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

emge
May 10, 2010, 9:27 PM
A 15 minute walk does eliminate about 600k thousand *guessing* patrons.

I've never walked less than 20 minutes when I've driven from another city and parked to get to a game at the Rogers Centre or the ACC. Why do we expect this to be so much different? CFL fans are naturally willing to walk less distance?

Premium parking for those unwilling/unable to walk will still be near the stadium, as will legitimate handicapped spaces.

realcity
May 10, 2010, 10:03 PM
You are under 45 and over 15 without a mobility problem. And don;t have to care for children under 14 or elderly over 60....

That's pretty much is what Mr Young is talking about. This so-called, 'waterfront' and 'urban' location *even if it were both* eliminates a lot of potential patrons.

First.. .This location is neither waterfront or downtown

Second: All the advantages of having a waterfront or downtown location are lost. And all the benefits of a suburban location are also lost.

realcity
May 10, 2010, 10:12 PM
anyone else? Steel... how many seats? that question still floats out there. not that you can answer. Its first a question everyone needs to answer before any shovel starts digging in ANY location..... :) no i luv u

realcity
May 10, 2010, 10:14 PM
we have a location

we do not know what we are building tho.


thank you Hamilton

markbarbera
May 10, 2010, 10:29 PM
The Waterfront Trust is in partnership with the City and the Trust buy franchises such as Scoops and Williams. The money collected from that goes to certain projects such as operating cost of the trolley, skating rink, etc. So really it's the City and the Trust take will be building and making money from the commercial space. From that the City could work with the Ti Cats to direct some of the funds to the Ti Cats during game day.

The Ticat wives can partner with the waterfront trust and have bake sales and car washes at Bayfront Park too...

markbarbera
May 10, 2010, 10:38 PM
Let's see what Fred says to this (as posted on thespec.com):

Ticats want facilitator to broker stadium talks with city

By JOHN KERNAGHAN

Ticat owner Bob Young has asked the city to find a facilitator to help resolve the stadium stalemate.

“We both want the same things,” Young said.

He cited a sustainable stadium as a legacy of the 2015 Games and a sustainable Tiger-Cat football operation.

Young dropped a bombshell last week when he rejected the city’s west harbour site.

He said he would lose up to $7 million a year there.

Young, who left negotiations to Ticat executives in the past, said in a letter to Mayor Fred Eisenberger that he is ready to get involved personally in talks.

Think carefully before making your next move, Mayor Fred. Another blunder like your last reponse to Young and during this fall's campaign it will come back to bite you hard... and not on the lips, either!

realcity
May 10, 2010, 10:39 PM
lol.... maybe a city-wide church booksale. He won't answer until he has a quote from thes pec. com

SteelTown
May 10, 2010, 10:40 PM
From this evening news it looks like Whitehead is supporting West Harbour.

We are at the point that it's going to be West Harbour period. They'll just have to work out a deal to make the area work.

SteelTown
May 10, 2010, 10:51 PM
anyone else? Steel... how many seats? that question still floats out there. not that you can answer. Its first a question everyone needs to answer before any shovel starts digging in ANY location..... :) no i luv u

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4833382&postcount=582

realcity
May 10, 2010, 10:57 PM
Fred is F U C Ke d right now. he knows is. Build the stadium at our real waterfront on the lake called Ontario. and leave the west harbour wetlands to the roller bladers and kitefliers...

we have the advantage of having three different waterfronts. Like no other city.
1. West Harbour, frollicking, rollerblading, loving nature and the fake beach etc
2. Industrial. actual jobs to allow people the means to frolick in option one
3. Confed Park. with Sports stadium, Great Lake marinas, nite life, day life all ages ameninties, family wave pool/water slides, batting cage, go-carts, and o ya this wicked stadium.

markbarbera
May 10, 2010, 10:57 PM
From this evening news it looks like Whitehead is supporting West Harbour.

We are at the point that it's going to be West Harbour period. They'll just have to work out a deal to make the area work.

It looked like rain earlier in the day yesterday too. Did Whitehead say "I support moving forward with a West Harbour stadium with or without the Ticats' involvement"?

realcity
May 10, 2010, 10:57 PM
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4833382&postcount=582


How many seats?

SteelTown
May 10, 2010, 11:00 PM
It looked like rain earlier in the day yesterday too. Did Whitehead say "I support moving forward with a West Harbour stadium with or without the Ticats' involvement"?

He said he'll support the West Harbour for a variety of reasons that's already been mentioned here numberous times. You can probably catch it again at 11pm.

realcity
May 10, 2010, 11:03 PM
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4833382&postcount=582

I can't take this kind of mod. I asked you the same question 4 or 5 times now. A question I don't know the answer to. I admit I don;t know. I also don't proclaim over everyone to know the answer but I won't tell you.
So please answer it if you know, or say I don;t know. Even If it kills you to do so?

How many seats?

markbarbera
May 10, 2010, 11:04 PM
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4833382&postcount=582

Steeltown you should know that the number you are quoting here is what was posted quite some time ago as from the original bid material, and the 15,000 seat option was only if the Ticats were not on board. Are you saying they are definitely out of the picture?

Since the Ticat's involvement remains unresolved the size of the stadium remains undetermined. And the architects remain poised with pen in hand... waiting... waiting...

realcity
May 10, 2010, 11:07 PM
@ ST ur fricken losing it man. what's it take?

SteelTown
May 10, 2010, 11:07 PM
The city is only contemplating on a 15,000 seat stadium for 2015. Any renovation or extra seats will have to be done after the Pan Am Games.

realcity
May 10, 2010, 11:21 PM
ok.... so lets leave it at that... frickin finally... We build a 15k stadium, "The city is only contemplating on a 15,000 seat stadium for 2010".m Useful for nothing.

U know that if the shovel breaks ground on a 15k stadium, that the Cats will not play there. U know that right? The Cats have a better deal at Ivor Wynne.

realcity
May 10, 2010, 11:30 PM
We've heard about how Copps could be retrofitted with executive suites etc.... for 20 years if they land an "A" Class tennant. For 30 years dude. '
']
I guess Copps Coliseum "Part Two" can be made to be retrofitted too... In exactly the same way City Hall was. maybe our buildings should be designed with an anti-retro-design for shrinkage.

realcity
May 10, 2010, 11:33 PM
this conversation is done.... call me when shovels are breaking ground.

markbarbera
May 10, 2010, 11:59 PM
The city is only contemplating on a 15,000 seat stadium for 2015. Any renovation or extra seats will have to be done after the Pan Am Games.

When and where was this decision made? Can a post a link to where you found this information? The Deloitte - Touche report recommended a 20,000-24,000 seat stadium be built. Is council proceeding against the advice of their consultant on this aspect, or is the 15,000 quote an assumption. It sounds contrary to what was reported in the Spec on February 19 (http://www.thespec.com/article/724419):

TICATS: NO ONE CLEAR ON WHAT VISION IS

The Hamilton Tiger-Cats like the fact the city is moving forward on a Pan Am stadium site. Now they need to know what it means.

"It's another important step along the way and the city should be applauded for its initiative," said Ticat president Scott Mitchell.

"But the questions now are who is in this partnership, what should this development at this location be.

"No one is clear on what that vision is."

The city has funding for a $102-million stadium that could provide a stadium of 15,000 to 20,000 seats, but the football club needs at least 25,000 seats.

That could cost up to $50 million more, which the city wants the Ticats and private-sector partners to come up with.

But Mitchell said it is premature to come up with number until a vision for the stadium and developments around it are clear.

Or what was reported as news broke on Feb 18 (http://www.thespec.com/article/723814):

SteelTown
May 11, 2010, 12:03 AM
It's always been contemplated on a 15,000 stadium. The 20,000 seat stadium figure comes from cheapen the stadium, still using the $102 million money pot.

This article posted two hours ago also states any expansion would come after the Pan Am Games, also states 15,000 stadium.
http://www.thestar.com/sports/panamgames/article/807451--perkins-pan-am-mess-proves-toronto-dodged-olympic-bullet

realcity
May 11, 2010, 12:08 AM
"At least 25k seats"

or guess what????

Cats keep playing at Ivor Wynne. Business as usual.

realcity
May 11, 2010, 12:10 AM
Still..... answer my question? how many seats?

markbarbera
May 11, 2010, 12:18 AM
It's always been contemplated on a 15,000 stadium. The 20,000 seat stadium figure comes from cheapen the stadium, still using the $102 million money pot.

This article posted two hours ago also states any expansion would come after the Pan Am Games, also states 15,000 stadium.
http://www.thestar.com/sports/panamgames/article/807451--perkins-pan-am-mess-proves-toronto-dodged-olympic-bullet

It has not always been contemplated as a 15,000 stadium. The Deloitte report clearly indicated it needs to be 20,000-24,000 and that is the recommendation council accepted.

The piece in the Toronto Star you quoted is not an article, it is an opinion piece by a sports columnist. Still a good read. I like the part when he says this:

The original Pan Am idea was to translate as much of that as possible into athletic legacy. But already, in order to satisfy outside interests, the two biggest sports, track and swimming, are in dumb locations 100 km apart and a minimum of a solid hour’s travel from the athletes’ village. And one of the outside interests, the Ticats, aren’t close to satisfied.

realcity
May 11, 2010, 12:22 AM
we build 15k bleachers. we just pissed away maybe the worst mistake of money since RedHill.

Can Hamilton keep doing worse? I don't know? I'm, getting out of here as fast as I can. and i will be telling me children to not even think about maklng a living here.


I guess my opinions go with with being a father with children. Gawd forgive me if that blinds my opinion or outlook of Hamilton in 20 years.

Yes. Im a father of young children. I will be guiding my sons over the next 10 years.... 10 years will come fast.... and u know what.??? we will still be debating LRT over 'super fast busses". We will still be wondering why the fountains in the City Hall forcourt don't work, we will still wonder why The Right House is boarded-up after the Lister opened..

realcity
May 11, 2010, 12:28 AM
I stopped myself at that thought.... deliberately, The Right House will be vacant when Mayor Fred opens the new Lister Block. Y no one has raised this issue? Is why Hamilton deserves itself.

EMJAY
May 11, 2010, 12:52 AM
Oh my god! If Hamilton was the Titanic, our city councillors would be the band that continued to play as the ship sinks!

realcity
May 11, 2010, 12:56 AM
Not really. Our councilors would be the first on the life rafts. And the heck with the rest of us.

They know Titanic is sinking right now, they just dont tell us.... when you vote this Fall.. vote for whomeever name you don't recognize. you can't go wrong.

Jasonhouse
May 11, 2010, 1:58 AM
realcity - There's no need to essentially flood the thread with a litany of posts. If you have something to add to your remarks, and you just recently posted, you should edit your original post and add on to it. Thanks!

SteelTown
May 11, 2010, 3:03 AM
Mayor Fred will support a facilitator, something he said he has advocated in the past.

scott000
May 11, 2010, 3:52 AM
If done correctly, the West Harbour site can absolutely be successful. I know that's a big 'if' given those involved, but you can't just give the kid who consistently fails his tests an 'F' on the next one before he even writes it.

Now, since a half-assed effort is more likely, this type of effort will be more successful in a suburban off-highway surrounded by a sea of parking lots setting than it would be at West Harbour. There's no denying this.

A few questions, if anyone is able to answer them please do:

1. Can anyone provide a specific location (intersection) for the alternate sites? Where exactly would the Confed Park Stadium be?

2. Looking at the West Harbour, what surrounding land, if any is available for parking/ commercial development? Is the business northeast of Barton & Queen staying or is that vacant land? How about the rail-yards (any progress made there)?
I believe the city already owns the land south of Barton between Bay & Caroline, correct?

3. Where are most fans coming from? I assume the majority are spread across the lower city and mountain, but is there significantly more coming from either Halton or Stoney Creek - Niagara?
(The reason I ask is that accessibility to the Harbour from Burlington isn't that bad, but I imagine driving in from Stoney Creek or St. Catherine's would be a pain)

drpgq
May 11, 2010, 8:04 AM
So I have to ask for those vehemently against West Harbour do they prefer Confederation Park? Because that seems to be the only other realistic option unless there is some other magical site that will be please everyone.

drpgq
May 11, 2010, 10:24 AM
This makes me wonder how much he would contribute to a Confederation Park site. Although the Spec is a bit late on reporting this angle.

How deep are his pockets?
(http://www.thespec.com/article/767051)
May 11, 2010
John Kernaghan
(May 11, 2010)

Ticat owner Bob Young has been bleeding red ink since buying the CFL franchise in 2003.

Have you heard the one about the Tiger-Cats and Lulu making Bob Young a multimillionaire?

Well, he used to be a billionaire.

At least the CBC estimated he was a billionaire in a 2003 report when Young took over the football club.

But the financial hits he has taken on the Ticats and Lulu, which helps people self-publish books, music and videos, aren't so funny.

Sources close to Young say those losses could be behind his bombshell rejection Thursday of the city's site for a Pan Am stadium to serve his football club.

Young, generally a bubbly man, came out swinging at the city's west harbour site as a spot where he'd lose $7 million a year.

Sources close to the team claim Young has lost as much as $30 million since taking over the Ticats and is growing weary of the losses.

"A categorical no," he said yesterday when asked if the red ink was eroding his enthusiasm.

Meantime, his attempt to offer shares of Lulu to the public failed recently when there wasn't sufficient interest to launch an initial public offering.

Lulu made $140,000 in the final quarter of 2009 after posting a $13.8-million loss in 2008.

"We're smiling at Lulu, we're making money," he said.

He stressed Lulu is registered with the Toronto Stock Exchange and he believes it is inevitable that the company will go public.

Young made his name with the spectacular success of Red Hat Inc., a software company with a computer operating system that rivals Microsoft's Windows.

When he left Red Hat in 2005, he owned 5 per cent of Red Hat shares valued at close to $200 million.

The depth of Young's pockets is unknown. He hasn't made it onto a list of richest people in Canada or the United States.

SteelTown
May 11, 2010, 10:55 AM
Young asks mayor for a facilitator

May 11, 2010
John Kernaghan
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/767041

The city was already making up a short list of candidates when Ticat owner Bob Young called for a facilitator to help resolve the stadium stalemate.

"We've been kicking around a few names, so we welcome Bob's letter," said Mayor Fred Eisenberger last night.

Young wrote Eisenberger yesterday asking "to accelerate a mutually agreeable solution."

In an interview, Young said "failure is not an option."

Both men traded barbs late last week over the west harbour site for a $102-million stadium.

It would host the 2015 Pan Am Games premier event, track and field, and then serve as home for the Canadian Football League club.

"We both want the same things," said Young of the Cats and city.

He cited a sustainable stadium as a legacy of the 2015 Games and a sustainable Tiger-Cat football operation.

Young dropped a bombshell Thursday when he rejected the city's west harbour site.

He said he would lose up to $7 million a year there.

Young, who has left negotiations to Ticat executives, said in a letter to Eisenberger that he is ready to meet with the mayor and councillors about the facilitation process.

In his letter, he suggested a third-party facilitator "to ensure that the decisions that are now being contemplated are informed decisions we can all agree with."

Though the Ticats have criticized the west harbour location due to accessibility and visibility issues, Young wrote that a key goal is "the ongoing revitalization of all facets of Hamilton's waterfront."

Eisenberger said finding and agreeing to a facilitator, plus getting down to the task of staking out common ground, will mean the city will miss a May 17 Pan Am deadline.

That's when the Toronto 2015 host corporation was expecting an agreement that the Cats and the city were working on stadium plans.

"I think it will take us a few weeks to get to something concrete," Eisenberger said.

Young's letter arrived just minutes after city councillors heard an update that was punctuated by the stadium standoff.

David Adames gave the report and was on his way to phone the Ticats to kick-start talks.

Councillor Lloyd Ferguson wondered why the Tiger-Cats waited so late in the game to voice their strong reservations about the Bay and Barton streets site.

"Their representative sat here during a public meeting in February and didn't say anything," he noted.

The Pan Am community consulting process continues tonight and tomorrow night with sports organizations and stakeholders at Sackville Seniors Centre. The 7 p.m. meeting will centre on the velodrome tonight and the stadium tomorrow night.

markbarbera
May 11, 2010, 11:44 AM
So I have to ask for those vehemently against West Harbour do they prefer Confederation Park? Because that seems to be the only other realistic option unless there is some other magical site that will be please everyone.

Kay Drage Park.

This city actually has no shortage of potential spots available. Some plots of land are already city owned, others would require purchasing land. My preference is for a central site. Bratina's idea of repurposing the Sir John A Macdonald site was never given a fair shake, despite the fact that its location is ideal.

What about the former Lakeport brewery at Burlington and Ferguson? The Port Authority already owns the property, it is at the east end of the West Harbour waterfront (actually on the West Harbour), Labatts is willing to contribute its final two years worth of lease payments to the next tenant (heck you could probably guilt them into a sweet naming rights deal to help save face from closing the brewery). It's also immediately adjacent to Eastwood Park which could be incorporated into the site plan as the practice track. There's already the road access infrastructure that could support traffic to the site, and it is easily serviceable by existing public transit.

Other sites abound. The former Siemens factory site at the foot of Barton and Wentworth and the CP warehousing site/rail yards at Aberdeen and Longwood quickly spring to mind. There's land at Barton and Ferguson that remains empty (too small for the entire project, but it could host a permanant velodrome structure - remember the cycling org isn't enthusiastic about Barton and Tiffany site either).

For the record, I am not vehemently against West Harbour. I think my biggest frustration is how poorly council as a whole handled the site selection process. They purposely narrowed it to two options, pitting one that might work (West Harbour) against one that definitely won't work (Airport). Other sites that could have been deemed superior to West Harbour were not even put on the table for consideration - why was that? The entire process was engineered to force no other outcome but to select Barton and Tiffany and that doesn't survive the sniff test.

The city is hell-bent on Barton and Tiffany no matter what they are told, so be it. Hopefully, with some serious work the West Harbour site plan can be reworked so it is a viable stadium site. I just find it frustrating that options that may be of better value for the city have been discarded without being given proper consideration. A lack of due diligence has cost this city dearly over the years, and this shortcoming needs to be resolved if this city is ever to get out of the situation it has built for itself.

Did I happen to mention Kay Drage Park?

SteelTown
May 11, 2010, 12:32 PM
I hear Larry Di Ianni and Tom Wright as possible facilitator.

drpgq
May 11, 2010, 12:36 PM
Kay Drage Park.

This city actually has no shortage of potential spots available. Some plots of land are already city owned, others would require purchasing land. My preference is for a central site. Bratina's idea of repurposing the Sir John A Macdonald site was never given a fair shake, despite the fact that its location is ideal.

What about the former Lakeport brewery at Burlington and Ferguson? The Port Authority already owns the property, it is at the east end of the West Harbour waterfront (actually on the West Harbour), Labatts is willing to contribute its final two years worth of lease payments to the next tenant (heck you could probably guilt them into a sweet naming rights deal to help save face from closing the brewery). It's also immediately adjacent to Eastwood Park which could be incorporated into the site plan as the practice track. There's already the road access infrastructure that could support traffic to the site, and it is easily serviceable by existing public transit.

Other sites abound. The former Siemens factory site at the foot of Barton and Wentworth and the CP warehousing site/rail yards at Aberdeen and Longwood quickly spring to mind. There's land at Barton and Ferguson that remains empty (too small for the entire project, but it could host a permanant velodrome structure - remember the cycling org isn't enthusiastic about Barton and Tiffany site either).

For the record, I am not vehemently against West Harbour. I think my biggest frustration is how poorly council as a whole handled the site selection process. They purposely narrowed it to two options, pitting one that might work (West Harbour) against one that definitely won't work (Airport). Other sites that could have been deemed superior to West Harbour were not even put on the table for consideration - why was that? The entire process was engineered to force no other outcome but to select Barton and Tiffany and that doesn't survive the sniff test.

The city is hell-bent on Barton and Tiffany no matter what they are told, so be it. Hopefully, with some serious work the West Harbour site plan can be reworked so it is a viable stadium site. I just find it frustrating that options that may be of better value for the city have been discarded without being given proper consideration. A lack of due diligence has cost this city dearly over the years, and this shortcoming needs to be resolved if this city is ever to get out of the situation it has built for itself.

Did I happen to mention Kay Drage Park?

I know you have mentioned Kay Drage Park, but I don't really see the appeal. I could be wrong, but I thought it was built on a landfill, which would lead to I would guess some issues with putting a stadium on top of it. It is already a park, so we aren't getting any value like at West Harbour in terms of replacing a currently useless brownfield that has been sitting empty for years. It is hemmed in by a cemetary, so I don't see much in the way of any spinoff benefits, except for the dead. In terms of parking, as far as I know there's little now, so you would have to build a giant parking lot. Transit wise, it isn't terrible, but not great either from an HSR standpoint. It may be beside a highway, but I've never considered it particularly easily accessible.

For me, the issue is that all sites have pros and cons. For me the West Harbour easily makes more sense than Kay Drage based on the criteria I consider important, but admittedly that is my opinion.

BrianE
May 11, 2010, 1:42 PM
You know with all this posturing and political harumphing the main purpose of this stadium is being completely lost. Naming rights, parking, who's losing what millions of $$$.... what about the quality of show the ticket holder gets for his/her money? This should be the Number 1 reason for the location of the stadium. Maybe this is taken for granted and everyone is just arguing over the little things like 2000 or 3000 parking spaces or 1.5mil for naming rights or 2 mil.

Don't take the customers satisfaction for granted. The stadium needs to offer an enjoyable, memorable experience. There's a lot of hand wringing over requiring fans to walk 10 - 15 min from their cars or from transit. That's part of the experience! Eating and drinking before and after the game, favorite watering holes will spring up organically, there's no need to manufacture them.

So far no other site offers the kind of night out that west harbour promises. The view of the escarpment and harbour on a warm summers night, dinner downtown before the game, walking to the stadium from Queen and King St. with all the other Ticat's fans, drinks after the game. Maybe you come in from Toronto way, there can be a GO stop at the stadium or you can get off at James North. You want to drive in? That's fine, go ahead there isn't a venue on this earth that isn't gridlocked on game day, including all those giant suburban stadiums. So long as the experience in and around the stadium is worth it, people forget about the traffic.

Bottom line is this stadium needs to provide a night out experience that makes people want to come back again. And that experience is more than just how fast people can get in and out of the venue.

oldcoote
May 11, 2010, 3:17 PM
ok.... so lets leave it at that... frickin finally... We build a 15k stadium, "The city is only contemplating on a 15,000 seat stadium for 2010".m Useful for nothing.

U know that if the shovel breaks ground on a 15k stadium, that the Cats will not play there. U know that right? The Cats have a better deal at Ivor Wynne.

WHo owns Ivor Wynne?

emge
May 11, 2010, 10:52 PM
BrianE, you're exactly right. A stadium up near industry or out in the boonies won't give a good "night out" or be a good overall experience.

You are under 45 and over 15 without a mobility problem. And don;t have to care for children under 14 or elderly over 60....

That's pretty much is what Mr Young is talking about.

You can't be serious.

First, that age range is ridiculous on both ends. 14-year-olds certainly aren't children or incapable of walking - nor are most children. I won't even comment on how most 60 to 70 year olds would feel about your generalization.

Second, there will still be parking less than 15 minutes away from the stadium - for those who really need it (e.g. the few with real mobility problems) or want to pay for it. It's not ten spots, it's hundreds of spots nearby.

I really wonder.. do you not see the parents and kids taking the bus to Ti-Cats games now, or parking in yards 15 minutes away? I've definitely parked that far from Ti-Cats in their current location. I was bringing a group of kids. And also parked that far bringing a friend in a wheelchair (She didn't mind the distance). Why? Parking's cheap that far away. That's a nice motivator.

I can understand that you've never been on the subway when it's jam-packed with families after a Raptors or Jays game (or been in the crowd making their half-hour trek with three kids back to their car...).. but think local.

I'd think you see how many families park that far away right now (because they charge you more money to park in yards near the stadium!)- or bus - then load up their strollers and have their kids toddle along for the walk right now for the Ti-Cats... to think families won't walk 15 minutes isn't realistic. Give them a closer option, they'll take it, but a "walk or pay more" parking situation isn't a dealbreaker.

If people really don't want to or can't walk, they'll pay for better parking. If not, a 15-minute walk isn't the big deal it's being made out to be... especially for all the people who already walk that far to avoid paying much to park, or because they take transit already.

emge
May 11, 2010, 11:09 PM
3. Where are most fans coming from? I assume the majority are spread across the lower city and mountain, but is there significantly more coming from either Halton or Stoney Creek - Niagara?
(The reason I ask is that accessibility to the Harbour from Burlington isn't that bad, but I imagine driving in from Stoney Creek or St. Catherine's would be a pain)

I used to live in St. Catharines, and from the people I knew, very few would come to Ti-Cats games. I went once or twice in my teen years, but I didn't know any season ticket holders.

That said, we'd go to Copps more often, and it would only be a few extra minutes to get to the West Harbour location than driving in... much easier than getting to Ivor Wynne is now.

bigguy1231
May 12, 2010, 6:01 AM
I know you have mentioned Kay Drage Park, but I don't really see the appeal. I could be wrong, but I thought it was built on a landfill, which would lead to I would guess some issues with putting a stadium on top of it. It is already a park, so we aren't getting any value like at West Harbour in terms of replacing a currently useless brownfield that has been sitting empty for years. It is hemmed in by a cemetary, so I don't see much in the way of any spinoff benefits, except for the dead. In terms of parking, as far as I know there's little now, so you would have to build a giant parking lot. Transit wise, it isn't terrible, but not great either from an HSR standpoint. It may be beside a highway, but I've never considered it particularly easily accessible.

For me, the issue is that all sites have pros and cons. For me the West Harbour easily makes more sense than Kay Drage based on the criteria I consider important, but admittedly that is my opinion.

Yep Kay Drage was a landfill back in the day when they dumped everything and anything with out regard to the environment. It would probably cost about as much to clean up that site as it would to build the stadium itself. The site is also too small and has limited access via one residential street.

SteelTown
May 12, 2010, 11:08 AM
City, Cats agree to split costs for site mediator

May 12, 2010
Emma Reilly
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/767734

The Ticats and the city are willing to split the costs of a mediator to work out the site of the Pan Am stadium.

Both Mayor Fred Eisenberger and Tiger-Cats' president Scott Mitchell say they'll help pay for the "qualified third-party facilitator" proposed by Cats' owner Bob Young in a letter to the city earlier in the week.

"It's both in the interest of the Tiger-Cats and the City of Hamilton to come up with agreeable solutions, so I would hope it would be a cost-shared arrangement," Eisenberger said.

Mitchell said the Ticats are willing to chip in for a mediator "if it meant a thorough and transparent process."

However, both the city and the CFL team are keeping quiet about who should take on the role and how much they're willing to spend.

Though the mayor said the city had been "kicking around a few names" for a third-party mediator, he said it's too early to mention any names.

Mitchell said he wasn't prepared to comment publicly about who the team has in mind or how much its willing to spend.

"There's probably been far too much discussion about this in the media already."

Young set off a firestorm late last week when he rejected the city's preferred site for the 2015 Pan Am Games stadium, arguing the team would lose up to $7 million a year at the west harbour. The city has maintained that it's not willing to budge from the site.

Toronto-based Igor Ellyn, a chartered mediator with 37 years of legal experience, said mediation can cost upwards of $500 to $600 an hour. Many mediators, who act as detached referees to get to the heart of each party's needs, have a legal background and will charge the same rates as high-ranking lawyers.

In this case, the mediator needs to be familiar with professional sports, city building and policies, and command the respect of both sides.

"The mediator first has to be informed about the facts, and then has to have a good ear to listen to each side's proposals -- but then also has to be tough," Ellyn said.

Typically, mediation involves a combination of meetings that involve all parties and closed-door sessions with each side. That way, the mediator can ensure he or she has the full story while ensuring that cooler heads prevail.

"Pretty much every solution has a resolution, but you have to figure out what each side needs to be able to come to an agreement," Ellyn said.

markbarbera
May 12, 2010, 11:37 AM
I know you have mentioned Kay Drage Park, but I don't really see the appeal. I could be wrong, but I thought it was built on a landfill, which would lead to I would guess some issues with putting a stadium on top of it. It is already a park, so we aren't getting any value like at West Harbour in terms of replacing a currently useless brownfield that has been sitting empty for years. It is hemmed in by a cemetary, so I don't see much in the way of any spinoff benefits, except for the dead. In terms of parking, as far as I know there's little now, so you would have to build a giant parking lot. Transit wise, it isn't terrible, but not great either from an HSR standpoint. It may be beside a highway, but I've never considered it particularly easily accessible.

For me, the issue is that all sites have pros and cons. For me the West Harbour easily makes more sense than Kay Drage based on the criteria I consider important, but admittedly that is my opinion.Yep Kay Drage was a landfill back in the day when they dumped everything and anything with out regard to the environment. It would probably cost about as much to clean up that site as it would to build the stadium itself. The site is also too small and has limited access via one residential street.

Already been remediated, site is not not too small, additional access easily addressable with new direct road access from the highway and King Street. Really, these arguments are cyclical. It's all been said before pages back in this forum, so no sense in rehashing them ad naseum. Why focus on this one alternate suggestion? What about all the other potential sites I have mentioned? The argument is that West Harbour was the only available urban site, and that simply is not true.

I'll be watching the mediation process to see what transpires and make comments when there is something new to talk about. With the adoption of a mediator I see Mayor Fred has thankfully abandoned that silly little May 17 artificial deadline tactic. we were on the path to disaster with this stadium, lets take a couple of weeks and get this right. If we must settle with the flawed West Harbour location, then we have to make it workable. The Ticat organization may get on board if some conditions to the plan are changed. Specifically, all naming rights revenue should go to the Ticats in return to whatever amount of investment they put into the stadium (their presence there is enough of an investment IMO). Additional on site parking is a no-brainer (we should not be encouraging off site surface parking - have a couple levels of parking below the stadium like the ACC), and road access improvements will need to be made to get the Ticats on board. Like it or not, if the Ticats are not on board, this site has no hope of achieving any kind of viability.

bigguy1231
May 12, 2010, 2:55 PM
Already been remediated, site is not not too small, additional access easily addressable with new direct road access from the highway and King Street. Really, these arguments are cyclical. It's all been said before pages back in this forum, so no sense in rehashing them ad naseum. Why focus on this one alternate suggestion? What about all the other potential sites I have mentioned? The argument is that West Harbour was the only available urban site, and that simply is not true.

I'll be watching the mediation process to see what transpires and make comments when there is something new to talk about. With the adoption of a mediator I see Mayor Fred has thankfully abandoned that silly little May 17 artificial deadline tactic. we were on the path to disaster with this stadium, lets take a couple of weeks and get this right. If we must settle with the flawed West Harbour location, then we have to make it workable. The Ticat organization may get on board if some conditions to the plan are changed. Specifically, all naming rights revenue should go to the Ticats in return to whatever amount of investment they put into the stadium (their presence there is enough of an investment IMO). Additional on site parking is a no-brainer (we should not be encouraging off site surface parking - have a couple levels of parking below the stadium like the ACC), and road access improvements will need to be made to get the Ticats on board. Like it or not, if the Ticats are not on board, this site has no hope of achieving any kind of viability.

The only remediation that took place on that site was to cap it with clay. If they go digging around it they will disturb what is under that cap. The access to the site is basically non existant. They would need access to and from the highway in both directions. That would add millions to the cost of the stadium. There will be no direct access to King street. There is no place to put it and I will again state the site is too small, it is not wide enough to accomodate a stadium. That was illustrated in earlier pages when, I forget who it was, tried to place Ivor Wynne on the site. The new stadium will have a running track which would make it footprint even bigger. Go to the site, and see it is barely wide enough to accomodate one soccer field width wise between the railway tracks and the access road.

drpgq
May 12, 2010, 3:01 PM
It has been remediated as a park sure, but that is different than having to dig out stadium foundations. Build a new road? Easier said than done. What about the parking? Build a giant lot? The fact it already has a use as a park so no brownfield is remediated? Sure there's criticisms for West Harbour, but when you're comparing something like Kay Drage, it is a weak comparison.

As for your other potential sites, like Lakeport and Siemens, was the city supposed to know somehow in advance that there would be closures?

Already been remediated, site is not not too small, additional access easily addressable with new direct road access from the highway and King Street. Really, these arguments are cyclical. It's all been said before pages back in this forum, so no sense in rehashing them ad naseum. Why focus on this one alternate suggestion? What about all the other potential sites I have mentioned? The argument is that West Harbour was the only available urban site, and that simply is not true.

I'll be watching the mediation process to see what transpires and make comments when there is something new to talk about. With the adoption of a mediator I see Mayor Fred has thankfully abandoned that silly little May 17 artificial deadline tactic. we were on the path to disaster with this stadium, lets take a couple of weeks and get this right. If we must settle with the flawed West Harbour location, then we have to make it workable. The Ticat organization may get on board if some conditions to the plan are changed. Specifically, all naming rights revenue should go to the Ticats in return to whatever amount of investment they put into the stadium (their presence there is enough of an investment IMO). Additional on site parking is a no-brainer (we should not be encouraging off site surface parking - have a couple levels of parking below the stadium like the ACC), and road access improvements will need to be made to get the Ticats on board. Like it or not, if the Ticats are not on board, this site has no hope of achieving any kind of viability.

markbarbera
May 12, 2010, 3:28 PM
The only remediation that took place on that site was to cap it with clay. If they go digging around it they will disturb what is under that cap. The access to the site is basically non existant. They would need access to and from the highway in both directions. That would add millions to the cost of the stadium. There will be no direct access to King street. There is no place to put it and I will again state the site is too small, it is not wide enough to accomodate a stadium. That was illustrated in earlier pages when, I forget who it was, tried to place Ivor Wynne on the site. The new stadium will have a running track which would make it footprint even bigger. Go to the site, and see it is barely wide enough to accomodate one soccer field width wise between the railway tracks and the access road.

We'll agree to disagree on this. The claim about insufficient space is just plain wrong. Cutting and pasting a picture doesn't prove anything. At its widest point, Ivor Wynne Stadium is 170m, which can easily fit the east-west width of Kay Drage at its southern end. Kay Drage is nearly 700m long north-south, so there is plenty of room to place the stadium at the south end of the park, and the practice track and the velodrome north of the stadium. Access via King only requires a tweaking of the 403 on-ramp. Remediation costs would be similar to that of the West Harbour. I am not going to continue a "Yes it is! No it isn't!" argument with you on this topic, but if you want to consider one of the several other site options I have listed I would love to hear your comments on them...

markbarbera
May 12, 2010, 3:57 PM
It has been remediated as a park sure, but that is different than having to dig out stadium foundations. Build a new road? Easier said than done. What about the parking? Build a giant lot? The fact it already has a use as a park so no brownfield is remediated? Sure there's criticisms for West Harbour, but when you're comparing something like Kay Drage, it is a weak comparison.

As for your other potential sites, like Lakeport and Siemens, was the city supposed to know somehow in advance that there would be closures?

In response to your questions:

Stadium foundations are generally built upon piles, which can be placed with minimal ground disturbance. Even if additional remediation is needed, as I have already stated, the expense would be similar to West Harbour.

I have already commented on how road access from King only requires an adjustment of the existing 403 on-ramp, and would be a relatively simple portion of the overall stadium construction task.

What about parking? Simple, contain it within the footprint of the stadium. Lots of sports facilities include parking in their construction (i.e. ACC, Rogers Centre). Build the stadium raised with one or two enclosed parking levels below the playing field. This city should be discouraging the use of surface parking, not encouraging it like they are in the West Harbour proposal.

If you are concerned about the loss of soccer fields, then there's the answer as to what to do at the old Ivor Wynne site when decommissioned. Heck you could also use $4 million from the future fund to remediate the former Rheem site environs and repurpose it to a more appropriate residential use with a park as a neighbourhood focal point (which by the way will go much further towards community building than putting a football stadium there)

From a planning point of view, the project is doomed if your sole qualifier for a new stadium site is the opportunity to remediate a brownfield and not the long-term financial viability of the facility.

As far as the former Lakeport and Siemens sites go, I do not expect my council to know in advance of future opportunities, but I do expect them to identify them when they do arise, and act upon them if it is advantageous to do so. Especially given the early stages of planning and the fact that the principal tenant is unhappy with the current site proposal. I think I made a couple more suggestions of options that should have been considered at that time and were not.

thistleclub
May 12, 2010, 5:00 PM
Ivor Wynne is no win for Ticats: Mitchell (http://www.thespec.com/Sports/article/767822)
CFL club will never be profitable in the current stadium situation, Cat president says

Drew Edwards
The Hamilton Spectator
(May 12, 2010)

While the Hamilton Tiger-Cats continue to show improvement on the balance sheet, team president Scott Mitchell said yesterday the team will never be profitable in Ivor Wynne Stadium.

Mitchell, along with general manager Bob O'Billovich and head coach Marcel Bellefeuille, spoke with reporters from across the country as part of a CFL-sponsored, state-of-the-franchise conference call yesterday.

Mitchell said the team had record revenues in 2009 and looks set to exceed those numbers in 2010 by more than 10 per cent. But the team will continue to lose money, as it has since owner Bob Young took over the team in 2003.

"There are certain realities in our present situation at the stadium that are always going to be challenges," Mitchell said. "It's going to be a battle for us to get to a profitable situation any time soon."

According to Mitchell, the team is on pace for 1,700 new season ticket holders and renewals are at 94 per cent. But, as he has in the past, Mitchell refused to provide specifics.

"We don't give out season seat numbers because there's been a big discrepancy between how things are done now versus the past," he said.

Mitchell also deferred questions on the new stadium, saying the conference call was intended to talk about the upcoming season.

"That stadium project is obviously a great opportunity for us long term but there's a lot of things that have to happen in order for us to work with the city on capitalizing on that opportunity," he said.

There was some football talk in addition to the financial news. Among the items addressed in the almost 30-minute call:

* The team has one more free agent camp in California this weekend, after which O'Billovich says it should be in a position to finalize the training camp roster.

* The Ticats have brought back seven members from last season's coaching staff , which Bellefeuille said should help the team's on-field performance.

* Bellefeuille said Kevin Glenn will come into camp as the starting quarterback, but it will be an "open competition" for the No. 1 job.

All three members of the Ticat front office identified continuity as a key to the on-field resurgence of the franchise, which had been a perennial doormat until last year's 9-9 season.

And good things are obviously expected this year.

"We've had an outstanding off-season and I think we're well positioned to be a legitimate contender in the CFL," Mitchell said.

"We're extremely optimistic about the team off the field and we're tremendously confident on the field."


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It has been estimated that in the 11 seasons he owned the Tabbies, Harold Ballard lost $20 million on the team. This despite having a squad that advanced to the Grey Cup four times and won once. (Average home attendance for the last seven seasons ran from 14K to 18K.) Bob's Cats have trouble getting out of the division and have often been the worst in the league, so it's not any great shock to hear that he's been losing money as well. I'm sure the venue is to blame, but isn't it also possible that this is a team that will never be profitable?

SteelTown
May 13, 2010, 11:11 AM
Stadium debate hits summit
Keynote speaker calls suburban sites 'prehistoric'

May 13, 2010
Meredith Macleod
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/768563

Talk of putting a future stadium anywhere outside the downtown is "prehistoric" and "neanderthal" thinking, according to the Hamilton Economic Summit's keynote speaker Storm Cunningham.

That's probably not surprising from an author, consultant and speaker who preaches the gospel of cities containing urban sprawl and revitalizing all that they already have going for them.

"The city is on the right side of the stadium issue," said Cunningham, when asked about the bubbling controversy between the city's desire to build the Pan Am Games stadium along the west harbour and the Ticats' contention that they couldn't make it work for their football operation.

"Building a sprawl stadium would be a huge mistake. It's prehistoric thinking."

He said cities once plunked stadiums down in green space at the edge of cities, which quickly became white elephants.

The Ticats say they will lose $7 million a year at the proposed site and that a lack of highway visibility, parking and traffic accessibility will keep sponsors and fans away.

The stadium issue promises to offer the best chance of fireworks at Monday's summit, which has been built on a sense of urgency to row together in one direction.

The first panel of the day will include Mayor Fred Eisenberger, Ticat president Scott Mitchell, Pan Am Games CEO Ian Troop and Patrick Dillon, a west harbour site advocate who is overseeing the planning and construction of Games facilities.

The discussion will largely be driven by questions from the floor.

"We don't really know how it will work out," said Hamilton Chamber of Commerce CEO John Dolbec. The chamber facilitates the summit.

"It's completely undetermined. It will depend on the collective will."

Cunningham says Hamilton must capitalize on the Games as a city renewal opportunity, just as Mexico City and Barcelona did with the Olympics.

"Atlanta didn't get it and wasted their Olympics. Wasting the Pan Am Games would be not building a downtown stadium to tie into revitalization. It's neanderthal."

Cunningham, author of Rewealth and The Restoration Economy and founder of the Revitalization Institute, will be focusing his message on Hamilton's downtown renewal. He spent a couple of days here last month touring the downtown and talking to local leaders.

He says cities that renew themselves after a period of hardship often begin with an education or awareness series, similar to the Hamilton Economic Summit.

That has to coalesce into someone leading the charge on renewal to ensure it gains traction and becomes systematic and deep-rooted.

In some cities, that renewal engine is a business group or academic institution, in others it has been a community foundation or city planning department.

Cunningham says sprawling greenfield development grows the economy in the short-term but ultimately undermines quality of life, causes congestion and increases pollution. He says sprawl should be the exception not the rule for modern, sustainable urban centres.

His speech at the summit will showcase cities around the world that have focused on restoring heritage buildings, cleaning up brownfields and putting them to new use and restoring neglected natural features.

Hamilton has all those opportunities in spades, he says.

"Any time people in Canada ask me where the best opportunity is, Hamilton pops out of my mouth."

Natural amenities and proximity to Toronto and Niagara make for the "ideal" conditions, he says.

Cunningham, CEO of the Resolution Fund which helps partner private investors with urban renewal projects, says there is plenty of money to fund good ideas in transitioning cities.

There will always be what he calls obstructionists, but Cunningham says they should be invited to participate in renewal. If they refuse at first, they will eventually get on board, when it's clear success is inevitable.

markbarbera
May 13, 2010, 11:42 AM
Cunningham knows well of which he speaks, but he is offering nothing really new to the discussion. He is talking in general support of urban renewal and against suburban sprawl greenfield development. This is a no-brainer and already generally accepted as a given. However, once again I point out that, of all the potential sites mentioned ths far, only one could be considered a development of suburban sprawl greenspace, and that would be the airport location. All other potential locations discussed thus far are urban sites and involve some form of redevelopment/repurposing of urban land.

As discussions about the viability of the west harbour site continue, it is important to note that both a principal player in the 2015 Pan Am games (cycling) and the principal tenant of the legacy stadium (Tiger Cats) are both clearly against the proposed site. Now, who do you think is better qualified for evaluating the operational viability of a sports complex, the sports organizations that use the facilities or our city council?

thistleclub
May 13, 2010, 4:52 PM
Was the cycling lobby opposed to the Pan Am Stadium being sited in the West Harbour or just opposed to sharing turf with the stadium? The biggest gripe the National Cycling Centre Hamilton seems to have harboured is that the velodrome's budget is so gaunt: $11.4 million for a rib-and-fabric velodrome, when a bricks-and-mortar facility with long-term viability would cost two to three times that (http://www.thespec.com/article/572839).

EDIT: I should've read today's paper: Cycling centre rejects harbour (http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/768558).

Not all bad news. As the article notes, "the 2.4 hectares the velodrome would occupy could produce between 600 and 750 parking spots."

realcity
May 14, 2010, 5:03 PM
10,000 parking spots with tailgating privileges x $20 = $200,000 per game

x ten games

$2,000,000 in extra revenue per season

realcity
May 14, 2010, 5:12 PM
http://jetsongreen.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c67ce53ef0120a88b875e970b-500wi
http://eastcoastgreen.info/images/beautiful-grassy-pavers.jpg
http://www.ephenry.com/Files/ProductFiles/98/Images/LargeImage.jpg
http://greenlandlady.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/DrivableGrass.8.jpg
http://www.generalpavingstones.com/images/Commercial/Concrete%20Pavers/Grass%20Pavers/CB2.jpg
http://www.pavingexpert.com/images/permeable/grassguard.jpg
http://www.tilecoinc.com/pages/garden_pages/grassblok.jpg
http://www.berkeysupply.com/images/products//grass-paver-example-01.jpg
http://www.exteriordesignsofalexandria.com/images/turfstone.jpg
http://www.paversearch.com/images/clip_image004_0002.jpg

Does a parking lot have to be asphalt? Can a parking lot feel like a park? Can a green parking lot be used for something else? Like festivals, outdoor tent shows, food fairs?

highwater
May 14, 2010, 5:34 PM
:previous: Neat. Would also reduce run off and heat island effect.

SteelTown
May 14, 2010, 5:39 PM
Guess you would need to spray paint the parking lanes each time you cut the grass though.

realcity
May 14, 2010, 5:50 PM
they already have this type of parking at Bernie Arbour. This is not my idea, it's used effectively around the planet. Now that it's not my idea are you okay with it? or do you need more pics?
http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/pavement(3).jpg
http://imgs.tootoo.com/fc/e2/fce2f71f9fe08d6c8b25729a08fafde6.jpg
http://www.porous-paving.com.au/images/turfcell2.jpg
http://floridaturf.com/hillsbof.jpg
http://www.invisiblestructures.com/images/bluecross290.jpg
Low use, low speed parking lots are perfect for Grasspave® grass paver.

realcity
May 14, 2010, 5:51 PM
So cut the grass. and then paint the lines just like every little league game or soccer field in the city. Wouldn't you say that's worth the effort for not having asphalt?

realcity
May 14, 2010, 5:54 PM
wheel chairs, scooters, baby strollers can roll over it just as easy as ashpalt. I would love to tailgate on a surface like this.

Green roofs? Green parking lots.

markbarbera
May 14, 2010, 6:14 PM
In other news...

Young to attend economic summit
Ticat owner expected to take part in downtown renewal focus

The Hamilton Spectator
May 14, 2010

In what will surely add buzz to an already highly anticipated showdown, Ticat owner Bob Young is a last-minute registrant for Monday's Hamilton Economic Summit.

Young was given a pass to the already overbooked summit yesterday.

It was unclear last night whether Young or Ticat president Scott Mitchell, or both, will be part of a formal panel discussion about the Pan Am Games.

Either way, summit-goers will have a chance to talk to Young, said Hamilton Chamber of Commerce CEO John Dolbec.

"I don't expect fireworks," said Mitchell, referring to a panel forum between the Ticats, Mayor Fred Eisenberger and Ian Troop and Patrick Dillon of the Pan Am Games.

"It will be a discourse about the opportunities the Pan Am Games bring to both amateur sport and professional sport in this city," he said.

The Ticats and the city are in a very public standoff about the location of a new stadium. The football club says it can't make the city's chosen west harbour site work financially.

Mitchell said Young happens to be in town Monday and wanted to take part in the summit discussions, including a focus on downtown renewal.

"It's obviously important that everyone understands the importance of the future of Hamilton's downtown. That's why the Ticats bought a 40,000-square-foot building and work downtown," he said.

realcity
May 14, 2010, 6:20 PM
I don't know what that means?

but this is Bob Young's company
http://www.mrx.ca/

realcity
May 14, 2010, 7:05 PM
:previous: Neat. Would also reduce run off and heat island effect.

you could even keep most of the trees at Confederation Park. :)

scott000
May 15, 2010, 12:58 AM
I really like the green parking lots as well. Anything's better than gravel.

SteelTown
May 15, 2010, 3:40 PM
The question: Will any stadium site suffice?

May 15, 2010
Emma Reilly
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/769918

Is the debate surrounding the Pan Am stadium about location, or is it about money?

As the controversy over the west harbour site progresses, it's becoming increasingly difficult to separate the two.

The Tiger-Cats say poor access to the west harbour will cost them $7 million each year. The city says it won't be able to provide the Cats with enough revenue to cover those losses, no matter where the stadium is located.

The two sides are now turning to a facilitator to try to work out an agreement.

The economics of CFL stadiums are based on a combination of admissions, rentals and ticket surcharges. Most are operated under a public-private partnerships between teams and municipalities or universities.

Like other CFL sites, Hamilton's new stadium will offer a range of money generators that both the city and the Cats could draw from.

Cash will come in from ticket revenues, parking fees, naming rights, concessions, advertising and amenities such as luxury suites or club seats. Exactly how those streams will be divided is yet to be decided by the Cats and the city.

Right now, the Cats' operating budget is just over $14 million. In 2015, Mitchell estimates the budget will have climbed to $17 million based on a 20,000-seat stadium.

Mitchell says the Tiger Cats would need the following revenue to break even:

* $10 million in tickets (a goal set by the CFL for all of its teams)

* $3 million in corporate partnerships

* $1 million each in merchandise and concessions

* $2 million from the league

However, Mitchell said a report by Deloitte consulting assumed the city would get $2 million of that revenue to cover new stadium costs and ticket sales would be reduced by $5 million because the stadium isn't easily accessible by car, for a total loss of $7 million.

"You have to provide a very easy, convenient, positive experience. The moment you put barriers to entry of that experience -- location, parking, transportation, access -- that obviously has an incredible impact on your ability to sell tickets," Mitchell said.

"Why would people come down to a stadium that they can't get to and they can't park at, when they can stay at home and watch it on their 60-inch TV?"

As a result, Mitchell says the most important aspect of the new stadium is making it as easy as possible for fans to get to games.

"Ninety per cent of our revenues in one way, shape, or form, are derived from the retail experience, whether it be beverage, souvenirs, corporate partnerships, tickets - it's all a retail experience," he said. "And at the end of the day, what's the most essential thing to retail experience? Location."

City manager Chris Murray sees it differently. He says the city won't be able to provide the Ticats with the revenue they need, even if the stadium sat beside a highway with ample room for parking.

Hypothetically, if the Ticats charged $10 per spot in a 10,000-vehicle lot -- which Murray points out "would be a very large piece of asphalt" -- during the Cats' 10 home games, that adds up to $1 million. He estimates naming rights would bring in about $400,000 to $500,000 a year. That still leaves $5.5 million in losses for the Ticats.

"If you look at the consumption patterns of a Ticats fan once they're at the stadium, I don't think it matters whether that stadium is beside a 400-series highway or beside a lake or a harbour. I think they're going to consume once they're there -- that doesn't change from one site to another," Murray said.

"Which begs the question -- at this point in the process, is there a site in Hamilton that will allow you to break even?"

SteelTown
May 15, 2010, 3:42 PM
Playing for keeps
It's a high-stakes standoff between the city and Tiger-Cats over the site of a new civic stadium. Is there a way out so the team, city, fans and taxpayers can all score a win?

May 15, 2010
Jon Wells
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/769905

If you build it, they-- hold that cliche right there. Because right now in Hamilton, catchlines from weepy 1980s Kevin Costner movies won't cut it.

When it comes to a deal between the city and Tiger-Cats that would see a new stadium rising on the waterfront in time for the 2015 Pan Am Games -- one that the Cats will also call home -- "if" is the critical word.

It's probably time for a football metaphor. A deadline for Monday set by Pan Am Games officials for Hamilton to finalize its stadium plan won't be met. So with the city and Ticats trying to iron out an understanding, it's not quite third and goal with seconds on the clock. But it is definitely very late in the fourth quarter.

And in this game, both sides probably have to play for the tie in order for the people of Hamilton to win in the end.

One thing seems clear: If a deal falls through, the spectre of the Ticats leaving town, ending the team's 60-year run in the city, becomes very real.

Can both sides find a win-win solution?

"That's not even open to question," said David Braley, who once owned (and saved) the Cats and now sits on the Pan Am Games board.

"The bottom line is, they've got to."

In the distant future, what happens over the coming days may well be looked back upon as a critical moment in the long and sometimes tortured histories of both the Ticats and the waterfront. It may be looked back upon as a time when stalemate led to big reputations and big money being thrown away, or on the other hand when cool heads and clear thinking led to opportunity embraced, all to Hamilton's benefit.

The city, led by Mayor Fred Eisenberger, wants to go ahead with the west harbour stadium site. Talk among city leaders of building there goes back many years, seen as a way to bring people back to the water and, by proxy, the downtown.

The mission runs deep in the psyche of Eisenberger: nine years ago he was named the first chair of the Hamilton Port Authority, and he has been bullish on renewing the harbour all along. His political future is likely on the line.

The Ticats, led by owner Bob Young, as the one regular future tenant of the stadium, oppose the west harbour site. Young says he will lose $7 million a year at that site and would prefer one directly off a highway, with opportunities for more traffic flow and parking.

Team president Scott Mitchell has said a site near the QEW and Red Hill Valley Parkway interchange would fit that bill. On a Toronto sports talk radio show last week, he said the Cats would "love for people to come over (the Skyway) and see this beautiful facility down the road."

He added that the west harbour site was "theoretically" attractive but is "bordered by water on one side and a cliff on the other. You can't get in or out, there's no parking, no access, no public transportation."

The Ticats and their fans have long put up with the quirky but highly unprofitable charms of Ivor Wynne Stadium. For Young, a new stadium, if done right, could finally stop the annual bleeding he takes running the team.

In theory, if the two sides cannot come to an agreement, any Pan Am stadium for Hamilton -- and $60 million in matching federal and provincial dollars -- could go down the drain.

Can the dispute be bridged?

Former CFL commissioner Tom Wright, a consultant who worked with Jim Balsillie to try to bring the NHL to Hamilton, says civic and business interests inevitably clash.

"The challenge for the mayor and Bob Young is to find areas of mutual interest where they can work together, finding that balance."

In that respect, he says Eisenberger's task of sticking to his guns is more complicated than is Young's.

"The mayor has a broader constituency to convince, whereas Bob has the person he looks at in the mirror in the morning."

At the same time, Young calls himself "caretaker" of the Ticats, and everyone familiar with him lauds his community instincts.

"The Ticats would not exist if not for Bob Young," Wright said. "Of all the CFL owners, if anyone thinks of the community first, it's Bob."

Whoever is tapped to help facilitate an agreement will look for points that each side will bend on.

"In any negotiation," said chartered mediator Igor Ellyn, "if you present something that the other side absolutely cannot live with, there's no deal. You have to identify the dealbreakers."

Is the harbour site a dealbreaker? It's hard to imagine Eisenberger agreeing to any other site. The Ticats? On the radio show, Mitchell suggested there might be wiggle room.

"We're not saying the west harbour site is absolutely, positively never going to happen," he said. "What we're saying is that with what the city's presented, there is no chance it will happen, because Bob (Young) would be on the hook for $7 million (in losses a year).

"I'm confident we will come to a resolution that is good for the city; it's just going to take a lot of work."

In past comments, Young has sounded less sold on any particular site. Fourteen months ago, he did say that he envisioned the new stadium's bottom line stimulated by selling naming rights, hosting multiple sports and concerts, and possibly incorporating office, retail, restaurant, cinema and health-club uses.

Perhaps if Young -- with the city's assistance -- aggressively courted private-sector partners willing to get in the game to support and expand the stadium and its amenities, and bolster Ticat revenues, that could make the business case for the harbour site for the team.

While a harbour or core-area site has its challenges, as it happens, the most celebrated and profitable new sports complexes in recent years have been those located in city downtowns, not suburban highway-centred locations -- in cities such as Baltimore, Cleveland, Pittsburgh and San Francisco, or closer to home, the John Labatt Centre in London, Ont. All of these venues have been boons to the community and commerce. London's arena was critical in revitalizing that city's downtown, and was named 2009's Major Facility of the Year at Canadian Music Week.

If the harbour does become a dealbreaker, it's possible that the Hamilton Ticats could become a thing of the past. But Scott Mitchell has suggested that Young will not use the stadium site as a pretext for getting out of town: "He is not playing that card. But people have to be realistic about the fact that if Bob's not willing to own the team on the west harbour, who is?"

Ticat legend Angelo Mosca says he won't even entertain the thought of the team leaving town.

"One thing I do know is that we're lucky to have an owner of the calibre of Bob Young. I hear a few people asking what's he done for the city. What's he done? He saved the Tiger-Cats, that's what he's done."

And Mosca's stadium preference?

"Just build it where it makes money."

Wherever that is, perhaps the city and Ticats will arrive there together, and soon. Maybe the time for Costnerian quotations from the movie Field of Dreams has never been more ripe.

"This field, this game, it's a part of our past, it reminds us of all that once was good and could be again," intones the Terence Mann character, played by James Earl Jones. "Oh, people will come. People will most definitely come."

markbarbera
May 15, 2010, 7:21 PM
Posted to spec.com this afternoon:

Potential B stadium plans in Pan Am negotiation
TheSpec.com - BreakingNews

John Kernaghan
The city has agreed to discuss alternate sites to the west harbour for the 2015 Pan Am stadium, putting it and the Hamilton Tiger-Cats closer to naming a facilitator to hammer out a solution for the $100- to $150-million facility.

Both sides said Saturday that other locations could be assessed.

“The west harbour site should be the starting point,” said Mayor Fred Eisenberger, but he added he does not disagree with looking at other sites if they are viable.

He made his comments after a community engagement session Saturday morning at the Art Gallery of Hamilton which looked at opportunities flowing from the Games.

Ticat president Scott Mitchell stressed during the meeting that “any and all” sites should be open for examination.

The city left open the option of a plan B site in February when council approved the west harbour location.

Both men said 90 per cent of discussions between the city and the football club have been productive

The city is carrying on with planning around the Bay and Barton Streets site, including land purchases and soil testing.

Eisenberger said he called for the engagement session in order to bring the Pan Am discussion back to the reasons Premier Dalton McGuinty led the charge to win the Games and Hamilton agreed to be a senior partner.

The session centred on the health and wealth benefits from a legacy of sports and recreation facilities to serve the community, thousands of construction, service and supply jobs and a buffing of Hamilton’s image internationally.

thistleclub
May 15, 2010, 10:34 PM
a 10,000-vehicle lot -- which Murray points out "would be a very large piece of asphalt"

For sake of reference, the downtown parking lot bordered by Wilson, John, Hughson and King William contains fewer than 300 parking spots. Lime Ridge Mall, which features upward of 4,000 parking spots, is closer to the mark.

realcity
May 16, 2010, 1:23 AM
http://www.tellepsen.com/content/includes/accordion/memorialcitymall_large.jpg
4000 vehicle parking garage

make an additional 2-3000 tailgating spaces with grass-pavers. the space could be multi-use for carnivals, festivals etc. when not used for the Cats.
http://greenterrafirma.com/images/grass-cell-pavers.jpg
parking lots don't have to be ashphalt that sits empty 80% of the time

Seattle Seahawks tailgate party
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Haydro/bluethunderbog/tailgate01.jpg

Atlanta Falcons tailgate party
http://roaddoggexpress.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/Tailgating_2004_group.181130009_std.jpg

even sprawly Atlanta has a downtownish stadium

If they want parking then make them build it.

And i don't get why Beach Strip/Confed Park is being called suburban? That area "Hutch's" goes back to the 30s im pretty sure.

And I don't get why the Rheem site is being called both; downtown and waterfront? when it is neither.? I need to understand that. This is a war of semantics.

One side is calling ... Barton/Bay or is it Stuart and Caroline? Not sure.... a downtown and waterfront location. Fails at both.

The same side is calling Confed Park, suburban highway ashphalt 1950s. Also not true.

Look i get it. But if the Cats aren't in, the stadium is a track and field venue at best for college and high school.


I don't know why people want to make Bob Young and the Cats look like the bad guy here? It's mind baffling to me. To force an unprofitable business model onto a business and then call our City "Open for Business"?

Most pro-teams can't function without public monies. In fact ALL amateur sport cant function without public money. So what do we do? Have no sports? It's difficult to make an argument about the Olympics or PanAm's existence when they aspire us all to be better. But when an 'evil money making' pro sports team enters the picture.. Heck let's not give him/her an ounce of support. Make it on your own. Even if those athletes are former amateur athletes *that we admired* before they became money makers.

This entire argument makes less and less sense to me everyday. Both sides are stubborn as heck. Why there can't be a middle ground solution is so very frustrating for me.

For example... d***che bag calls for a 10k parking lot of ashpalt. He can't have any creativity for parking vehicles. And people all start ya ya, that;s alotof ashphalt. That kind of posturing just kills any mediation or solution making. If we can't resolve this, we can't do anything anymore.

We know Ivor Wynne is well past its best before date. The Cats are trying to make it work. Pro Teams put cities on the map, the help economically and make us proud.

Hamilton needs the Cats. The Cats need a good stadium.. a profitable stadium. *And i want everyone to forget for one minute about what is called the 'spin offs'. There are none.* If I was Bob Young, I would want to claim every dollar that a fan showed up with in his/her wallet. I would not want to let them go with $40 extra and spend it somewhere else. That is how business works. *oooo I know its evil, but we all have internet right now reading this in our house because of an evil capitalist company provided it for us in return for our labour/knowledge.

So if this stadium is at King and James or Stuart and Caroline there will be very little spin off economics. The best you can hope for is for the stadium to function profitably for the Cats and have many other uses. The other uses might be the potential spinoffs. If a stadium is built that can't even profit the TiCats then how will it be functionable for anything else.?

Hamilton needs some proud going on. And a good, first-class stadium with a lively "best game in the CFL" is a good Rx.
http://www.pewterreport.com/img/articleImages/2008_08_26_895_TailgateOfTheWeekSmall

bigguy1231
May 16, 2010, 1:30 AM
"The city is carrying on with planning around the Bay and Barton Streets site, including land purchases and soil testing."

Thats the most important line in that whole article. Why would the city spend money it doesn't have on a site that isn't going to use.

I think the discussions are more than likely going to revolve around the size of the stadium to be built rather than the location. Parking, naming rights and access might be small concerns but the number of seats is probably the Ti Cats primary concern.

realcity
May 16, 2010, 1:49 AM
the parking formula model from the City doesn't calculate for me. You have premium parking, tailgating parking, and shuttle bus parking. How the heck do 70,000 NFL stadiums do it? And we're struggling with 25k. ? It's baffling. the amount of posturing and lack of creativity and lack of communication/cooperation between the City and the TiCats.

Remember this is the TiCat's Stadium after the games.... remember that. No? well what was Ivor Wynne after the Commonwealth Games.?

You can ride your bike, walk or take the bus. There needs to be as many options as possible. And you pay accordingly for the convenience. If the City/Cats can make an extra $2 million a year on parking for the people that can afford and want the convenience then great.

If the city/cats can make an extra $1mil on upscale F&B then great. Do it.

This has to be a great stadium. Not a BMO stadium.. . heck even Ivor Wynne is better than BMO.

It is about the experience like Mitchell said. Sorry we both have marketing backgrounds. You have to want to come back, because it was fun and well worth the money.... or else you'll spend your money on someone else's business.

I don't care... *neither do the TiCats* where the stadium is.... we want it built in a location that makes economical sense.

For me. I want a stadium that is architecturally important. and makes Hamilton look proud.

markbarbera
May 16, 2010, 1:54 AM
a 10,000-vehicle lot -- which Murray points out "would be a very large piece of asphalt"
For sake of reference, the downtown parking lot bordered by Wilson, John, Hughson and King William contains fewer than 300 parking spots. Lime Ridge Mall, which features upward of 4,000 parking spots, is closer to the mark.

Murray's being facetious at a time where he should be serious, and behaving in a manner unbecoming for his position in this matter (just like his boss). No one is calling for 10,000 spaces, and no one is calling for them to be placed on surface asphalt.

Apparently Murray and his cheerleaders have never heard of parking garages, elevated or below grade. Perhaps this would explain his support of surface parking thoughout the downtown core.

To imply that Young is demanding a Lime Ridge Mall style swath of surface parking at the stadium site is the kind of cheap political parlor tricks that have held this city back time and again. Enough with the silly posturing and wedge politics and get on with developing a winning site formula already.

realcity
May 16, 2010, 1:57 AM
^ bravo

thistleclub
May 16, 2010, 2:13 AM
My LRM comparison was about relative scale more than anything... I'd never heard the 10,000 figure until this week, but was more familiar with a 6,000 figure. I certainly wouldn't expect the configuration to be all surface; this build will be at least LEED Silver, which I assume will define the parking options as much as dictate work on the stadium itself. What does seem pretty obvious to me is that an innovative parking solution is not folded into the cost of building the stadium, and underground or elevated parking will add to the sticker price. Which is fine. As they say, you've gotta spend money to make money. I already get nervous when I hear talk about wringing 20,000 seats out of a 15,000 seater budget. That seems like an invitation to cut corners... and that in turn reduces the likelihood of it being architecturally important, or even of lasting as long as it otherwise might. Put it where it needs to be, build the parking that fits the project, and let the Pan Am brain trust figure out a way to lure the private sector partners and area sports philanthropists into footing the balance of the project cost. The sooner the better, really. Both sides in this story have made a very public hash of what should have been a PR windfall for the city.

thistleclub
May 16, 2010, 11:57 AM
The LEED-certified Santa Monica Civic Center parking structure (http://vimeo.com/10467834) offers a creative (http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/04/14/first-leed-certified-parking-garage) alternative. (http://www.archlighting.com/industry-news.asp?articleID=782801&sectionID=1306)

realcity
May 16, 2010, 3:19 PM
just build a first class, architecturally impressive 30k stadium...... anywhere within our borders... that is my best hope right now

scott000
May 16, 2010, 5:10 PM
The LEED-certified Santa Monica Civic Center parking structure (http://vimeo.com/10467834) offers a creative (http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/04/14/first-leed-certified-parking-garage) alternative. (http://www.archlighting.com/industry-news.asp?articleID=782801&sectionID=1306)

That looks great, especially all lit up at night. Only problem, I don't think the City or Cats will be spending that kind of cash on parking ($30+ mill for 900 spots).

SteelTown
May 17, 2010, 11:09 AM
Pan Am bid theme lost over site debate

May 17, 2010
John Kernaghan
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/770728

Mayor Fred Eisenberger wants the Pan Am Games debate wrenched back to the themes that sparked the original bid for the 2015 showcase.

This comes as the city has agreed to discuss alternate sites to the west harbour for the 2015 Pan Am stadium, putting it and the Hamilton Tiger-Cats closer to naming a facilitator to hammer out a solution for the $100- to $150-million facility.

But at the mayor's Pan Am community engagement session Saturday, talk about how sports and recreation facilities bolster healthy lifestyles, offer jobs and business opportunities and create cultural spinoffs and social inclusion trumped any discussion about stadium location.

"Let's not lose sight of why this was engineered in the first place from the Premier (Dalton McGuinty) on down."

He cited health and wellness enhancement from almost $200 million in Games' facilities for Hamilton as a vital benefit.

"That vision of the power of the Games to encourage healthier lifestyles is something we cannot let go of," he said. "If we get these things right, you save yourself on the other side of the question by keeping people from tripping into the health system, which is getting more and more expensive."

Asked about the west harbour stadium site, Eisenberger said he does not disagree with looking at other sites if they are viable, but added, "The west harbour site should be the starting point." The city left open the option of a plan B site in February when council approved the west harbour location.

Ticat president Scott Mitchell, a panellist, stressed during the meeting "any and all" sites should be open for examination.

One of the panellists, Richard Koroscil, told about 100 people at the Art Gallery of Hamilton the Pan Am Games can leverage developments leading to a renaissance for the city.

The Hamilton Chamber of Commerce chair pointed to the 2003 Road World Cycling Championships and the glorious aerial images of the city sent around the world.

"We know the advantages we have here and some lights are coming on outside our community, but we need to get that message out. The Pan Am Games is that window to the world."

The business opportunities flowing from the Games will be central to today's Hamilton Economic Summit. Toronto 2015 CEO Ian Troop will lead a panel on the topic.

Realtors are already seeing rising interest in the city, broker Larry Szpirglas told the gathering.

He said a stadium at the west harbour would leverage that interest into real investment that could revitalize the city core.

Szpirglas said he wouldn't mind his tax dollars subsidizing the Tiger-Cats at a west harbour location because of what it would attract to the city.

Resident James Drake countered he "didn't think the team can make it (financially) and I see the Ticats trying to hijack the stadium."

Bill Urie, who spoke on behalf of the Golden Horseshoe Council of Track Clubs, reminded the panel sports are the central theme of the Games, but a legacy beyond two weeks in 2015 is crucial.

He said track clubs from Niagara to Oakville to Brantford are ready to jump on the stadium track opportunity and the possibility of an indoor track at the velodrome.

SteelTown
May 17, 2010, 1:18 PM
Looks like July 1st is the new deadline.

You can follow the stadium debate here
http://www.thespec.com/News/article/769698

BrianE
May 17, 2010, 3:25 PM
Playing for keeps
He added that the west harbour site was "theoretically" attractive but is "bordered by water on one side and a cliff on the other. You can't get in or out, there's no parking, no access, no public transportation."

This Scott Mitchell guy makes me angry.

Apparently the 300 000 + people that live between the "water on one side" and the "cliff" on the other don't factor into his reality at all. He may want to take a look at ticket sales and just who in this City is buying tickets to TiCats games.

Also, he completely glosses over the railway line that is between the water and the stadium. It's like it's invisible or something. This railway couldn't possibly be used by GO transit to bring in fans from Toronto. Maybe the train could stop in Oakville or Burlington on the way to pick up the VIP's from the suburbs.

highwater
May 17, 2010, 6:07 PM
I know. It kills me. So much of the opposition to the West Harbour is disingenuous spin to put it mildly. "No one ever goes to Bayfront! It's too haaaaaard!" :tantrum:

drpgq
May 17, 2010, 8:51 PM
I follow the Cats pretty closely and have never been impressed by Scott Mitchell.

SteelTown
May 17, 2010, 9:16 PM
I find Scott Mitchell to give too many mixed messages.

markbarbera
May 17, 2010, 10:58 PM
Here is a different perspective on the whole Pan Am quagmire, as posted on thestar.com earlier today:

Tory’s the man to save Pan Am stadium deal
May 17, 2010

Dave Perkins

There’s a simple solution for the current head-butting going on over the location of the Pan Am Games/Hamilton Tiger-Cat stadium, which is Exhibit A in the brain-dead path this multibillion-dollar Games is taking.

Track and field events need to be switched to the University of Toronto’s new world-class track facility, with the main soccer portion of the 2015 Games relocated to the planned Hamilton-area facility. That way, the stadium would be much cheaper to build and would be ready for Canadian Football League games simply by repainting the field. Without an eight-lane running track, the stadium would be much more cozy for CFL football, plus dramatically less expensive to both build and convert.

Hamilton thus retains a major showcase event — given its swelling popularity here, soccer probably will be bigger than t&f at these Games — the Tiger-Cats get their new stadium and the largest group of athletes won’t have a stupidly long commute from the athletes’ village in downtown Toronto.

That’s the first — and easiest — of a handful of solutions needed to solve the mess our politicians and overmatched organizers are making of these Games. It also needs to be made soon. A staff briefing to Hamilton city council from earlier this year shows one of the options is a “do-nothing’’ approach by which Hamilton would withdraw from the Pan Ams entirely (and thus face endless maintenance and/or replacement costs for ancient Ivor Wynne Stadium). A second (terrible) option lists a stadium and velodrome near Hamilton airport. The third and only sensible suggestion is to find a stadium site agreeable to all parties by a deadline of June 30.

John Tory, in his role as chair of the City Summit Alliance and past commissioner of the CFL, should immediately convene a meeting of the principals and hash this out before the Pan Ams solidify as the most expensive embarrassment since the Big Owe. By principals, that means at least Mark Cohon of the CFL, Scott Mitchell and/or Bob Young of the Tiger-Cats, Hamilton Mayor Fred Eisenberger, Argo owner and Pan Am board member David Braley, plus Pan Am CEO Ian Troop and chair Roger Garland.

Eisenberger has backed off his insistence that the stadium be located in the west harbour, a totally unworkable plan. This follows Ticat owner Young’s calls for a facilitator and Tory would seem a natural for the job. (Remember when David Crombie used to be the guy to iron out things like this?)

“I would be happy to help out in some way if I could,’’ Tory said in an email Monday, acknowledging that he has heard his name has been suggested. “I think it is absolutely essential we sort this out. I am a huge believer in the Pan Am Games for the good of sport and the region and a huge believer in the CFL (which) means a healthy Ticat team, which means a new stadium. SURELY we can get this sorted out.’’

It simply makes no sense to ignore the track facility at the U of T, given the relatively short commute for the athletes. With 6,000 seats already in place, another 10,000 temporary seats could be erected cheaply on the west side of the stadium, with minimal traffic disruption.

Imagine making use of a top-notch facility right on the subway line, while the Ticats, at least, get a new football-friendly stadium without the costs involved with installing and removing a running track. This makes so much sense that surely even politicians can figure it out.

Then, if they can fix this, perhaps Games organizers and sports officials — who should be speaking up rather than complaining quietly — can understand why the bicycle road races are far better in Hamilton than at the CNE, or how to get out of an aquatics facility proposed for a former garbage dump that could cost a couple of hundred million bucks to clean up.

Time is draining too quickly to let the craziness continue.

Perkins makes some valid points in this piece. Is anyone listening?

thistleclub
May 18, 2010, 12:34 AM
So HostCo would swap Hamilton's $102m track and field stadium for Burlington’s $23m soccer centre (thereby solving the NEC standoff and detouring around the Steeltown teamwork fustercluck)? Seems like a good life lesson for all involved, if nothing else. And Bob still gets a home for his TBD soccer team.

markbarbera
May 18, 2010, 2:14 AM
So HostCo would swap Hamilton's $102m track and field stadium for Burlington’s $23m soccer centre (thereby solving the NEC standoff and detouring around the Steeltown teamwork fustercluck)? Seems like a good life lesson for all involved, if nothing else. And Bob still gets a home for his TBD soccer team.

That's not what he's suggesting at all. His suggestion is, instead of designing the Hamilton stadium for track then retrofitting to football post Pan Am, design it for soccer and have the major Pan Am soccer events played here instead of at BMO Field. At the same time, he is suggesting track events be held at the existing U of T facility by just adding temporary bleachers to the existing field. Hamilton would still gets its $100 million towards a stadium, just in a format that would make for a more logical (and cost effective) transition to a football field post-games.

From where I stand this makes perfectly good sense.

bigguy1231
May 18, 2010, 6:15 AM
That's not what he's suggesting at all. His suggestion is, instead of designing the Hamilton stadium for track then retrofitting to football post Pan Am, design it for soccer and have the major Pan Am soccer events played here instead of at BMO Field. At the same time, he is suggesting track events be held at the existing U of T facility by just adding temporary bleachers to the existing field. Hamilton would still gets its $100 million towards a stadium, just in a format that would make for a more logical (and cost effective) transition to a football field post-games.

From where I stand this makes perfectly good sense.

That would make perfect sense. Unfortunately, during the planning process, the bureaucrats at City Hall determined we needed a multi purpose stadium. So the planning took place with that in mind. I could never figure out what they were thinking, insisting that we have a stadium with a track.

thistleclub
May 18, 2010, 10:52 AM
That's not what he's suggesting at all. His suggestion is, instead of designing the Hamilton stadium for track then retrofitting to football post Pan Am, design it for soccer and have the major Pan Am soccer events played here instead of at BMO Field. At the same time, he is suggesting track events be held at the existing U of T facility by just adding temporary bleachers to the existing field. Hamilton would still gets its $100 million towards a stadium, just in a format that would make for a more logical (and cost effective) transition to a football field post-games.

From where I stand this makes perfectly good sense.

Ah, my mistake. Yeah, it does make sense, although that piece also makes the entire Games bid look like a blue-sky shambles. And on Hamilton's side, the creative stadium thinking might well be moot if the parties involved can't get their asses in gear. I'm constantly amazed that the best and brightest from both sides are still essentially clueless as to preferred sites and drawing blank stares from the private sector three years after identifying the pressing need to build a new stadium. It's as if they expected somebody else to solve the problem in a way that somehow magically fulfilled their dreams. No wonder the press coverage of this debacle paints us as a city of mewling children.


July 1 deadline to resolve stadium stalemate (http://thespec.com/article/771286)

John Kernaghan
The Hamilton Spectator
(May 18, 2010)

A facilitator to referee the Pan Am stadium dispute will be unveiled tomorrow for approval by a special meeting of city councillors.

The two sides agreed on the individual yesterday following a new deadline to find a solution to the stadium standoff.

That July 1 date came out of a Pan Am panel at the Hamilton Economic Summit.

Both Mayor Fred Eisenberger and Tiger-Cats owner Bob Young said the session provided a sense of urgency.

Part of the discussion on a facilitator centred on whether it should be someone from inside or outside the community.

Sources close to the discussion said someone based in Hamilton might be too close to the subject, while fresh eyes outside the city might take too long to get up to speed on the issue.

Young called for a facilitator last week after the city rejected his call for a 90-day moratorium on submitting the west harbour location to Toronto 2015, the Games host corporation.

But the six-week extension to July 1 came with a caution that failure could mean the loss of the $100-million to $150-million facility.

Yesterday was the day the two parties were supposed to indicate agreement on a site to Toronto 2015.

The July 1 date was thrown out by moderator Nick Bontis and backed by a majority of hands attending the discussion at the Hamilton Convention Centre.

"July 1 would be a great target," responded Toronto 2015 CEO Ian Troop.

Mayor Fred Eisenberger agreed, but Young and Tiger-Cats president Scott Mitchell wondered if that date is too optimistic.

For a private-public partnership to work, Young said, requires that the private sector is engaged in the project.

The Ticats say they can't see much interest in investing in the site at Bay and Barton streets.

Troop said in an interview that there is general interest in the Games by the business community across the Golden Horseshoe, but it "would take something concrete so you can engage partners to look at the investment opportunities."

Later, Troop said the host corporation is keeping a stadium fallback decision in mind in case Hamilton can't deliver.

A home for the Tiger-Cats after hosting Games track and field has always been part of the Pan Am quest. But if it doesn't work in Hamilton, the Varsity Centre at the University of Toronto might be the Games' Plan B.

It could be turned into a 15,000-seat stadium with temporary seating. And it is about 10 minutes from the athletes village, not the 45-minute trip Hamilton represents.

Also, talk around the amateur sports world has tossed out York University as a possible fallback.

Troop said Toronto 2015 "has not engaged yet (with fallback partners), but we're pretty confident there will be options to fill the needs of the Games."

Actually, that eighth line makes it sound as if we stand to lose the higher-level funding for the stadium if we can't wise up by Canada Day. Colour me confused.

SteelTown
May 18, 2010, 11:25 AM
They can whip up a temporary stadium with less than $25 million no problem.

thistleclub
May 18, 2010, 1:11 PM
They can whip up a temporary stadium with less than $25 million no problem.

That's kind of where I see this headed: Temp stadium by 2015, with a bricks-and-mortar stadium arriving whenever we next host the Commonwealth Games.

SteelTown
May 18, 2010, 1:14 PM
Doubt a possible temporary stadium would be built in Hamilton. It'll likely be built somewhere along an empty greenspace along the Lakeshore West line.

SteelTown
May 18, 2010, 1:17 PM
City and Ticats agree on a facilitator

Rick Zamperin
5/18/2010
http://www.900chml.com/Channels/Reg/NewsLocalGeneral/Story.aspx?ID=1231125

The City of Hamilton and the Hamilton Tiger-Cats have agreed on a facilitator to help guide the two sides through concerns over the site of the 2015 Pan Am Games Stadium.

“I have great confidence in this seasoned individual whose integrity and sense of fair play will help us find common ground and come to a workable solution for both parties,” said Mayor Fred Eisenberger. "We know there is a finite window of opportunity to get this right and I remain committed to working with the Tiger-Cats to ensure this will be a positive, lasting legacy for the city of Hamilton for generations to come."

"We confirm that we have agreed on a facilitator,” said Tiger-Cats President Scott Mitchell. “We look forward to working with the facilitator to find a mutually beneficial solution for the city of Hamilton, the Hamilton Tiger-Cats and the taxpayers of our great city."

Mayor Eisenberger has called for a special meeting of Committee of the Whole for tomorrow where it is anticipated that the facilitator will be accepted by councillors.

The unnamed facilitator will help the city and the Ticats determine the best place to locate the stadium.

The city wants to built it at the West Harbour site while the CFL club is against that plan, citing visibility, accessibility and parking issues.

thistleclub
May 18, 2010, 1:22 PM
Doubt a possible temporary stadium would be built in Hamilton. It'll likely be built somewhere along an empty greenspace along the Lakeshore West line.

To be honest, I'm not sure which way is up anymore. I'm just hoping it all works out for the best and that we don't embarrass ourselves further.

Dalreg
May 18, 2010, 2:09 PM
Well for my two cents, I see Hamilton losing out in a stadium thue way things are going.

A Track and Field stadium could end up going at U of T or York University, for a lot less money. Socer at BMO and that leaves Hamilton with what, sweet **** all.

The Tiger Cats need to pull their heads out. Where else will the find money for a new stadium? Money doesn't grow on trees.

SteelTown
May 18, 2010, 4:03 PM
Michael Fenn to be named stadium facilitator

May 18, 2010
Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/771407

A former top level bureaucrat with the old region of Hamilton Wentworth and the provincial government is the facilitator who will help broker a deal between the city and Ticats over the Pan Am stadium location and finances.

The Spectator has learned that Michael Fenn, a Burlington resident who has also served as CEO of the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority and city manager in Burlington, will be officially named as the facilitator tomorrow.

SteelTown
May 19, 2010, 11:11 AM
Could Cats really leave Hamilton?

May 19, 2010
Andrew Dreschel
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/771622

The Ticats are at risk of leaving Hamilton.

The city knew about the team's concerns with the west harbour early on. And taking Confederation Park out of the stadium site mix soured the process from the start.

Those were some of the thoughts Hamilton Tiger-Cats owner Bob Young shared during an interview on the eve of Michael Fenn's appointment as facilitator.

Young says the tug-of-war with the city is not over location or naming rights or "nickel and diming each other over a few parking spots." It's about striking the right public-private partnership and possibly sharing money from the increased value of the real estate around the stadium.

"The location should be a secondary consideration to the business arrangements," Young said.

Nonetheless, despite what the city claims, Young says the Ticats privately raised concerns about the west harbour location early on in the process.

Why didn't they go public?

"For us to go public before the city had a chance to listen to us privately and to work through it, it wouldn't have contributed."

"It would have created a lot of ill will with the city and a lot of suspicions," Young said.

"So we quite seriously committed to working with the city.

"It was only at the point that we realized the city was going to continue with the plan that we did not believe in that we, in effect, had to make it a public debate."

Why didn't the Ticats put together a business case for an alternative site?

"It's a perfectly fair criticism," said Young, founder of the Lulu on-demand publishing company. "First let me acknowledge that because we don't have a good alternative site. But let's set a couple of ground rules. One is, I'm an Internet software guy. Real estate development is not something I do. I live in Raleigh, North Carolina, so understanding what parcels of land might be available to build on in Hamilton is not an area I have any experience in."

Besides, says Young, the city will be the stadium landlord and the Ticats only a tenant.

"If the building doesn't work for us as prospective tenant ... it's up to the landlord to figure out how to fix the problem."

Young suggests the process was soured from the beginning when city council peeled Confederation Park off the list of possible sites without first studying it.

He doesn't know if Confederation Park is the solution, but he says deleting it limited the discussion and outcome from the start.

Young's comments come as the timeline for striking a deal with the city -- which has based its business plan for the new stadium on the Ticats being the primary tenant -- gets down to the finish line.

Meanwhile, the community is getting increasingly nervous we might lose the team and the Pan Am Games stadium unless an agreement can be reached in the next six or so weeks.

As the Ticats and city struggle to find common ground, the question arises: Is there is any chance of the team leaving town?

"Where would we go?" Young said. "I've made the joke before of becoming the (Mississauga Mayor) Hazel McCallion Ticats, but the answer is no.

"Let me be really blunt. I've said directly and really consistently from Day 1: I don't care where the (expletive deleted) stadium goes as long as we build it in Hamilton."

Does that mean, however this wrestling match with the city ends up, the team is not at risk of leaving Hamilton?

"It's absolutely at risk," said Young. "If Ivor Wynne falls down and we don't build a viable alternative, where are the Cats going to play?

"So, yeah, this is serious. We believe we can work through it. We're optimistic.

"But don't let's pretend it's not serious."

SteelTown
May 19, 2010, 11:12 AM
Michael Fenn will QB talks with Cats, city

May 19, 2010
John Kernaghan
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/771619

The man tapped to solve the Pan Am stadium standoff is uniquely qualified, business and political leaders say.

Michael Fenn, former Burlington city manager, has the skills to get to the heart of the dispute -- a development issue in the west harbour area that has scared off the Tiger-Cats -- said Terry Cooke, his former boss.

"He is the most gifted public servant I have ever worked with," said Cooke, adding Fenn is now interim CEO of the Canadian Urban Institute.

The city and Fenn would not confirm he is the facilitator expected to be presented for approval to a special meeting of city councillors this morning.

Cooke, president and CEO of the Hamilton Community Foundation, said Fenn understands how a public-private partnership works.

He said Fenn was a key figure in cutting a deal that saved taxpayers big losses at the airport.

Fenn served as city manager in Burlington, where he lives, was named interim president and CEO to help fix eHealth Ontario, was founding CEO of Metrolinx and deputy minister of Ontario Ministries of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Cooke said Fenn loves sports and understands the business of sports and has a reputation of being calm and fair.

Businessman Ron Foxcroft, who had a hand in bringing the career civil servant to Hamilton from Burlington, said Fenn has the ability to see the needs of both sides of the negotiating table.

"He's highly skilled, cool and pensive. His whole career has been in situations where he had to juggle egos."

Tim Dobbie, who followed Fenn as city manager in Burlington, said he is a quick study who will drill down to the essence of the development issue and get a fast read on any alternative sites the Ticats may suggest.

Meantime, several city councillors spoke highly of him.

"My sense is that he is beyond reproach in terms of his past municipal career," said Brian McHattie.

"A fine candidate with an impeccable reputation," added Lloyd Ferguson.

And Dave Mitchell, who sat on Glanbrook town council during Fenn's tenure with the region, called him "business-minded" and "a highly, highly respected man who knows Hamilton well."

Sam Merulla termed Fenn as "very competent" but complained the stadium issue has distracted his council colleagues from more important work.

"We should be focused on governing for what this city needs."

Tiger-Cat owner Bob Young called for a facilitator early last week after the city rejected a 90-day moratorium on submitting the west harbour stadium site to Toronto 2015, the Games host corporation.

Young said he would lose $7 million a year at that site due to poor access for fans and little visibility for sponsors.

The Tiger-Cats want alternative sites on the table but have not identified any precisely.

The $100-million to $150-million Pan Am Games stadium would stage track and field in 2015, then become home to the football club.

thistleclub
May 19, 2010, 1:03 PM
Young says the tug-of-war with the city is not over location or naming rights or "nickel and diming each other over a few parking spots." It's about striking the right public-private partnership and possibly sharing money from the increased value of the real estate around the stadium.

I can see where the confusion would arise.

The Tiger-Cats have pointed out many unresolved problems with the West Harbour location. These concerns include:

a) No visibility outside of the immediate neighbourhood. Stadium “naming rights” can sell for millions of dollars per year. But no company will pay to put their name on a stadium if no one knows where the stadium is.
b) Traffic only has access to the West Harbour from one direction. This could be resolved with new roads, but the City has made the commitment to the local residents not to build any additional roads. This is just going to ensure that the residents are subjected to hours of traffic jams before and after every event held in the City’s new public facility.
c) No Parking. The City assures us rapid transit will be built to the site, but there is no funding for the proposed rapid transit. So the only access for many years after the stadium is built will be by foot or by car.
d) Neighbours. We try to point out that the majority of the neighbours are families whose quiet enjoyment of their neighbourhood will either be damaged by additional roads and parking lots, or by hours of traffic before and after every event held at the stadium if no other roads are built.

highwater
May 19, 2010, 1:17 PM
"First let me acknowledge that because we don't have a good alternative site. But let's set a couple of ground rules. One is, I'm an Internet software guy. Real estate development is not something I do. I live in Raleigh, North Carolina, so understanding what parcels of land might be available to build on in Hamilton is not an area I have any experience in."

Try the Yellowpages, under 'R'.

As the Ticats and city struggle to find common ground, the question arises: Is there is any chance of the team leaving town?

"Where would we go?" Young said. "I've made the joke before of becoming the (Mississauga Mayor) Hazel McCallion Ticats, but the answer is no.

Does that mean, however this wrestling match with the city ends up, the team is not at risk of leaving Hamilton?

"It's absolutely at risk,"

????????????

I've said directly and really consistently from Day 1...

He hasn't even said anything directly and consistently in this interview.

...I don't care where the (expletive deleted) stadium goes as long as we build it in Hamilton."

Wait, what?

So let me get this straight. The Cats have no clear idea of an alternate site, and no money or commitments from the private sector for any other site, they "don't care where it goes as long as it's in Hamilton", yet they are 100% certain that the West Harbour site is bad, bad, bad.

So it seems to me we have two choices: put the stadium in the type of waterfront, downtown location that has been a proven success in so many other cities and hope that the private sector gets on board, or put it out in some industrial area or by a highway - proven failures - and hope that the private sector gets on board. If it's a gamble either way, shouldn't we gamble on the site with the greatest chance of long term success?

Call off Michael Fenn. I think we have a deal.

markbarbera
May 19, 2010, 2:43 PM
So it seems to me we have two choices: put the stadium in the type of waterfront, downtown location that has been a proven success in so many other cities and hope that the private sector gets on board, or put it out in some industrial area or by a highway - proven failures - and hope that the private sector gets on board. If it's a gamble either way, shouldn't we gamble on the site with the greatest chance of long term success?

Call off Michael Fenn. I think we have a deal.

If the west harbour truly was an example of the type of waterfront, downtown location, private sector involvement would have been there already, but it's not. Probably because the site at Barton and Tiffany is neither a waterfront nor downtown.

Thing is, we don't know if West Harbour is the site with the greatest chance for success because the city refused to consider any other potential site. Thankfully, it appears they will be forced to do that now. The study list was artificailly restricted to two options from the get-go, west harbout and airport lands. Other potential sites were never put up for discussion -why? The city has done us all a terrible disservice with this flawed selection process and Young takes the heat for it? Gimme a break...

The city should have, from day one, done their homework to ensure a new stadium site would be a success for everyone rather than charging forward and spending $60 million on a guess.