, Local Residents and Members of the General Public Skate park users and parents of skateboarders were given the opportunity to voice their opinions and these primarily revolved around their desired locations for the park, while local residents and the general public had the chance to express their support and/or various concerns. Sportsfield Users and Adjacent Businesses and Organizations of Shortlisted Parks To assess the suitability of a site, one of the main considerations is how much impact the new skatepark will have on the existing users and use of the space. The teams, clubs and organizations currently using the sportsfields at the four shortlisted parks were notified about a skateboard park potentially being located at the park where their team/club meets. They were given the opportunity respond with any questions or concerns or to arrange a meeting to further discuss any concerns. Businesses and organizations adjacent to the shortlisted parks (a high school, community centres, a church, restaurants, libraries and public swimming pool) were given handouts explaining the Skatepark Planning Study and identifying the shortlisted parks. They were also provided with links to additional information on the City website and staff contact information should they have additional questions. 11

3.2 HOW DID WE GET THE WORD OUT? Information regarding the Skatepark Planning Study, upcoming Open Houses and the Online Survey was made available to the community through many different means: Communication Method Go Skateboarding Day Handouts at the Skatium and The Aud Your Kitchener Article Kitchener s Leisure Magazine Advertisement Posters at Community Centres Handouts with Kitchener Youth Action Council (KYAC) Handouts for Local Skateboard Business Public Open House and Media Release Details Staff attended Go Skateboarding Day on June 22, 2010 at the Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex (The AUD) skatepark and was on hand to answer questions about the study. Informational material was distributed through the summer of 2011 at the Skatium mobile skatepark locations and drop bys at the AUD skatepark. Staff took the opportunity to have one on one discussions with skateboarders and receive feedback. An article was featured in the SEPTEMBER OCTOBER 2010 issue of YOUR KITCHENER. It provided background information about the study and also included the dates of the two open houses. (See Appendix H) The online survey and skatepark project were featured in Kitchener s Leisure magazine. This publication is delivered door todoor to 62,500 local homes and an additional 11,500 copies are distributed to recreation facilities, community service groups, doctors' offices, churches and libraries throughout our community. (See Appendix F) A poster with details about the study and survey was installed at an exterior location at all the community Centres in Kitchener in late summer / early Fall 2010. (See Appendix G) KYAC is a voluntary committee of young people who support fellow youth and ensure that youth voices are heard throughout Kitchener. Posters and information cards were distributed to members of KYAC to post and circulate at their schools and local skateboard businesses to hand out to their customers. Information cards and posters were distributed to local skateboard businesses to hand out to their customers. Two public open houses were held in September 2010 in order to receive feedback from the broader community. A media release was advertised in early September 2010. Social Media Information about the study was posted on the City s Facebook Page. Skatepark Email An email account, skatepark@kitchener.ca, was set up to allow people to contact staff with questions and to allow staff to direct them to the City skatepark webpage for more information. (See Appendix M) Website The shortlist of preferred skatepark locations were posted on the City s website beginning September, 2010 along with the dates of the open houses. (See Appendix B) Skatium and Skatepark Visits Handouts to Adjacent Businesses and Organizations Email to Current Sportsfield Users of Shortlisted Parks Staff visited the various Skatium and skatepark locations to speak with skatepark users and parents as well as to provide them with the opportunity to participate in the Skatepark Survey on digital tablets. Businesses and organizations adjacent to the shortlisted parks were given handouts explaining the Skatepark Planning Study and identifying the shortlisted parks. They were also provided with links to additional information on the City website and staff contact information should they have additional questions. The current sportsfield users of the four shortlisted parks were notified about the skatepark planning study. They were given the opportunity respond with any questions or concerns or to arrange a meeting to further discuss any concerns. 12

3.3 HOW DID WE OBTAIN FEEDBACK? 3.3.1 Online Survey An online survey was provided at the open houses in September 2010 and posted on the City s website throughout fall 2010 until fall 2011, to allow respondents to indicate whether they support the development of a skatepark in the recommended locations and indicate their preference of the four shortlisted sites. A total of 355 responded, of which 81% of the respondents were skateboarders or a parent of a skateboarder. Approximately 40% of these skateboarders presently skateboard on the sidewalk or street. Generally the skateboarders were in favor of all of the shortlisted sites identifying that travel distances represented 53% of the respondent s reason for not using the existing facilities. (See Appendix J and Appendix K for highlights) 3.3.2 Surveys Completed at Open Houses In order to receive feedback from the broader community, two public open houses were scheduled during September 2010. The open houses were advertised in Your Kitchener, with posters at community centers, and in a City of Kitchener Media Release in early September. The first public open house was held on September 14 at the Doon Pioneer Park Community Centre. The meeting was well attended with approximately 30 people in attendance. The second open house was held on September 28 at the Forest Heights Community Centre and was attended by 5 people. The shortlisted sites (see Appendix B), were on display and staff were on hand to answer questions. An online survey station consisting of 5 computers was also setup to allow people to complete the survey while they were at the open house. 3.3.3 Surveys Completed by Skateboarders at Existing Skateparks Throughout the summer of 2011, staff equipped with digital tablets, went out to the Aud, McLennan Park and the Doon Skatium locations to make contact with the skateboarders and provide them the opportunity to participate in the Skatepark Survey. The survey on the digital tablets was identical to the online survey and the results were combined. (See Appendix J and Appendix K for highlights) 3.3.4 Feedback Obtained from Sportsfield Users and Adjacent Businesses and Organizations Current sportsfield users of the four shortlisted parks, as well as adjacent businesses and organizations were notified about a skateboard park potentially being located at a park that could have an impact on team/business/organization. They were given the opportunity respond to and/or arrange a meeting with Staff to further discuss the proposed skatepark. 13

3.4 GENERAL ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS In summary, 355 surveys were completed. The majority who completed the survey have identified themselves as skatepark users or parents of a skateboarder (See FIGURE 4). FIGURE 4: SURVEY RESPONDENTS It appears that many of the skateboarders currently use sidewalks and streets to skateboard on and almost half of the respondents make use of the Doon Skatium mobile skatepark and The AUD Skatepark. (See FIGURE 5) *Note: For most of the duration of the survey, the skatepark at McLennan Park was not yet open. FIGURE 5: LOCATIONS WHERE SKATEBOARDERS SKATE 14

The most frequent responses given by skateboarders for not using the existing skateparks were that they were too small and too difficult to get to. About half of the responses indicated that they lacked the features they want in a skatepark. (See FIGURE 6) FIGURE 6: REASONS FOR NOT USING EXISTING SKATEPARKS Fischer and Southwest Optimist Parks ranked highest collectively on survey questions indicating park preference. FIGURE 7: PROPOSED SKATEPARK SURVEY RESULT COMPARISON (supporting) 15

4.0 SHORTLISTED SITE ASSESSMENT As mentioned earlier in the study, in order to assess four sites which had similarly received a high ranking in the initial site selection evaluation process, a more detailed assessment was required to determine which sites consistently rate above the others in multiple areas, determined to be especially important. Thus, a more detailed site selection matrix was established and criteria ranked to recognize critical criteria. This matrix design also allowed us to review and compare the criteria for all four sites on one document. 4.1 SITE SELECTION CRITERIA OVERVIEW This section summarizes key site selection criteria considered important when assessing the appropriateness for a skate facility in the four shortlisted locations and is based upon the initial site selection matrix. The specific criteria in the matrix has then been weighted in consultation with the Staff Technical Team in order to determine importance (refer second column in matrix, The Importance of Criteria). This ranking has then been applied to each criterion for each individual site, in order to calculate a preferred location. (See 4.2 Weighted Matrix) Criteria Location Physical Site Conditions The location category covers such criteria as demographics and the location of a skatepark in relation to its proximity to users; relationship to other facilities; location with respect to potential conflict; as well as survey support of the proposed location. This broad criterion is based on the physicality of the various sites and whether they can accommodate a skate park of the required scale, function and typology. It also considers technical implications such as drainage and soil conditions as well as implications to existing natural features. Access and Security This criterion looks at how easily accessible the site is for users, parents and those viewing the skatepark or events. With the main age group using this facility being children without the ability to drive, it is important to ensure that the facility can be easily accessed by all and it is critical to ensure that the facility is open, safe and easily accessed in the case of an emergency. Supporting Infrastructure The high visibility of a park can be beneficial for a number of reasons. It can be attractive to the community, encouraging community members to stop by and watch the users perform tricks on their lunch break. It sends a clear message that young people and active healthy living are a community priority. It can also provide an aspect of self policing. Visibility will reduce the vandalism, can prevent unwanted graffiti from appearing in the park, and may help curtail the suspicion that skateboard parks are places for mischief. An active public sporting facility such as a skatepark should have appropriate ancillary amenities. This includes nearby access to food, water and toilets given users can spend many hours using a skatepark in a single session. 16

4.2 WEIGHTED MATRIX The criteria of the weighted matrix are organized under the same headings as the Site Selection Criteria Matrix that was used earlier in the site selection process to determine the four shortlisted sites. Additional detailed criteria were added as necessary in some categories to enable a more in depth examination of each site. A number to gauge importance (Importance column) was assigned to each criterion and is applied against the grading (Meets Criteria column) to deliver a criteria point for each criterion for each location (Criteria Points column). The grading generally falls into the higher end of the spectrum, reflecting once again that these locations are our best potential skatepark locations. Finally, the total weighted assessment of each site is provided as well as the percentage of success of each site considering all criteria. FIGURE 7: SKATEPARK PLANNING STUDY WEIGHTED MATRIX The following is an assessment of each of the shortlisted sites based on criteria & questions to ascertain the most appropriate skatepark location. Consideration/Criteria Location Is the area currently lacking in service by another 1 skatepark? Are there a sufficient number of users in the service 2 area to warrant skatepark development? Is the proposed site a location where young people 3 want to be or adjacent to where they currently congregate? Are the respondents from Skatium visits (2011) 4 supportive of a skatepark in this area? Is the proposed site in close proximity to shopping 5 centres, sports or recreation facilities or interested schools? Has the site the capacity to have the skate facility 6 placed to maximize noise attenuation and light intrusion if applicable? 7 Is the site location an adequate distance from residential dwellings and incompatible land uses to Importance 5 highest, 1 lowest Fischer Park Gzowski Park Southwest Optimist Park Meets Criteria 5 highest, 1 lowest Wilson Park Fischer Park Gzowski Park Southwest Optimist Park Criteria Points 5 4 4 5 2 20 20 25 10 5 5 4 3 4 25 20 15 20 4 5 3 5 4 20 12 20 16 5 3 3 5 3 15 15 25 15 3 5 3 4 3 15 9 12 9 4 5 4 5 3 20 16 20 12 5 4 4 5 4 20 20 25 20 Wilson Park 17

avoid potential noise and light intrusions? 8 Does the feedback from adjacent properties, businesses and organizations support this development? 9 Is the proposed site within or adjacent to a major community hub or central area? 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 Does the online survey and public meeting comments strongly support this location for a proposed skatepark? Physical Site Conditions Is the site adequate size to accommodate a variety of design options and potential expansion? Can the site accommodate access for users and spectators including refuge areas with seating, viewing and adequate separation in an inclusive design? Does the topography at the proposed site require minimal construction implications (i.e. no need for significant earthworks, cut/fill or retaining structures)? Are there minimal complex drainage requirements for the proposed site? Can the proposed site facilitate no net loss of mature or significant trees? Could the site be integrated with the existing surroundings? 5 4 4 4 4 20 20 20 20 4 5 4 5 4 20 16 20 16 5 5 4 5 4 25 20 25 20 Subtotal 200 168 207 158 5 5 3 5 4 25 15 25 20 4 4 5 4 4 16 20 16 16 4 4 3 3 4 16 12 12 16 3 5 4 4 5 15 12 12 15 4 4 3 4 5 16 12 16 20 5 4 3 5 4 20 15 25 20 Subtotal 108 86 106 107 1 2 3 Access and Security Is there good access to the proposed site using public transit (i.e. number of bus routes)? Are there public transit stops on or adjacent to the site? Are there pedestrian/footpath connections from transport nodes to the proposed site? 4 5 3 3 3 20 12 12 12 4 4 4 4 4 16 16 16 16 3 5 5 5 5 15 15 15 15 18

4 Can the proposed site provide safe entry to and from the site and safe setbacks from busy roads and intersections? 4 3 4 4 4 12 16 16 16 5 Is there a safe drop off area? 4 4 4 4 4 16 16 16 16 6 Is there adequate car parking? 2 4 4 4 4 8 8 8 8 7 8 9 Can the proposed site provide adequate emergency vehicle access (fire and ambulance)? Is the proposed site visually prominent with good public surveillance for safety and for the promotion of the facility and skate facility? How readily accessible is the proposed skatepark location to regular cleaning and maintenance teams? Supporting Infrastructure Are associated amenities such as public telephone, 1 toilets, water, and shelter existing and available or cost effective to install on the proposed site? 2 Is the proposed site close to shops selling food and drink? 5 5 3 4 5 25 15 20 25 5 5 3 4 3 25 15 20 15 3 4 4 4 4 12 12 12 12 Subtotal 149 125 135 135 4 4 5 4 5 16 20 16 20 4 5 3 5 3 20 12 20 12 Subtotal 36 32 36 32 Total Weighted Assessment of Each Shortlisted Site 493 411 484 432 Percentage Success of Shortlisted Site Considering all Criteria 88% 73% 86% 77% 4.3 SUMMARY The four shortlisted sites are spaced around the City, so many of the broader considerations are quite varied. Some of the variance is due to the location of each site in consideration of the population of youth in the vicinity. Another is the proximity to existing skateparks. The following discussion summarizes each of the sites in more detail and then outlines our final recommendation as the preferred location for the skatepark, taking in consideration the weighted matrix contained herein. 19

4.3.1 Site 1 Fischer Park Fischer Park is located at the corner of Fischer Hallman Road and Queen s Boulevard. The site is adjacent to Forest Heights Collegiate Institute, Forest Heights Pool and the KPL Forest Heights Community Library. Currently there are two soccer fields and one baseball diamond at this location. One block to the north is the Highland Hills Mall and the Forest Heights Community Centre is located across the street on Queen s Boulevard, approximately 250 m away. Online survey results placed this site as the top choice for support of the site. Central to a highly populated area with the highest number of youth between 0 19 years of age (12,398 within a 2.5 km radius). 4 bus routes serve this site and 3 bus routes are located within one block. Distance to the two existing skateparks is as follows: The Aud 5.3 km; McLennan Park 2.9 km. Summary Given the highest matrix result of 88%, this site performs well in a number of areas. The greatest number of youth would be served by a skatepark located in this area. With regard to access to the site via transit, as there is a retail hub located one block to the north, there are seven bus routes that pass within one block of this site. Four of these bus routes run adjacent to the site. Also, Fischer Park ranked highest in the online survey results. 4.3.2 Site 2 Gzowski Park Gzowski Park is located at the corner of Westmount Road and Chopin Drive. The park is adjacent to the Victoria Hills Community Centre and across the street from AR Kaufman Public School. There is currently one baseball diamond on this site. This site is on the edge of the area with the highest number of youth between 0 19 years of age (8198 within a 2.5 km radius). 2 bus routes serve this site. Distance to the two existing skateparks is as follows: The Aud 4.7 km; McLennan Park 3.9 km. Summary At 73%, Gzowski Park received the lowest matrix result. While this area showed strongly in the numbers of youth between 0 19 years, due to lower numbers in other areas, its overall assessment was weaker. While there is a community centre on the site, due to its location this site lacked attractors of youth to the area that some of the other sites provided. These include a shopping centre, shops selling food or drink and/ or a major community hub. There is potential for the loss of trees at locations on this site that may be able to accommodate the skatepark. Lastly, this site rank third of the four shortlisted sites on the online survey. 4.3.3 Site 3 Southwest Optimist Park Southwest Optimist Park is located at the corner of Homer Watson Boulevard and Pioneer Drive. The park currently has four baseball diamonds, one T ball diamond and the Southwest Optimists of Kitchener s clubhouse. The Doon Pioneer Park Community Centre is located 20

approximately 200 metres from the park. Pioneer Park Plaza is located across the street. This site is in close proximity to St. Timothy Elementary School. The Doon Skatium mobile skateboard facility was instigated in this community from a desire of local groups and individuals to provide a fun, healthy and safe activity for the youth of this community. Funding was obtained through a Trillium Foundation grant, as well as donations from the City of Kitchener and the Southwest Optimists. Throughout the summer months, this portable park is shared with other community centres on a rotating schedule. This area is furthest from the two existing skateparks. Distance is as follows: The Aud 6.6 km; McLennan Park 5.3 km. Online Survey results placed this site as the second choice. Number of youth (0 19) within a 2.5 km radius is 3748, which is the lowest of the 4 shortlisted sites. 2 bus routes serve this to site. Summary With a matrix result of 86%, Southwest Optimist Park runs a very close second to Fischer Park. This site was particularly strong in the various location criteria. As Southwest Optimist Park is located the furthest of all the shortlisted sites from the existing skateparks, not choosing this site would leave the south end youth deficient/too distant from existing and proposed skateparks. This community was spearheaded the Skatium Mobile Skatepark, and has been a strong supporter of this facility/program ever since introduction in 2001. 4.3.4 Site 4 Wilson Park Wilson Park is located on Wilson Avenue between Fourth Avenue and Shelley Drive. The park currently has three baseball diamonds, one t ball diamond and a soccer field. The Kingsdale Community Centre is also located on the site. Closest to the two existing parks. Distance is as follows: The Aud 2.4 km; McLennan Park 2.6 km. Number of youth (0 19) within a 2.5 km radius is 6510. Fewest Skatium visits of the four shortlisted parks. 1 bus route within one block of this site. Summary Wilson Park ranks third in the matrix with a result of 77%. This site also received the least support in the online survey. Of all the four shortlisted parks, it is the closest to both The Aud and McLennan Parks. Access to this site using transit, while available was not as abundant as the three other sites. This site facilitates no net loss of mature or significant trees with the proposed skatepark development. 21

5.0 FINAL CONCLUSION As mentioned earlier, the process of evaluating and comparing four strong sites is not a simple task. In a preliminary review, no site stood out above the rest in each and every criterion. In order to effectively assess these sites, an evaluation of multiple criteria was weighted based on importance. That way, the technical team were able to assess true value of criteria where warranted, and ultimately be able to arrive at an outcome directing us to the two most sound choices. Based on this analysis, Fischer Park and Southwest Optimist Park reported the strongest outcomes on the weighted matrix of the four shortlisted sites. Considering the four shortlisted sites, with Fischer and Gzowski Parks just 2.3 km apart, we can assume that only one of these two could be chosen as one of final two selections. Furthermore, looking at the demographic distribution map, the proximity of Fischer Park to McLennan Park could be questioned, but once the numbers of youth between 0 19 are taken into consideration in that area, it becomes evident that the number of youth are so high in this area, they are great enough to support or even necessitate an additional skatepark to serve the youth in this area. Wilson Park, although still ranked high as a shortlisted site was also the closest to the two existing skateparks were continued support could be provided. Currently, and based on a sample service area (2.5 km radius), the population of youth between 0 19 years is lower in the area of Southwest Optimist Park, however our data is based on census data from 2006, as detailed census data from 2011 is not yet available. As significant development continues throughout the south and western portions of Ward 4, the population of youth in the service area of Southwest Optimist Park is expected to have increased significantly since our 2006 numbers and is expected to continue to grow. 5.1 RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATION #1 As recommended in the Leisure Facilities Master Plan (2005) and Parks Strategic Plan (2010); based on extensive review and study of potential city owned sites, the supporting data and implications for skatepark development within these sites as well as the ascertained need in each neighbourhood, staff recommends that Council approve Fischer Park and Southwest Optimist Park as skatepark locations. RECOMMENDATION #2 That Council direct staff to implement the design/construction of the Fischer Park skatepark in 2014/15 and the Southwest Optimist Park skatepark in 2016/17 subject to final capital budget approval. 22

6.0 NEXT STEPS 6.1 SKATEPARK DESIGN Of the people that indicated support of the skateparks, some expressed the design features they would like included while others expressed the importance of getting design input from the skateboarding community. Once the two site locations have been approved, staff will once again consult with the public on the design of the skateparks and will collect more feedback from the skatepark community and interested members of the public. The review of studies completed by other municipalities has revealed that the involvement of local skateboarder in the design process of a skatepark is crucial for its success. This approach proved extremely successful in 2009 during design workshops for the McLennan Park skatepark. While it is not within the scope of this study to contemplate the exact configuration or design of the two future skateparks, staff has recommendations for items that should be given consideration in the design phase. 6.2 SIZE AND STYLE Unlike baseball diamonds and tennis courts, skateboard parks can be designed in a variety of shapes and styles and at different sizes to respond to diverse needs (Moore, 2006). In terms of size, it is envisioned that the two future skateparks would be similar in size to McLennan Park. McLennan Park is approximately 1,000m2 and cost $450,000 to construct (excluding adjacent pathways and landscaping) and $45,000 to design/engineer. As a general guide, a 1,000m2 facility can accommodate approximately 40 skateboarders at one time (Moore, 2006). In order to address the needs of the skateboarding community, it is very important to ensure that the skatepark is an appropriate size and style so it can accommodate the needs of different skill levels. If it is too small, it likely will only serve the needs of beginner to intermediate skill users and the interest and needs of advanced skill users will not be addressed. It is noted that the mobile skatepark (Skatium) already serves the needs of beginner skill users. As such, the two future skateparks should strive to serve a broader range of skill levels (beginner to advance skill users). Also, the survey results indicated that one of the reasons skateboarders do not use existing skatepark facilities is because they feel they are too small. As such, it is very important that the skateparks are large enough to accommodate many skateboarders of various skill levels at one time. If a park is designed to accommodate different styles and appeal to different skill levels, users will ride much longer. Proper design can also bring a diversity of ages to the park, allowing older, more experienced skateboarders to educate younger skateboarders on park etiquette and provide a space for mentoring to naturally occur (Moore, 2006). In addition, BMX biking comments also came up during the consultation and for the purpose of this study, all were compiled as skate park users. Skateparks can serve many styles of users boarders, bikers, bladders, scooters, etc. Design input and consideration should be examined for all potential user groups prior to final design. 23

6.3 LOCATION ON SITE As mentioned earlier, the purpose of this study is to recommend two sites for the two future skateparks. The exact positioning of the skatepark on the recommended sites will be determined at the design stage of the process. Interested parties will have the opportunity to provide input into any discussions around location, looking at what location will most benefit skateboarders and the community. With that said, a highly visible location will be selected. The high visibility of a park can be beneficial for a number of reasons. It can be attractive to the community, encouraging community members to stop by and watch the users. It sends a clear message that young people and active healthy living are a community priority. It can also provide an aspect of self policing. Visibility will reduce the vandalism of modular ramps, can prevent unwanted graffiti from appearing in the park, and may help curtail the suspicion that skateparks are places for drug and alcohol abuse (Moore, 2006). Additionally, the principles and practices of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) will be applied to the site design. 24

Appendices 25

Appendix A: Municipal Skatepark Summaries A survey of various municipalities throughout southwestern Ontario was conducted and of those who responded the following information regarding their municipal skateboard facilities was obtained. Pop. (2006 census) Number of skateparks Barrie 128,430 1 Proposed skateparks Guelph 114,943 1 Hamilton 504,559 4 Kitchener 204,668 2 2 Skatepark Size Cost Completed Other Info Currently has no Cityowned skateparks. Turner Skatepark Waterdown Memorial Skatepark 1,580 m2 (17,000 sq ft) 1,858 m2 (20,000 sq ft) 550 m2 (5,900 sq ft) $200,000 2001 Area contained within a fenced compound 1,870 m2 Preliminary budget of. $450,000. Beasley Skatepark: Construction budget not yet known. Small skateboard area within a fourth site. 278 m2 (3,000 sq ft) 1) The Aud 1,000 m2 (10,000 sq ft) 2) McLennan Park 1,000 m2 (10,000 sq ft) Doon Skatium Mobile Skate Facility One proposed City owned skatepark $650,000 2007 City wide park, street style $225,000 2006 Community park, transition style approx. $90,000 2003 Approx. $300,000 Proposed rehabilitation date 2015. 1995 $450,000 2011 Rehab. to existing skatepark. Mobile skateboard facility travels to various community centres in summer months. 26

London 352,395 11 1 City Wide (1) Carling Heights Optimist Centre Skate Park District (3) Kiwanis Skate Plaza Approx. 1,700 m2 $450,000 funds to expand and upgrade existing skatepark. $460,000 plus $92,000 Kiwanis donation. Medway Skate Park $328,000 plus $33,000 Kiwanis donation c) White Oaks: To be significantly upgraded. 2010 2009 2010 $15,390 2011 a local company made the benches saved money. The benches can easily be moved by a lift truck. Neighbourhood (6) Generally $80,000 $100,000 St. Julien $80,000. 2009 Used precast components. Basil Grover $120,000 2007 Naomi Almedia Local labour group donated $62,000; $54,000 City Contribution $116,000 Stronach Poured in place. West Lions Poured in place. Victoria Park Benches only. Serve as seating during events. Arranged with hoist truck in consultation with boarders. Springbank $100,000 To be constructed in Spring 2012 27

Mississauga 668,549 8 Oakville 165,613 4 1 Oshawa 261,573 4 Richmond Hill 165,613 1 1 Iceland Arena (1) 2044 m2 (22,000 sq ft) Smaller skateparks (7) Each facility costs in the range of $140,000. $400,000 2004 All levels of skill from the beginner. It has street elements, banks and a bowl. It is lit until 11:30 p.m. 5 of the 7 built in 2007 with other two more recent. Beginner to intermediate. Built using modular concrete elements on a poured inplace concrete pad None of the smaller facilities are lit. 1) Shell Park $350,000 June 2005 Poured in place, in ground facility 2) Glen Ashton Park $110,000 June 2009 Prefabricated equipment on concrete pad 3) Glen Abbey Park $110,000 July 2011 Prefabricated equipment on concrete pad 4) Kinoak Arena Indoor Facility Indoor park (set up during the summer months) 5) North Park (Proposed) (budget to be determined) Date of installation TBD Will be their largest facility similar to Hershey Center in Mississauga North Oshawa Park $350,000 2010 In ground concrete. Legends Centre $35,000 2008 Steel Modular. Donevan Rec Complex $250,000 2003 In ground concrete. Lakewoods Park 20,000 2000 2002? Modular. Currently has one skateboard park. 10 Year Capital Forecast anticipates construction of an additional skatepark. $370,000 2004 Equipment is removed each winter with area used as a snow dump facility. 2017 28

Toronto 2,503,281 13 15 Many parks ranging in cost, style, size, elements, & skill. Ashbridges Bay Skatepark Other Skateparks: Alexandra, Ellesmere Park, Greenwood, Stan Wadlow, Vanderhoof, Leonard Linton, Cummer, Port Union, Weston Lions, Scarlet/Lawrence Waterloo 97,475 1 +? City of Waterloo Skatepark Windsor 216,473 2 Plans to implement neighbourhood SkateSpots 6,500 m2 $1.2 Million 2009 929 m2 (10,000 sq.ft) No funds currently allocated in 10 year Capital Budget. October 2011 From pre fab satellite spots to large scale Plaza style park Forest Glade 1200 m2 $300,000 1999 Concrete pad and built in concrete features. Atkinson 1300 m2 $175,000 2005 Concrete pad with portable steel features. 29

Appendix B: Shortlisted Sites Public Meeting Poster 30

APPENDIX C: Evaluation of 4 Shortlisted Sites 31

32

33

34

Appendix D: Evaluation of Potential Sites (not shortlisted) 35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

Appendix E: Information Card Handouts Appendix F: Skatepark Advertisement featured in Kitchener s Leisure Magazine 50

Appendix G: Posters at Community Centres 51 51

Appendix H: Article Featured in YOUR KITCHENER 52 52

Appendix I: City of Kitchener Skatepark Webpage 53

Appendix J: Skatepark Online Survey 54