[bAuHaUs]

The Rogers Centre has large ramps that huge crowds of people walk up many stories to get to their seats -- why would this place need elevators for the able-bodied public?

Your kidding right....so how many go to the Rogers Centre now to watch the Jays and carry their hockey bag with them up those ramps? Answer=0. You need elevators, however they'll contribute to a traffic bottleneck. Let's just wait and see then.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Elevators will be mandated, but manageable.

Part of the cost of twinning Leaside, and one reason why it keeps getting stalled, is that adding accessibility (i.e. elevators) to the old arena is mandated and the province won't let the old arena be grandfathered if they're renovating.

However, I've seen the hospital-style large freight elevators at a couple of trade shows lately, and they're big and fast enough to suit. And given the nearly universal coaches' mandate, "I don't care if it wastes your parents' whole day, I want everyone here an hour before ice time!", I'm sure the elevators won't be a huge sticking point.

 

[tkip]

A interesting though controversial point has been made recently in the media.

That with the city facing such massive shortfalls in cash and struggling to pay current services without rasing taxes and finding ever more creative methods of taxing the public, that this project should die. It's supposed cost is 100 million and is still underfunded by close to 30 million and a good point was made that according to the city's own records, ice rinks across the city are actually underused by something like 9,000 hrs.

Basically the rinks aren't booked solid all the time. So why the rush for this ultra modern complex? At what point do we seriously think about reigning in spending in this city?
This is why Ford is ahead in th polls. People are so fed up with seeing spending out of control.

 

[Tulse]

Basically the rinks aren't booked solid all the time. So why the rush for this ultra modern complex?

The issue of city rink capacity is separate from the appropriate design for this particular complex. If we don't need more rinks, then don't build anything at this location. But if something is going to be built at this location, it should be in keeping with the rest of the waterfront.

 

[tkip]

The issue of city rink capacity is separate from the appropriate design for this particular complex. If we don't need more rinks, then don't build anything at this location. But if something is going to be built at this location, it should be in keeping with the rest of the waterfront.

I think you missed the main point. We're buried in debt and we can't keep spending ourselves into oblvion.

At this point in this city's history, we're close to being bankrupt according to some and we can barely maintain current services without every escalating hikes in taxes and other measures to get cash from the public. So bearing this all in mind, does it make sense to build a facility that we probably don't need with the almost certainly that the price is going to go well above the 100 million that's been quoted?

I don't think it really matters whether or not this facility is the state of the art or that we need to build the best rinks.

 

[Tulse]

I think you missed the main point. We're buried in debt and we can't keep spending ourselves into oblvion.

I completely understand that, but you've missed the point I was making, which is that we shouldn't build a rink complex at this location if we are not willing to make it conform to the rest of the waterfront vision. If we need rinks but want to build on the cheap, put a standard sprawling-style rink complex somewhere else.

 

[Rowe]

tkip did you see the Bayside, Toronto rendering?

The Portlands are going to be just as great, maybe better... could you see a large, sprawling, standard, 4 rink there? I think everyone understands that 88M is a lot for this development but Tulse is right.. if it has to go on the waterfront, it has to follow the same standards.

Maybe the next Mayor will want to move it... or worse (Ford) maybe we will have to deal with a suburban design on the urban new urban waterfront.

 

[tkip]

I completely understand that, but you've missed the point I was making, which is that we shouldn't build a rink complex at this location if we are not willing to make it conform to the rest of the waterfront vision. If we need rinks but want to build on the cheap, put a standard sprawling-style rink complex somewhere else.

I do understand but the point should be that we shouldn't ]even be considering building such a facility when the city is probably bankrupt. At a later date, fine. But right now we have to set priorities and make some hard choices.

 

[Tulse]

I do understand but the point should be that we shouldn't ]even be considering building such a facility

I agree that we shouldn't be considering building rinks on the waterfront, and perhaps not even any rinks anywhere until the city finances improve. But if, for whatever reason, the Powers That Be are determined to build a complex at this location, then the building should conform to the rest of the waterfront aesthetic.

 

[Rowe]

to build a complex at this location, then the building should conform to the rest of the waterfront aesthetic.

...and no ifs, ands, or buts!

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

tkip:

"Probably bankrupt"? On what basis would you suggest so? And considering the debt load of the city - vis-a-vis provincial and federal levels (not to mention personal debt loads), you can argue that by your definition eveyone is bankrupt.

AoD

 

[alklay]

I understood that we had an operating surplus from last year. And the city has a decent credit rating.

 

[GraphicMatt]

I seriously think we need a "The City Is Not Bankrupt" thread sticked to the top of the forum at this point. The City isn't even allowed to run operating deficits, for godsakes.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Well the city can take on debt - and there are challenges in both expenditure and revenue - but to call the city "bankrupt" is just patently false and fear-mongering. What WILL bankrupt the city is getting rid of pre-existing sources of revenue when you don't have that much wiggle room on the expenditure side, much less promising to eliminate these sources without knowing how much you can "save". Doubt it? Look at the GST cut and the effect it has on the Feds.

With regards to this project - no one is suggesting the city take on additional debt just for it as the only way to proceed. That's why you hear things like "finding additional funding sources", phasing and the like in this thread.

AoD

 

[Irishmonk]

I'm beginning to have misgivings about this project being approved in its current Taj Mahal iteration. It does provide more ammunition for Ford and the anti-Miller crowd who are frothing at the mouth over things like this. Why do anything at this point that helps their cause and puts Ford one step closer to the Mayor's seat.