[markbarbera]

And a 25,000 seat stadium fits into a residential zone how well? Ivor Wynne well? Pretty broad interpretation on a residential development.

[scott000]

I'll admit that most of my research into stadium locations is done via Google Maps. But still, I have yet to see a feasible alternate location that is better than West Harbour.

Confederation Park - I may be wrong, but wasn't a Hotel project rejected for the lake side. How would a stadium get approved?

If we're referring to the other side of the Q.E.W. as Confederation Park, then the best site I see is at Burlington St. & Woodward Ave (along the Q.E.W.). Not sure what the current status of this land is though. What other sites are people thinking of along this stretch?

Any site further into the industrial core (i.e. further along Burlington St.) should be dismissed for obvious reasons. A stadium right in the middle of downtown would be great, but what are the odds of that happening, and would it even please the Ti-Cats if it did?

Chedoke Park - won't happen because of the NEC, and why ruin the golf course?

Kay Drage - tight for size, but to me the biggest drawback is its disconnect from the city. It would be accessible from the 403, maybe a GO Train Stop, but how else?

I know there are other alternatives that have been mentioned, but I cannot recall. Please feel free to post any previous or new alternatives.

Clearly there is no perfect "can't miss" location. Otherwise, there would be no need for debate. The WH location is far from perfect, but can you find one that isn't!?

[SteelTown]

I guess the rumbling about the City taking over the Ti Cats is true.....

Here we go again
http://ideas.typepad.com/hall_marks_emma_reilly/2010/06/here-we-go-again.html






Bob Bratina and Sam Merulla are having yet another public email exchange this afternoon. For anyone keeping track, this is the third time they've had it out via email - the first was about the closure of US Steel last year, while the second was about the closure of the Lakeport Brewery in March.


This round started with this email from a constituent:

Dear councillors. 
I dearly hope that idea about the City of Hamilton buying the Ti-Cats was just a humorous joke. This city with its debt and deficit could not handle the Ti-Cats and the problems that come with it.   The best manager of the Ti-Cats and financial wizard who is also wealthy already runs the team, any one else has proven themselves incapable from the past. Please leave Mr. Young at that helm.

Sam Merulla responded and copied the city's media:

From: Merulla, Sam
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: Stadium!

We are in a situation where we will be spending well over 100 million dollars on a stadium for a tenant known as the Ti Cats who are being annually subsidized by the taxpayer over a million dollars a year. To add insult to injury this tenant is losing millions more a year even though they receive all revenues from their operation ie concession stands and parking, advertising and television revenue While the taxpayer pays all overhead related to the stadium. Whether you like it or not the City owns the team. The sad component is we receive absolutely no revenue from the Ti Cats. We would be better off mitigating the corporate welfare scenario by at least receiving some token of revenue from this fiasco. My wish would be to govern based on needs and not the wants of the elitists at the expense of the rest of us for their pet projects. This is why I believe the Pan Am stadium is the mother of all unfocused priorities which will lead to a legacy of subsidies for generations to come. Lastly there is absolutely no business case for this gross error in judgment for a project known as the Pan Am Games stadium. However we must make the best of a very bad decision.
Thank You,
Councillor Sam Merulla


Bob Bratina replied:

From: Bratina, Bob
Sent: Tue Jun 01 14:56:11 2010
Subject: RE: Stadium!

Councellor Merulla "enjoys ..... cheering for his beloved Pittsburgh Steelers." according to a Spectator article.  Would the Councillor take the same position if he was a member of Pittsburgh City Council?  The Steelers are worth a little bit more than the average CFL team,



PITTSBURGH -- Allegheny County Controller Mark Flaherty says the Pittsburgh Steelers may have to reimburse taxpayers for public money used to build Heinz Field if the team is sold. The new stadium opened in 2001 with the Steelers contributing about $76.5 million and state and county taxpayers paying $281 million.  To pay the coupon payments on the bonds Pittsburgh has increased taxes.These taxes iincreased taxes on staying in hotels,  ...........Analysts have put the franchise's value at between $800 million and $1.2 billion.

LUCAS OIL STADIUM INDIANAPOLIS  The total cost of Lucas Oil Stadium was $720 million. The stadium is being financed with funds raised by the State of Indiana and the City of Indianapolis, with the Indianapolis Colts providing $100 million. Marion County has raised taxes for food and beverage sales, auto excise taxes, innkeeper's taxes and admission taxes for its share of the costs. Meanwhile, there has been an increase in food and beverage taxes in the eight surrounding doughnut counties (with the exception of Morgan County) and the sale of Colts license plates.

FORD FIELD DETROIT  Ford Field was constructed  in 2002. It cost an estimated $430 million to build, financed largely through public money and the sale of the naming rights.




Merulla:


From: Merulla, Sam [mailto:Sam.Merulla@hamilton.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: Stadium!




That just makes me support the Steelers more due to the poor residents of Pittsburgh having to subsidize my NFL enjoyment. Being a life long fan of the Cats I believe we the people of Hamilton should own the Cats and I hope you will stand up for your residents. Even if its just this one time during your tenure.






Thanks Bob.






Btw. Are you not in a conflict due to your day job and CHML being the voice of the Ti Cats. We now know where your loyalty lies.






Furthermore I thought you didn't support the stadium. Oh but that's right! You have three positions on all issues which correspond with you personality.










Thank You,
Councillor Sam Merulla

[highwater]

I can't even be bothered to read through this stuff. It's too bad really. These guys are positive forces for the most part, but then they go and blow all their political capital on these ridiculous sideshows.

[SteelTown]

Merulla proposes city buy Tiger-Cats
Owner says club losing millions of dollars

BY Kevin Werner, News Staff
http://www.hamiltonmountainnews.com/canadajack/chapters/211342

Hamilton Coun. Sam Merulla is arguing the city should buy the Tiger-Cats from owner Bob Young because the municipality already owns most of the franchise through the subsidies it has provided the team over the years.

As the Tiger-Cats and the city enter into mediated negotiations over where to locate the new Pan Am Stadium, Merulla is proposing that Hamilton buy the football club for $1, and then run it like the Hamilton Utilities Corporation, or maybe the Green Bay Packers of the NFL.

“We have tens of tens of millions of dollars invested in the Tiger-Cats,” said Merulla, who has been opposed to tax dollars financing the Pan Am Games event. “We have a duty to protect the (city’s) investment and protect the Tiger-Cats.”

Merulla said any city purchase of the Tiger-Cats should follow the HUC example, or the model established by the Green Bay Packers, which has been community-owned since 1923. The Packers sell shares to the community, which includes voting rights, but no dividends. The stock does not appreciate, there is a limit on how much one person can own in stock, and a board of directors is elected to run the corporation. The Packers are the only nonprofit, community-owned franchise in American pro sports, in a city that has a population of only just over 100,000. The money raised is then used to improve the football club, and stadium.

Merulla said Hamilton subsidizes “We have a duty to protect the (city’s) investment and protect the Tiger-Cats.”

the Tiger-Cats as they play in Ivor Wynne Stadium, and Young says he has lost money on the arrangement. So, Merulla asks, how will the Tiger-Cats make money in a new stadium?

“It’s not a general landlord-tenant scenario,” said Merulla.

“It is the epitome of a corporate welfare scenario. Residents need to understand they are contributing to the Tiger-Cats already. We need to look at community-based ownership from both a capital and operating basis.”

Mayor Fred Eisenberger has stated that the city provides about $1.3 million per year to the Tiger-Cats. Under an agreement between the city and the Tiger-Cats, the football club also receives the revenue from the concession stands, and advertising at the stadium.

The city a few years ago paid for a new field, while the club purchased a new scoreboard.

Young has stated the club will lose up to $7 million if the new stadium is built in the Barton and Bay street area.

The city is contributing about $60 million for a new 15,000-seat stadium on the waterfront for the Pan Am Games. A city consultant’s report stated for the stadium to expand to 30,000 seats to accommodate the Tiger-Cats, another $50 million will be needed.

The Ticats have yet to contribute any money to the project, and it is unclear where the $50 million will come from other than from “private investors.”

Merulla said Tiger-Cat officials told councillors early in the discussion about building the stadium for the games that the private sector “will come in with tens of millions of dollars.

“We were told to ‘jump on the bus.’ Now I feel like (the Tiger-Cat officials) want to take us for a ride.”

[realcity]

The land was rezoned as highwater mentioned mixed-use/residential from the Setting Sail policy.

No it hasn't, not yet. Setting Sail is no more than a proposal, to make it mixed-use/res is their (and our dream).

I did my homework.

Bratina told me it means a loss of employment lands. And obviously if it is to become a set of bleachers then it is a loss of both mixed-use, residential and employment land. Except for hot dog vendors and dickie-dee ice cream.

Setting Sail is like a 200-year plan at the speed they move. Setting Sail can sail-off... or do something other than a ice cream stand, skating rink and Williams.... for the last ten years... that's all they've done. or maybe the little over-priced trolly cart too.

I hoped it was rezoned. And that, accordingly, to the Places to Grow Act, the City of Hamilton found the equal amount of lost employment land elsewhere in the City. Hamilton employment land doesn't mean being in Halton or Peel Region. Not so. That land zoning is still in limbo until the PanAm makes its selection. Nice advantage that you can control the zoning based on whenever you get a development. While other private developers have to wait and beg for a rezone. The City can rezone whenever they want in a minute.

I thought our city was to grow to like 650,000 pop. and another 100,000 jobs? Didn't Places to Grow predict that about 7 years ago. While the reverse has actually happened in the last 7 years? Loss of jobs, and the actual inner city population decreased. I guess QP doesn't have to worry about Hamilton being a problem with infill density and not enough employment lands. That problem is for the rest of the Places To Grow Act. Hamilton is not participating.

[highwater]

No it hasn't, not yet. Setting Sail is no more than a proposal, to make it mixed-use/res is their (and our dream).

I did my homework.

Bratina told me it means a loss of employment lands.

Are you sure about this? I thought it was rezoned through the secondary plan process for the area, not Setting Sail (unless they're one and the same, which I don't think they are).

When West Harbour was first proposed, the residents who opposed it did so on the basis that it did an end run around the secondary plan, and they were upset about the loss of a potential residential mixed use development, not employment lands.

PS. Not sure I'd take Bratina as the final word on anything.

[highwater]

According to a pm I just got from Bratina, he didn't say it represented a loss of employment lands.

[realcity]

I stand corrected. It wasn't Bratina. I now remember what councilor did, but I won't name names.

Regardless, it still does mean a loss of employment lands, no matter who said it.

[realcity]

rezoning land zoned as employment/industrial to land zoned as residential equals = less employment land.

If Setting Sails rezoned it or not.

[highwater]

Sure, but let's just be clear that the stadium is not the cause of the loss of employment lands.

[SteelTown]

City, Cats set rules for Pan Am site talks

June 05, 2010
Emma Reilly
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/782409

Weeks after the city appointed a facilitator to broker a compromise on the Pan Am stadium, the city and the Ticats have set ground rules for the process.

The terms of reference for facilitator Michael Fenn's negotiations will go to council for approval Monday morning. Both Tiger -Cats president Scott Mitchell and city Pan Am chief David Adames say setting out the terms of reference went smoothly.

But Mayor Fred Eisenberger and several councillors say the process is moving too slowly.

"It's taken way too long, and it worries me we didn't pull this together quicker," said Councillor Lloyd Ferguson.

Fenn said he began the discussions about the terms of reference several business days after he was appointed as mediator May 19. As there was no precedent for him to draw on, he says it was important not to rush the process.

"It's a matter that's worth the investment of time at the outset, to ensure that at a later stage in the process, things will go smoothly," he said. "It takes the amount of time that it justifies."

According to Adames, the terms of reference will lay out the framework for the process, including rules of engagement and week-by-week goals.

Adames and city manager Chris Murray are expected to be appointed as Fenn's contacts on the city side, while Mitchell and financial adviser Doug Rye will participate on the Cats' side.

At Fenn's suggestion, Eisenberger will also introduce a motion Monday to create a small working group of council members available for Fenn to consult during the facilitation process. The Spectator has learned this group will include councillors Lloyd Ferguson, Tom Jackson, Bernie Morelli, Maria Pearson and Russ Powers -- a group representing a range of regions in the city with varying degrees of support for the west harbour site.

Council is widely expected to approve the terms of reference at Monday's meeting -- albeit not without the fireworks that have marked recent Pan Am debates.

"As we know, there's a diversity of opinion on the Pan Am Games issue," Jackson said. "I'm fully expecting that that diversity of opinion will continue to be expressed on Monday."

Another issue expected to surface at the meeting is the length of time it took for the Cats and the city to outline the process. Councillor Terry Whitehead said it's "disappointing" that it took several weeks, while Eisenberger said he would liked to have approved the terms of reference at the May 26 council meeting.

However, both sides say they're ready to move forward.

"Its been a good process," Mitchell said. "Michael Fenn has been very diligent and detailed and we're just looking forward to working with him and the city."

[realcity]

Two thirds of council is required to reverse a decision.

Why don't they cut to the chase. Have a revote West Harbour vs. Confed Park. Because this is what it is all about. So that we meet the July 1st. deadline.

No's, (5)
McHattie
McCarthy
Merulla
Collins
Eisenberger

Yes's (11)
Bratina
Morelli
Jackson
Duvall
Whitehead
Ferguson
Clark
Mitchell
Pearson
Powers
Pasuta

If one of those Yes votes, vote No and we'll have a 15k useless barebones stadium and the TiCats start looking for a new city to play. Probably somewhere in 519.

This irrelevant of what I think about location. I just want it built somewhere in Hamilton and a first class stadium. I'm only predicting what will happen.

[scott000]

Two thirds of council is required to reverse a decision.

Why don't they cut to the chase. Have a revote West Harbour vs. Confed Park. Because this is what it is all about. So that we meet the July 1st. deadline.

No's, (5)
McHattie
McCarthy
Merulla
Collins
Eisenberger

Yes's (11)
Bratina
Morelli
Jackson
Duvall
Whitehead
Ferguson
Clark
Mitchell
Pearson
Powers
Pasuta

If one of those Yes votes, vote No and we'll have a 15k useless barebones stadium and the TiCats start looking for a new city to play. Probably somewhere in 519.

This irrelevant of what I think about location. I just want it built somewhere in Hamilton and a first class stadium. I'm only predicting what will happen.

I asked this before without response so I'll ask you directly, realcity, what specific site at Confederation Park are you (and likely, others) thinking of?

If it's on the lake side of the highway, will the conservation authority (or whatever group that controls Confederation Park) allow it? If I remember correctly, they opposed turning the campground into a hotel and possibly condos, so how likely is it that they would allow the stadium and parking to be built?

Thanks.

[bigguy1231]

I asked this before without response so I'll ask you directly, realcity, what specific site at Confederation Park are you (and likely, others) thinking of?

If it's on the lake side of the highway, will the conservation authority (or whatever group that controls Confederation Park) allow it? If I remember correctly, they opposed turning the campground into a hotel and possibly condos, so how likely is it that they would allow the stadium and parking to be built?

Thanks.

The city owns it the conservation authority runs it. Control of the park ultimately belongs to the city.

But I'd bet that if the city ever tried to build a stadium there they would be in court for years. The conservation authority and the numerous environmental groups in this city would fight them tooth and nail.

[Dalreg]

Somebody please call the Ti-cats bluff on this already. One way or another the stadium will be built and the Ti-cats will move in, the end!

So might as well just start building the bloody thing. It could have been half finished by now.....

[SteelTown]

There was a motion today to reintroduce Confederation Park as a possible stadium site and it failed.

The terms of reference for the facilitator passed by the way.

[SteelTown]

Mayor 'outraged' at Pan Am spat
Rules for talks OK'd after fiery meeting

June 08, 2010
Emma Reilly
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/784014

The city has approved the ground rules for the Pan Am stadium negotiations -- but it didn't happen without a fight.

The debate at yesterday's committee of the whole meeting prompted Mayor Fred Eisenberger to call the process "absolutely deranged" and "insane."

"I am absolutely outraged by some of the conduct I've seen around the table here," said a clearly frustrated Eisenberger. "Maybe it's election year, maybe it's 'I need a headline' -- but this is embarrassing."

It took councillors 2 1/2 hours to agree to the terms of reference outlined by facilitator Michael Fenn. With Fenn's help, the city and the Hamilton Tiger-Cats are attempting to broker a compromise on the location of the Pan Am stadium before a July 8 deadline.

Most of the discord at yesterday's meeting arose over a proposal from Eisenberger to create a small working group of councillors that could consult with Fenn during the next few weeks.

Eisenberger originally moved for the group to be made up of Councillors Lloyd Ferguson, Tom Jackson, Bernie Morelli, Maria Pearson, Scott Duvall and Russ Powers.

Any information passed through this group would remain private, including details of the Tiger-Cats' business. If those updates were given to the entire council, provincial privacy laws would require that information to be public -- something Eisenberger wanted to avoid.

"If you think you can facilitate this in the glare of the media, you're nuts," he said.

However, Councillors Brad Clark and Sam Merulla -- both longtime critics of Hamilton's efforts to host the Pan Am Games -- argued the working group didn't provide enough transparency.

"This is all about trying to avoid accountability. And we can't do that," Clark said.

"What we do here is public," Merulla said. "If you don't like it, go to the private sector."

As the debate about the working group threatened to derail the approval of the terms of reference, the usually even-keeled Eisenberger chastised his colleagues for trying to "spin" the issue to "throw a wrench into the wheels of the bus."

After several votes on the issue, council ultimately approved the terms of reference exactly as Fenn proposed -- though Councillor Bob Bratina replaced Morelli on the working group after the latter stepped down.

Fenn, who attended yesterday's meeting, called the debate "a legitimate discussion."

But for Eisenberger, the process demonstrated the constant controversy surrounding the Pan Am issue.

"I'm upset. To have council spend 2 1/2 hours to do that is outrageous," he said after the meeting. "This is just mischief."



KEY STEPS IN FACILITATION PROCESS

Following are key elements to the terms of reference for the facilitation process:

* Week One of the process, which ends today, centred on a working timetable, including milestones and time commitments by the parties;

An important ground rule is a "no surprises" policy in a media relations protocol that would guard against release of information about land acquisition or business dealings that could affect the process;

Also during Week One, each party agreed to provide confidential access for the other party and the facilitator which could help the other party better understand their objectives; identify stadium models in Canada and elsewhere that best meet the evaluation criteria agreed upon;

* In Week Two (June 9-16) presentations focusing on the "ingredients and information that might contribute to a facilitated agreement" would be made by each party;

Also during Week Two, the facilitator would arrange for information from parties such as Toronto 2015 Hostco, the Ontario government and the Canadian Football League that could influence the nature and content of any facilitated agreement;

* Week Three (June 16-22) would engage both parties in direct discussions focusing on "developing the best option for the west harbour/downtown Hamilton venue and the best alternative (or limited number of alternatives) along with a summary of the shortcomings of each."

* Week Four (June 23-29), the parties would aim to "find a single set of proposals that meets their main requirements." That recognizes some "modification of their existing corporate policies and preferences may be required."

At the end of Week Four or within several days thereafter, the facilitator will develop a short-draft final report to be considered by the parties. It will detail progress and remaining items in dispute or unresolved. It will be available to the public.

[thistleclub]

Cable 14 should develop this sandbox spat into a reality TV show.

[LikeHamilton]

A picture of a few members of council arriving together for last nights meeting. :D

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/9573/clowns2.jpg

[markbarbera]

...which is why we need to pay a facilitator to get council and the Ticats together to do what should have been done two years ago...

[SteelTown]

We weren't awarded the Pan Am Games until November.

The City has been working on a West Harbour stadium plan since 2003.

[markbarbera]

...and still needs a facilitator to get the parties together to get it right. It was the Pan Am planning that has been going on for two years. The city staff's contrbution was more or less to dust off the shelved plans for the failed Commonwealth bid and force that peg into the round hole. Let's hope Fenn can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

[realcity]

2003 lmao. And the City still has no idea what it's building yet, 15k, 25, 30k, bubble roof, track oval, no track oval, executive amenities how many what kind?. Just started with soil samples. Take another 7 years.

If Fenn can save a stadium anywhere in this city we should vote him mayor.

[isaidso]

I thought I was a patient person till I observed all the hoops Winnipeg went through to get a shovel in the ground. Fighting in Ottawa was worse, while Halifax imploded altogether.

The most civilized constructive process I've seen so far is what's transpiring in Regina. All 4 cities needed a new stadium, but only Reginans seem able to put their personal agendas aside and recognize what's good for their city.

Get it together Hamilton. It's getting excruciating to watch. Do you want to be another Halifax? Put your foot down, build a 30,000 seat stadium at the Waterfront site, and be done with it. Tiger-Cats concerns should be heard, but they're not about to leave Hamilton. The only concession that should be made to the Tiger-Cats is capacity and the issue with the track. They will be the primary tenant so their needs must be addressed.

Their requests for a different location should not be considered though. They're out to lunch if they think being out by some highways will help them. The waterfront site is the right location.

[realcity]

Confed Park is a waterfront location too. The choice is what waterfront to build on.

[Gurnett71]

http://www.thestar.com/sports/panamgames/article/821188--perkins-york-u-will-grab-pan-am-stadium-if-hamilton-dithers

If the two sides in the Hamilton stadium standoff can’t get their act together, 2015 Pan Am Games organizers will pull the plug and build the new facility at York University.

The Toronto Argonauts would be the long-term tenants of a new 25,000-seat stadium to hold Pan Am track and field events, plans for which are moving ahead as the alternative if Hamilton stalls out. Allegedly, the subway will be extended to York by 2015. Switching the Pan Am’s marquee events there would be an impetus to finish a transit job on time. For once.

Pan Am organizers, already facing numerous problems due to short-sighted and agenda-driven venue locations, say privately they won’t allow Hamilton’s indecision on a stadium site to screw up the Games. The event, more than three times the size of an Olympic Winter Games, already is only five years away and too many wheels are spinning.

“We don’t want to be held hostage by a team that plays eight games a year at home,’’ one member of the host committee said, not for attribution.

The city of Hamilton and the Tiger-Cats, who have deemed unacceptable Hamilton mayor Fred Eisenberger’s proposed location in the West Harbour, are using a $600-an-hour facilitator to try to solve the problem. They have a July 8 deadline and at that price, what’s the hurry?

York was in the running several years ago for a combined soccer/football stadium, the one later built soccer-only at the CNE in order to enrich Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment. With another $32 million from each of the federal and provincial governments earmarked for the 2015 stadium, York is anxious not to miss the boat again. Such a stadium, one that would come with warm-up facilities, would solidify York as one of Canada’s premier athletic universities. Travel times for track athletes from the Ataratiri athletes’ village wouldn’t be ideal, but would be better than training to Hamilton.

David Braley, owner of the Argonauts, initially was a member of the Pan Am Games board, creating an obvious conflict of interest with government millions being poured into a stadium designed to be home to one or possibly two Canadian Football League teams. However, when Braley recently was named a senator, he became ineligible for the board and resigned; Pan Am committee bylaws specifically prevent elected officials or senators from serving.

The federal government, which controls five of the 13 spots on the Pan Am board, is considering Braley’s replacement and federal sports minister Gary Lunn, who makes the call, should be naming someone with a Toronto amateur sports background to replace Braley. The board is woefully short on sports representation, perhaps one reason the venue locales are such a mess. (Many sports, from swimming to track and field, rowing and paddling and bicycling, are upset about their location in relation to the athletes’ village; travel times are hours in some cases.)

The board as comprised under chair Roger Garland now features three representatives from Quebec, two from Vancouver, one from Ottawa and one from Calgary; it’s obviously light on reflecting the area that will actually play host to the $2 billion event. The Quebec representation is led by Marcel Aubut, head of the Canadian Olympic Committee, who has openly stated his interest in landing an Olympic Winter Games for Quebec City in 2022. As such, there are some in the amateur sports community who wonder whether Toronto screwing up the Pan Ams would thereby eliminate itself permanently as a potential Olympic Summer Games host city. Such a chain of events certainly wouldn’t hurt a Quebec 2022 bid.

It’s an excellent conspiracy theory, if you’re in the mood for one

[realcity]

This is good in that maybe it will get the Cats and the City to get it together, knowing that on July 9 the stadium will go to York.

[bigguy1231]

http://www.thestar.com/sports/panamgames/article/821188--perkins-york-u-will-grab-pan-am-stadium-if-hamilton-dithers

If the two sides in the Hamilton stadium standoff can’t get their act together, 2015 Pan Am Games organizers will pull the plug and build the new facility at York University.

The Toronto Argonauts would be the long-term tenants of a new 25,000-seat stadium to hold Pan Am track and field events, plans for which are moving ahead as the alternative if Hamilton stalls out. Allegedly, the subway will be extended to York by 2015. Switching the Pan Am’s marquee events there would be an impetus to finish a transit job on time. For once.

Pan Am organizers, already facing numerous problems due to short-sighted and agenda-driven venue locations, say privately they won’t allow Hamilton’s indecision on a stadium site to screw up the Games. The event, more than three times the size of an Olympic Winter Games, already is only five years away and too many wheels are spinning.

“We don’t want to be held hostage by a team that plays eight games a year at home,’’ one member of the host committee said, not for attribution.

The city of Hamilton and the Tiger-Cats, who have deemed unacceptable Hamilton mayor Fred Eisenberger’s proposed location in the West Harbour, are using a $600-an-hour facilitator to try to solve the problem. They have a July 8 deadline and at that price, what’s the hurry?

York was in the running several years ago for a combined soccer/football stadium, the one later built soccer-only at the CNE in order to enrich Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment. With another $32 million from each of the federal and provincial governments earmarked for the 2015 stadium, York is anxious not to miss the boat again. Such a stadium, one that would come with warm-up facilities, would solidify York as one of Canada’s premier athletic universities. Travel times for track athletes from the Ataratiri athletes’ village wouldn’t be ideal, but would be better than training to Hamilton.

David Braley, owner of the Argonauts, initially was a member of the Pan Am Games board, creating an obvious conflict of interest with government millions being poured into a stadium designed to be home to one or possibly two Canadian Football League teams. However, when Braley recently was named a senator, he became ineligible for the board and resigned; Pan Am committee bylaws specifically prevent elected officials or senators from serving.

The federal government, which controls five of the 13 spots on the Pan Am board, is considering Braley’s replacement and federal sports minister Gary Lunn, who makes the call, should be naming someone with a Toronto amateur sports background to replace Braley. The board is woefully short on sports representation, perhaps one reason the venue locales are such a mess. (Many sports, from swimming to track and field, rowing and paddling and bicycling, are upset about their location in relation to the athletes’ village; travel times are hours in some cases.)

The board as comprised under chair Roger Garland now features three representatives from Quebec, two from Vancouver, one from Ottawa and one from Calgary; it’s obviously light on reflecting the area that will actually play host to the $2 billion event. The Quebec representation is led by Marcel Aubut, head of the Canadian Olympic Committee, who has openly stated his interest in landing an Olympic Winter Games for Quebec City in 2022. As such, there are some in the amateur sports community who wonder whether Toronto screwing up the Pan Ams would thereby eliminate itself permanently as a potential Olympic Summer Games host city. Such a chain of events certainly wouldn’t hurt a Quebec 2022 bid.

It’s an excellent conspiracy theory, if you’re in the mood for one

Nobody's screwed anything up yet. It's still 5 years to the games. They were just awarded last November. It takes time to plan things and get the shovels in the ground. Just because this is an international games doesn't make it any easier to get things built. They still have to go through the various processes and approvals.

If anyone thinks that the process would be any smoother in Quebec if they get the Olympics they are fooling themselves. Internationally, just look at the problems they are having in London getting things built for the summer Olympics or New Deli with the mess they are making of the Commonwealth games.

Give it a couple of months and everything will work itself out including the stadium issue here. If the same issues haven't been resolved a year from now then I would begin to worry.

All this speculation in the Star and other Toronto papers is just that, speculation. I wouldn't be surprised if the TiCats or someone else associated with the league is just stirring things up to get the TiCats a better deal.

[SteelTown]

New stadium could host 2013 Grey Cup
Resolve dispute or York University 'viable alternative'

June 10, 2010
Drew Edwards
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/785690

Ticat president Scott Mitchell says Hamilton will host a Grey Cup as soon as 2013 provided the city and the Ticats can come to terms on a stadium deal that is up to league standards for the big game.

"When and if the city of Hamilton and the Ticats have a stadium that meets the criteria to host a Grey Cup, we would be enthusiastic about bringing Canada's largest sporting event to this city," he said.

The city and the football club are locking horns over the stadium site that would host Pan Am Games events in 2015 and become the Ticats' new home. The talks have been handed to a facilitator and the Pan Am Games host corporation expects an answer by July 8.

Hamilton hasn't hosted a Grey Cup since 1996 because of concerns surrounding the aging Ivor Wynne Stadium and could potentially reap millions in economic benefit from the game and the series of week-long events that precede it.

According to Calgary Tourism estimates, the 2009 Grey Cup generated $61 million in economic spinoff for the city and $81 million for the province.

Yesterday, there was more pressure on the city and the Ticats to come up with a deal. Pan Am Games CEO Ian Troop confirmed to The Spectator that York University is potentially a "viable alternative" if Hamilton can't resolve its stadium dispute.

"Hamilton's destiny is in its own hands," Troop said.

But Troop stressed the Pan Am host corporation wants Hamilton to be a major player in the Games with the stadium, a velodrome and a pool at McMaster University.

Troop said York University is a location whose full potential hasn't been explored.

"They've got the tennis and if there is something else in the future, they're a very viable alternative."

Mitchell said the team would have to invest as much $4 million up front to secure a Grey Cup bid but that owner Bob Young is willing to do that.

"Bob would be more than enthusiastic to put the money forward to help bring the event to the city," Mitchell said.

While the league's board of governors would have to formally approve Hamilton as a host site, Mitchell says discussions with the league have already taken place.

"But you can't have any specific discussions until you know the parameters of the stadium," Mitchell said.

Grey Cup venues are typically larger than the 25,000 to 30,000 seats planned for the west harbour site. Commonwealth Stadium in Edmonton, host of the 2010 game, sold out all 60,000 seats this week and McMahon Stadium in Calgary was expanded from 35,000 to 62,000 seats last year.

Asked whether the city's preferred site at the west harbour would meet the league's criteria, Mitchell declined to speculate.

[SteelTown]

Why even entertain the thought of hosting a Grey Cup if it's going to be a possible 15,000 to 20,000 seat stadium? Perhaps they invision a bigger stadium before the 2015 Pan Am Games?

Could we even finish the stadium by the end of 2013? Construction isn't suppose to happen until late 2011.

[thistleclub]

Another kick at the can would be a good chance to erase the memory of the 1996 Grey Cup, which was apparently a money loser to the tune of $1.2 million. (http://www.uwo.ca/english/canadianpoetry/architexts/mnemographia_canadensis_2/essay_17.htm)

Mitchell said the team would have to invest as much $4 million up front to secure a Grey Cup bid but that owner Bob Young is willing to do that.

"Bob would be more than enthusiastic to put the money forward to help bring the event to the city," Mitchell said.

While the league's board of governors would have to formally approve Hamilton as a host site, Mitchell says discussions with the league have already taken place.

"But you can't have any specific discussions until you know the parameters of the stadium," Mitchell said.

Grey Cup venues are typically larger than the 25,000 to 30,000 seats planned for the west harbour site.

From that, you’d almost get the feeling that Bob Young’s contribution to the stadium will come in the form of backing a Grey Cup bid. In return, taxpayers/private sector will pony up the funds needed to take the 15,000-seat stadium as currently funded to “the 25,000 to 30,000 seats planned for the west harbour site.” Which would presumably buy goodwill from the Cats (proxy being team president/negotiator Scott Mitchell) and the CFL (proxy being Lulu CFO/CFL board member Doug Rye).

But someone’s come up with more Bob Young funding speculation and a more realistic Grey Cup timeline....

From Sportnet.ca (http://sportsnet.ca/football/cfl/2010/06/09/argos_grey_cup):


The Canadian Football League will officially announce as early as Friday that Toronto will be the host city for the 2012 Grey Cup and that former Canadian Olympic Committee chief executive officer Chris Rudge will be named as the chairman of Toronto’s Grey Cup committee, sources told sportsnet.ca.

Moreover, it has also been learned there is a plan in Hamilton to bring back the Grey Cup to Steeltown, perhaps in 2014 or 2015, pending the city’s ability to build a new stadium.

…..

The city of Hamilton is committed to contributing $60 million for the new stadium, but sources say Young put up at least $10 million of his own money as part of the private funding that is expected to help assist in the project. The Tiger-Cats will be the primary tenant of the new stadium.

There is concern that if the two sides cannot come to an agreement, it will hinder creating a stadium with seating for at least 25,000, which is necessary to make it financially viable for a CFL franchise. Young and previous owners of the franchise have historically lost millions of dollars each year playing at Ivor Wynne, which has limited financial gain for parking and other amenities.

[SteelTown]

Stadium talks progress
Facilitator says city Ticats accept terms of reference

June 12, 2010
John Kernaghan
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/787290

Pan Am stadium talks pushed ahead this week to make up for lost time, facilitator Michael Fenn says.

He reported "both sides have embraced the terms of reference."

Fenn added the city and the Hamilton Tiger-Cats are at the stage of "looking at the approach that should be taken towards resolving the technical issues that surround the way one might find a solution to this."

Fenn was approved by both sides in an attempt to find a solution in the 2015 Games stadium impasse.

The city believes the west harbour site at Bay and Barton streets can revive the downtown as well as serve sports fans.

The Tiger-Cats doubt the location can provide the kind of access and exposure required to make the football team economically viable.

A resolution is needed by July 8 so the Toronto 2015 host corporation can proceed with Games planning.

Fenn said despite a delayed start the parties virtually completed Week 1 objectives. One of those was to identify stadium models that should be considered for Hamilton.

In Week 2, with "time of the essence" the terms-of-reference document says, the focus of presentations to fill gaps in information "would be on the ingredients and information that might contribute to a facilitated agreement."

Also next week, organizations whose needs might influence the content of any agreement might be called on to brief the parties.

That could be Toronto 2015 or the Canadian Football League.

Meantime, Fenn said, a Toronto report that he was a $600-an-hour facilitator "was interesting."

The city and the Ticats are splitting the cost, which sources say is about $20,000 for a month-long process.

"It's very, very economical," Mayor Fred Eisenberger has said.

Also, reports that York University is ready to step up as a stadium site if Hamilton falters were dismissed as speculation.

University media relations director Alex Bilyk added that speculation might have been sparked by a subway line reaching the campus in 2014 or 2015.

Toronto 2015 CEO Ian Troop says York is a potential backup option for the stadium, which would host track and field for the Games.

Five years ago York negotiated with the Toronto Argonauts for a $70-million, 25,000-seat facility that never materialized.

[c@taract_soulj@h]

Being awarded the games, love it!

Chosen for a PanAm stadium site, really love it

The whole debacle concerning where to build, don't like it

Capacity between 15-25,000 people, I personally hate it

I know beggars can't be choosers but as stated in the articles above, "Hamilton chooses it's own destiny" which I thought really sticks out. Why is it that we short change every opportunity we're given?

I know Percival Molson stadium in Montreal holds a small capacity but the Alouettes are content with that. Montreal however has many other venues to satisfy a crowd with either a concert, sporting event what have you...

Hamilton isn't getting any smaller so in my mind, I wouldn't exactly blow the capacity of the PanAm stadium out of proportion however at least meet the needs to suit the people. We're a city of over 500,000 and the area pushing over 700,000 while we want a stadium that holds maybe 25,000?

I'm not a pessimist by any means and I don't want a white elephant that seats the capacity of the Rogers Centre however, would 30-35 000 be too much to ask for? I would love an outdoor concert, I would love the Ticats and of course the Grey Cup but we're bleeding common sense the further this goes.

Being near the lake, maybe we can build something retractable but now I'm just being pushy :haha:

[thistleclub]

Bob Young has weighed in on the "subsidies/kickbacks" debate on the Cats' fan forum (http://forums.ticats.ca/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=55543&p=905735):


To be clear we are -not- looking for "a share of the pie" or a "kickback". We want a stadium that contributes to the tax base of the city, not one that requires ongoing subsidy.

Hamilton city finances are not in good enough shape to offer anyone a "kickback" for anything. Our concern about the West Harbour is that while it would make a great visionary location for a major Hamilton building project, there is only about $100 million available for the PanAms. And that amount of money will barely build an adequate stadium. The West Harbour would require two or three times that amount of money to build the roads, transit, parking, remediation, infrastructure, etc, in the area to make it suitable for a successful 25,000+ stadium. But the city has neither the several hundred million dollars necessary to upfit the area, nor enough to permanently compensate the Ticats if only 10 or 15 thousand people are willing to put up with the traffic and inconveniences of a stadium in the West Harbour location without the new roads or parking or transit.

I agree with the Mayor that the West Harbour is a valuable asset for the City and should be upgraded. We just disagree over whether a football stadium in that location would work without the necessary infrastructure upgrades.

The good news is there are several other locations in the City where a successful stadium would not require a fraction of the money the West Harbour would require for new roads or transit. There may be a win-win outcome of the negotiations with the facilitator if we could put the stadium in one of these locations and save enough money to do some exciting and location appropriate (ie supported by the local residents) projects in the West Harbour.

Meantime please keep posting. Not only are these debates fun to read, they do throw up ideas from time to time that make all us insiders go hmmm...

Cheers, Bob.


Whether you take him at his word may depend on your assessment of the tactical sophistication of the club's brain trust. Is he telegraphing a do-or-die play or simply faking out the opposing line?

I'm struck by his assessment that "Hamilton city finances are not in good enough shape to offer anyone a "kickback" for anything. Our concern about the West Harbour is that while it would make a great visionary location for a major Hamilton building project, there is only about $100 million available for the PanAms. And that amount of money will barely build an adequate stadium." Private sector contributions, even provisional commitments, remain a blank at this late stage... though, as elsewhere, the 15,000-seat stadium covered under existing funding has been upgraded to "a successful 25,000+ stadium." I gather that there is a legal reason for not releasing a can't-miss business plan or coming out wih reassuring numbers at this stage, but this is all seeming like just another game. Hopefully one where the Cats aren't bested by the Argos.

[thistleclub]

The "subsidy" debate is in play in Andrew Dreschel's column today as well. In it, Scott Mitchell flatly rejects the notion that the Cats are subsidized by the city.


...Mitchell says the $1.3 million is actually money the city spends on running Ivor Wynne Stadium, a facility it owns and rents to the Tiger-Cats.

Those operating expenses include salaries and benefits for city employees, upkeep, building and ground maintenance and the cost of general materials and supplies.

"The concept of this as a subsidy is erroneous, inaccurate and harmful to our business," Mitchell says.

Merulla laughs off Mitchell's objections.

Of course the club is receiving financial backing from taxpayers, he says.

Merulla points out that the Tiger-Cats receive all revenue from their games at Ivor Wynne – gate receipts, concessions, parking, advertising – but the city pays all operating costs from hydro to security.

"All their overhead is covered and they keep all the revenue," says Merulla. "It's insane."

Besides picking up operating costs, Merulla says the city spends significant capital dollars to keep Ivor Wynne playable for the Tiger-Cats, the stadium's sole tenant. That includes close to $3 million since 2005.

Additionally, Merulla maintains the token $27,500 a year rent the Ticats pay is so deeply discounted it amounts to a free lease.

Dreschel goes on to take the air out of both sides, however, pointing out that of course the current IW arrangement is a form of subsidy, that it's not that different from the way that the CFL operates in other cities, and that Bob Young is still losing money. Not entirely sure why these issues weren't foreseen during the team's '92-'94 civic ownership era (or circa the 2003 bankruptcy drama), but with a little over three weeks to go, I can't wait to see those game-changing business plans.

(Edited to add a little apples/oranges.)

For sake of comparison, here are Copps' daily rental rates as of Jan 2010. Gives you an idea of what rates at a newer venue might cost:

Sun-Thu: $10,000 or 15% of the gross ticket revenues, whichever is greater (less applicable admission sales taxes)

Fri-Sat: $12,000 or 15% of the gross ticket revenues, whichever is greater (less applicable admission sales taxes)

Non-Event Days: $5,000-$6,000

Clients are responsible to pay the costs of all Event Staff, and Event and Set-up Charges. Box Office and IATSE charges will apply dependent on the nature of the event.

[SteelTown]

Cats, city agree on 6 commitments

June 15, 2010
John Kernaghan
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/788828

Pan Am Games stadium talks continue this week with a firm foundation of six commitments the city and the Tiger-Cats have made to the process.

Facilitator Michael Fenn noted neither of the parties objected to a list of commitments which could lead to a successful outcome.

The six identified in the terms of reference document include:

* Securing federal and provincial funding for Pan Am sports facilities;

* The merit in promoting the Ticats as southwestern Ontario's team and Hamilton as a regional centre of that market. Decisions about stadium location, design and facilities should be made with that in mind;

* A new stadium for the Tiger-Cats, with capital financing coming largely from the public purse, should be located within the urban boundary of the City of Hamilton;

* The parties accept the Ticats management and ownership is responsible to foster the club's financial sustainability and marketing opportunities with input from the Canadian Football League. And the parties accept the football club can best make those judgments, conditional on demonstrated due diligence;

* The parties have a record of supporting development in Hamilton, including redevelopment in the central city, and both acknowledge that with or without a stadium being located in the west harbour area, on condition of due diligence, the city has the primary responsibility to decide which plans best serve a city-building objective in that area;

* Both parties recognize new facilities will require negotiations on matters of design, construction, use and financing involving them and possibly other parties.

[thistleclub]

Expropriation notices on Pan Am site shock landowners (http://thespec.com/News/Local/article/790589)

John Kernaghan
The Hamilton Spectator
(Jun 17, 2010)

Five landowners on property slated for Pan Am Games facilities are bracing for expropriation by the city.

That follows notices yesterday that took the west harbour residents by surprise.

Otherwise, the city has an 80 per cent success rate so far, buying 23 properties for its preferred Games stadium site in the first of two acquisition phases.

"I'm shocked," said auto garage owner Harban Kalsi of the expropriation notice.

"I wanted to resolve this quietly."

He runs the business plus a family cab operation from 162-164 Barton St. W. and has referred the matter to his lawyer.

Meantime, at 8 Tiffany St., John Milagaia couldn't understand why the expropriation process has begun when talks about the stadium site are still ongoing.

He's referring to the facilitation process seeking common ground for the city and the Hamilton Tiger-Cats on a stadium location for the 2015 Pan Am Games.

The city has notified facilitator Michael Fenn and the Tiger-Cats that expropriation was under way, city spokesperson David Adames said.

Adames noted even if the west harbour area doesn't work for Games venues, the city has designated the neighbourhood a strategic development area.

It has already purchased the former Rheem property at Tiffany and Barton streets.

Milagaia wants $250,000 for his two-storey brick home and considers the city offer "peanuts." He wouldn't say how much it was.

Mark Marsdin, who owns properties at 12 and 14 Tiffany, negotiated with the city but couldn't find equivalent homes for the money the city offered.

"They wanted to buy me a house in the east end but I've lived in the west end and want to stay here."

Marsdin said he looked at properties around the North End and noticed rising prices, especially around the west harbour Pan Am site. He has hired a lawyer specializing in expropriation law to protect his interests.

Jennifer Roberts, one of the 23 owners who agreed to sell, said she was pleased with the way the city handled the negotiation.

"They were really good about everything. They handled all our costs, moving, legal, even the disbursement of our old mortgage."

She said an independent assessor valued the property at $165,000 and the city added $5,000 to that "because it was a bit of a push in terms of timing."

Her family is moving tomorrow.

City officials suggested some properties not far away and they found one they liked.

But Roberts appreciated some of her neighbours' reluctance.

"They've lived here much of their lives and expected to stay the rest of their lives."

The 28 properties the city pursued is the first stage of the land assembly process. It covered an area west of Tiffany Street.

The second phase will cover east of Tiffany to Bay Street.

Land assembly to house a stadium, practice field and velodrome for the 2015 Games is budgeted for $16 million.

Land owners have 30 days following yesterday's notice to seek an inquiry. An inquiry officer appointed by the attorney general hears testimony, arguments and cross- examination by both parties and reports on whether the taking of the land is "fair and necessary."

That can take months before the city can assume possession. Even after that, owners can appeal for higher compensation at the Ontario Municipal Board. That process can take years.

Negotiations on land value can continue between the city and the owner throughout the inquiry and appeal process.

[SteelTown]

A Huge Decision for Hamilton

Posted on: 13 June 2010 by Steve Paikin
http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/index.cfm?page_id=3&action=blog&subaction=viewPost&post_id=12822&blog_id=43

One of the most important land use decisions any major city can make is where to build its sports facilities.

Whether you love sports and follow the ins and outs of the local team daily, or you couldn't care a fig whether the Maple Leafs' Stanley Cup drought goes on forever, the fact is, where cities decide to build coliseums for their teams is crucially important to the city's development.

The city of Hamilton is at one of those seminal moments in its history right now.

All interested organizations have determined that Ivor Wynne Stadium, home to the CFL Tiger-Cats and where football has been played for 80 years, is no longer adequate to the task.

And so, the city, the football team, the province, and the organizers of the Pan-American Games have decided that those games coming to Southern Ontario is a perfect opportunity to erect a new stadium.

But there's a problem: where to put the new facility?

Hamiltonians have always been accustomed to having the home of the Ticats right smack in the middle of a northeast end neighbourhood. In fact, it's a delightful tradition to see local residents making a few extra bucks by letting Ticat fans park on their front lawns on game day.

Since there are only nine regular season home games in the CFL (and maybe a couple of more pre-season and/or playoff games), the disruption to the neighbourhood is minimal, whereas the benefits to local establishments, parking facilities, etc. is significant.

So the city would like the new stadium to be, once again, in a local neighbourhood.

However, the Ticat ownership has been convinced that the new stadium needs to be right beside a major highway (The Queen Elizabeth Way) for easy vehicular access, and so other passers-by can see "Ticat signage" from the highway. They think that will create more brand awareness and potentially more customers.

The Pan Am Games people are less concerned about where the stadium is built but very concerned that this dispute will delay construction they desperately need to mount successful games.

What should Hamilton do?

Well, I just came back from a weekend in Boston and saw perhaps the best example in all of professional sport of what a neighbourhood stadium can do for a community.

Fenway Park, home of Major League Baseball's Red Sox, is beautifully tucked into an inner city neighbourhood (Kenmore Square). No fewer than 81 times a year (and more in the last few years, given the Sox's successful post-season runs), that neighbourhood comes to life. The street behind Fenway is closed to traffic hours before ball games begin, to give people a chance to wander around the stadium, take pictures, visit souvenir stores, have a beer at one of the many establishments nearby --- the pre-game "buzz" is fantastic.

Furthermore, old derelict buildings have been restored, rejuvenating the neighbourhood. People want to live where the action is.

Could a new, inner city football stadium have a similar impact in Hamilton? Doubtful, if only because the Red Sox are such a special religion in New England, and baseball has nine times as many home dates as football.

But, given Hamilton's misfortune in constantly being a bridesmaid when it comes to securing a National Hockey League team for its inner city arena (Copps Coliseum), it seems like a missed opportunity to put a new football stadium on a highway near Stoney Creek.

One columnist said former CFL commissioner John Tory should be brought in to mediate the dispute. In fact, both parties agreed that Michael Fenn will be the guy and he's on it now.

Imagine what a shot in the arm a new stadium could be for the city's downtown, already suffering from a lack of people traffic and a tough economy.

[realcity]

...... just like all the property development around Ivor Wynne that has happened in the last 80 years.

It's just so expensive to live anywhere near Ivor Wynne and all the commercial spin-offs, I don't know why they are considering moving it?

Scott Park high school next door... we have to beat the developers off it. And OMG the corporations are lining up to rename it, Royal Bank Stadium, Ford Fields, CIBC Center.... get in line guys.....

Because just wait, we are going to duplicate this "magic", a few kilometers west. We call 'waterfront' and we're calling it 'downtown' but really it's neither. I guess we'll leave that up to the you guys to decide...

[emge]

Expropriation notices on Pan Am site shock landowners (http://thespec.com/News/Local/article/790589)

Meantime, at 8 Tiffany St., John Milagaia couldn't understand why the expropriation process has begun when talks about the stadium site are still ongoing.
...
Milagaia wants $250,000 for his two-storey brick home and considers the city offer "peanuts." He wouldn't say how much it was.


Five landowners bracing for expropriation! The sky is falling!

If their best example is the guy at 8 Tiffany who wants $250k, despite having his house assesed for taxes at $126,500 this year and $119,250 this year, good luck. (Information from Hamilton's Property Inquiry service).

Two houses on this street of the exact same style have sold in the past year -- his next-door neighbours' house went up for sale last July for $74,500 and another house just was up for $115k and took a while before it went off the market - not sure if it sold or not.

This is the home on Google Streetview - it may have a bigger lot, but to claim that's worth $250k is preposterous. If that's the best example the Spec has, that's stretching pretty far.

http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=8+tiffany+street+hamilton+on&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=8+Tiffany+St,+Hamilton,+Hamilton+Division,+Ontario+L8L+1N8&gl=ca&ei=nukaTOfzC4-2Ntvs1NUM&ved=0CBUQ8gEwAA&ll=43.265909,-79.87112&spn=0.008797,0.01929&z=16&layer=c&cbll=43.265801,-79.871167&panoid=yya2UBxjE9I9uIxrxXwemw&cbp=12,121.15,,0,-0.01

[realcity]

i Think the sad point is, that this isn't a forced expropriation and he doesn't have to sell even for a million $.

Hey does the City own land on Confederation Park? awe nevermind

[markbarbera]

A Huge Decision for Hamilton

Posted on: 13 June 2010 by Steve Paikin
http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/index.cfm?page_id=3&action=blog&subaction=viewPost&post_id=12822&blog_id=43

One of the most important land use decisions any major city can make is where to build its sports facilities.

Whether you love sports and follow the ins and outs of the local team daily, or you couldn't care a fig whether the Maple Leafs' Stanley Cup drought goes on forever, the fact is, where cities decide to build coliseums for their teams is crucially important to the city's development.

The city of Hamilton is at one of those seminal moments in its history right now.

All interested organizations have determined that Ivor Wynne Stadium, home to the CFL Tiger-Cats and where football has been played for 80 years, is no longer adequate to the task.

And so, the city, the football team, the province, and the organizers of the Pan-American Games have decided that those games coming to Southern Ontario is a perfect opportunity to erect a new stadium.

But there's a problem: where to put the new facility?

Hamiltonians have always been accustomed to having the home of the Ticats right smack in the middle of a northeast end neighbourhood. In fact, it's a delightful tradition to see local residents making a few extra bucks by letting Ticat fans park on their front lawns on game day.

Since there are only nine regular season home games in the CFL (and maybe a couple of more pre-season and/or playoff games), the disruption to the neighbourhood is minimal, whereas the benefits to local establishments, parking facilities, etc. is significant.

So the city would like the new stadium to be, once again, in a local neighbourhood.

However, the Ticat ownership has been convinced that the new stadium needs to be right beside a major highway (The Queen Elizabeth Way) for easy vehicular access, and so other passers-by can see "Ticat signage" from the highway. They think that will create more brand awareness and potentially more customers.

The Pan Am Games people are less concerned about where the stadium is built but very concerned that this dispute will delay construction they desperately need to mount successful games.

What should Hamilton do?

Well, I just came back from a weekend in Boston and saw perhaps the best example in all of professional sport of what a neighbourhood stadium can do for a community.

Fenway Park, home of Major League Baseball's Red Sox, is beautifully tucked into an inner city neighbourhood (Kenmore Square). No fewer than 81 times a year (and more in the last few years, given the Sox's successful post-season runs), that neighbourhood comes to life. The street behind Fenway is closed to traffic hours before ball games begin, to give people a chance to wander around the stadium, take pictures, visit souvenir stores, have a beer at one of the many establishments nearby --- the pre-game "buzz" is fantastic.

Furthermore, old derelict buildings have been restored, rejuvenating the neighbourhood. People want to live where the action is.

Could a new, inner city football stadium have a similar impact in Hamilton? Doubtful, if only because the Red Sox are such a special religion in New England, and baseball has nine times as many home dates as football.

But, given Hamilton's misfortune in constantly being a bridesmaid when it comes to securing a National Hockey League team for its inner city arena (Copps Coliseum), it seems like a missed opportunity to put a new football stadium on a highway near Stoney Creek.

One columnist said former CFL commissioner John Tory should be brought in to mediate the dispute. In fact, both parties agreed that Michael Fenn will be the guy and he's on it now.

Imagine what a shot in the arm a new stadium could be for the city's downtown, already suffering from a lack of people traffic and a tough economy.

Is this a humour column, or is Paikan actually being serious here?

Never mind the sheer lunacy of comparing a MLB franchise to a CFL franchise, Paikan is very far off the mark with his description of Fenway. He takes such liberties with his description of the park to the point where honesty is being challenged. First off, for proper perspective, Fenway is further from downtown Boston than Ivor Wynne is from downtown Hamilton. I am not sure what game-day road closure he is referring to, but the road behind Fenway is the I-90 and I am pretty sure that stays open even on game days. (How silly of the City of Boston to have a major sports stadium directly beside a major highway, what were they thinking?!?)

I also hate to break it to Paikan, but Fenway was no urban renewal project. Fenway is nearly 100 years old. Those restored warehouses went derelect and dillapidated during Fenway's existence there. Fenway had no bearing on urban renewal of the Kenmore Square area.

I did appreciate the twinge of irony in his reference to Copps Coliseum. He inadvertedly discounts his arguement on the impact of a sports stadium on the downtown by referencing the only sport facility actually built in downtown Hamilton, which has doen nothing to improve the people traffic during the twenty years of its existence. Imagine the shot in the arm indeed.

I swear if Paikan had a brain, he would be dangerous. There is a reason why his career has never moved beyond the Polkaroo network.

[geoff's two cents]

Never mind the sheer lunacy of comparing a MLB franchise to a CFL franchise, Paikan is very far off the mark with his description of Fenway. He takes such liberties with his description of the park to the point where honesty is being challenged. First off, for proper perspective, Fenway is further from downtown Boston than Ivor Wynne is from downtown Hamilton. I am not sure what game-day road closure he is referring to, but the road behind Fenway is the I-90 and I am pretty sure that stays open even on game days. (How silly of the City of Boston to have a major sports stadium directly beside a major highway, what were they thinking?!?)

It's hard to take you seriously when you suggest that Fenway is located further from downtown Boston than Ivor Wynne is from Hamilton. Keep in mind the former city (and its downtown) is nearly 10 times Hamilton's size. See pictures below. Highway or no (the picture certainly suggests a downtown - not suburban - neighborhood, though the map does indeed show a highway), this is a downtown stadium if the definition means anything whatsoever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fenway_Park.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dsc_6431_Pesky%27s_Pole.jpg

[BrianE]

I wish I were alive in 1930 when Ivor Wynne was built. Just so I could have a modern day equivalent of the land use situation. I'm just not buying the argument that building at the Rheem site is the modern day equivalent of repeating the Ivor Wynne build.

My history may be a little rusty but I'm pretty sure that in 1930 large scale housing development pretty much ended at Gage Ave possibly with some new development starting on the other side of Gage park. I would say it's the modern day equivalent of building a stadium near Rymal and Upper James today or Fruitland Rd and Barton St.

All I'm seeing are superficial similarities between the two builds, mostly 'there's houses around Ivor Wynne right now and there's some houses near the Rheem site' therefore we're building the Pan am stadium in a 'residential neighborhood'. It's just not the same situation, in my opinon.

[realcity]

mark this is the risk of saying anything of value on here. You made at least 10 good points, 9 of which there is no argument against and one point is singled out as if to discredit the other 9 valid points.

[markbarbera]

The environment in which Ivor Wynne was originally built is irrelevant. It is its present land use environment that is relevant. In short, it is located in the middle of an inner city residential area with an infrastructure poorly designed to serve a major sporting venue. Just like the West Harbour.

[markbarbera]

Five landowners bracing for expropriation! The sky is falling!

If their best example is the guy at 8 Tiffany who wants $250k, despite having his house assesed for taxes at $126,500 this year and $119,250 this year, good luck. (Information from Hamilton's Property Inquiry service).

Two houses on this street of the exact same style have sold in the past year -- his next-door neighbours' house went up for sale last July for $74,500 and another house just was up for $115k and took a while before it went off the market - not sure if it sold or not.

This is the home on Google Streetview - it may have a bigger lot, but to claim that's worth $250k is preposterous. If that's the best example the Spec has, that's stretching pretty far.

http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=8+tiffany+street+hamilton+on&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=8+Tiffany+St,+Hamilton,+Hamilton+Division,+Ontario+L8L+1N8&gl=ca&ei=nukaTOfzC4-2Ntvs1NUM&ved=0CBUQ8gEwAA&ll=43.265909,-79.87112&spn=0.008797,0.01929&z=16&layer=c&cbll=43.265801,-79.871167&panoid=yya2UBxjE9I9uIxrxXwemw&cbp=12,121.15,,0,-0.01

Hmmm. You may feel differently if it was your home that was being expropriated. MPAC home valuations for tax purposes hardly ever reflect an accurate value of a specific property. Regardless, West Harbour proponents should be nervous about any expropriation actions. If they are fought using all available avenues, expropriation could take years to conclude. The city will end up quietly paying off the land owners at their asking price as construction deadlines loom (assuming of course that West Harbour remains the location of the stadium).

Of course, there are site options out there that would not require any expropriation actions...

[flar]

Unfortunately for the owners those houses really aren't worth much. In a market based economy there are risks of ownership. But I do feel for them, especially if their houses were paid off, because it will be difficult to find another house of similar value. If they want similarly valued property, they'll have to wait for something to become available in another fringe industrial area like McAnulty or Keith.

[geoff's two cents]

mark this is the risk of saying anything of value on here. You made at least 10 good points, 9 of which there is no argument against and one point is singled out as if to discredit the other 9 valid points.

The 10th point singled out had the air of being invented out of thin air to augment an argument that lacked substantiation. You (and Mark) are right in many respects, however. I doubt Fenway was a downtown stadium when it was first built, and it does indeed have highway access. I also agree that comparing an 81-game MLB schedule to an 8-game CFL schedule is stretching it.

I would take issue with Mark's assessment of Copps' downtown location though. The location of any stadium is much less relevant if it lacks a major tenant. For Hamilton, it is the timing of a decision to build a major arena (i.e. no concrete indication that an NHL team would play there) rather than its location that is at issue.

In the case of Copps, the lack of positive spinoffs from major concerts and other events (minor league games) is augmented by the fact that the stadium is attached to a mall, library and market which closes up when nighttime events are on, and that the surrounding street grid (York, Bay, King) is utterly uninviting to pre- and postgame pedestrian activity. If one already knows the lower city well, it's common sense to start an evening's entertainment on James North or Augusta (Hess if you're under 25, but then I don't know many younger people who are in to minor league hockey) and walk several blocks along or across the Main/King speedways to and from the stadium. If one doesn't know the city well, what one sees on the way to and from the stadium (along Main or King) are abandoned buildings, a closed mall, a thrift store, a dollar store or two and strip club. The exception in this case (a busy Honest Lawyer pub with patio close to Copps) proves the rule - that a near absolute dearth of pedestrian-oriented design adjacent to the stadium impinges on potential spinoff benefits.

[SteelTown]

Pan Am site talks progressing

June 19, 2010
John Kernaghan
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/792193

Pan Am stadium discussions have been working through technical talks related to stadium models with more of that possible this weekend.

Facilitator Michael Fenn said the sides will work weekends through teleconferences if that is needed to stay on schedule.

He was appointed because the city and the Hamilton Tiger-Cats disagree on the city's preferred stadium site, the west harbour.

It is seen by city hall as a key component to transforming the city. But the Ticats say they can't be financially stable there.

"We're making good progress," Fenn said as the city and Tiger-Cats close in on the midway point in a four-week process to try to resolve the impasse.

The veteran civil servant said technical aspects discussed by the parties covered other existing stadium venues with respect to location and finances.

He said there have been good sessions in those areas and the terms of reference for the process call for a few more days of that.

"We'll move on from there to the more direct effort to try to find areas of mutual agreement or to identify the two options that are part of the two-track process."

That covers the city's favoured west harbour site and the best alternative within the city's urban boundaries.

During the process, Fenn has been drawing on input from the Toronto 2015 host corporation, plus provincial and federal governments.

The terms of reference note "this information would include the potential scope for revising the Hamilton Pan Am facilities and events without prejudicing Hamilton's status as a primary venue for the Pan Am Games."

Fenn saluted individuals in both camps for their dedication.

"These are busy people who have been quite conscientious about carving time out so the process carried ahead on schedule. That demonstrates the sincerity of both sides."

[emge]

Hmmm. You may feel differently if it was your home that was being expropriated. MPAC home valuations for tax purposes hardly ever reflect an accurate value of a specific property. Regardless, West Harbour proponents should be nervous about any expropriation actions. If they are fought using all available avenues, expropriation could take years to conclude. The city will end up quietly paying off the land owners at their asking price as construction deadlines loom (assuming of course that West Harbour remains the location of the stadium).

Of course, there are site options out there that would not require any expropriation actions...

Oh sure, the assessments are always low, but considering what homes in the area actually sell for, there's still no way he should be asking that much... (and yeah, it's a smart move on his part to push up he number he'll get..).

[BrianE]

The environment in which Ivor Wynne was originally built is irrelevant. It is its present land use environment that is relevant. In short, it is located in the middle of an inner city residential area with an infrastructure poorly designed to serve a major sporting venue. Just like the West Harbour.

Of course it's relevant! If anything it's the heart of the Tigercats objection to building at the West Harbour. They do not want a repeat of the situation that Ivor Wynne is in 70 years after construction.

All I'm saying is that if they want to repeat the mistakes of the Ivor Wynne stadium they should build it at the edge of current urban development and wait for the area around it to fill in with residential.

This does not fit the description of the proposed West Harbour plan or the neighborhood surrounding the site.

[markbarbera]

The shortcoming of Ivor Wynne is it is locked inside a residential area with inadequate supporting infrastructure for a major event arena. West harbour is recreating the same flawed environment instantly - at least Ivor Wynne had a good half-century of useful life to it before its usefulness was diminished.

It is about meeting the needs of the demographic that will use the stadium. As it stands now, West Harbour has the same demographic limitations as Ivor Wynne.

The argument that a stadium at the edge of the urban area parallels Ivor Wynne's history is incorrect. Ivor Wynne's biggest drawback are its inaccessibility for out-of-town fans (road access and parking) and its inability to expand on the concept of game-day being an event beyond just watching the game. Development around Ivor Wynne restricts this kind of activity. Having learned from the mistakes of the past, a new location should bear these factors into design consideration.

[thistleclub]

We can probably extend that subhead to read: ...and operating costs must not impact retro ticket prices

Fans split on new stadium location (http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/792947)
But it must be as good as Ivor Wynne -- 'the best place to watch a game'

Andrew Baulcomb
The Hamilton Spectator
(Jun 21, 2010)

If you think city hall is divided on the Pan Am stadium issue, try asking fans at Ivor Wynne Stadium where the new location should be.

In a random survey of 50 fans at yesterday's pre-season game against Winnipeg, it was a dead-even split between the proposed west harbour location (21) and a site closer to the Red Hill Valley Parkway and the QEW (21).

Three fans said they would love to see a new building where the unused Scott Park High School sits on King Street East - one block away from Ivor Wynne. Only one fan said she would like to see Ivor Wynne itself renovated for the games.

The Hamilton Mountain also landed three votes, while one fan from Waterdown said he still prefers west Burlington, near Aldershot.

Despite the difference of opinion, one thing remained relatively clear throughout each fan response - the new stadium needs to be just as good as Ivor Wynne, in terms of the overall game experience.

"I've been coming to games for over 25 years, and we sit right here in Box J," said Chris Nunn, who now lives in Burlington. "This is easily the best place in all of North America to watch a football game."

However, Nunn said that if the west harbour site is chosen, he'd be happy to take the bus in from Burlington to watch his Tiger-Cats.

Other fans, such as Philip Thompson, are decidedly more passionate about the west harbour location.

"I think they've done a great job fixing up the bay area, and I think it would be a really positive thing for Hamilton," said Thompson, who lives in the city. "If we do want a hockey team one day, that's a good start. We have to put ourselves on the map."

In addition to the actual stadium location, parking remains a major point of contention for many fans. For Bonnie Turnbull, it's basically the only issue at hand.

"I don't care where it's located, as long as it has good parking for the fans," said Turnbull, who isn't opposed to either the west harbour or QEW sites, as long as she can get there easily.

While the debate in recent weeks has revolved around the Tiger-Cats, many fans were quick to express their interest in a multi-use facility - one that could be utilized for track and field, concerts, and a wide variety of other events.

Of the 50 fans surveyed, 36 said they would prefer a multi-use stadium over a strict Ticats facility. Fourteen said that the new stadium should be solely football-based, with some fans suggesting that the track and field portion of the Pan Am games be competed elsewhere.

"Keep it here for convenience, and let this part of the city keep benefiting from the income," said Crystal Beamsley, an east-end resident and lifelong Ticat fan who wants to see Ivor Wynne renovated. "They should use McMaster University for track and field, or the Mohawk Sports Complex."

Alec Arsenault agrees a multi-use stadium isn't the way to go.

"It's a good idea for bringing in new revenue, but at the same time, it's going to take us further away from the field," said Arsenault, who regularly attends games with his buddies. "The Pan Am Games are only here for one year, and then they're gone."

City officials have until July 8 to decide the location of the Pan Am stadium. A facilitator is helping both sides navigate the minefield.

[markbarbera]

CHML's online poll results were reported back today:

Confederation Park tops the list

Matt Holmes
6/21/2010

Confederation park is your choice for the new Pan AM stadium.

That is the result of the stadium debate poll on 900chml.com.

The location that was taken off the list early in the cities process but still collected 47% of the vote.

The West Harbour got a quarter of the vote and Chedoke was third on the list.

About 10% didn't like any of the options and among the write in locations were Sir John A Macdonald high school and rebuilding where Ivor Wynne stands.

Also in the survey an over-whelming majority said that the Tiger-Cats have the right to refuse the West Harbour location and they should be seen as more than a part-time tenant.

There you go, realcity. You are not alone on your choice for a preferred stadium location.

[geoff's two cents]

:previous: That is a good number, but surely that is not a representative poll. After all, who still listens to talk radio these days? Drivers, predominantly, who are in themselves not necessarily representative of Ticats fans. I'm actually surprised that so many (and overwhelmingly drivers at that) actually preferred a site closer to downtown, and with inferior vehicle access.

What would be interesting, however, would be a poll for stadium preferences conducted amongst the fans themselves or, better yet, amongst the community at large, targeting Ticats regulars as well as would-be (or would-have-been) fans like myself who did not attend a single game because of its less-than-desirable distance from pubs and restaurants downtown. And no, I wouldn't trust the Ticats themselves to pull off a poll like this in an even-handed manner, given their obvious interest in the choice of a freeway-adjacent venue.

[SteelTown]

The Ti Cats did poll season ticket holders. Haven't yet seen the results of that poll.

[highwater]

Chedoke shouldn't have been an option. It's NEC land for crying out loud.

[markbarbera]

Several years back when "Setting Sail" first set sail, the city did a feasability study for a stadium at the West Harbour location. The study concluded the site was unsuitable for a multi-purpose stadium.

One of the vocal critics of the idea at the time was the Chair of the Hamilton Port Authority, who cited lousy access, no parking and little to no positive spin off as reasons why the West Harbour site was not suitable.

That Chair was none other than our current mayor, Fred Eisenberger. Bill Kelly, alderman at the time, remembers that well and reminds us of that in his online blog (http://www.900chml.com/Blogs/BillKellysBlog/BlogEntry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10119501). The rest of the media either hasn't a clue what's going on at the city or would rather look the other way than tell the story as it is.

So, as Bill Kelly asks in his blog, what has changed since then, Fred?

Who's benefitting from the land sales? I''m not wondering about the small-change residential purchases, I want to know the details of the deal for the big parcel of land. Who's getting the cheque from the city for the former Rheem property? Why isn't the local media asking any relevant questions here? And why are we even thinking about building a multi-purpose athletic facility at a location whose suitablility has already been discounted by an earlier city study?

[geoff's two cents]

:previous: Given the absence of a truly downtown option, the West Harbor has my vote by a landslide. Also, given the city's track record on commissioning "studies," I wouldn't trust anything it produces. Nevertheless, I would also be interested in knowing the answers to these questions. Thanks for raising them.

[realcity]

This stadium could be built on the roof of Jackson Sq for all I care... it's not going to do anything for Economic Development except the existing food & beverage venues will have to schedule a few more staff on game days.

People want a Football experience, which includes pre and post game celebrations at the onsite venues.

The whole idea of a new stadium will include pubs and a variety of food & beverage venues, so that you spend your money at the stadium. In marketing terms, they don't want you to patronize a restaurant before or after the game, but to patronize the stadiums restaurants. So how does this help downtown? (which west harbour isn't downtown anyway)

Even little local Hockey Arenas get it.

[geoff's two cents]

The whole idea of a new stadium will include pubs and a variety of food & beverage venues, so that you spend your money at the stadium. In marketing terms, they don't want you to patronize a restaurant before or after the game, but to patronize the stadiums restaurants. So how does this help downtown? (which west harbour isn't downtown anyway)


Foot (or transit, or even SOV) traffic through James North (what is widely seen as the city's premier upcoming downtown neighborhood), ideally, which gives existing businesses increased exposure. The BIA could even go as far as to coordinate special events with game days.

In addition, downtown itself suffers from an inadequate connection to the waterfront. Ask anyone from Vancouver (i.e. me); Torontonians don't have an adequate frame of reference. Anything the stadium can do to facilitate a re-thinking of the area in terms of retail and (especially) residential density will be helpful for the downtown and waterfront together. I agree that relying solely on a limited CFL schedule for justifying the expense is problematic, but the possibility of acquiring a lower-tier soccer league is there; so too with concerts and special events, a Maple Leafs "winter special" outdoors game, etc.

The crucial task here is to do what the city of Hamilton is not very good at doing: think ahead. Assume the following:

1) The stadium will be around for 50 or 60 years

2) The Ticats themselves will not always be able to rely on their current, aging fan base (and, with declining ticket revenues in mind, should already be thinking about how to attract a younger demographic whose idea of fun is much more in line with a trip downtown than to the middle of nowhere). Hamilton boasts one of Canada's most important, and growing, universities, and accordingly boasts a very large student population. This is a valuable asset that should be considered.

3) Cars will almost certainly not disappear, but economic pressures are already forcing people to use them differently. Give it 10 or 20 years. Neither you nor I can see the future, but the present-day indicators (falling vehicle sales, increased interest in transit) point to a less car-dependent future. Is it a good policy to invest such time and money on the assumption that things will be the same in 20 or 50 years as they are today?

4) Expect the waterfront neighborhood and downtown to look very different over the course of this period. The stadium location is already very close to the James North district, and practically right next to the proposed GO station. While my (and your) preference is for a truly central, downtown location, this is still pretty close, and will be even closer in a few decades time.

One question: Since the controversy, so far as I can tell, revolves overwhelmingly around that of naming rights, visibility, etc., has any consideration been given to posting large, electronic events signage along any of the nearby freeways? I don't see why corporate logos can't be splashed all over these, and city directional signage, thereby mitigating the visibility factor considerably.

[realcity]

okay, you have $150, you drop $90 on 4 tickets. You have $60 left. You park your car for $15. (or HSR bus, two adults, two children, two-way bus fair $18.20, 90 minute round trip for bus waiting, bus trip and walking) *now that makes sense*. Now you have about $45 for concession, a beer, fries, hotdogs, peanuts, soda and now you're done. $150 lighter.

"Hey, Let's go to the Honest Lawyers and drop another $150 after the game." "Great Idea.! Maybe we can buy an antique on Locke, I think I saw a store on the way down here." "O honey, that's wonderful, then can we stop at that gallery on Bay Street I saw a lovely painting for $400 that would look stunning above our new couch from Leons." "That sounds fun eh kids?" "And you know what children?" "What?" "We're going to walk". "O fun!! I love going to 3 hour TiCat games and spending another 3 hours on the bus and walking around all the downtown shops". "Mom, Dad?" "Yes, son". "Can we go to the Art Gallery before the Game?" "Yes son we will but we can't be late for our Go Bus back to St. Catharines, that takes 45 minutes and costs us $70".

[SteelTown]

HSR is free during game day. Just show your tickets to the bus driver. Plus on top of regular HSR buses there's extra express shuttle buses during game day.

[markbarbera]

...so it's easy to take the HSR to the game, no matter where the stadium ends up.

This is fine for a market base within the city service area, but free bus service has done nothing to draw up the crowd numbers at Ivor Wynne, has it? And the Ticat market needs to expand further out to the Hamilton/Halton/K-W/Niagara regions if it is to survive. West Harbour doesn't have the infrastructure to support a team with a regional fan base, and there isn't a willingness to make changes to the infrastructure so it could.

[SteelTown]

People from the Niagara region can choose to park at Eastgate and take the free express shuttle bus (meaning point A to B with no stops in between) to the stadium.

People from Halton, KW and GTA can choose to park at University Plaza or Downtown and take the free express shuttle bus to the stadium.

People from Haldimand and Brantford can choose to park at Limeridge Mall and take the free express shuttle bus to the stadium.

It's a lot better than having to drive around searching for a parking spot and dealing with the crowd.

[realcity]

^ yeah right

We're not in Kansas anymore.

Nvm that everything else I wrote is regarded as nonsense bc I didn't know HSR was free on Game Day. Is GO, Greyhound free? This is supposed to be a Regional CFL team.

And I'm not aware of a private tax paying property (like a mall) would want TiCat fans using their parking lot for any reason other than to patronize their stores. Is Cadillac Fairview aware that the TiCats plan on using their parking lot as theirs on game day?

You actually believe people will think this is ACCESSIBLE?

[SteelTown]

You learn something new everyday. The service has been around for years.

More info....
http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/C5DB9019-B52C-4ADF-AF1F-80B7C1B1CC83/0/2010TickettoRideBrochure.pdf

[realcity]

I wish people would get it.

It's a football stadium people!!!! And in Hamilton no less!!!! These fans do not give a crap about the AGH, about Locke St, about tofu or Gore Park. This is what business plans do, they study the market and demographics and concentrate on the biggest sector that will make them money.

>>>MODERATOR EDIT - UNSOURCED IMAGES REMOVED<<<

This is the 'experience' that Mr. Young is talking about. This is so what Hamilton wants to do, it's what Hamilton and the TiCats need.

[realcity]

You learn something new everyday. The service has been around for years.

More info....
http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/C5DB9019-B52C-4ADF-AF1F-80B7C1B1CC83/0/2010TickettoRideBrochure.pdf

So you do believe that this is considered ACCESSIBLE. okay

[realcity]

You learn something new everyday. The service has been around for years.

More info....
http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/C5DB9019-B52C-4ADF-AF1F-80B7C1B1CC83/0/2010TickettoRideBrochure.pdf

And you must think that it's acceptable to Cadillac Fairview that the TiCats use their parking lot on game days.

[SteelTown]

Obviously an arrangement has been set up.

It's an option that people can use.

[Berklon]

I wish people would get it.

It's a football stadium people!!!! And in Hamilton no less!!!! These fans do not give a crap about the AGH, about Locke St, about tofu or Gore Park. This is what business plans do, they study the market and demographics and concentrate on the biggest sector that will make them money.

This is the 'experience' that Mr. Young is talking about. This is so what Hamilton wants to do, it's what Hamilton and the TiCats need.

Tailgate parties? Really?

Are there currently any CFL teams that have tailgate parties?

You can't compare the CFL to the NFL. Do you honestly think there's enough excitement in an 8 team league to generate this sort of thing?

Build a stadium out in the middle of nowhere with massive parking and this is what you'll get: people driving to the game, parking their cars, sitting amongst 20,000 other fans, get in the car and drive home. That's it.

[realcity]

Who here thinks that West Harbour is "downtown"?

Who here thinks that a TiCat Stadium on West Harbour will help downtown with regards to economic development?

Who here thinks which "waterfront" is more popular, Bayfront or Confederation Park?

I was at both "waterfronts" on the weekend. Bayfront had about 20 people, walking dogs and smoking weed.... it was a dead zone.

And all along Van Wagners Beach was wall to wall people, the Hutch's was a 3-hour wait. The Hutch's at Bayfront I couldn't tell if it was open. So which "waterfront" do yo think the majority of the regional population wants to spend time at?

[realcity]

Confederation Park is in the middle of nowhere? ooops I forgot.

[realcity]

What a CFL hater you are. No "excitement in an 8 team league"

Obviously Berkon you don't go to TiCat games. I live in the shadow of Ivor Wynne and I can tell you there are tailgate parties on peoples lawns on their portches in the parking lot at the end of my street.

And besides that is another comment that says "Hey, we've never done that before in Hamilton, so we can't do that now"!!

[realcity]

Obviously an arrangement has been set up.

It's an option that people can use.

Obviously you know the details of said "arrangement"

[SteelTown]

http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/63048169-0C1C-410A-8A31-71B62E337839/0/2010TicatsExpressMaps.pdf

[realcity]

Ya you're right Berkmon, tailgating is not fun. No one likes to do that.

Remember dude. I'm not even saying I'm a frickin tailgater, I'm only looking at a football stadium as a reality... and how Bob Young sees football. Look at Mr. Young, does he look like a jock football player from high school? NO. he's a business person and wants to make money from his TiCats investment. OO NooO.. .making money is bad. Putting a corporate sign on a stadium is bad... having a parking lot (where it already is a parking lot) is bad.

Only in Hamilton.

[realcity]

Don't mention "highway" or "parking lot" or "SOV" or else some people lose their minds. Like that's what has destroyed Hamilton? Not bad city planning. Portland, Boston, San Fransico are ringed with highways.

You know what? We need highways, they exist. They exist for a reason. Rome made highways, so your little house on the prairie can have food and furnishings... and that little perfect mirror that sits so well in the front hall.

I guess I'm done now. I just hope this mediator can save a stadium somewhere in Hamilton. And a GOOD one, with 30k seats. Not a Hamilton style building, but something that makes us proud, regardless of where it is. I want it to look good, function good and be viable.

peace

[Berklon]

Holy... you couldn't put all your thoughts in one single post... you had to make a post for each thought?

The CFL is not a big selling point. Young can try all he wants, it wont be a major sell in Ontario. Sad, but true. You have this illusion that it can be a big deal here - it isn't and it won't ever be. In this day and age there's a lot competing for the entertainment dollar... and if people want football - there's the NFL. There's only 8 teams with only half drawing well for a reason.

I personally think the Pan-Ams games are a joke. Does anyone actually care about the games? The only good thing out of it is it gets us a stadium and some other stuff. But at the end of the day - I'd rather use that money for a majorly revamped arena with an NHL team. That's what Hamilton should be aspiring to... not something who's best days are long behind it.

[realcity]

Making multiple points into one single post, allows people to single out one single point in the multiple point posts. Ergo allowing them to disavow all the other points made.

You've made a SSP first, by posting a douche comment about someone who tried to make several different points in single posts by not responding to any of them. Single comments made on single posts is totally valid and is the way to communicate on forums.

At the same time you've made it known that you hate the CFL but have SO MUCH to say about the stadium location. I remember when the CFL was a big deal, and around my parts of town, it still is. Come down here on a game day buddy. See Winnipeg, Calgary or Edmonton on game days. It's so lame to say I am comparing Canada to a market that is 10x larger. Of course it will be smaller in scale, doesn't mean it has to be lame. The smallest cities in the UK, smaller than Hamilton, get crazy on soccer game days. Compare that!

Unless you're offended by sausages, beer and people having fun, generally just people. Don't bother, I already know you don't care about the CFL or TiCats so don't you bother anymore with this conversation about the TiCats Stadium.

I said, I'm done, but I wanted to say you're officially on my douche list.

[realcity]

HSR is free during game day. Just show your tickets to the bus driver. Plus on top of regular HSR buses there's extra express shuttle buses during game day.

Just like mark said, so wherever this stadium is located the HSR will still provide free bus pass/shuttle. Interesting... how that makes the west harbour location an advantage over any other location.?

[realcity]

You know what else is interesting? WRT to the argument about highway accessibility.

Is how the West Harbour location is 'near' the 403, and that makes it an 'advantage'.

But

When it comes to Confed Park being near the QEW/Redhill, somehow that makes it a bad location.

Is being near a highway, good or bad?

Is that you can see the Rogers Dome or the Air Canada Centre from the QEW bad or good? Did that have anything to do with Rogers and Air Canada paying to put their logo on the stadiums?

Is it such a bad thing that we want a corporation's logo on our stadium?

[realcity]

Parking.

While we're appropriating homes for a miniscule useless 600 parking lots for the West Harbour location.... this is okay and good.

But when it comes to Confed Park which ALREADY is a PARKING LOT, this is bad, and all we're doing is making a PARKING LOT THAT ALREADY EXISTS AS A PARKING LOT. That is bad, do not make a parking lot a parking lot. Good is, to tear down peoples homes to make a parking lot.

In actual fact, West Harbour location makes more parking space than Confed Park location does. ... But we don't care about that.. .we just hate the QEW and RedHill so much that we don't want anything positive to come of it.

People

The RedHill exists. The fight is over. I'd rather see the most of it than see it fail, just so I could say "I told you so". Because that is another Hamilton fail. The RedHill, the QEW are not going to be torn down, so deal.

I'm sorry. Did I make too many points in one post? *watch what happens*

[realcity]

Naming Rights.

Like this is such a bad thing> to accept money from a company that feels putting their logo on our stadium is out of the question.

I know it's an anomaly in Hamilton, we still have our CFL stadium named after someone no one really remembers -- a politician I think -- and our NHL arena named after another politician's father, our university stadium named after the guy who actually paid for it. Hamilton Place also named after someone who felt pity for Hamilton. Mike Chin also named a Mac school, but we have no corporate logos shining over Hamilton.... except Effort Trust. *I think CIBC's sign is still on 2 King West* and maybe *Standard Life is still on the Standard Life building, -- if they actually have office space in Hamilton now.)

Not here in Hamilton. How dare you *corporation* consider paying money for a logo on our TiCat stadium.

Go and put a mobile sign on Upper James if you want to advertise to vehicle traffic, but NEVER ever think about paying the TiCats money for a logo on their stadium. Back, back, I have this bucket of water that will melt you if you come any closer.

[geoff's two cents]

okay, you have $150, you drop $90 on 4 tickets. You have $60 left. You park your car for $15. (or HSR bus, two adults, two children, two-way bus fair $18.20, 90 minute round trip for bus waiting, bus trip and walking) *now that makes sense*. Now you have about $45 for concession, a beer, fries, hotdogs, peanuts, soda and now you're done. $150 lighter.

"Hey, Let's go to the Honest Lawyers and drop another $150 after the game." "Great Idea.! Maybe we can buy an antique on Locke, I think I saw a store on the way down here." "O honey, that's wonderful, then can we stop at that gallery on Bay Street I saw a lovely painting for $400 that would look stunning above our new couch from Leons." "That sounds fun eh kids?" "And you know what children?" "What?" "We're going to walk". "O fun!! I love going to 3 hour TiCat games and spending another 3 hours on the bus and walking around all the downtown shops". "Mom, Dad?" "Yes, son". "Can we go to the Art Gallery before the Game?" "Yes son we will but we can't be late for our Go Bus back to St. Catharines, that takes 45 minutes and costs us $70".

Realcity, I can only assume that you've spent some time in cities other than Hamilton, and that your caricature is more than a little disingenuous.

Have you never been to Vancouver or Toronto and seen the swarms of people alighting from the trains for the game and pubs - before or after? When LRT is here, I see no reason why Ticats fans can't enjoy a similar experience: Park the car at Eastgate or Dundas (and ideally Concession, if a north-south line emerges), liven up the downtown streets for a few hours, and have a good enough time to consider returning - with or without seeing a game - to further explore all the downtown and waterfront have to offer.

This is a very important marketing strategy for cities. If you don't believe me, pick up a newspaper and read about why most civic leaders in Vancouver and Toronto wanted the Olympics. The scale is different, but the principle is the same: entice people to come and impress them in hopes that they will return.

Is Hamilton so beyond the pale that its everyday citizens can't conceive of a day's entertainment in a city, featuring a day of shopping, eating and drinking, and capped by a football game next to a gorgeous waterfront?

You keep on bringing up tailgate parties. What makes a tailgate party less feasible for the West Harbor location? Surely the road access is ample for the types of parties your (un-sourced) pictures describe.

These fans do not give a crap about the AGH, about Locke St, about tofu or Gore Park.

Other than posting un-sourced pictures or resorting to banal stereotypes, do you have any evidence for this?

I can only speak for myself, but as a McMaster student I would have enjoyed seeing a game or two during my time in Hamilton if they weren't played so far from the city's lovely downtown - or, for that matter, so far from any kind of amenity that would attract a young person. Moreover, there are over 25,000 students in situations very similar to mine. It's not uncommon at any given time to see us biking or rollerblading along the waterfront near the West Harbor, or downing pints in Hess Village, especially during football season (i.e. summer and fall).

Your trite remark is a self-fulfilling prophecy. To the (dubious) extent that it is true, it's only reasonable to assume that football fans "do not give a crap" about downtown because they don't have a reason to go there. It could equally be said that students and young professionals "do not give a crap" about Ticats footfall because it takes them away from the excitement and opportunity of the downtown.

This is so what Hamilton wants to do

More correctly, it's what you and many others want to do, and many of you would be happiest doing it as far from downtown as possible. Others would be just as happy if they could tailgate in the West Harbor. Many others, and a growing number at that, prefer having the option of shopping or visiting several neighborhood pubs or restaurants, in addition to tailgate parties. Hamilton is changing, for better or worse, and, as the debate on this board and others (raisethehammer.org) shows, it's much more diverse than your one-dimensional (and patronizing) "lunch-bucket" stereotypes would suggest.

The West Harbor location can accommodate both preferences; Confed. Park only serves the existing (aging and declining) demographic. In fact, in this respect at least, West Harbor is actually superior to a truly central, downtown location, for which tailgate parties would be much less feasible.

[bluevue]

Realcity...you were at Bayfront on the weekend? Really...a dead zone? 20 people...really...I went down with my wife and kids around 7pm on Saturday and turned around since there was some kind of festival going on (midway etc.), but we turned around since we had dropped money the previous weekend at the wingfest (midway etc) so we turned around before the kids noticed and went to Pier8 and strolled along there....Williams was packed. Just saying. I may have read your post incorrectly, so I apologize if I did...but no chance it was a dead zone.

[realcity]

Yes Blueme.. i was at both waterfronts... go to both this weekend and see for yourself ... .first yes. I was there... afternoonish for a few hours, a picnic in fact. played baseball, some frisbee® and soccer. The only people I saw was walking back to the parking lot *ahh I drove, kill me* some dog walkers and maybe 25 people tops.

Anyone doubting me, go to Bayfront then go to Van Wagners. Why would I make that up? Is this grade 7? I actually would prefer thousands of people at Bayfront, but it's not true.

*Williams is Pier8 btw* doesn't matter, i'll give you both Bayfront *Pier 4* and Pier 8 together versus the amount of people at Van Wagners.

It's ridiculous if anyone wants to argue which waterfront more people visit. I think maybe you should ask the owners of Hutch's. No you wouldn't want to accept the answer.

It's like the people here don't want to see what's real.? It doesn't matter what I prefer. Maybe I prefer everyone riding on lions galloping along a bayfront with zero industry, but somehow we have steel to build stuff -- without having steel factories, and somehow I make mortgage payments without having to work for an evil corporation and somehow we feed ourselves without transport trucks and highways -- and everyone loves each other.

You guys think it's my preference.??? Dudes I'm only saying what's true. Not what is down the yellow brick road. Van Wagners is the more popular waterfront! Period. Argue that and you're a moron.

Geoff .. I've said many times that tailgating might not be my choice of fun. Maybe I don't drink, maybe i don't eat meat.... my choices of leisure are irrelevant. You think that because I make a claim based on a business perspective, that that is my personal choice. Let;'s just pretend that I was approached to make an ad campaign for the HUMMER®. I would have to appeal to a certain type of market, does that make me that person? Or I had to make an ad campaign for a suburban mall on a highway strip in Niagara Falls NY? Do I give my personal opinion? Or do I communicate to the market that is my market? My perspective is from the TiCats and Mr. Youngs view. Btw both scenarios were true.

I know a little bit about marketing. Claiming you're a Mac student doesn;t make you the guy behind the curtain.

[realcity]

Actually Williams is the most annoying restaurant. Sorry. I wish it was better. But the noise level inside is insufferable. The outside is swarmed by hornets and usually freezing cold or boiling hot.. invest in some umbrellas.

And the service is beyond, "you're fired".

I don't mind the food when they finally bring it to me, but cutlery is good and a once or twice pass-by to ask if "everything okay?" would be nice.


Williams on the waterfront seems to get a special critical exception when it comes to value and service and location, because its our mesiah on the waterfront. Actually I can't even see water when I'm inside the place. My ears feel like I'm at a Chuck E Cheez. Half the tables are empty but full of the last patrons junk. The place sucks. If that Williams were picked up and placed anywhere else in the city it would be bankrupt. I think people think its cool going down to the water, but you don't see the water.

*Williams -- please refer to Burlington's waterfront*

[realcity]

Would it change anything if I preferred the West Harbour location? I actually do prefer to make the location work. Now I'm going to go watch 'John Hagee Today'.

[geoff's two cents]

Funny, whatever our differences, I'm not big on that Williams location either.;) Any hope I have for the waterfront pivots in large part on there eventually being more eating and drinking selection than at present.

On another note, it bears restating that the best interests for the Ticats and those of the city do not necessarily align. Both parties are hostage to very different scales of economic planning. The city has to build something that won't be an embarrassment in 20 or 30 years; the Ticats will most likely have the option of leaving for greener pastures (London, Waterloo, Mississauga) whenever they feel like it. Therefore, it makes the most sense for team executives to argue on the basis of short- and mid-term economic gain (i.e. the status quo), while the city has to look out for the interests of its citizens decades in advance.

What follows is purely speculative, but it would be morbidly interesting to see the city spend tens of millions bankrolling a stadium by the airport or Confed. park, only to see the Ticats vacate Steeltown a few years later for a downtown-based fanbase elsewhere.

One more thing, realcity. What do you think of the highway signage idea I mentioned in a previous post? Can anyone shed light on the extent to which this is possible, legal or desirable, or whether (and why/why not) it has been part of the public discussion? It strikes me as something of a compromise.

By the way, I'm not sure what you mean by the following: "I know a little bit about marketing. Claiming you're a Mac student doesn;t make you the guy behind the curtain." Can you clarify?

[markbarbera]

Realcity, I can only assume that you've spent some time in cities other than Hamilton, and that your caricature is more than a little disingenuous.

Have you never been to Vancouver or Toronto and seen the swarms of people alighting from the trains for the game and pubs - before or after? When LRT is here, I see no reason why Ticats fans can't enjoy a similar experience: Park the car at Eastgate or Dundas (and ideally Concession, if a north-south line emerges), liven up the downtown streets for a few hours, and have a good enough time to consider returning - with or without seeing a game - to further explore all the downtown and waterfront have to offer.


Having myself visited Vancouver and having lived in Toronto for a decade, I have to say there is a bit of disingenuity on your part here.

Yes, I have been at Union pre-game and have seen the 'swarms' of people heading from the trains. If you are talking about the subway, I would have to estimate about 100 per train may be headed to the game - and that is on the generous side. Average a train every three minutes from each of University and Yonge lines for the hour leading up to a game amounts to 4000 arriving via TTC. I'll be generous and say the lakeshore trains arriving during the same hour deliver another 1000 fans. That's 5000 fans by train and subway. If you are looking for average attendance of 25,000, that leaves about 20,000 arriving by other means (you might have noticed how packed the Gardiner is on a game night). West Harbour simply does not have the infrastructure to support that amount of traffic in and out on game night.


Is Hamilton so beyond the pale that its everyday citizens can't conceive of a day's entertainment in a city, featuring a day of shopping, eating and drinking, and capped by a football game next to a gorgeous waterfront?


Except with a Barton and Tiffany site, the football game would be next to a gorgeous CN rail freight yard. Let's at least be honest and stop this silly romanticising of the corner of Barton and Tiffany.


I can only speak for myself, but as a McMaster student I would have enjoyed seeing a game or two during my time in Hamilton if they weren't played so far from the city's lovely downtown - or, for that matter, so far from any kind of amenity that would attract a young person. Moreover, there are over 25,000 students in situations very similar to mine. It's not uncommon at any given time to see us biking or rollerblading along the waterfront near the West Harbor, or downing pints in Hess Village, especially during football season (i.e. summer and fall).


First off, there certainly are not 25,000 Mac students here for summer games. School's out during the summer. Those students who will take in a football game in the fall are taking in varsity football, not CFL. Because it is cheap, and the student body put their support behind the Marauders. Exactly how does a stadium at Barton and Tiffany alter that aspect of student life? Besides, being a Mac student you already know that Mac students rarely head any closer to downtown than Hess and King. I know, I was once a Mac student myself.


Your trite remark is a self-fulfilling prophecy. To the (dubious) extent that it is true, it's only reasonable to assume that football fans "do not give a crap" about downtown because they don't have a reason to go there. It could equally be said that students and young professionals "do not give a crap" about Ticats footfall because it takes them away from the excitement and opportunity of the downtown.

More correctly, it's what you and many others want to do, and many of you would be happiest doing it as far from downtown as possible. Others would be just as happy if they could tailgate in the West Harbor. Many others, and a growing number at that, prefer having the option of shopping or visiting several neighborhood pubs or restaurants, in addition to tailgate parties. Hamilton is changing, for better or worse, and, as the debate on this board and others (raisethehammer.org) shows, it's much more diverse than your one-dimensional (and patronizing) "lunch-bucket" stereotypes would suggest.

The West Harbor location can accommodate both preferences; Confed. Park only serves the existing (aging and declining) demographic. In fact, in this respect at least, West Harbor is actually superior to a truly central, downtown location, for which tailgate parties would be much less feasible.

Can you please tone down the sanctimonious down-talking here? How about you offer evidence to support your dubious claim that West Harbour is a superior location site. On what basis are you making that claim? Superior to what? The Ticat organization conducted a business case analysis that says the Barton and Tiffany site is a money-loser. The city has done its own study saying Barton and Tiffany is unsuitable for a multi-purpose stadium.(the report now buried with hopes noone will find it). Even while sporting its rose-colored glasses, the Deloitte study of Barton and Tiffany raises serious concerns about its long-term viability. Senator Braley (Hamilton's former Pan Am point-man, owner of two CFL teams and former CFL commissioner) says the city has made a mistake in choosing West Harbour for the stadium. Heck, even the mayor in his previous role as chair of the Hamilton Port Authority has said that West Harbour was not a good site for a stadium. So again I ask, what exactly makes this a superior site? And superior to what?

[realcity]

"Let's at least be honest and stop this silly romanticising of the corner of Barton and Tiffany."
That statement nails it.
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b276/theshawsphotos/carolineandstuart2.jpg?t=1277265148
nice waterfront Hamilton. Wait? is this on the water?

Hamiltonians have been presented with the wonderful rendering of a waterfront stadium and made to believe that that is what it will be.

Has anyone been to Bernie Arbour Stadium on the east mountain? Because that is what this stadium will be without the TiCats.

Build, What and Where the TiCats want! or else we risk have nothing. I'd prefer to "call" than to go "all in" with a pair of deuces.

[geoff's two cents]

:previous: realcity, that picture doesn't tell me anything about the view a spectator (or television camera) would have from an elevated standpoint.

Mark, I'll grant the Mac number I gave was unintentionally inflated for the summer months, but it holds true for the fall. And I wouldn't underestimate the number of students who do visit the lower city beyond Hess for the art crawl, lakeside trail, etc. Finally, though I have no way of knowing the precise number, my own experience at Union Station on game night tells me your numbers are way off, though I grant that many people do drive as well.

Mark, I also question the mayor's own interests as port authority chair when he downplayed the suitability of the site for a stadium. As the current mayor, one would assume he has different priorities, and is beholden to different interests.

I offered many reasons, culled from my experience in Hamilton and elsewhere, as to why I think the West Harbor is superior to the other options on the table (or those proposed here). I'm not going to re-type that post. I don't trust the Ticats' own studies for reasons also outlined in an above post.

I'll say it again (and again, if need be): I haven't seen any rationale from either realcity or yourself as to how your own proposed locations respond to the increasing modal shift in transit away from the automobile, the stereotypical and declining CFL football fan demographic that you both (or realcity, at least) keep invoking in favor of a location farther from downtown - and thus the often overlooked point that this stadium will not be built to last for five or even ten years, but likely half a century at minimum.

[realcity]

that's the view you would have exiting the stadium from the main entrance

[realcity]

So we're now worried about the view tv cameras will have of the stadium? but don't care about the view from QEW drivers? makes sense to me.

[realcity]

OMG . I wish I had was in university again. So lovely the vision. *Can I catch a ride on your lion? mine is helping a family get water from the creek*

I also went to Mac. And most out-of-town students never left the confine of the campus..... in 3 years!!!! Maybe, MAYBE they went to Hess. Most had everything they needed on Mac's encampment.... and that's how Mac wants it.

Parking and meal cards are a big revenue stream.... ooo noooo TiCats too...

Why would Mac make a downtown campus where people could chose to park wherever and chose to eat outside their cafeterias? Lost money?

Mac is probably the most expensive place to park and eat in this city.

[geoff's two cents]

So we're now worried about the view tv cameras will have of the stadium? but don't care about the view from QEW drivers? makes sense to me.

Speaking of that, you haven't commented on my electronic highway signage idea. I'm actually interested in knowing what you think.

And, yes, t.v. cameras are important in that they convey the image of Hamilton to the extra-Hamiltonian world. Hence my preference for not putting the stadium next to the smoke stacks.

As to the lovely vision from my university days that you speak of, I can only attest to what I saw with my own two eyes. Perhaps you lived in Westdale during your student years, avoided downtown, and speak from personal experience. I lived downtown as a student and saw plenty of students in the pubs (Augusta and Hess), and along the waterfront during the nicer months. I'll admit that it would have been nice to see more, but those downtown dwarfed the number of students I encountered at Eastgate and in Stoney Creek. To me, that suggests an untapped market.