|
Ms. Elaine Condos, Division Manager,
Central Library Development Project provided a brief introduction and context
of the report: The results are another element of a June 2015 direction to
staff, this being related to public engagement. She reminded the Board of
the original direction.
The information gathered will be
used in developing the next stages of Central Library planning, specifically
related to design concepts and site evaluation criteria. Ms. Condos
introduced Mr. Nik Nanos, President, Nanos Research.
Mr. Nanos provided a summary
presentation of a multi-phased research initiative that was conducted as part
of a planning process for a future downtown Central Library. The presentation
included a summary of the views from library card holders and residents,
methodology, a map of the Main branch catchment area, views on location, how
people are using Main, important characteristics, and what people want to
know. (Held on file with the Chief Executive Officer)
Chair Tierney thanked Mr. Nanos for
his engaging presentation, and Trustees McKenney and Wilkinson for requesting
the surveying be completed.
Trustee McKenney asked if the survey
inquired of people currently using transit and who walk to the Main Library
within the 22 minutes, how many would be willing or able to take LRT one or
two stops. Mr. Nanos said that in the focus groups, people said it would not
make a difference to them because LRT wasn’t close to them. In terms of
travel times, the group didn’t know the kind of obstacles they would face, that
is, would the fare be an obstacle, as walking is free. If one of the
assumptions is that LRT is part of the solution, it creates a cost for people
who may have to pay for a fare if they do not have a transit pass.
When asked if the people who want
parking would be willing to take transit, Mr. Nanos replied parking tended to
be linked with accessibility and people with disabilities, and it was very
difficult to access the current location.
In response to parking not being a
key factor, Mr. Nanos stated that this would be the case for people in the
catchment area. Parking needs were usually articulated by people who lived
outside of the catchment. He said that one of the focus group streams
included people outside of the catchment area who use their local branch, and
also the downtown branch. These people are multi-location customers.
The next question from Trustee
McKenney focused on how many people in the commercial area access the current
Main Library, Mr. Nanos replied in term of mixes and of traffic going into
the downtown, that one of four people arrive from work, and six of ten from
home.
Trustee Wilkinson raised a question
whether people were already thinking about transportation needs between LRT
stations. Mr. Nanos indicated that people are thinking about that because a
number of them said they realistically figured it would be faster to catch a
bus. The first question asked on the survey related to the distance to the
LRT and it may not be relevant as they could take public transit.
Trustee Wilkinson pointed out that regardless
of where the Central Library is, it will be important to have discussions
with OC Transpo about the local routes within that area. Mr. Nanos agreed
and said people wanted good public transit services for the location.
Action: Staff hold discussions with
OC Transpo regarding bus routes/stops in downtown once LRT is in place and
Central Library site is determined.
In terms of design of the Central Library,
Trustee Wilkinson said it will have a major impact in how many people will
use the facility. Mr. Nanos stated that the survey consulted people within
and outside the catchment area, providing best practices or guiding
principles for design of any location in the City.
When asked how far outside of the
catchment area did the survey address and whether these people used the Main
branch, Mr. Nanos said the survey was conducted across the City. One stream was
based on people who used their local branch and the Main branch, but the survey
also looked at a stream who did not use the Main Library but were library
card holders.
Further to a question about whether
the public would come downtown just to get a book, Mr. Nanos replied people probably
would not but this is where programming at the library was an important
factor. For a number of parents who participated, they wanted a library that
was child-friendly and that encouraged kids to be in the library. The more
inviting the library is, such as being more open, bright, and a nice place to
be in, the more likely parents would be to take an extra trip to go to the
central location.
In response to a question from
Trustee Wilkinson about programming that the library offers and seeing the
library as a community hub, Mr. Nanos mentioned that there was push-back on
the idea of non-library-related programming, i.e. putting a swimming pool, as
people didn’t want it becoming another community centre. However, people had
imaginative ideas, such as book readings, and highlighting local authors by
showcasing those that live within 100 miles of Ottawa, etc. Trustee
Wilkinson said the data collected will be very helpful in moving forward.
Chair Tierney said that Beaverbrook branch has been a major success and a lot
of feedback that has been gathered will be very useful.
The next question from Trustee Sweet
asked if the catchment area was defined for this project or if it was used in
the past for the Main library. Elaine Condos confirmed that the overall
catchment area is approximately 55K people and it was firmed up for the
purposes of the Central Library Development Project, based on the 2011 Census
Dissemination Area Maps that are proximate to the current Main library. Further
variables were defined such as card holders indicating the Main branch as
their home location who were active card holders for the past 12 months.
Further to a question inquiring
about the meaning of the concentric rings used in the presentation, Ms.
Condos mentioned there are various radii from the existing facility.
Action: Staff provide details
explaining the concentric rings on page 5, 3.0 Map of the Main branch
catchment area of the presentation to the Board.
In reference to slide 11, “What
People Want to Know”, Trustee Sweet said that the four points OPL has to
address, will be very critical for moving forward to the next stage as it
will shape how the consultation will be planned. She was concerned with the fourth
point, the vision for the Central Library and said it should be
implementation or follow through of the vision. Mr. Nanos noted that it was
a valid point as people wanted OPL to have a vision, stick to the vision, and
deliver on what is being proposed.
The next question by Trustee Fisher concerned
breakdown of the data by demographics and whether there would be consistency
in the conclusions being drawn. Mr. Nanos pointed out the demographic data
was collected for all the quantative studies and the statistics can be found
in the tabulation. The key drivers such as convenience and light didn’t make
a difference if the person was 20 or 50 years old in wanting to feel safe at
the library. The key differences had to do with geography than demographics,
with accessibility and convenience being the first two steps in what people
want.
When asked by Trustee Begg about
thoughts related to different programming for the Central Library, Mr. Nanos
pointed out that there has to be a unique vision for the facility because if
it is like all the other places in the library system, people will not likely
go or have the need to go to it. He suggested the Board and staff define the
role of the Central Library within the vision, and look at some of the best
practices. Furthermore, he suggested staff learn from Halifax in how the
catchment area expands and use that model in terms of moving from the
definition of the catchment area to something that is larger.
The Board heard from the
following delegation:
Emilie Taman, Bookmark
the Core* spoke
of central
libraries being the most public of institutions and for a public space to be
truly public, it should be the result of a process of meaningful public
engagement being
sustained, open, transparent, and responsive. The public interest should drive the
Central Library project, not corporate or developer interests. Ms. Taman noted
that perspective sites should be assessed with a view to accommodating a
large enough library, with a visionary design, and in a location that meets
key criteria. She was concerned that the proposed 132K square foot library within
a mixed-used development is not enough space for Ottawa due to its
population, its status as the National Capital, and for the proper functions
of a Central Library. She referenced the Mayor saying in June the project
will only happen if there are willing partners and that the most likely
potential partners will be developers. She asked how the Board, the Mayor,
and Council will show that any of the proposed sites are in the public
interest, what criteria will be used to assess the suitability of the site,
and will there be transparency in the decision-making process. Ms. Taman
pointed out that the evidence to date suggest that the Mayor is leaning
towards seeing the library at Lebreton Flats and has told Bookmark the Core
that he believes the core of the city will move west towards Lebreton Flats. She
referenced unveiling of proposals for suggesting that the Lebreton Flats site
for the new Central Library was a done deal. She said there has not been an
assessment to demonstrate Lebreton Flats would serve the public interest in
terms of catchment population, proximity to other destinations, and other
criteria that are critical to its success. She asked the Board to implement
a robust, and ongoing public engagement process, including a digital
strategy, and public information campaign, as well as accept Trustee
McKenney’s request for a second public open house.
Chair Tierney thanked the
delegation. He reiterated the announcement with LAC, which is not a
developer. He indicated that if the Board did not go through the REOI process,
they could have missed this opportunity. He stated that there is no
conclusion regarding location and the Board is as much in the dark as the
public with respect to the Lebreton Flats proposals. The Board will continue with
its engagement process, and that will include more formal consultations with
the public.
In addition to that
provided by the individuals marked with an asterisk above, written
correspondence was also submitted by the following, as noted:
·
Mr. John D. Reid
·
Mary F. Cavanagh
and Sarah Anson-Cartwright*
(Correspondence
related to the report attachments).
*Individuals / groups marked with an
asterisk above either provided comments in writing or by email; all
submissions are held on file with the CEO.]
There being no further
discussion, the report was received as presented.
|