When a community needs a new or upgraded sport and recreation facility, it’s easy for the conversation to move quickly to the building: the courts, fields, rooms and equipment.
But before design begins, there’s a more important question to answer: what does the community need, and can the proposed facility be delivered and operated in a way that is practical and affordable over time?
A sport and recreation facility feasibility study helps decision-makers answer that question. It tests the proposal, identifies choices and trade-offs, and gives the community and project team a sound basis for deciding what should happen next.
What does a facility feasibility study test?
The scope will vary with the project. In general, a feasibility study should provide enough evidence to compare options and make an informed decision. This often means testing:
- the community need and how it compares with existing facilities and services
- possible locations, facility scope and concept options
- the activities, users and functional requirements the facility needs to support
- potential management and operating models
- capital costs, funding assumptions and long-term operating and maintenance costs
- key delivery risks, staging options and the case for proceeding, changing or stopping the proposal
The feasibility stage should identify important user and operational requirements and test their implications. Detailed technical specifications—such as the exact materials to use in a particular area—are generally developed during design. The earlier planning still matters: requirements that are missed can become difficult and expensive to fix later.
Start with community use and local knowledge
Understanding community need means looking beyond a headline demand figure. Who is likely to use the facility? What activities do they want to do? When will they use it? What existing facilities or services are already available?
Local knowledge matters. A sporting group may have specific requirements that aren’t obvious from a high-level participation estimate. Nearby residents, schools, clubs, operators and other facility users may also identify opportunities to share space or improve access.
That engagement helps develop a clearer picture of how the facility will actually be used. It can also reveal that a proposal needs to change, be staged or make better use of existing facilities.
Identify the requirements that matter most
A facility serving several sports or user groups needs to account for how each activity is played and delivered. Playing surfaces, equipment, storage, access, scheduling and changeovers can all affect whether a space works for its intended users.
I saw the value of early engagement in a Western Sydney facility project. Conversations with a local group surfaced a specific playing-surface requirement for its senior semi-professional teams. Most of the group’s teams played at grassroots level, but that particular requirement still mattered.
The change could be included at minimal cost while the design was still being developed. If it had been raised later, it would have been extremely expensive and could have become cost-prohibitive. The group may have had to find another place to play, leaving a significant gap in the operator’s revenue and participation during its first years of trading.
That experience reinforced for me that a facility brief needs to capture the detail that affects real use—not just the broad categories of activity the building is expected to support.
Consider how the sport affects the building
Requirements don’t end with the playing surface. The speed and nature of an activity can affect the durability and safety of nearby areas, including walls, common walkways and seating.
Futsal is one example. The ball is dense and heavy, and it can travel at high speed. Where it strikes a wall or reaches areas used by other people, the impact on materials and the building needs to be considered during planning.
At one facility I opened, this had not been adequately considered before construction. After the first game, holes had appeared in the wall behind the goals. The remediation required more than $100,000. The solution was to reinforce selected areas with stronger materials, but that required expensive retrofit work.
Better early engagement with that user group could have helped identify the likely impact and guide material choices before the facility was built. At feasibility stage, the need and its cost implications should be recognised; the design team can then resolve the detailed specification. It’s a practical example of why users and operators need a voice while the brief is being developed.
Test whether the facility will be affordable to operate
Construction cost is only one part of the financial picture. Decisions made during planning can affect the cost of operating a facility for many years.
A feasibility study should consider staffing and supervision, cleaning and maintenance, utilities, equipment replacement, storage and changeovers between activities. These costs influence whether the proposed operating model is realistic.
The operator should help test these assumptions early. A layout, material or equipment choice that appears minor during planning may affect cleaning time, maintenance access or staffing needs once the facility opens.
The aim isn’t to choose the cheapest option in every case. It’s to understand the longer-term cost of the available options and decide whether the facility can be operated within a realistic budget while still meeting community needs.
Make the study useful for decision-making
A feasibility study shouldn’t simply endorse a decision that has already been made. It should help decision-makers weigh the evidence and understand their options.
That may mean proceeding with the proposal, adjusting its scope, staging the development, making better use of an existing facility—or deciding not to proceed.
At ADLIS Advisory, I bring a sport and recreation operations perspective to facility planning and feasibility. I work with organisations to understand user needs, test operating models and consider the practical costs that follow from decisions made during planning.
If you’re considering a new or upgraded sport and recreation facility, bring community and operator knowledge into the process early. Those conversations can help shape a facility that meets real needs and remains practical to operate.
For more on this topic, read Good facility design starts with the right questions.