PDA

You are viewing a trimmed-down version of the SkyscraperPage.com discussion forum.  For the full version follow the link below.

View Full Version : Tim Hortons Field | 40m | ? | Under Construction



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

Jon Dalton
Jul 29, 2010, 4:22 PM
From my perspective this board went seriously downhill in the last year. I used to be able to kill a lunch break easily with a days worth of content, now it barely takes 5 minutes. Granted part of that is because construction has been at a standstill, but I partly blame the departure of the ranters for the lull in activity. I actually sort of miss the raisethehammer / bcted epic pissing matches and the like.

Jon Dalton
Jul 29, 2010, 4:23 PM
Anyway back to the stadium:

The Hamilton Tiger-Cats are holding a news conference at 2:15 p.m. to make a "major announcement regarding the West Harbour site."

http://www.thespec.com/Sports/Football/article/816433

SteelTown
Jul 29, 2010, 4:37 PM
I think the City made the adjustments that finally got the Ti Cats on board with the West Harbour stadium site.

*Fingers crossed* Pretty PPPLLLLLLEEEEAAAASSEEEEEE!!!

Jon Dalton
Jul 29, 2010, 5:26 PM
Bay Street Expressway?

highwater
Jul 29, 2010, 5:45 PM
I think the City made the adjustments that finally got the Ti Cats on board with the West Harbour stadium site.

*Fingers crossed* Pretty PPPLLLLLLEEEEAAAASSEEEEEE!!!

Dear God I hope you're right, but I fear not. I think the announcement will be about going after a soccer franchise and how the soccer team is going to need a 'driveway to driveway experience'.

SteelTown
Jul 29, 2010, 6:16 PM
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/ticat-press-conference

SteelTown
Jul 29, 2010, 6:18 PM
Ti Cats will build an Amphitheatre for West Harbour

SteelTown
Jul 29, 2010, 6:20 PM
City take $7 million from Future Fund for West Harbour.

SteelTown
Jul 29, 2010, 6:22 PM
Live Nation will manage the Amphitheatre, 3,500 seats,

highwater
Jul 29, 2010, 6:23 PM
It appears the City has made some adjustments to the West Harbour stadium plan. Details should go out to the public soon.

Yeah. They've 'adjusted' the stadium right out of there. Is this a city plan, or a Ticat plan?

SteelTown
Jul 29, 2010, 6:25 PM
City might include an IMAX theatre as well. Includes having the velodrome at the West Harbour.

SteelTown
Jul 29, 2010, 6:28 PM
Ticats will put $1.5 million towards the complex and annual maintenance cost.

ihateittoo
Jul 29, 2010, 6:34 PM
Does this rest on 50-60 million of the future fund being used at the east mountain site too?

Does this clean up the contaminated lands?

and lastly, when?

SteelTown
Jul 29, 2010, 6:40 PM
The proposal

http://www.goeastmountain.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/MASTER-PAN-AM-PARK.pdf

Jon Dalton
Jul 29, 2010, 6:43 PM
Eff that. No future fund for east mountain stadium period.

highwater
Jul 29, 2010, 6:44 PM
This has about as much substance to it as the Whitestar proposal, IMO.

markbarbera
Jul 29, 2010, 6:48 PM
Now this is a community building catalyst. I like it!

Jon Dalton
Jul 29, 2010, 6:55 PM
I like it. But still, no future fund for the east mountain.

SteelTown
Jul 29, 2010, 7:00 PM
Ticats propose Pan Am park at West Harbour

July 29, 2010
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/Sports/Football/article/816433

The Tigers-Cats are proposing the creation of a Pan Am park on the West Harbour site - instead of a stadium.

They want to see a cycling velodrome and a 3,500 seat ampitheatre that would be used for 20-25 concerts and religious gatherings on the site that the city has earmarked for the stadium. The Cats say this will lead to opportunities for weekly concerts by the Hamilton Philharmonic Orchestra and other bands from the area.

The franchise will ask the city for $7-million from the Future Fund to go towards the park. They break it down as $5 million that was destined for the velodrome funding, plus $2 million that they would ask the city to divert from the $45-million stadium.

The Ticats and their corporate sponsors will put $1.5 million toward the creation of the project, and will contribute up to $100,000 a year to maintain the park.

markbarbera
Jul 29, 2010, 7:02 PM
I took great issue with Future Fund being used as a grant for either stadium site. I am not against the city using the $7 million as a grant to develop Pan AM Park, then issue $50 million as a loan for the stadium. Of course, if it is now to be a soccer stadium and not to be used for track, construction costs will drop significantly.

highwater
Jul 29, 2010, 7:03 PM
I thought the Ticats said there couldn't be concerts at a West Harbour stadium because it was smack dab in the middle of a residential community. This is such a flaming pile of BS, and they still want $53m of our FF for their tax base-draining, environment-destroying sprawl stadium, but they'll ever so generously allow us to spend our own money on an amphitheatre for the concerts that they said could never happen there.

I agree. NO FF$ for East Mountain.

SteelTown
Jul 29, 2010, 7:03 PM
Really only $2 million towards the Park and $1.5 million from the Ti Cats. That's not a lot to work with for the park and the ampitheatre.

highwater
Jul 29, 2010, 7:08 PM
...then issue $50 million as a loan for the stadium...

A sprawl stadium doesn't fit the FF criteria for a loan. The FF was never supposed to be in the business of issuing grants.

SteelTown
Jul 29, 2010, 7:14 PM
Pan Am track stadium moves to Toronto

July 29, 2010
David Rider
http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/816555

Organizers of the 2015 Pan Am Games are searching for a Toronto stadium to host the showcase track and field events after scrapping plans to hold them in Hamilton.

Ian Troop, chief executive of the organizing committee, confirmed a change in location of the venue, required to hold at least 15,000 fans, in a conference call with reporters Thursday afternoon.

The track events are “going to be in Toronto. We’re looking at a couple of options, finalizing some details there but that’s probably where it’s going to end up.”

Troop said it appears Hamilton will get soccer games instead.

Plans to host track events in a purpose-built Hamilton stadium were shelved after a furious debate in that city over where it should be located, with city hall at loggerheads with eventual tenant the Hamilton Tiger-Cats.

markbarbera
Jul 29, 2010, 7:15 PM
I thought the Ticats said there couldn't be concerts at a West Harbour stadium because it was smack dab in the middle of a residential community.

There is a world of difference between the impact of a 3500-seat amphitheatre vs. a 25,000-seat stadium.

SteelTown
Jul 29, 2010, 7:21 PM
Bob Young's $15 million alone can build a soccer stadium.

omro
Jul 29, 2010, 7:22 PM
Pan Am track stadium moves to Toronto

Plans to host track events in a purpose-built Hamilton stadium were shelved after a furious debate in that city over where it should be located, with city hall at loggerheads with eventual tenant the Hamilton Tiger-Cats.

Hamilton City Council, once again, is an embarrassment.

highwater
Jul 29, 2010, 7:34 PM
Bob Young's $15 million alone can build a soccer stadium.

A 25,000 seat football/soccer stadium and 7,000 car parking lot?

SteelTown
Jul 29, 2010, 7:41 PM
No since we're hosting soccer (doubt we're hosting finals) instead of Track and Field most soccer stadium are 15,000 seat stadiums and around $15 to $25 million.

bigguy1231
Jul 29, 2010, 7:45 PM
Hamilton City Council, once again, is an embarrassment.

City council had nothing to do with them moving the Track events. That was Athletics Canada. They as with most sporting groups in this country want nothing to do with this sh**hole of a city. Despite what some of this city's boosters have to say this city has nothing to offer that anyone from outside the city wants or needs.

Acajack
Jul 29, 2010, 7:55 PM
There is a world of difference between the impact of a 3500-seat amphitheatre vs. a 25,000-seat stadium.

If anything, I would submit that 3,500-seat venue might actually bring more people into the area over more nights in the course of a year than a 25,000-seat stadium. There are a lot more events that can will draw 2,500-3,000 people out there than there are that will draw 20,000...

bigguy1231
Jul 29, 2010, 8:00 PM
No since we're hosting soccer (doubt we're hosting finals) instead of Track and Field most soccer stadium are 15,000 seat stadiums and around $15 to $25 million.


I say tell the Pan Am committee to stick the games where the sun don't shine.

If I was a politician in this city I would be furious right now. They have done everything that has been asked of them including deciding on a site, the West Harbour. If not for the interference of Ian Troop by insisting that they deal with the Ticats, which was not part of the original plan, then the Ticats would not have started all this location nonsense. We would have been well on the way to planning for our new West Harbour stadium.

The Mayor and councillors better be burning up the phone lines screaming at the Premier and our local MPP's. We have been led up the garden path once again by lies and deceit. Once again they have changed the rules after the game has already begun. Our politicians need to grow a pair and demand that we get everything we were promised for a change.

Boycott the Ticats.

markbarbera
Jul 29, 2010, 8:01 PM
If anything, I would submit that 3,500-seat venue might actually bring more people into the area over more nights in the course of a year than a 25,000-seat stadium. There are a lot more events that can will draw 2,500-3,000 people out there than there are that will draw 20,000...

Very true, and 3500 people heading into the area can be handled easily by existing infrastructure on a daily basis. The neighbourhood would have been ruined if it was left to its own devices to face 25,000 people pasing in and out 20-30 nights a week.

flar
Jul 29, 2010, 8:05 PM
City council had nothing to do with them moving the Track events. That was Athletics Canada. They as with most sporting groups in this country want nothing to do with this sh**hole of a city. Despite what some of this city's boosters have to say this city has nothing to offer that anyone from outside the city wants or needs.

City council has to share the blame along with a lot of others. When you screw around and have a bunch of public squabbling among the interested parties, you piss away opportunities. Other people and places that have their ducks in a row will now capitalize on those opportunities.

Track and field moving to Toronto, this is a lost opportunity to showcase the city, which actually does have a lot to offer. I'm sure the people at Athletics Canada don't have a good impression of Hamilton (just like the cycling people) and this fiasco will just solidify their negative perceptions.

This ridiculous squabbling and mismanagement is the reason that investors don't give Hamilton a chance.

markbarbera
Jul 29, 2010, 8:06 PM
I say tell the Pan Am committee to stick the games where the sun don't shine.

If I was a politician in this city I would be furious right now. They have done everything that has been asked of them including deciding on a site, the West Harbour. If not for the interference of Ian Troop by insisting that they deal with the Ticats, which was not part of the original plan, then the Ticats would not have started all this location nonsense. We would have been well on the way to planning for our new West Harbour stadium.

The Mayor and councillors better be burning up the phone lines screaming at the Premier and our local MPP's. We have been led up the garden path once again by lies and deceit. Once again they have changed the rules after the game has already begun. Our politicians need to grow a pair and demand that we get everything we were promised for a change.

According to Ian Troop we will be hosting up to 30 soccer matches during the games. They were originally intended for BMO Field but the Pan Am decision to play the matches on natural grass means they had to be relocated from BMO Field's artificial turf. So we still get a new stadium out of the deal, with a very active schedule during the Games. Why should the council be upset about anything?

highwater
Jul 29, 2010, 8:08 PM
I say tell the Pan Am committee to stick the games where the sun don't shine.

If I was a politician in this city I would be furious right now. They have done everything that has been asked of them including deciding on a site, the West Harbour. If not for the interference of Ian Troop by insisting that they deal with the Ticats, which was not part of the original plan, then the Ticats would not have started all this location nonsense. We would have been well on the way to planning for our new West Harbour stadium.

The Mayor and councillors better be burning up the phone lines screaming at the Premier and our local MPP's. We have been led up the garden path once again by lies and deceit. Once again they have changed the rules after the game has already begun. Our politicians need to grow a pair and demand that we get everything we were promised for a change.

Boycott the Ticats.

You're dead on.

highwater
Jul 29, 2010, 8:10 PM
Why should the council be upset about anything?

Because if the Ticats get their way, they'll be taking place in a godforsaken tax hole of a sprawl stadium.

flar
Jul 29, 2010, 8:11 PM
The amphitheatre and park are a nice idea, but that just distracts from the plan to build a stadium far away on the outskirts of the city. Other cities have been building their new stadiums in central locations because they know that large projects like this are part of a city's identity. I don't have any illusions that a stadium will contribute to urban renewal, but I do think it needs to be centrally located to be accessible and to have a positive impact on civic identity.

Get with the times Bob Young, or don't you really want to be associated with Hamilton?

highwater
Jul 29, 2010, 8:12 PM
Very true, and 3500 people heading into the area can be handled easily by existing infrastructure on a daily basis. The neighbourhood would have been ruined if it was left to its own devices to face 25,000 people pasing in and out 20-30 nights a week.

The problem with concerts according to the Ticats was the noise. I'm assuming concerts for 3500 people will still generate noise.

SteelTown
Jul 29, 2010, 8:17 PM
I don't even know how we are going to get funding from HOSTCO for the soccer event. There no money figure for hosting the soccer event for BMO Field much like there's no money figure for hosting indoor volleyball at Copps.

All the federal and provincial money for the Track and Field stadium will go to Toronto. We just lost millions.

flar
Jul 29, 2010, 8:24 PM
It looks like Bob Young really miscalculated.

Three levels of government willing to spend millions on a brand new stadium in a prime location, and the TiCats organization manages to piss it away. Hamilton loses.


If the TiCats want a stadium out in the middle of nowhere, they can build and pay for it themselves, and it looks like that's what they'll have to do.

markbarbera
Jul 29, 2010, 9:07 PM
The problem with concerts according to the Ticats was the noise. I'm assuming concerts for 3500 people will still generate noise.

I have been following this debate closely and don't recall noise being a significant factor in any of the Ticat's arguments against the West Harbour site. Their objections focussed consistently around accessibility, parking and visibility issues.

Be that as it may, the generation of noise is driven primarily by the size of the crowd and the nature of the performance. A 3500-seat amphitheatre will attract performances and audiences completely different from that of a 25,000-seat stadium.

markbarbera
Jul 29, 2010, 9:13 PM
I don't even know how we are going to get funding from HOSTCO for the soccer event. There no money figure for hosting the soccer event for BMO Field much like there's no money figure for hosting indoor volleyball at Copps.

All the federal and provincial money for the Track and Field stadium will go to Toronto. We just lost millions.

Funding will be put in place. Most, if not all, the Pan Am money set aside for Hamilton will remain in Hamilton.Toronto Pan Am Hostco still needs a 15,000 soccer stadium, and that is being built in Hamilton. The velodrome is still slated for Hamilton. And a new track facility may not be necessary as Troop says he is considering using existing facilities that would only require modification or expansion.

SteelTown
Jul 29, 2010, 9:17 PM
Funding will be put in place. Most, if not all, the Pan Am money set aside for Hamilton will remain in Hamilton.Toronto Pan Am Hostco still needs a 15,000 soccer stadium, and that is being built in Hamilton. The velodrome is still slated for Hamilton. And a new track facility may not be necessary as Troop says he is considering using existing facilities that would only require modification or expansion.

Do you have any source for this?

markbarbera
Jul 29, 2010, 9:29 PM
Do you have any source for this?

Pan Am stadium compromise possible
Hamilton to host soccer, Toronto track and field
Last Updated: July 29, 2010 2:58pm
Torontosun.com

Hamilton's new football stadium will be built — but it won't be used for track and field during the 2015 Pan Am Games, the head of the Games committee said Thursday.

The new home of the Tiger-Cats will play host to soccer during the Games, said Ian Troop, the CEO of the Toronto 2015 Pan Am Games.

Organizers were originally looking at BMO Field in Toronto to handle the 30-odd soccer games because of its artificial turf playing field, which could handle more games. But with the switch to grass, they needed to find another place, Troop announced during a media conference call.

This means that chances are Toronto is getting a new track and field stadium.

"We're interested in locating track and field closer to the actual athlete's village, in easy proximity from mass transit, so it's going to be in Toronto," Troop said. "I wouldn't say it's cast in stone yet, but we're all thinking it makes sense."

In addition, Athletics Canada, the association covering track and field have athletes have insisted since May that they wouldn't be happy with long commute times to the venues from the athletes' village in the West Don Lands.

"They said they'd prefer it'd be closer to Toronto, given the transportation issues and especially the complexity of track and field, shifting individual athletes back and forth," Troop said. "They are supportive of a move into Toronto."

The original proposal for the Hamilton stadium would provide the required 400-metre track and field areas and would seat 15,000 and create a premier national training centre for athletics.

It is not clear whether the Toronto stadium will be newly built or use existing infrastructure. Troop said the committee is looking at both options.

...

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/07/29/14867426.html

I am assuming a news article covering the media conference by Ian Troop is a reliable source.

bigguy1231
Jul 29, 2010, 9:33 PM
According to Ian Troop we will be hosting up to 30 soccer matches during the games. They were originally intended for BMO Field but the Pan Am decision to play the matches on natural grass means they had to be relocated from BMO Field's artificial turf. So we still get a new stadium out of the deal, with a very active schedule during the Games. Why should the council be upset about anything?

The finals are still going to be played in Toronto.

Sorry but a 10,000 seat stadium with bleacher seating is not something we need in this city. We already have a number of soccer stadiums in this city where additional seating can be added. Brian Timmis stadium already has seating for 5,000 if I remember correctly.

Without Track and Field there will be no funding for a stadium.

bigguy1231
Jul 29, 2010, 9:37 PM
I am assuming a news article covering the media conference by Ian Troop is a reliable source.

So much for the legacy. No National training center. Wasn't Ian Troop the one who was adament that there be legacy uses for the stadium.

markbarbera
Jul 29, 2010, 9:46 PM
The finals are still going to be played in Toronto.

Sorry but a 10,000 seat stadium with bleacher seating is not something we need in this city. We already have a number of soccer stadiums in this city where additional seating can be added. Brian Timmis stadium already has seating for 5,000 if I remember correctly.

Without Track and Field there will be no funding for a stadium.

Sorry, the finals were scheduled for BMO Field, and they aren't being played there anymore due to its artificial turf All BMO events are transferred to the new Hamilton stadium with its natural grass turf, including the final.

Pan AM Hostco CEO says the stadium is being built in Hamilton, but for soccer instead of track. So yeah, there will be funding. Unless you think Ian Troop is lying.

Northern Light
Jul 29, 2010, 9:51 PM
As a late joiner to this debate, let me offer my belated 2 cents.

As someone who has been to Hamilton on numerous occasions, for family, GF, and business, and who is thus very familiar with the City, but not a resident, I may offer a different perspective. Then again, maybe not.

My take on this proposal is that a West Harbour site is the only viable or intelligent option.

Were there another similar (downtown site) in play, that could be discussed, but there isn't, so its moot.

The choice is between a West Harbour/Downtown site and East Mountain/suburbia.

That being the case, this is so hands-down easy in my judgment that its hardly worth the discussion.

Put aside broad questions of urban renewal for one moment (worthwhile though they are); and personal animous between posters or towards the TiCat ownership group.

Let's instead look at what's good for the team.

Question one, how do you maximize attendance and revenue (per ticket price) and concession sales for the team?

Answer: By maximizing the attractiveness of attending a game; by maximizing the ease of getting to a game for the greatest number of people; and by making it possible to have a drink at or after the game without being concerned about driving home.

How do you achieve the above?

Consider that the team (performance/uniforms yada yada) is identical in either site.

What then is the difference? Stadium atmosphere counts for something. Let's see, a view of some farmers fields, vacant land, cookie-cutter suburbia an a freeway at one site; views of a skyline, parks, the harbour on the other.

I think we can see that the Harbour site clearly wins that one.

But in fairness that's tiny.

What about making going to the game an 'event', well to do that the area itself needs to be an attraction. So let's evaluate, one site is walking distance to nowhere; may one day be walking distance to a McDonalds. The other site will be walking distance to museums, galleries, restaurants, waterfront parkland, shopping etc.

Again this is pretty easy, Hamilton West Harbour wins.

But let's think of access.

First off, there are many people already, in Hamilton who don't have cars, or teens old enough to go to a game on their own but who can't yet legally drive. You want Argos fans from Toronto to haul it out there, good chance they don't have a car, fully 1/3 of Toronto households don't.
The number in Hamilton is lower to be sure, but once Hamilton has all-day GO service, and an LRT, I would expect that number to climb.

Add in those who just don't want the hassle of QEW/403 traffic, or a flooded-out Red Hill; and you get a sizable constituency attracted by transit access.

The East Mountain site has no transit access, and neither LRT or GO are contemplated to be anywhere near that site for decades to come.

The West Habour site could have a GO station within 200m of a stadium entrance; the LRT and downtown bus terminal a short walk away.

To be clear, access by car, and parking are also needed; but these are already on offer at West Harbour, one could argue for some tweeking; but no one would find it unreachable by car as it stands today and area parking can accommodate several thousand.

****

Given all of the above and the enormous urban-renewal potential of downtown stadium site; the other option should be outright refused without a moment's hesitation.

Whether the current TiCat ownership group/management mean well or poorly, their proposal is a poor one for Hamilton and the franchise and does not reflect well on them at all.

crhayes
Jul 29, 2010, 9:59 PM
Sorry, the finals were scheduled for BMO Field, and they aren't being played there anymore due to its artificial turf All BMO events are transferred to the new Hamilton stadium with its natural grass turf, including the final.

Pan AM Hostco CEO says the stadium is being built in Hamilton, but for soccer instead of track. So yeah, there will be funding. Unless you think Ian Troop is lying.

I for one think it's great that we will have the soccer games here, I love soccer and watching soccer in Hamilton would be amazing.

I agree that a stadium is a key component of a city's image, and thus should be centrally located as Flar said. But to be honest I don't think this stadium was ever going to have enough funding to really give it a 'wow factor' anyways. I would like the Bay Front revitalized; whether a stadium goes there or a Velodrome/Amphitheater I could care less anymore.

The more I think about his issue the more I realize that it's not so much about a stadium on that site, but that the site itself is remediated. It's true that the stadium will sit empty most of the time, so maybe it's better to build facilities that will bring people down more often.

waterloowarrior
Jul 29, 2010, 10:02 PM
Sorry, the finals were scheduled for BMO Field, and they aren't being played there anymore due to its artificial turf All BMO events are transferred to the new Hamilton stadium with its natural grass turf, including the final. .

BMO has a natural grass turf as of March this year

markbarbera
Jul 29, 2010, 10:10 PM
BMO has a natural grass turf as of March this year

Sorry I got it backwards. Pan AM Hostco wants a stadium with artificial turf. BMO's switch to natural turf is what forced them to move. Sorry about the confusion.

thurmas
Jul 29, 2010, 10:41 PM
i am confused so does this mean the argos will get a new stadium at york, does hamilton just use a soccer pitch with temporary stands, who is getting the pan am funds for the stadium

markbarbera
Jul 29, 2010, 11:19 PM
Hamilton gets a Pan Am soccer stadium with its legacy use as a football stadium for the Hamilton Tiger-Cats.

highwater
Jul 30, 2010, 12:06 AM
Northern Light you are dead on in everything you've said. Most people who prefer a downtown/waterfront location recognize that it is in the best long term interest of the Ticats as well.

Unfortunately, the Ticat management isn't taking the long view. The current average age of their ticket holders is 50. This is the generation that still seems to prefer the so-called driveway to driveway experience which the Ticats want to cater to, or should I say they want Hamilton taxpayers to cater to. With a demographic like that, a business model based on the 'driveway to driveway' notion, has at best, a 5 - 10 year shelf life. Of course, Bob Young will have long since cashed out at that point, so that doesn't concern him.

A Ticat management that was concerned with the long term viability of the club would be busy trying to cultivate the growing creative class in this city, exactly the people they are alienating with their shenanigans. Unless they reverse their position on the WH, that is if we get any funding for a PanAm soccer stadium at all, they will have lost the next generation of Hamiltonians, and we will have a dead monument to poor planning on a suburban greenfield site.

The tragedy of this is that this isn't the 1970's. We know better now. Hamilton will be a national laughing stock for building a sprawl stadium in this day and age. As if our image weren't bad enough.

Thanks Ticats. You've screwed us. The only consolation I have is knowing that you've also screwed yourselves.

highwater
Jul 30, 2010, 12:14 AM
...and incidentally, even though their average fan is 50, parking is only 5th on the list of amenities they want in a new stadium, and highway access is 7th. Also, 39% of season ticketholders and 53% of single ticket buyers said they would take the GO train if there were a station near the stadium, which of course there would be at WH, so the Ticats may not even be reading their current fans all that well in their insistence on a sprawl stadium, let alone cultivating any future ones.

Of course I should add that the push for a car-dependent, greenfield stadium isn't really about serving the fans anyway. It's about collecting parking fees from the 7,000 car parking lot they want us to build them. It's all about the parking, which explains why their decision-making seems so irrational. A little short term parking revenue, Bob Young cashes out, and boom. Hamilton is left with a tax-sucking disaster.

crhayes
Jul 30, 2010, 1:04 AM
...and incidentally, even though their average fan is 50, parking is only 5th on the list of amenities they want in a new stadium, and highway access is 7th. Also, 39% of season ticketholders and 53% of single ticket buyers said they would take the GO train if there were a station near the stadium, which of course there would be at WH, so the Ticats may not even be reading their current fans all that well in their insistence on a sprawl stadium, let alone cultivating any future ones.

Of course I should add that the push for a car-dependent, greenfield stadium isn't really about serving the fans anyway. It's about collecting parking fees from the 7,000 car parking lot they want us to build them. It's all about the parking, which explains why their decision-making seems so irrational. A little short term parking revenue, Bob Young cashes out, and boom. Hamilton is left with a tax-sucking disaster.

And as far as people wanting a driveway to driveway experience and not venturing out to surrounding businesses (as has been argued by many EH advocates) that is simply not true. There will always be people that make a whole day/evening out of an event, which includes wandering the area and having supper, a drink, or whatever.

I went to the Manchester United vs Celtics game at Roger's Center a couple weekends ago, and after the game I wandered around downtown and went for a drink. Imagine that!

Of course, people will always argue that this will not happen in Hamilton because our downtown is not a 'destination', completely missing the fact that a stadium at the West Harbour location could catalyze the entire process of turning downtown into a 'destination'.

You can't win with some people no matter what.

Berklon
Jul 30, 2010, 1:08 AM
I live less than 10 minutes from the proposed East Mountain site without having the disadvantages of being too close (traffic, noise). The East Mountain is VERY convenient for me personally. Yet, I think it's a HORRIBLE location.

I honestly don't see how anyone can prefer the East Mountain after weighing all the pros/cons. It does very little for the city and is basically yesterday's mistake done today.

Throw a stadium up there and I will NEVER step foot inside it - not that it'll be used for much besides football since they'll be lucky to attract any concerts at that POS location.

crhayes
Jul 30, 2010, 1:11 AM
I live less than 10 minutes from the proposed East Mountain site without having the disadvantages of being too close (traffic, noise). The East Mountain is VERY convenient for me personally. Yet, I think it's a HORRIBLE location.

I honestly don't see how anyone can prefer the East Mountain after weighing all the pros/cons. It does very little for the city and is basically yesterday's mistake done today.

Throw a stadium up there and I will NEVER step foot inside it - not that it'll be used for much besides football since they'll be lucky to attract any concerts at that POS location.

Same here for me.

Another argument I have commonly heard against WH is "who wants to look at the CP rail yard?", yet I don't see this stopping people from walking the Harbour Front trail.

Berklon
Jul 30, 2010, 1:23 AM
And as far as people wanting a driveway to driveway experience and not venturing out to surrounding businesses (as has been argued by many EH advocates) that is simply not true. There will always be people that make a whole day/evening out of an event, which includes wandering the area and having supper, a drink, or whatever.

I went to the Manchester United vs Celtics game at Roger's Center a couple weekends ago, and after the game I wandered around downtown and went for a drink. Imagine that!

Of course, people will always argue that this will not happen in Hamilton because our downtown is not a 'destination', completely missing the fact that a stadium at the West Harbour location could catalyze the entire process of turning downtown into a 'destination'.

You can't win with some people no matter what.

Oh come on... the East Hamilton location has so much - you can easily spend an entire day up there. Get in your Humvee and drive to the stadium to watch a game with the splendid view of cow fields.
After the game you can take a nice walk on the road (sidewalks? what's that?) to one of the very special restaurants (which can be found in several different locations in this city) for a lovely late dinner. Then maybe do some shopping at one of the big box stores (those are pretty rare) to buy high quality products from China. Get back in the Humvee and high-tail it home in time for TSN sports to relive the glorious experience of the stadium in the highlights.

This is the type of scenario that just brings a community/city together.

Anders Knudsen
Jul 30, 2010, 3:11 AM
I think all that just happened was that the Ti-Cats called a press conference to suggest a way the city could spend it's own money. Track and Field or soccer, nothing's changed. As for their ampitheatre plus velodrome idea I'd rather see remediation and a for sale sign there than another dreary park.

The rest of it seems pretty spurious. Bob Young will apply for a NASL soccer franchise on the mountain; this could just as easily be done at the harbour. Athletics Canada wants to avoid the commute; I'm sure Soccer Canada does too. BMO field has grass and can't be played on all the time? Aren't a bunch of soccer games being played in Burlington? Can't they switch between venues to save the grass?

dennis1
Jul 30, 2010, 4:47 AM
So we got a crappy soccer stadium?

dennis1
Jul 30, 2010, 5:07 AM
Hamilton City Council is a shitshow. This is a major blow to being a major city.

paleale2
Jul 30, 2010, 5:10 AM
Hmmmmmm....just a thought here


Seeing that Hamilton Place/Copps are completely full 24/7, 365.......an ampitheatre ? really?.........Oh yes, for the religious events !!!!! that should indeed spur tremendous spending in the core, methinks.

Come on Bob Young....this is the best you can come up with ?


If Copps is a White Elephant already, what the hell would an Ampitheatre be?

dennis1
Jul 30, 2010, 5:11 AM
I say tell the Pan Am committee to stick the games where the sun don't shine.

If I was a politician in this city I would be furious right now. They have done everything that has been asked of them including deciding on a site, the West Harbour. If not for the interference of Ian Troop by insisting that they deal with the Ticats, which was not part of the original plan, then the Ticats would not have started all this location nonsense. We would have been well on the way to planning for our new West Harbour stadium.

The Mayor and councillors better be burning up the phone lines screaming at the Premier and our local MPP's. We have been led up the garden path once again by lies and deceit. Once again they have changed the rules after the game has already begun. Our politicians need to grow a pair and demand that we get everything we were promised for a change.

Boycott the Ticats.

It's a shame, but this is Hamilton. We should just admit we are a exurb of Toronto because that's is the message sent today by this city.

thistleclub
Jul 30, 2010, 5:13 AM
Hamilton gets a Pan Am soccer stadium with its legacy use as a football stadium for the Hamilton Tiger-Cats.

Guessing that means Burlington's SOL (the NEC chewed their facility down to 5,000 seats, so HostCo was possibly itching to jump) and the funds for a 10,000-seat stadium are freed up. If so, that's good news for Hamilton, since their buy-in would be considerably lower -- according to the Spec, this was to be a "$7.4-million lit artificial field, 1,500-permanent seat stadium plus 5,000-7,500 temporary seats." (http://www.thespec.com/article/696659) Basically like an XL Brian Timmis Stadium.

dennis1
Jul 30, 2010, 5:21 AM
We better gun for those NHL and MLS franchises.

dennis1
Jul 30, 2010, 5:23 AM
Hmmmmmm....just a thought here


Seeing that Hamilton Place/Copps are completely full 24/7, 365.......an ampitheatre ? really?.........Oh yes, for the religious events !!!!! that should indeed spur tremendous spending in the core, methinks.

Come on Bob Young....this is the best you can come up with ?


If Copps is a White Elephant already, what the hell would an Ampitheatre be?

Piling shit , because that's all city council can do apparantly.

paleale2
Jul 30, 2010, 6:30 AM
Ummmm.......this ones not really even about our inept and disagreeable council.
They (Athletics Canada), no longer want a football legacy either...just track and field.


Good luck with this one Fred !!!!!

markbarbera
Jul 30, 2010, 9:52 AM
According to the morning news, White Star has also adjusted their proposal for West Harbour area now. Their plans have dropped the stadium and replace it with a velodrome.

Everything is so fluid right now, I have to admit a bit of sympathy for council members. It is hard enough to make such a big decision, but with all these major components changing so frequently (almost by the hour or so it feels) so close to the time to make a decision, they really have their work cut out for them. The fact that the city is just about evenly split on the issue just a couple months ahead of an election adds an extra level of complexity to the decision-making process.

markbarbera
Jul 30, 2010, 10:21 AM
Guessing that means Burlington's SOL (the NEC chewed their facility down to 5,000 seats, so HostCo was possibly itching to jump) and the funds for a 10,000-seat stadium are freed up. If so, that's good news for Hamilton, since their buy-in would be considerably lower -- according to the Spec, this was to be a "$7.4-million lit artificial field, 1,500-permanent seat stadium plus 5,000-7,500 temporary seats." (http://www.thespec.com/article/696659) Basically like an XL Brian Timmis Stadium.

This isn't to replace the Burlington stadium, this is still a new 15,000-seat stadium. Funding for the soccer stadium will remain the same, but will be reduced by $3 million (the funds intended to build the practice track).

thistleclub
Jul 30, 2010, 10:48 AM
This isn't to replace the Burlington stadium, this is still a new 15,000-seat stadium. Funding for the soccer stadium will remain the same, but will be reduced by $3 million (the funds intended to build the practice track).

I'm tempted to believe that somebody must be losing out on a soccer facility. Who is it? The bid book identifies four host facilities: three existing -- Toronto's BMO Field (20K capacity) and Varsity Stadium (10K capacity), Hamilton's Ron Joyce Stadium (10K capacity) -- and the new build at Burlington's City Park (listed at 10K capacity, since reduced to 5K). Forgive my mental torpor, but am I missing something obvious?

SteelTown
Jul 30, 2010, 11:08 AM
City aware of losing track events weeks ago: Troop

July 30, 2010
Daniel Nolan
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/816894

The head of the 2015 Pan Am Games organizing committee says the city was aware weeks ago it was going to lose track and field at its proposed stadium and was on board with the idea.

"They knew we were planning it," CEO Ian Troop told The Spectator yesterday.

Asked if city officials were resistant to the idea, Troop said: "No, everybody has been very ... It struck everybody as being a good idea for the good of the Games and the good of Hamilton. Everybody saw it as a win-win."

However, in a phone message, Mayor Fred Eisenberger said he was disappointed in the move.

"This city boasts a large group of track and field enthusiasts and I'm disappointed we will not benefit from that legacy. However, Hamilton has an active soccer community as well ... and I look forward to our city hosting key soccer events."

The mayor could not be reached for followup comments.

Troop, who announced track and field was being relocated to Toronto after leaks to the media, including the Hamilton Spectator, also said other partners were on board after an appeal by Athletics Canada. They believed it was better to have track and field closer to the athletes' village, plus there was dismay the track could be torn out after the Games to make way for Tiger-Cats football games.

Troop stressed the decision had nothing to do with the dispute over the location for the stadium in Hamilton.

The 15,000-seat stadium can still be built, but would host 30-35 soccer games. He said provincial and federal funding is not in jeopardy and the only loss would be about $3 million for building the track and field.

While it still has to be approved by the Pan Am Games board at the end of September, Troop said everyone is lined up and sees this change as "a very robust direction to head in."

"It struck everybody involved, the city, Athletics Canada, Soccer Canada, the Pan Am group, and the Tiger-Cats, I would say, as something that made a lot of sense to everybody," he added.

SteelTown
Jul 30, 2010, 11:11 AM
Pitches, proposals and ultimatums crowd Pan Am debate

July 30, 2010
Emma Reilly
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/816918

Track is out. Soccer is in. A new plan for a west harbour amphitheatre is on the table. A competing plan, from White Star, is retooled, proposing a velodrome instead of a stadium at the site, with stores and condos. The Future Fund board says no to funding an east Mountain stadium. The Ticats say they will never play at the west harbour.

The city's Pan Am landscape has become confused and cluttered with proposals, ultimatums, pitches and schemes.

In the middle of the debate are 16 city politicians only 10 days away from deciding if the stadium will be built on the west harbour or the east Mountain. Both options have passionate advocates and critics.

"It doesn't matter where we put it," said Councillor Robert Pasuta. "It will never be the right place."

Yesterday, 2015 Pan Am Games CEO Ian Troop announced the Games' organizers are pulling track and field events from Hamilton and moving them to Toronto. Instead, Hamilton's stadium will host half of the Games' 65 soccer matches.

"This could make Hamilton the soccer centre, more or less," he said. "I think that will be good for ticket sales, good for traffic and good for Hamilton."

Troop says the switch doesn't jeopardize Hamilton's stadium, but it means the city will lose out on some of the highest-profile events of the Games.

As Troop was announcing the exit of track and field in Hamilton, the Ticats were holding a news conference to announce plans for a 3,500-seat concert amphitheatre and velodrome-turned-fitness centre at the west harbour. The Cats see the deal as a "win-win" compromise, with the stadium on the east Mountain.

Club president Scott Mitchell suggested the amphitheatre be funded through a $2 million slice from the $45 million the city has dedicated to the stadium. The Cats would offer $1.5 million for construction and $100,000 a year towards operating the amphitheatre.

The velodrome would be torn down after the Games to make way for a fitness centre, which the Cats propose should be used by both elite and community athletes.

"I think it will be well received by the majority of Hamiltonians who want to see a solution that works for everybody, " Mitchell said.

If council adopts Mitchell's plan, it would be forced to ignore the recommendation of the Future Fund board of governors, who ruled Tuesday the legacy fund shouldn't be used for a stadium located anywhere other than the west harbour.

The city's Pan Am point person, David Adames, did not return The Spectator's calls. Mayor Fred Eisenberger offered a statement by e-mail.

"Until there is an opportunity to carefully review exactly what they are proposing, I will reserve judgment, " he wrote. "I do not want to comment before a careful review with due diligence is completed."

Yesterday's events have added new voices to a chorus of Pan Am developments that have surfaced in the past few days.

White Star, a local development group, offered to build a retractable-roof stadium, but last night announced it would drop the stadium idea from its proposal because proponent Marino Rakovac said, "soccer has to be played on open fields." It still wants to pursue associated developments on the site and has offered to build the velodrome. Its rejigged scheme will be given to the city today.

Hamilton council members are grappling with the twists and turns. Some, such as councillors Lloyd Ferguson and Scott Duvall, say they still need more information on the financial realities before they make a decision. Councillor Bob Bratina says the shifting proposals make it difficult to formulate a firm position. Councillor Sam Merulla says he wants to scrap the new stadium altogether and renovate Ivor Wynne Stadium. But, in the midst of the quickly shifting debate, the Tiger-Cats are holding firm.

"We made our position clear, " Mitchell said. "The Tiger-Cats, and football, will not play at west harbour."

Council will vote on the issue Aug. 10.

markbarbera
Jul 30, 2010, 11:28 AM
I'm tempted to believe that somebody must be losing out on a soccer facility. Who is it? The bid book identifies four host facilities: three existing -- Toronto's BMO Field (20K capacity) and Varsity Stadium (10K capacity), Hamilton's Ron Joyce Stadium (10K capacity) -- and the new build at Burlington's City Park (listed at 10K capacity, since reduced to 5K). Forgive my mental torpor, but am I missing something obvious?

Well, BMO Field is not being used anymore (except perhaps for the final match, the details of the playing schedule are yet ot be worked out). While nothing has been said, I would imagine the Burlington stadium would get the axe, seeing as its location on NEC land is somewhat controversial. It has already been scaled down in size and is mainly a temporary structure with marginal legacy components. Then again, nothing is to say the games can't spread football events out to five sites rather than four.

SteelTown
Jul 30, 2010, 11:32 AM
Katz Group bid to build Hamilton stadium hits roadblock

By Richard Warnica,
Edmonton Journal
July 30, 2010 2:05 AM

The group that owns the Edmonton Oilers is still interested in operating sports facilities in Hamilton, even after plans to build a new downtown stadium in that city hit another snag Thursday.

"Essentially, our plan remains the same," said Steve Hogle, a spokesman for the Katz Group, which has been in talks with the city of Hamilton to run some of their municipally owned facilities.

"We're still interested in running sports facilities there, and we've got a meeting with city council at the end of August that we're looking forward to," Hogle said.

The Katz Group, which also owns the Western Hockey League's Edmonton Oil Kings and the Edmonton Capitals of the Golden Baseball League, wants to build a new downtown arena for the Oilers in Edmonton. Many have assumed that at least part of the company's interest in Hamilton stems from that city's plan for a new multi-sport stadium district near the downtown waterfront.

But plans for a stadium in that location have always been tentative. The owners of Hamilton's Canadian Football League team want the city to build a new facility in the suburbs. And on Wednesday, the team's president told the Hamilton Spectator the Tiger-Cats would "never play" at the downtown location.

A day later, the odds against the downtown spot grew even longer.

One of the catalysts for the stadium development was the upcoming Pan American Games, which are scheduled for southern Ontario in 2015.

Until now, the plan had been for Hamilton to host the high-profile track and field events at its new stadium.

But according to media reports, games officials changed that plan Thursday, yanking the track events from Hamilton and moving them to Toronto

According to the Toronto Star, the move was due at least in part to confusion over when and where the stadium would be built and whether it would remain a home to top-level track and field competitions after the games are over.

Hours after that press conference, the Tiger-Cats held one of their own where they announced an alternative plan that would see a cycling velodrome and a 3,500-seat amphitheatre built downtown and a new football stadium placed in the suburbs.

In an interview Thursday evening, Hogle acknowledged the chaotic day, but said the Katz Group wasn't involved in Thursday's shakeup.

According to company officials, city staff in Hamilton are currently working with the Katz Group to draft a non-binding memorandum of understanding to be presented to council at the end of the month.


Read more: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/sports/Katz+Group+build+Hamilton+stadium+hits+roadblock/3340221/story.html#ixzz0vAFwROhQ

markbarbera
Jul 30, 2010, 11:40 AM
Here's an excellent opinion piece in today's Spec:


The mythology of stadiums
People, relax: No stadiums drive growth or save cores

Don Drury
The Hamilton Spectator

(Jul 30, 2010)

It is refreshing to see so many Hamiltonians display raw and rare passion in the stadium location debate, expressing positive suggestions instead of tearing down, caring very deeply about our city's future.

Unfortunately a few of the hopes and desires, however visionary, are off base. The and calls to talk radio and comments elsewhere are somewhat misinformed. Before someone gets too carried away, I think we should all sit back, relax and consider the target of our desire/ frustration in a fresh light.

A few of the myths.

Myth No. 1: The stadium will create or spark development and act as a catalyst for greater development.

Stadiums do not create anything; if anything, they take some of the available spending dollars out of the community as it's spent on player salaries, expenses and the like with limited return. Money for food and drink that would normally be spent watching a sporting event on TV are redirected to the stadium vendors and away from the local restaurants and bars.

Stadiums have been studied and have been found to create very limited spinoffs, but those were capable of holding 50,000-plus spectators, and have established teams playing 50 or more games per season -- and most host another sports team that also draws fans.

This Hamilton stadium, wherever it is built, hosting at best 20 full event days (10 football and 10 concerts), cannot support any business on an annual basis. No businesses set up beside a larger stadium (45,000-plus seats) are successful, unless there is a baseball team and other events during the offseason.

Consider the new Yankee and Citi stadiums in New York City. Who hangs around in the Bronx or Brooklyn to shop? The area around Boston's Fenway Park is not very nice when the Sox are not playing. Detroit's Tiger Stadium was located downtown and was surrounded by a dump. Chicago's Wrigley was built in an existing neighbourhood. This is also true of most other stadiums.

All of the new NFL stadiums have not established any non-team related development near them. (Most are surrounded by parking lots for business purposes and earn money for the team). And those are large stadiums, unlike our Pan Am stadium.

BMO Field in Toronto, arguably the most wildly successful stadium in Canada, has not created any new business near it.

Think of Ivor Wynne Stadium and the businesses it has established over the years. Where are they? If anything, the stadium hurts some surrounding stores on game days.

The area around Percival Molson (McGill University) Stadium in Montreal hasn't changed appreciably since the arrival of the very popular Alouettes.

Some people cite SkyDome/ Rogers Centre as the model. Wrong. Even when the Blue Jays were drawing 50,000-plus for 81 games a year, businesses around the stadium failed. Only since thousands of condos opened and new office towers went up did new restaurants and businesses succeed.

For a stadium to "spark" development, and limited at that, it requires a continuous stream of attendees on many more event days than could be held here in Hamilton. Neither location will create any development, at all. They would benefit a few businesses near the stadium on game days, but not sustain any business.

Myth No. 2: A west harbour stadium will "save" downtown.

Nonsense. Our downtown is what it is, and will only "save" (whatever that means) itself if the downtown property owners spend their own money and rebuild/renovate or expand services. And maybe close their parking lots and build something there!

(And, forgive me for asking, why are we spending so much of our scarce tax dollars on downtown? Fix our roads and sewers first.)

Expecting everyone who attends a game to go downtown and then spend more money on more food and drink or go shopping is a pipe dream. How can the stadium do now for downtown what Copps Coliseum and Hamilton Place haven't achieved in 25 years? And what do you tell all the other business people who own restaurants on the Mountain, Dundas and east Hamilton why their taxes are supporting downtown to the exclusion of their areas?

Rather, more people living and working downtown will help "save" it as our planning professionals have been saying for years. Our planners spent many years studying the harbour lands and have suggested mixed commercial/residential, and they are right.

Myth No. 3: This is the most important decision affecting our city's future.

It's only a stadium. It's not going to create any new jobs. (In fact, it may cause a few layoffs of the people who have to spend their time fixing the old one!) No stadiums create anything other than a new cash cow for the owners of the talent that draws people to those places.

Does anyone, except hard-core team fans, give a hoot about the stadium in their hometowns? Will the level of "city pride" go up if the stadium is located anywhere as opposed to a specific location? Does beautiful Candlestick Park in San Francisco attract people to that city for any reason other than to attend a game? Will anyone plan to attend a Ticat game or concert, other things being equal, only because of its location?

Myth No. 4: The stadium will enhance our harbour lands, spur cafes, bars, shops and restaurants.

Please go visit the proposed site. It's located across the street from the CN train shunting yards that prevent people from enjoying our harbour trail. At street level you can't even see the harbour. Yes, it's true that after an event you could walk over the bridge and down to the harbour lands. You can do that now regardless of where the stadium is built, and many people do every day, and still there are no cafes etc ... They are separate issues.

Myth No. 5: It will present a "new face" of Hamilton and clean up polluted lands.

If it's a unique, architectural marvel, great -- regardless of where it is located. However, that "new face" will either sit along a very large railway shunting yard or an expressway/big-box-store mess.

Do we really want to spend millions of dollars cleaning up former industrial sites, and then plop a concrete slab over top? I'd rather collect taxes from housing and business.

I have travelled to see games and concerts in other communities, but with a few exceptions, not because of the stadium. The stadium was incidental to the teams or bands playing.

So, let's relax a bit. The decision is neither "city building" nor "city destroying." We as a medium-large city have much more on our plate than a concrete slab.

Don Drury lives in Hamilton. He is a former member of Hamilton council.

http://www.thespec.com/Opinions/article/816893

BCTed
Jul 30, 2010, 12:08 PM
Here's an excellent opinion piece in today's Spec:

I also question what kind of development a new football stadium would bring about in the West Harbour, but....

- I hate when people refer to studies, but do not cite which studies they are
- I have not been to most of the US parks that Mr. Drury mentions, but the area around Yankee Stadium has a ton of businesses around it that exist almost solely because of the Yankees
- Saying that the area around Molson Stadium has not changed because of the Alouettes is unfair given that the stadium is on a university campus. Not sure what you'd expect to happen
- Ditto for BMO field, which is in the middle of the CNE

thistleclub
Jul 30, 2010, 12:29 PM
I would imagine the Burlington stadium would get the axe, seeing as its location on NEC land is somewhat controversial.

That’s essentially what I was getting at. (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4930083&postcount=1466) Seems like the obvious play.

Then again, nothing is to say the games can't spread football events out to five sites rather than four.

True. With the money they've saved elsewhere, they might splash out on an additional new facility.

Anders Knudsen
Jul 30, 2010, 12:40 PM
I agree with many of the points in this article, but that doesn't take away from the fact that if the result is an East Mountain stadium, all we get is a depleted future fund, no benefits whatsoever for anyone except a few chain stores and Carmen's C Best Western hotel, and jacked up parking fees at the new Michael Fenn arena. Get it? Between two shitty options why not take the one that doesn't merely benefit a single private interest.

SteelTown
Jul 30, 2010, 12:51 PM
Since the track and field event is gone you can replace the warm up track with a large parking lot, probably 1,500 to 2,000 parking spots.

highwater
Jul 30, 2010, 1:34 PM
I agree with many of the points in this article, but that doesn't take away from the fact that if the result is an East Mountain stadium, all we get is a depleted future fund, no benefits whatsoever for anyone except a few chain stores and Carmen's C Best Western hotel, and jacked up parking fees at the new Michael Fenn arena. Get it? Between two shitty options why not take the one that doesn't merely benefit a single private interest.

Exactly. While he makes some interesting points as you say, none of it is an argument for the EM. Even less for using FF funds for the EM. WH is still the lesser of the two evils by far. F*ck the Cats.

go_leafs_go02
Jul 30, 2010, 3:21 PM
So do you think a major boycott of the Tiger-Cats would be possible for a game or two?

They've essentially turned a very nice proposal into an absolute gongshow.

dennis1
Jul 30, 2010, 4:23 PM
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/football/tiger-cats-propose-pan-am-park/article1656760/


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/more-sports/pan-am-track-moving-to-toronto-from-hamilton/article1656830/

Highwater, bigguy, Berklon, I want you to know the majority of Hamilton people on the web supported the west harbour. People are even saying that we have conceded defeat, the Hamilton is no longer a distinctive city and a suburb of Toronto.

dennis1
Jul 30, 2010, 4:33 PM
So do you think a major boycott of the Tiger-Cats would be possible for a game or two?

They've essentially turned a very nice proposal into an absolute gongshow.

This will be rather easy, many of the younger kids will support because they want the NFL. The CFL will listen because they don't want to downgrade to Halifax or Moncton or Kelowna.

Acajack
Jul 30, 2010, 5:32 PM
This will be rather easy, many of the younger kids will support because they want the NFL. The CFL will listen because they don't want to downgrade to Halifax or Moncton or Kelowna.

Most of the "kids"* in Hamilton who want the NFL aren't likely going to Ti-Cat games anyway, and only have to drive down the road to Buffalo to get their fix in any event.

kids = people under the age of 50?

dennis1
Jul 30, 2010, 5:39 PM
Most of the "kids"* in Hamilton who want the NFL aren't likely going to Ti-Cat games anyway, and only have to drive down the road to Buffalo to get their fix in any event.

kids = people under the age of 50?

This is true. under the age 40 might be better though.

SteelTown
Jul 30, 2010, 5:45 PM
Boycott the biggest game of the year, the Labour Day game.

Acajack
Jul 30, 2010, 6:30 PM
Here's an excellent opinion piece in today's Spec:

A very thoughtful column, but one point Mr. Drury seems to be missing is that people don't expect a single stadium (or a single museum, or a single university, a single theatre, or any one single thing in particular) to solve the woes of a city's downtown. However, every single traffic generator like a stadium (or whatever other facility) is a critical piece of the larger puzzle.

One stadium doesn't make a downtown. But a stadium, plus theatres, plus an arena, plus offices, plus a lively shopping street, plus educational institutions, plus cinemas, plus restaurants and cafés, plus a whole bunch of other stuff... now you're talking.

This is true of Hamilton or any other city.

thurmas
Jul 30, 2010, 6:35 PM
sorry guys but without the ti-cats most canadians wouldn't even know where Hamilton is.The ti-cats are Hamilton, other than them and recently balsily's antics your city is just glossed over nobody knows who you are expct for oskie wee wee and the ti-cats sorry but it's true before you go boycott the ti-cats which means nothing since i doubt many of you on this forum are ti-cat season ticket holders anyways.I really doubt a stadium on your west harbour would transform hamilton, it would be used 10 days a year by the ti-cats and some small gatherings of soccer players once and a while hardly a game changer. Football stadiums are meant for sprawl they are big,sterile buildings that are not used everyday.

dennis1
Jul 30, 2010, 6:35 PM
A very thoughtful column, but one point Mr. Drury seems to be missing is that people don't expect a single stadium (or a single museum, or a single university, a single theatre, or any one single thing in particular) to solve the woes of a city's downtown. However, every single traffic generator like a stadium (or whatever other facility) is a critical piece of the larger puzzle.

One stadium doesn't make a downtown. But a stadium, plus theatres, plus an arena, plus offices, plus a lively shopping street, plus educational institutions, plus cinemas, plus restaurants and cafés, plus a whole bunch of other stuff... now you're talking.

This is true of Hamilton or any other city.

At the end of the day. This is all we are asking for.

Berklon
Jul 30, 2010, 7:46 PM
A very thoughtful column, but one point Mr. Drury seems to be missing is that people don't expect a single stadium (or a single museum, or a single university, a single theatre, or any one single thing in particular) to solve the woes of a city's downtown. However, every single traffic generator like a stadium (or whatever other facility) is a critical piece of the larger puzzle.

One stadium doesn't make a downtown. But a stadium, plus theatres, plus an arena, plus offices, plus a lively shopping street, plus educational institutions, plus cinemas, plus restaurants and cafés, plus a whole bunch of other stuff... now you're talking.

This is true of Hamilton or any other city.

Well said.

The more facilities that are in one general location, the more attractive that place becomes. WH isn't right downtown, but really is close enough. The city's goal is to revitalize the downtown - so why not keep the momentum going with a stadium at the WH? Opportunities like this dont come often, so the city has to make the most of it when it's available. Why throw away the chance to add another variable that can make the downtown/WH an actual destination for people?

I knew someome who moved from Europe to Hamilton and found the city very inconvenient. As she put it: "Everything is so far away from everything else. I go to one part of the city for one thing, then drive all the way to another part to do something else". She basically said that the city just offered different places to do your chores, but there's no place to hang out for the day.

dennis1
Jul 30, 2010, 7:47 PM
Berklon, If you can believe it, there are people defending this on the global and mail site.

markbarbera
Jul 30, 2010, 7:56 PM
Here is the content of a letter written to the mayor, council, facilitator Fenn and Pan Am Hostco by CFL Commissioner Mark Cohon:

July 30, 2010
Mayor Eisenberger, City of Hamilton
Members of Council
Pan Am Host Corporation
Michael Fenn , Facilitator

Dear Mayor, Members of Council, Members of Pan Am Host Corporation and Mr. Fenn:

First of all, on behalf of the Canadian Football League 's Board of Governors, our teams and most importantly our fans, thank you for your attention to this important issue. While your roles vary, you all share a commitment to the importance of public service, and that commitment deserves to be acknowledged and appreciated , for it often represents a great deal of hard work and personal sacrifice.

I am writing in support of the Hamilton Tiger-Cats and their endorsement of the East Mountain location for a new Pan Am Games stadium in the city of Hamilton. Rather than repeat the points Bob Young and his team have made throughout the process, I will simply state here that the success, and even survival, of the Hamilton Tiger-Cats is at stake, and we do not want to envision for even a moment a CFL without one of our oldest and proudest teams.

Mr. Young has invested heavily in the future of the franchise, and his goal in this matter is simple, straight forward, and heartfelt: he wants the Tiger-Cats to succeed , for the long –term and in the best interests of the city of Hamilton and the people who proudly call it home, and he is steadfast in his belief the team can only achieve financial viability playing in a proper venue in a viable location , and the East Mountain site is one such location, while the West Harbour is not.

For my part as Commissioner of our league, I want to focus here on a significant opportunity for the city of Hamilton beyond the Pan Am Games: the prospect of hosting the national jewel that is the Grey Cup multiple times in the years ahead, if and when a suitable stadium in the right location is available.

The Grey Cup game, of course, is our national championship. But the event, and the week-long festival that surrounds it, has become much more. It's a true Canadian icon, a symbol of Canadians' desire and ability to come together, no matter what part of the country, or what part of the world, we hail from. And because of that, it is now a significant cultural event, a major tourism opportunity, a chance to project a positive image to millions of people, and a powerful source of economic stimulus for the host city.

It brings tens of thousands of visitors to town. It fills bars and restaurants and hotels and streets and, frankly, coffers. It shines a positive light on its host. If it were a convention, cities would fight over it tooth and nail. But it's much more.

Consider the following:

• An economic impact study of the 2007 Grey Cup in Toronto, done for the city of Toronto by the Canadian Sport Tourism Alliance, concluded that event generated more than $80.1 million in total economic activity throughout the province, with $52.9 million occurring in Toronto .

• That number does not take into account the value of national exposure for the host city, as hundreds of national media attend the Grey Cup, and millions of Canadians watch it on television. (The 2009 game was the most watched television event in Canada last year, with 14 million viewers, or 43 per cent of the Canadian population)

• It is estimated that, as the Grey Cup continues to grow through 2012, our one hundredth
Grey Cup, its economic value will reach the $100 million mark.

The Canadian Football League very much wants to bring the Grey Cup back to Hamilton. The Grey Cup belongs in Hamilton, the source of so much lore, history and pride for all of us who love our game and what it has come to mean to our country. But for too long, we have not been able to bring the Grey Cup to Hamilton because of the lack of a suitable stadium to host what has become a huge event. And it would be virtually impossible to host a Grey Cup to the current CFL standard at the proposed West Harbour stadium location.

Our Board now insists on at least 45,000 seats at the Grey Cup venue, and the West Harbour location, bordered by water and an embankment, is extremely problematic when it comes to accommodating approximately 20.000 good, albeit temporary, seats. Ease of access is vitally important to us, not just for thousands of fans, and the influx of media, staff and volunteers, but also for security and safety reasons, and we are concerned that access to the West Harbour location is terribly limited. The event extends well beyond the game field itself and the area surrounding the stadium needs to accommodate concession, concerts, sponsor activations and several trailers , television trucks and other large vehicles, but the West Harbour location would be extremely restrictive in this regard.

To put it in a nutshell: If the Tiger-Cats' experts know the West Harbour would not work for a regular season game accommodating 25,000 fans and the normal amount of supporting activities for four or five hours, how could it possibly accommodate 45.000 or 50,000 fans and an extraordinary amount of supporting activities and infrastructure over a time period spanning an entire day and evening?

On the other hand, early indications are the East Mountain location, with its proximity to major roadways, and relatively open surroundings, appears to be a prime location for Grey Cups.

There is a related point that I want to stress: I understand that there are those who assume that, if the Tiger-Cats under Bob Young's ownership were to leave the city of Hamilton for any reason, our league would be certain to grant the city another franchise by way of expansion. I do not support that type of thinking nor would our Board. In fact, I am deeply concerned that, should this issue force the Tiger-Cats to leave the city, it will be the end of the CFL in Hamilton. So our emphasis is on a resolution of this issue that works for the Tiger-Cats under Bob Young. He has been a tremendous owner and valued league governor. He has invested heavily in the team and, I might add, the city. And our Board of Governors' support for Mr. Young is unequivocal.

It has been suggested that the decision facing Council is about more than football; that this is also about the city 's economic development. I couldn't agree more. But you don't have to choose one or the other. By choosing what is best for the future of the Tiger-Cats, you will also be seizing a major economic opportunity in the form of multiple Grey Cups, while reserving the West Harbour for other opportunities, be they commercial or residential ones that are more suited to that particular site. By choosing the East Mountain site, you will acknowledge that great cities are defined not only by infrastructure that works, but by symbols that matter, including sports teams with tradition and stature, and big events that stand out, like our beloved Grey Cup.

We in the CFL believe in building stronger communities. That's why our teams and players make thousands of public appearances in support of social, charitable and civic causes. That's why our owners, including Bob Young and another Hamilton native, David Braley, have well earned reputations as city builders. We very much want to see Hamilton grow and prosper. And we want the Grey Cup to help fuel that success, to celebrate that success, and to communicate that success to other Canadians.

All we need is a proper stadium in the right location, a viable location, and a rare opportunity to build such a venue is before you: we urge you to grasp it.

Sincerely,
Mark Cohon
Commissioner

dennis1
Jul 30, 2010, 8:21 PM
his goal is to cash out and run.

realcity
Jul 30, 2010, 8:21 PM
So do you think a major boycott of the Tiger-Cats would be possible for a game or two?

They've essentially turned a very nice proposal into an absolute gongshow.

just like the wildly successful boycott threat against Labatt's over Lakeport

realcity
Jul 30, 2010, 8:25 PM
sorry guys but without the ti-cats most canadians wouldn't even know where Hamilton is.The ti-cats are Hamilton, other than them and recently balsily's antics your city is just glossed over nobody knows who you are expct for oskie wee wee and the ti-cats sorry but it's true before you go boycott the ti-cats which means nothing since i doubt many of you on this forum are ti-cat season ticket holders anyways.I really doubt a stadium on your west harbour would transform hamilton, it would be used 10 days a year by the ti-cats and some small gatherings of soccer players once and a while hardly a game changer. Football stadiums are meant for sprawl they are big,sterile buildings that are not used everyday.

ditto that

realcity
Jul 30, 2010, 8:36 PM
Are you prepared to call the commissioners "bluff" too now? He basically told us, keep going with WH location and you'll have no stadium and an end to CFL in Hamilton.

The CFL
The Cats
and PanAm have all spoken.


Boy would I like to play poker with you guys!

bigguy1231
Jul 30, 2010, 8:40 PM
Here is the content of a letter written to the mayor, council, facilitator Fenn and Pan Am Hostco by CFL Commissioner Mark Cohon:

So now Mark Cohon and the CFL are urban planners and architects. There is more access to the West Harbour than the East Mountain site. There is plenty of room for any size stadium we decide to build. The whole letter is a bunch of crap. The Ticats are not going anywhere and the Board of directors of the CFL would never let them leave despite what Mark Cohon says. He is just a hired hand spewing what Dave Braley is telling him to say.

markbarbera
Jul 30, 2010, 9:01 PM
So now Mark Cohon and the CFL are urban planners and architects.

Heck, if everyone else here plays urban designer why not these guys too? Except I think the commissioner of the CFL knows a bit more about what makes a successful CFL site than you are I, so I'll defer to his judgement.