Kingston Concerned About the LVEC
Currently known as the "KROCK Centre"
Formerly the "Kingston Regional Sports and Entertainment Centre" or KRSEC
Formerly the "Large Venue Entertainment Centre" or LVEC
Home   News

Common sense suggests that before committing the city to the expense of pursuing one particular site, the Task Force should have commissioned some preliminary comparative feasibility studies to inform their choice--or at least allowed for the possibility of such studies after the Task Force Report was released. Instead, there has been a consistent refusal to do anything of the sort. The Task Force dismissed sites adjacent to the 401 altogether and only briefly mentioned the North Block as another "viable" possibility. The Memorial Centre and Block D were "removed from consideration". Perhaps passing on Block D was understandable, but why was there no serious comparative consideration of other options? KCAL is not in the business of selecting a site, but a comparison of Anglin Bay with these other possibilities certainly leaves you wondering! 

ANGLIN BAY:

1. The proposed site is very small. It was initially described as 11.7 acres, including a portion of Douglas Fluhrer park, and this is confirmed in the Task Force aerial photograph of the site (p. 14) and GIS maps contained in the Task Force reference materials. But in the face of public concern about the park, task force members and the mayor later insisted that there had been a "misrepresention", and that there was no intention to build on any portion of the park. (Kingston Whig Standard, Tuesday, May 18, 2004). This means that the proposed site is actually much smaller than originally thought--3 acres instead of 11.7 acres.
2. Because of that, and because the LVEC is proposed to be very large (at least 80,000 square feet, maximum seating capacity 7,500), it may prove necessary to fill in part or all of Anglin Bay, and certainly the drydock. This has implications for boating, fishing, environmental hazards, and the cost of the project. It also takes to an extreme the Report's professed desire to "build upon our maritime heritage".    See Marine Heritage and History Considerations.
3. Even if the Wellington Street extension is built, the LVEC would be accessible from only two directions, and if it is not built, from only one. Otherwise, access is cut off by private property, and the River and Outer Harbour themselves. The largest catchment of local population, in the city's Northwest end, would have to thread their way through an early 19th-century street layout, full of one way restrictions, to get to it.
4. The site will have fewer than 300 on-site parking spaces. The others needed to accommodate up to 7,500 people are claimed to be within "10 minutes" walking distance of the LVEC, yet the list of available spaces provided by the Task Force includes Block D and lots at Fort Henry and the Woolen Mill! The Task Force hopes for a parking garage on the North Block. (Task Force, p. 16)  See Parking Issues.
5. Construction at this site would involve blocking the waterfront view, for both passersby and local residents, many of whom moved To the location expressly because of that view. Technical recommendations contained in the (at one time secret) "LVEC Reference Materials" advise that the building should be at least 75' high! A massive, 80,000 square ft. structure of this height would dominate the small site and surrounding area to an absurd degree.
6. It is separated from the downtown retail and hospitality facilities by acres of parking lots, which will not be an inviting pathway to enable the realization of the hoped-for stimulation of the downtown core. It is also more than 13 minutes' walk (not stroll) from the pubs and restaurants on Ontario Street: not much prospect of "stimulation" after a January hockey game!  See Stimulating the Downtown Core?.
7. It is in close proximity to a city-mandated, established residential neighbourhood, which includes retirement and long term care facilities. Building a venue for hockey games and rock concerts immediately beneath the windows of a retirement home and hospital does not seem appropriate: the O.M.B. thinks it isn't. See Planning and Zoning Issues and the "OMB SkyDome Decision" (link to be added later).
8. The noise from the facility will be loud, intrusive and (some of it) continuous: idling transport trucks, electric generators, air conditioning equipment, the thunder of rock concerts, and the din from excited crowds of up to 7500 as they exit late at night after events end. Perhaps top of the line expensive sound insulation could contain the rock concert and air conditioning noise within the building, but it is difficult to imagine what could be done to muffle the truck, generators and crowds. Although there is at present some noise from the local boat factory, this is confined to non weekend daytime during working hours.
9. The site will require the purchase of the viable marina and boat building businesses and the land they occupy. Although some marina space may remain, it is unlikely to include the fuel and pumpout facilities currently used by hundreds of summer boating visitors who tie up or anchor for a day or two and spend some time exploring Kingston's walking distance downtown stores and tourist scene. There are no such facilities at Confederation Basin.  See Metalcraft Marine
10. It will require rezoning and alterations to the Official City Plan. (For the last 20 years it has been zoned medium density residential, open space and harbour industrial). This will result in an O.M.B. appeal.  See also Planning and Zoning Issues.

THE NORTH BLOCK:

1. Is described as "viable" in the mayor's Task Force Report.
2. Is accessible from four directions on major streets, but would still require west end residents to make their way through downtown.
3. Would not require the building of the Wellington St. extension.
4. Would require the closure of at least a portion of Barrack Street, which would create obvious ferry traffic issues unless re-routing could minimize them.
5. Significant onsite parking would require a parking garage, but there would be room for at least one. It is also within a block of two other lots, and within three blocks of others further up Queen St.
6. Would not block any significant waterfront view or interfere with harbour use.
7. Is 2 to 3 minutes walk from Princess St, and 6 minutes from the pubs, restaurants and hotels along Ontario St. It is the site initially favoured by the Downtown Business Improvement Association.
8. The facility could be sited so that idling trucks, generators and noisy crowds could be concentrated on the Queen St. side--well away from any residents, although high quality sound insulation would still be needed.
9. Depending where sited, it need not interfere with ongoing businesses, although it may require incorporation of some small heritage buildings. It would not necessarily involve acquiring privately owned land if land swaps with private owner(s) were possible.
10. It is less likely to generate strong citizen opposition; however, it would mean abandoning a large portion of the proposed "North Block" plan, presently under consideration.

THE MEMORIAL CENTRE: see also Sacrificing the Memorial Centre and the Cromarty Report.

1. Is centrally located and accessible from all directions while avoiding downtown congestion.
2. Can provide ample onsite parking.
3. Is close to the mid-town section of Princess St--which might experience badly needed economic stimulus providing continuity with downtown. It is also within brief driving and/or transit distance of both downtown and up-town hotels and restaurants.
4. Is separated from surrounding residents by generous green space
5. Need not require a major sacrifice of the sport, recreation and cultural activies associated with the park.
6. Allows for the possibility of a flexible and phased project which may or may not include the current Memorial Centre arena [see Cromarty Report]
7. The land is flat, clean, and wholly owned by the City.
8. The project would appear to be in line with the Official Plan's "Special Open Space Policy" on the Kingston Memorial Centre. [see "Planning and Zoning Issues" on this website]
9. It is the site most electors assumed would be chosen, during the recent municipal election campaign promising to "replace the Memorial Centre".
10. This site was preferred by Bud Springer, owner of the Frontenacs, according to Kingston Life, Winter 2004., and according to minutes of the January 27, 2004 meeting of the LVEC Task Force members and Springer family

401: ALCAN PROPERTY

1. It is accessible from any part of the city and from the 401: especially easy for out of town visitors
2. All necessary parking could be "on site" and inexpensive, if not actually free.
3. It would still be only 15 minutes drive from downtown: for events drawing out of town visitors, the BIA could provide shuttles to downtown hotels and tourist areas.
4. Land would be relatively inexpensive to acquire, compared with downtown.
5. Unlike the downtown properties, there could be plenty of room for future expansion.

At first glance, Anglin Bay appears to be the worst possible site, not the best! It is puzzling that more attention wasn't paid to the Memorial Centre location, as it seems to combine many of the advantages of a "downtown" site with the parking and accessibility of a suburban one. And if those who insist on a downtown site wind up having their way, it is difficult to understand why the Anglin Bay site is superior to the North Block one: while both have serious drawbacks, it isn't at all clear that Anglin Bay's so called "merits" outweigh its difficulties, given that it is further from downtown businesses and parking. It looks as if the only possible rationale for the Anglin Bay site is its '"uniquely spectacular setting".(Task Force Report, p. 13) From whose viewpoint? Certainly not the residents or passers by, for whom it blocks the view! And this "spectacular setting" of course, won't be evident to most of the patrons, who will be inside, focussing on the game or concert. So you're left wondering--just why are its supporters so obsessed with this site? Why are they refusing to consider any others?

Another thought: At no point in its proceedings did the Task Force consult the public about the relative merits of these sites. Anglin Bay wasn't even mentioned: at most, people were asked if they preferred a "downtown" site (which the Task Force initially defined as including the Memorial Centre, and later changed to exclude the Memorial Centre)

We now know that the "concept plan" for residential development on the Memorial Centre site was provided to the Task Force on January 20, after an earlier request from them.(Whig Standard, August 6) So obviously the Task Force had no intention of even considering the Memorial Centre site right from the beginning. Why? Where was the "consultation" for this?

Last updated 30.9.2004