HomeMy WebLinkAboutDTS-08-105 - King street master plan streetscape project updateREPORT
Report To: Chair Christina Weylie and Members
Development and Technical Services Committee
Date of Meeting: June 16, 2008
Submitted By: K. Grant Murphy P.Eng.
Director, Engineering Services
Rod Regier
Executive Director, Economic Development
Prepared By: Steve Allen, P.Eng.
Manager, Engineering Design and Approvals
Cory Bluhm, MCIP, RPP
Urban Investment Advisor
Eric Saunderson, C.E.T.
Design and Construction Project Manager
Ward(s~ Involved: All
Date of Report: June 9, 2008
Report No.: DTS 08-105
Subject: KING STREET MASTER PLAN STREETSCAPE PROJECT
UPDATE
RECOMMENDATION:
That staff be directed to initiate design modifications for the King Street Streetscape
project as outlined in Option 4, contained in Development and Technical Services
Department report DTS 08-105, dated June 9t", 2008, that will result in a streetscape for
King Street that will meet the objectives of the King Street Master Plan at an estimated
cost of $7,900,000 including Engineering fees; and,
That the Municipal Infrastructure Investment Initiative grant of $3,200,000 be allocated
towards the King Street project in addition to the previously approved budget of
$5,680,000, with any ultimate project surplus to be returned to their original funding
sources; and,
That the purchase order to IBI Group for the design of the King Street project be
extended by $100,000 for the design and retendering associated with Option 4, with
actual fees to be negotiated between the City and IBI Group; and further,
That staff be directed to meet with members of the Kitchener Downtown Business
Association to determine an appropriate scheduling and phasing plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the activities completed to date related to
the King Street streetscape project and seek approval from Council to proceed with the project
as detailed in Option 4.
In light of new information which clearly shows the potential for the project to cost more than the
approved amount, on April 7, 2008, Council directed staff to pause the King Street project to
permit time to complete a detailed third-party cost review to confirm that the existing design of the
project would exceed the approved budget, and to complete a Value Engineering Assessment
which would look at ways to reduce the overall projected costs on the project by looking for ways
to optimize the design and potentially reduce the quality of the materials being used.
The result of the cost review confirms that the construction cost of existing design would exceed
the approved budget if tendered without changes. Staff from Engineering Services and
Economic Development have completed a Value Engineering Assessment in an effort to reduce
the cost. Various options have been considered and staff is recommending that Council provide
direction to proceed as outlined in Option 4 which would result in a high quality streetscape
meeting the objectives of the "pedestrian first" philosophy between College Street and Frederick
Street, and selected streetscape improvements between Francis Street and College Street.
Flexibility will be incorporated into the construction contract to permit additional upgrades to the
Francis to College block in the event of favourable pricing at tendering.
BACKGROUND:
On April 24, 2007, the King Street Master Plan project committee conducted a streetscape
design workshop and charrette. The workshop commenced with a presentation followed by a
general overview and an approach for the stakeholder charrette. The approach encouraged
stakeholders to comment on a series of questions focusing on themes for King Street.
On May 22, 2007, the project team presented the design themes and streetscape concepts at
the first of three public consultation centres. Based on the theme approach, participants were
asked to comment on design concepts and elements that can be added to enhance King Street.
Each design concept included an image to illustrate how King Street might look based on each
theme. A series of elements were listed for each theme and participants were asked to select
which items they'd like to see on King Street.
Based on the public's feedback and detailed review by the Steering Committee, the Pedestrian
First model Concept 3} was the preferred option. The Pedestrian First model involves
narrowing King Street in the City Centre District to widen sidewalks and improve accessibility,
including upgrades to both the design and surface treatment of major and minor intersections.
The area directly in front of City Hall will be designed as a special civic area that can be easily
closed and used for special events. Parking spaces will be converted and relocated to give way
to a vehicular drop off and loading zone. A rolled curb will be introduced for King Street from
Frederick to Victoria to improve pedestrian movement and improve accessibility.
On September 26, 2007, preliminary design drawings for the pedestrian first, streetscape design
for the King Street & Speakers Corner were submitted to the City and Steering Committee for
2
review as part of 30% design submission. A revised design was later released for public
consultation on October 11, 2007 at W.L.U. School of Social Work.
In December 2007, a 60% design package and a detailed business case were presented to City
Council for its consideration. At that time City Council ear-marked $5.68M in capital funding for
the King Street Streetscape and Speaker's Corner project.
On February 4 the final budget for the project was approved by Council as part of the City's
2008 budget process.
Additionally, a proposal was submitted to the Province of Ontario, as part of the Municipal
Infrastructure Investment Initiative program and on March 28 the City received $3.2M. The
provincial government recently announced the City was successful in securing those provincial
funds for the King Street Streetscape project.
In an attempt to gain a better understanding of the increased cost projections for the project
staff instructed the IBI Group to complete a detailed design cost estimate prior to releasing the
bid packages to the field of pre-qualified contractors Based on this work the IBI Group provided
revised cost estimates for the project that range between an additional $2M - $4M. According to
the IBI Group there are five key components of this project which have significantly affected the
overall construction costs: construction phasing and staging; timing of the tender; surface
treatments ~i.e. granite); street lighting, and; other ambient lighting. Separately, staff have
reviewed the work from the 60% design to the 100% stage in an effort to determine the reasons
for the large variance between the proposed budget and the final cost estimate. Several factors
were identified as having a significant contribution to the variance:
The innovative and unique nature of many of the features in the design coupled with City
and Consultant staff's limited experience with some of the these features resulted in
more than typical variances in cost estimates from the 60% to 100% stages, as many of
the design details of these features were undetermined at 60%.
Based on feedback received from the public and Council, the King Street Master Plan
Steering Committee selected a high quality streetscape that met the needs of many of
the key stakeholders. This resulted in 1 }the selection of materials, furnishings and other
features with highly variable costs; and 2) a highly detailed plan (ex: extensive banding,
inclusion of electrical power at special event pads, etc.}.
The need for the street lighting to address factors beyond just roadway and sidewalk
lighting (facade lighting, ambient/accent lighting, etc.} required the selection of a
customized light standard after the 60% stage. The specific requirements of the lighting
type reduced the number of options available which increased the cost.
The costs associated with the restrictive nature of the staging dictated in the final design
was not fully accounted for the in the 60% cost estimate.
On April 7th, 2008, a pause in the King Street project was approved by Council. The pause
permitted staff to confirm the increased cost and to complete a value engineering assessment to
identify potential cost reductions.
On April 17th, A.W. Hooker and Associates was retained to complete a detailed cost estimate.
The results of their detailed review confirm that the existing design might exceed the approved
budget by $5.5M, or about double the original budget, if tendered without changes. A Value
Engineering Assessment was completed by A.W Hooker and City of Kitchener staff that
identified aspects of the project that should be reviewed for cost savings. Throughout the end of
3
March and early June, staff have identified several options for changes to the King Street
streetscape project which are identified in this report.
REPORT:
Proposed Options for Moving Forward:
Staff have considered a number of options for moving forward with this project which are
detailed below.
Option 1 -Postpone Project indefinitely
• Defer King Street Project completely and re-prioritize it against other projects in 2009.
• No time commitment to proceed with construction
• Life Span of the Infrastructure -Immediate maintenance needs of King Street must be
addressed
• Pedestrian First Objectives - no enhancement of the City's ability to foster a lively King
Street; no improvements to barrier free accessibility; no improvements to existing lighting
conditions.
• Environmental Sustainability - no enhancement to environmental sustainability, with
potential to add bike racks and enhanced transit shelters over time.
• Number of Street Trees - 50
• Business Attraction, Retention & Development - no improvement to the City's ability to
attract and retain investment into the Downtown Area.
• On-Street Parking Spaces - 49 spaces
Option 2 -Basic streetscape Renewal
This option would result in a replacement of all surface elements of King Street between
Frederick Street and Francis Street. Concrete finishes would be used extensively in-place of
higher end materials like granite. New and upgraded street lighting with improved spacing
would be incorporated throughout . Minimal use of street furniture (bike racks and benches).
Standard curb and gutter with no flexible parking layout. The density of trees and planters
would be similar to what is currently present. No coloured concrete or paving stones.
• Extensive re-design would be required including new tendering package
• Construction could start in 2009. Construction complete 2010
• Cost is within previously approved budget
• Life Span of the Infrastructure -short term deficiencies would be addressed, concrete
susceptible to become worn, stained and chipped.
4
• Pedestrian First Objectives - Ability to "program" street for various uses is limited.
• Environmental Sustainability - no enhancement to environmental sustainability, with
potential to add bike racks and enhanced transit shelters over time.
• Number of Street Trees - 50
• Business Attraction, Retention & Development -limited improvement in the ability to
attract and retain investment
• On-Street Parking Spaces - 49 spaces
Proposed Timeline (Option 2)
Summer /Fall 2008: re-design
Fall 2008: tendering
Spring 2009: construction start
Summer 2010: construction complete
Project Costs (Option 2)
Construction cost: $4.9 M
Re-design: $0.1 M
Contract Admin: 0.3 M
Total $5.3 M
Option 3 -Pedestrian First -Basic Renewal
The approach proposed in this option is to reduce the overall quality of materials used with the
goal of reducing the cost while maintaining the original scope of the project Frederick Street to
Francis Street}. This option would result in a replacement of all surface elements of King Street.
Concrete finishes would be used extensively in-place of higher end materials. New and
upgraded street lighting with improved spacing would be incorporated throughout. No street
furniture would be installed. The design would meet the objectives of the "pedestrian first"
philosophy, incorporating flexible parking delineated by removable bollards. Coloured concrete
and decorative pavers would be incorporated in sidewalks throughout the project. The density
of trees and planters would be similar to what is currently present.
• Re-design would be required including new tendering package
• Construction could start in 2008. Complete in 2010.
• Life Span of the Infrastructure -short term deficiencies would be addressed, concrete
susceptible to become worn, stained and chipped.
• Pedestrian First Objectives -street could be fully programmed with cafes, events, etc.;
lack of trees would create micro-climate concerns; improved barrier free accessibility.
• Environmental Sustainability -decreased environmental sustainability due to loss of
street trees, with potential to add bike racks and enhanced transit shelters over time.
• Number of Street Trees - 40 to 50
5
Business Attraction, Retention & Development -moderate improvement in the ability to
attract and retain investment
On-Street Parking Spaces - 71 flexible spaces
Proposed Timeline (Option 3~
Summer: re-design
Summer /Fall 2008: tendering
Fall 2008: construction start
Summer 2010: construction complete
Project Costs (Option 3)
Construction cost: $7.4 M
Re-design: $0.1 M
Contract Admin: 0.4 M
Total $7.9 M
Options 4 and 5 -granite pricing
The following two options propose the use of granite in varying degrees. Granite is a natural
material with a high variability in type, quality (aesthetic and structural}, origin, and consequently
price. The intention is to procure the granite for these options through the general contractor.
The benefit of this approach is that the City would not be responsible for issuing a separate
tender, arranging storage, handling and delivery, coordination, and general supply scheduling.
The City and the City's consultants have obtained estimated unit prices from multiple granite
suppliers. Notwithstanding the pricing obtained by the City and its consultants, there is no
guarantee that the prices given to the general contractor from these same suppliers will match
prices quoted to staff and the City's consultants. This applies to all material in the contract,
however due to the extent of this variability and the impact it could have on the total cost, the
cost estimates provided for each of the following options are expressed as a range. It is staff's
opinion that the low end of the range is more probable due to the competitive nature of the
bidding process, however, it is believed that the most prudent approach is to advise Council of
the price variability.
Option 4 (Recommended)- Pedestrian First -Full Streetscape Renewal -Modified Limits
The approach proposed in this option is to reduce the physical limits of the project, reducing the
cost while maintaining the high-quality finishes in the Frederick Street to College Street block.
The primary difference between Option 4 and Option 3 is that Option 4 utilizes higher quality
materials but over a shover section of King Street. This option would result in the replacement
of all surface elements of King Street between Frederick Street and College Street. Selectively
reduced use of high quality materials such as granite in the roadway, sidewalks and crosswalks.
New and upgraded street lighting with improved spacing would be incorporated throughout.
The design would meet the objectives of the "pedestrian first" philosophy, incorporating flexible
parking delineated by removable bollards. Sustainable design elements such as extensive tree
planting and storm water infiltration planters would be utilized. The blocks between College
Street and Francis Street would be upgraded with concrete finishes, improved lighting, tree
plantings and street furniture to match the Frederick to College block. More high-end surface
6
treatments to be used at Francis Street to create a gateway effect into the City Centre District.
The implementation of this option would encourage a higher level of fagade maintenance on
private structures fronting the improvements.
The construction tender would be structured for maximum flexibility to take advantage of any
favourable pricing in the granite component. For example, the tender could be written to include
upgraded treatments in the College to Francis block as an optional item, to be used only to the
extent of the positive pricing on the granite or other items.
• Re-design would be required including new tendering package
• Construction could start in 2008. Complete fall 2009
• Life Span of the Infrastructure -short term deficiencies would be addressed; concrete
susceptible to become worn, stained and chipped; granite pavers and curbs used between
College and Frederick would have extended life span being more durable and readily
cleaned and renewed.
• Pedestrian First Objectives -the section from Frederic to College could be fully
programmed with cafes, events, etc.; Civic Square would be designed as one coordinated
space for major festivals; enhanced accent lighting at night; microclimate would be
enhanced; improved barrier free accessibility.
• Environmental Sustainability -storm water infiltration planters would be introduced
between Frederick and College; new transit shelters would be installed between Frederick
and Francis; some new bike racks and benches would be installed.
• Number of Street Trees - 85-90
• Business Attraction, Retention & Development -substantial improvement in the ability to
attract and retain investment
• On-Street Parking Spaces - 65 spaces
Proposed Timeline for (Option 4~
Summer re-design
Summer/Fa112008: tendering
Fall 2008: construction start
Fall 2009: construction complete
Project Costs (Option 4)
Construction cost: $6.0 M - 7.4 M
Re-design: $0.1 M
Contract Admin: 0.4 M
Total $6.5 M - 7.9 M
Option 4 is being recommended because it combines the high-quality needs of the streetscape
with the need to reduce project costs. It is believed that four high-quality blocks between
Frederick Street and College Street will have a greater effect on attracting people and business
to the downtown than six blocks of moderate quality streetscape (as proposed in option 3). By
minimizing the amount of work in the College to Francis block, the City's options for future
upgrades remain open while that block undergoes future redevelopment. There is also the
7
opportunity to return and upgrade the streetscape in the College to Francis block once
redevelopment has been established.
Option 5 -Pedestrian First -Full streetscape Renewal las currently desianed
Replacement of all surface elements of King Street between Frederick Street and Francis
Street. Extensive use of granite in the sidewalks, curbs and crosswalks. New and upgraded
street lighting with improved spacing would be incorporated throughout. The design would meet
the objectives of the "pedestrian first" philosophy, incorporating flexible parking delineated by
removable bollards. The implementation of this option would encourage a high level of fagade
maintenance on private structures fronting the improvements.
• No change to current design and could tender project immediately
• Construction could start in summer 2008. Completed by end of 2010.
• Potential for very high fluctuations in costs due to late tendering period and thus exceeding
the approved budget.
• Would not jeopardize the provincial funding received for the project.
• Life Span of the Infrastructure -High quality materials would have extended life span
being more durable and readily cleaned and renewed.
• Pedestrian First Objectives -street could be fully programmed with cafes, events, etc.;
Civic Square would be designed as one coordinated space for major festivals; enhanced
accent lighting at night; microclimate would be enhanced; improved barrier free accessibility.
• Environmental Sustainability -storm water infiltration planters and new transit shelters
would be introduced throughout; new bike racks and benches would be installed.
• Number of Street Trees -106
• Business Attraction, Retention & Development -maximum improvement in the ability to
attract and retain investment.
• On-Street Parking Spaces - 71 spaces
Proposed Timeline for (Option 5~
Summer 2008: tendering
Fall 2008: construction start
Fall 2010: construction complete
Project Costs (Option 5)
Construction cost: $9.7 M - 11.3 M
Re-design: $ NIL
Contract Admin: 0.4 M
Total $10.1 M - 11.7 M
8
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The business case presented to Council on December 10, 2007 outlined the $5,680,000 of
funding for King Street project. In March of 2008, the City received aone-time grant of
$3,200,000 through the Provincial Municipal Infrastructure Investment Initiative (MIII}for this
project. The grant was approved based on the design outlined in Option 5 of this report. Any
significant departure from the work plan outlined in the grant application might jeopardize grant
eligibility. Staff is of the opinion that the recommended plan is consistent with the original grant
application. Applying the grant to the King Street project results in following funding scenario:
Source of Funding
EDIF $3,830,000
DTS Road Resurfacing $1,500,000
CSD Downtown Parkettes $ 350,000
M l l l g rant 3 200 000
Total Funding . $8,880,000
The costs presented in each of the options does not include the already approved work
associated with the Public Art piece at Speaker's Corner or the Urban Vitality component.
These costs were included in the original project budget of $5,680,000. Including these costs in
the total cost for option 4 results in the following estimated costs for the King Street streetscape
project (using only the high-end of the estimate range}:
King Street streetscape Costs
Total Cost of Option 4 (high-end} $7,900,000
Public Art at Speaker's Corner $ 130,000
Urban Vitality 100 000
Total Costs . $8,130,000
Projected Surplus = $ 750,000
The final surplus from the King Street project would be returned back to the original funding
sources (EDIF, DTS Road Resurfacing or CSD Downtown Parkettes and/or capital surplus).
COMMUNICATIONS:
On direction to proceed from Council, staff will continue to communicate with downtown
businesses and stakeholder organizations as required. Staff will work closely with downtown
businesses to develop an appropriate staging plan for the construction work. Staff have
discussed these options with members of the KDBA and DAC.
CONCLUSION:
Staff are recommending that Council provide direction to proceed with the King Street project as
outlined in Option 4. This option includes the following:
replacement of all surface elements of King Street between Frederick street and College
Street.
• selective use of high quality materials such as granite in the roadway, sidewalks and
crosswalks (Frederick to College).
9
• upgraded lighting to meet the objectives of the King Street Master Plan (Frederick to
Francis}
• design would meet the objectives of the "pedestrian first" philosophy, incorporating
flexible parking delineated by removable bollards (Frederick Street to College Street)
• sustainable design elements such as extensive tree planting and storm water infiltration
planters would be utilized (Frederick to College}.
• Standard concrete finishes, improved lighting, new tree plantings and street furniture for
the block between College Street and Francis Street Ito blend into the Frederick to
College block)
• High quality surface treatments and extensive street furnishings to be used at Francis
Street to create a gateway effect into the City Centre District
This option is being recommended for the following reasons:
• Provides ahigh-quality streetscape between Frederick Street and College Street that is
required to attract investment into the downtown
• Balances the high-quality requirements for investment with a reduced scope to optimize
spending
• Establishes a benchmark for quality and durability that can be adopted for other sections
of King Street and other downtown streets in the future
• The design is closely aligned to what has already been approved by Council
• Allows the opportunity to upgrade the block between College to Francis in the future, to
the new standard when these blocks are redeveloped.
K. Grant Murphy, P. Eng.
Director of Engineering Services
Development and Technical Services
Department
Rod Regier
Executive Director, Economic Development
10
Appendix A -Comparison of KSMP Design Alternatives
Chart 1: Comparison of the Design Elements in Each Option
Element Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5
Frederick to College to
College & Francis
The Francis Gateway
Gateway (excluding the
Gateway)
1. Approach Postpone Basic Pedestrian- Introducing apedestrian-first, Proceed as
project streetscape first design, high quality design from designed, with
indefinitely. renewal. using Frederick to College and at the a pedestrian-
moderate Frederick and Francis Street first, high
quality gateways. Maintain College to quality design
design the Francis gateway but introduce throughout.
elements. new lighting, new concrete
sidewalks, planters and
furnishings to match the rest of
the street.
2. Sidewalk Retain All white A mix of A mix of All white A mix of
Surfaces existing mix concrete. concrete granite paving concrete. granite paving
of paving paving stones and stones and
stones and stones and poured poured
poured poured concrete. concrete.
concrete. concrete.
3. Sidewalk Retain All white Concrete Granite paving Granite paving Granite
Trim/Banding existing mix. concrete. paving stones in select stones at paving stones
stones in locations. intersections to throughout.
select match
locations. remainder of
street
4. Intersection Retain White White White White concrete. Granite
Ramps existing mix. concrete. concrete. concrete. paving stones.
S. Curbs Retain Standard Concrete; Granite; Standard Granite;
existing concrete mountable mountable to concrete gutter/ mountable to
concrete gutter/ barrier to allow for allow for barrier curb. allow for
curbs. curb. flexible flexible flexible
parking. parking. parking.
6. Crosswalks Retain Painted lines. Painted Mix of painted Painted lines. Granite.
existing. lines. lines and
granite (at
Frederick and
Francis
gateways and
King/Queen
intersection)
7. Bollards None. None. Quantities Quantities None. All necessary
scaled back scaled back to quantities
to meet meet short purchased to
short term term demands. meet long
demands. term
demands.
11
$. None. None. None. Selective use None. Selective use
Illuminated, at Civic at Civic
Solar Square; option Square; option
Powered to retrofit at a to retrofit at a
Bollards later date. later date.
9. Roadway None. None. Quantities Quantities None. 5-10 per
Bollards at scaled back scaled back to intersection,
Intersections to 4 per 4 per as designed.
and intersection. intersection.
Crosswalks
10. Lighting Same as New lighting, New New lighting, New lighting, New lighting,
existing. with selective lighting, with selective with selective with upper
use of upper with use of upper use of upper lighting
lighting selective use lighting lighting column
column. of upper column. column. throughout.
lighting
column.
11. Accent Existing x- Existing x- None. Selective use Selective use of Extensive use
Tree and mas lights. mas lights. of tree up- tree up-lighting of tree up-
Planterwall lighting and and planter lighting.
Lighting planter wall wall down
down lighting. lighting.
12. Use existing. Minimal use Minimal use Selective use Extensive use Extensive use
Furnishings of new of new of new of new of new
benches, bike benches, benches, bike benches, bike benches, bike
racks, etc. bike racks, racks, etc. racks, etc. racks, etc.
etc.
13. Street 50 50 40-50 85-90 106
Trees
14. Planters Use existing, Replace New New planters as New planters New planters
red concrete existing red planters as designed, with as designed, as designed,
planters; no concrete designed, granite finish and with granite with granite
eco-friendly planters with but with eco-friendly finish; no finish and
storm water white concrete storm water eco-friendly eco-friendly
infiltration. concrete; no finish; no infiltration. storm water storm water
eco-friendly eco-friendly infiltration. infiltration.
storm water storm water
infiltration. infiltration.
1S. Contin- None. None. None. Selective use, None. Used
uous Tree but reduced in extensively.
Trench with size where trees
Irrigation have been
eliminated.
16. Flower Use existing. Use existing. Use existing Minimal use of Selective use Selective use
Pots green flower new flower pots; of new of new flower
pots. option to add flower pots; pots; option to
more at a later option to add add more at a
date. more at a later date.
later date.
12
17. Civic Same as Same as White White concrete n/a White
Square existing. existing. concrete throughout, concrete
throughout, selective use of throughout,
selective use granite banding. extensive use
of concrete of granite
banding. banding.
18. Gateways None. None. Use of Use of banner n/a Use of banner
banner columns, trees, columns,
poles, trees, planting beds, trees, planting
planting granite pavers, beds, granite
beds, and granite pavers,
concrete crosswalks and granite
pavers at concrete crosswalks
intersection. roadway. and concrete
roadway.
19. Parking 49 perm-anent 49 permanent 71 flexible 44 flexible 71 flexible
Spaces parking parking parking parking stalls; parking stalls;
spaces; 3 spaces; 3 stalls; 7 17-21 permanent 7 parking /
loading loading parking / parking stalls, 7 loading
spaces. spaces. loading parking /loading spaces.
spaces. spaces.
20. Speakers Proceed as Proceed as Proceed as Proceed as designed, with Proceed as
Corner designed, with designed, with designed, potential reductions in the quality designed.
potential potential with of surface materials.
reductions in reductions in potential
the quality of the quality of reductions
surface surface in the
materials. materials. quality of
surface
materials.
13
Chart 2: Evaluation of Each Option
Evaluation
Criteria Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5
Meeting No enhancement No enhancement Street could be Street from Street could be
Pedestrian of the City's of the City's fully pro- Frederick to fully pro-
First ability to foster ability to foster grammed with College could be grammed with
Objectives - and program a and program a cafes, events, fully pro- cafes, events,
Fostering a lively street; no lively King etc.; lighting grammed with etc.; special
Lively King improvements to Street; lighting conditions would cafes, events, event pads
Street existing lighting conditions would be improved; etc.; special serviced with
conditions. be improved. improved event pads electricity;
mobility/ serviced with lighting cond-
accessibility; electricity; no itions would be
Civic Square enhancements dramatically
would look and would be made improved
function as one from College to through
large public Francis; lighting extensive use of
square; lack of conditions would ambient lighting;
street trees would be improved; improved
create micro- improved mobility/
climate concerns. mobility/ accessibility;
accessibility; Civic Square
Civic Square would look and
would look and function as one
function as one large public
large public square; event
square. pads would be
serviced with
electricity and
hydro.
Environmental No enhance- New transit New transit New transit New transit
Sustainability meets made. shelters; some shelters; some shelters; some shelters; new
- Fostering a new bike racks new bike racks new bike racks bike racks and
Liveable King and benches; and benches; and benches; benches; storm
Street moderate tree improved improved water planter
plantings. walkablity; walkablity beds; some solar
moderate tree (Frederick to powered
plantings; College); storm bollards; up to S6
moderate use of water planter additional street
recyclable and beds; some solar trees; improved
reusable powered micro-climate;
materials. bollards; up to 40 continuous tree
additional street trench; extensive
trees; improved use of recyclable
micro-climate; and reusable
continuous tree materials (eg.
trench; granite).
significant use of
recyclable and
reusable
materials (eg.
granite).
14
Fostering Kigh Would not meet Would not meet Would generally Would generally Would generally
Quality Urban the intent of the the intent of the meet the intent of meet the intent of meet the intent of
Design City's downtown City's downtown the City's the City's the City's
urban design urban design downtown urban downtown urban downtown urban
policies; would policies; would design policies design policies design policies
lessen the City's not enhance the (increased (high quality (high quality
ability to City's ability to flexibility for streetscape, streetscape,
encourage high encourage high festivals and increased increased
quality private quality private events, flexibility for flexibility for
sector design. sector design. maximizing festivals and festivals and
sidewalk space events, events,
for cafes and maximizing maximizing
outdoor sidewalk space sidewalk space
retailing); for cafes and for cafes and
would enhance outdoor outdoor
the City's ability retailing); retailing);
to encourage would greatly would
high quality enhance the significantly
private sector City's ability to enhance the
design. encourage high City's ability to
quality private encourage high
sector design. quality private
sector design.
Business Would not Would somewhat Would enhance Would Would
Attraction - enhance the enhance the the City's ability significantly significantly
Fostering City's ability to City's ability to to attract new enhance the enhance the
Vibrant attract new attract new restaurants, City's ability to City's ability to
Shopping & restaurants, restaurants, retailers, etc. attract new attract new
Dining retailers, etc. retailers, etc. restaurants, restaurants,
retailers, etc. retailers, etc.
Economic Would not Would enhance Would greatly Would greatly Would signif-
Development enhance the the City's ability enhance the enhance the icantly enhance
Strategy City's ability to to attract new City's ability to City's ability to the City's ability
attract new developments or attract new attract new to attract new
developments or employment; developments or developments or developments or
employment; would not employment; employment; employment;
would not enhance the would enhance would not would not
enhance the City's ability to the City's ability enhance the enhance the
City's ability to attract and retain to attract and City's ability to City's ability to
attract and retain talent. retain talent. attract and retain attract and retain
talent. talent. talent.
15
Durability of Immediate Concrete will Concrete pavers Granite pavers Granite pavers
Surface maintenance deteriorate over will deteriorate will last indef- will last indef-
Materials concerns would time regardless over time initely where initely where
still need to be of installation regardless of installed and installed and
addressed. and maintenance. installation and maintained maintained
maintenance. appropriately; appropriately;
ability exists to ability exists to
sandblast the sandblast the
granite to refresh granite to refresh
the visual the visual
appearance of the appearance of the
street; applied street; applied
sealants improve sealants improve
ease of cleaning; ease of cleaning.
concrete used
between College
and Francis will
deteriorate over
time regardless
of installation
and main-
tenance;
Night Lighting Current lighting Night lighting Night lighting Night lighting Night lighting
& Ambience deficiencies and would be would be would be would be
safety concerns enhanced, add- enhanced, add- enhanced, add- enhanced
would not be ressing current ressing current ressing current significantly,
addressed. deficiencies; deficiencies; deficiencies; addressing
selective use of selective use of selective use of current
light-columns light-columns light-columns deficiencies;
would add would add would add light-columns
ambient and ambient and ambient and would add
facade lighting. facade lighting; facade lighting; ambient and
illuminated illuminated facade lighting;
bollards would bollards would illuminated
add ambience to add ambience to bollards would
Civic Square. Civic Square; add ambience to
tree-lighting in Civic Square;
planters and tree-lighting at
select locations every planter and
would add street tree would
additional maximize
ambient lighting. ambient lighting.
16
Alignment Not in alignment. Not in alignment. Functionality of Functionality of This option
with Council's the design aligns the design and represents the
Original with original quality of the originally
Approval approval; quality materials from approved design.
of the materials Frederick to
does not align; College align
loss of green with original
elements does approval; section
not align. from College to
Francis would
not align except
at Francis
gateway; option
to construct full
build-out in the
future still
possible,
streetscape
elements (eg.
planters, lighting,
etc) align with
original
approval.
MIII Would not be Would not be Would be Would be Would be
Provincial consistent with consistent with consistent with consistent with consistent with
Funding the application. the application. parts of the the application. the application.
Application application (such
as providing a
pedestrian-first
design), but
would not be
consistent with a
significant
component of the
application -the
use of environ-
mentally
sustainable
features.
Estimated Cost Minimal ~ $5.3 million ~ $8.2 million ~ $7.9 million ~ $11.9 million
17
Chart 3: Evaluation Score of Each Option
Evaluation Option 1 Option Z Option 3 Option 4 Option 5
Meeting
Pedestrian
First
Objectives -
Fostering a
Lively King
Street
Environmental
Sustainability
F
i
t
-
ng a
er
os
Liveable King
Street
Fostering Iligh
Quality Urban
Design
Business
Attraction -
Fostering
Vibrant
Shopping &
Dining
Economic
Development
Strategy
Durability of
Surface
Materials
Night Lighting
& Ambience
Alignment
with Council's
i
i
l
O
r
g
na
Approval
MIII
Provincial
F
ndin
g
u
Application
Estimated
Cost
Total Rating 4 / 40 9 / 40 19 / 40 30 / 40 37 140
Overall Lowest Low Medium High Highest
Rating
18