Crystal Pool Replacement Project - Where is the Refurb Option?
Happy New Year! I hope that everyone had a great holiday season. I had wanted to start the year with some of my more regular urbanist content, but with the impending referendum on the Crystal Pool Replacement Project on February 8th, I feel that I would be remiss if I didn’t focus on the project over the next couple of articles. If you have been a long time reader, you will know that I have written about Crystal Pool at least twice before. You can read my evolving position on it here and here. As this is such a huge project for the City of Victoria, and as the pool is very important to me (I live a short walk from it and am there with my kids all the time), I think it is important for me to talk about this project in-depth. As we approach the referendum, I want to be making my decision with my eyes wide open. For this article I will be talking about how we got here and why I think refurbishment should still be an option, especially on the referendum. For at least one future article, I will look at other examples of recreation centre replacement happening elsewhere in BC and Canada.
Just to be clear as to what my opinion is from the start, I don’t think that Crystal Pool as it is today, is fine. I also don’t believe that City of Victoria residents should simply use other facilities in the region and go without a pool in the city (well at least permanently, I think that we could survive the time it would take to refurbish). I do have significant concerns as to whether a new facility is the right thing for Victoria; whether we can afford it; and whether we have actually truly considered all of the options completely.
A Little History
We can start at the beginning. Crystal Pool was completed in 1971. It was designed by Victoria’s most famous modernist architect, John Di Castri. At the time it was completed, Crystal Pool was the only competitive 50m pool in the region and was built to replace the pool at the Crystal Gardens behind the Empress. It would remain the region’s premiere pool until the completion of Saanich Commonwealth Place in 1993 for the 1994 Commonwealth Games. From that point forward, most of the regional swim meets would occur at Commonwealth rather than Crystal Pool. I would say that when I went and looked at the Crystal Pool Budgets in the archives, you can see a significant drop in revenue following the 1993 budget year (Almost 10% and pool rental income is a major part of that).
As we moved through the first decade and a half of the 21st century, the pool kept operating however it was clear that the place was beginning to have challenges and something was going to need to be done to bring the pool back to life or it would have to close permanently. Finally in 2015, the City of Victoria hired Stantec to complete a review of the property and to create a feasibility study that included options for how what to do to ensure we had a pool in the city going into the future. This was the first of many reports that were provided to the City between 2015 and 2024.
Reports, Reports and more Reports
The City has had more reports completed on the state of Crystal Pool and its plan to move forward with replacement than many other projects. I think that one could say that on the one hand, from the difficult lessons of the Johnson Street Bridge replacement project, we learned that there was a need for more due diligence. On the other hand though, as we move forward in time, the trajectory of the reports narrowed and limited the discussion of all of the options. In particular, since 2016, it is not evident to me that Council has been presented with an alternative to replacement. Again, in early 2017, the City Council of the day made the decision to proceed with a replacement based on an assumed cost of about $68.4 million dollars, and I can understand not necessarily continuously second guessing previous decisions. However, as the feasibility studies since 2017 have only focused on replacement, the cost has also continued to grow and now sits at $209 million dollars. Given the astronomical increase in cost and the span of almost 9 years since refurbishment was last considered, it deserves another look, especially as we see our City Budget requiring significant trimming in other important areas such as the arts.
Apart from the 2015 Stantec and 2016 HCMA reports to the City, I could not find a newer one that included a review and costing for refurbishment. If you are aware of one, I would love to read it. While we all know that construction prices have increased across the spectrum of the industry, I still think it is important to know what our options and the appraised costs were. First, looking back at the 2015 Stantec Report, it laid out four options:
Option 1: Scope Requiring Attention ($314,719) - Focused on just the immediate needs in 2015
Option 2: Implementation of Initial RFP Scope and Electrical ($6,258,495) - This Option included some additional items that would enable the pool to operate safely for up to an additional 15 years.
Option 3: Option 2 + Expanded Fitness Space, Universal Change Rooms and Universal Washroom ($12,768,011) - This option built upon Option 2 and was essentially the first estimate for a refurbishment. It had a similar lifespan estimate.
Option 4: New Facility ($36,680,180) - This option is the first estimate of a new facility. It is important to note that this is an ‘Order of Magnitude’ estimate so it really would have looked at the current building and services provided and mirrored them rather than looking at new additions or community needs.
I find it is truly sad to see figures that are so different than what are before us now. However, beyond the raw numbers, what I do want to point out from this report is the differential. A refurbished pool in this first estimate would cost 35% of what a rebuilt one would cost.
Okay, let’s move forward in time to the HCMA report that was presented to the city in 2016 and which led to Council voting to go ahead with replacement vs refurbishment. It had 3 options:
Option A: Retrofit of the existing facility, at an estimated cost of $40 million - This was a basic retrofit that would have kept the pool essentially as is, and extend its functional lifespan for about 30 years.
Option B: Renovation and expansion of the existing facility, with an estimated cost of $56 million - This option would have expanded the current building to add new pool space, and many more of the amenities that will be available in a new pool, but would keep the original building.
Option C: Construction of a new facility, with an estimated cost of $68.4 million - Finally, this is the option that was originally agreed on. I know it seems like a bargain now, but unfortunately with almost a decade since the decision to move forward this number has increased more than three fold.
With this being the last estimate of renovation, I again don’t want you to focus on the specific numbers, as we know that they would have changed since then, but instead on the differential of 18%. Bring that forward into today’s proposal estimate of $209 million and you get a savings of almost $40 million dollars.
I personally think that both refurbishment and replacement could be done for cheaper when you look at some other examples and we will look at two in a future article. However, using just what we have available from the City, and considering the significant tax increases that we are expecting and the cuts to things like arts programming, something that could provide increased amenities over the current pool and costs $40 million less, should be reviewed and provided as an option to the public during a referendum. The only two reports that have included both refurbishment and replacement as options, put refurbishment as the cheaper option. I think this is important.
As I said, there was another report, in particular the current HCMA report from last year. I would be remiss if I didn’t include the increased cost options that City Council considered when they made their final decision. The 2024 report from HCMA did not discuss refurbishment as an option because, as I said, Council had decided in 2017 to replace and they had not been given any indication that they should be looking at refurbishent again. The 2024 report has multiple options as well, however the differential between them is much less. They are:
Option 1 - Central Park North - $209.2 Million - This is the current site of Crystal Pool and if the pool is refurbished or replaced, it is the best location in my opinion. Maybe mostly out of familiarity, but also because it already takes up this position, it means less disruption in the park and leaves 940 Caledonia for other types of projects or to be sold off by the City.
Option 2 - Central Park South - $215.9 Million - Apart from allowing the current pool to remain open during construction, I am not sure that there are any other benefits. It destroys the playground, the tennis courts, the basketball courts and many old trees. From a neighbourhood vitality perspective, I think this would be a terrible decision. I am not entirely sure why it costs more except that there would need to be some additional money spent on keeping the current pool open during construction.
Option 3 - 940 Caledonia Avenue - $232.92 Million - The most expensive option, but it both allows for the park to remain untouched during construction and the pool to remain open. I think that the building design would have to more intense and it would require more underground parking (why are we building U/G parking beyond some for accessibility reasons is beyond me). A ten percent premium on an already very large amount of money, when we are already planning on cutting programs seems like a huge mistake.
I am pretty sure that gives you all of the options that have been presented to City Council over the last 10 years. I am still not exactly clear how we got to such large numbers for replacement, especially when we are seeing recreation centres being built in places like Edmonton or Tsawwassen for significantly less. As I said though, that is for the next article.
Refurbishment
I think that there are many reasons refurbishment should still be on the table. For one, we are just too quick in our society to be knocking down large buildings and building new ones. This certainly applies to Crystal Pool. While it may not be the best example of Di Castri’s modernist work, that it is his work should be at least part of the conversation here and it isn’t. The current pool is still functioning as a pool (I was there yesterday), which leads me to think that the challenges it has, can be overcome. Yes, it needs to be upgraded and modernized to meet current needs, but it likely can be done at a significant savings over replacement. When we are facing cutting services to residents in any way, the City has a moral obligation to review where it is planning on increasing spending especially on new capital projects. If the only reports that have come to City Council in the past, showed that refurbishment is a cheaper option, than with the current cost of the pool being so high, it should be an option for residents to choose from.
I know that one of the concerns with refurbishment is that it will close the pool for multiple years and this is true. It is also true of the recommended option for replacement (Option 1 in the 2024 HCMA Report). During that time, while not convenient, Victorians have far more options than most other communities have. There are four public recreation centres within nine kilometres of Crystal Pool. Oak Bay Rec is less than four kilometres away. In addition, we still have the downtown YM/WCA with its pool and gym. Also while certainly not an equity option, there are at least two hotels downtown that offer public swim passes for purchase, but maybe the City could make some mass purchases of passes for some nearby residents of those pools. A refurbishment would likely take much less time than than a new build in the same location as we will not have to tear down the current building before starting work. That means less time using other pools.
I am aware that there are concerns about the current energy usage of the pool and its contribution to GHG emissions, however as the City’s largest building, I would expect that even a new building will still be the largest contributor to GHG emissions. Certainly a refurbishment would include a replacement and upgrade of the pool infrastructure so that it would use less energy and contributing less GHG’s.
If City Council is willing to allow as big a decision as the location (with which completely changes the design of the pool) to be made by the citizens of Victoria, than surely an option of refurbishment could be added to the list of options, especially as it would likely cost less and take less time to complete.
It just feels like we have been put onto a guided path and that despite there being a clear viable, likely cheaper and faster option, it is not even being considered. And furthermore, when we are going into a democratic process that has so much variability built into it already, why not provide citizens with all the choices instead of forcing those that want a refurbished pool to vote against a spending initiative.
So how do I know it could be likely done for less? Well because it is happening in other places and that is what I will be talking about in my next article. Stay tuned and I look forward to reading your thoughts on refurbishment vs replacement.
