Tim Hortons Field | 40m | ? | Complete

[bigguy1231]

Anyone who didn't see this comming is blind.

Mr. Bratina had a meeting last week with the locals. All the NIMBY types were out. We all know the councillor only a makes decisions based on who screams the loudest. The only consolation is he is just one vote on council.

As for the site remediation, it will have to be done whether they build a stadium on the site or not. The 43 million dollar amount mentioned by the councillor is a worst case scenario. It may or may not cost us depending on the amount of contamination. Lets do the assessments of the properties before jumping to any conclusions.

The other site advocated by the councillor at the SJAM location is totally unacceptable. It is not big enough and would prohibit any future expansion of the stadium.

This stadium and the other proposed facilities need to be built in the West Harbour location. That area needs redevelopement and I can't think of any better way to do it other than with the help of Federal and Provincial contributions for the stadium.

[SteelTown]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

As for the site remediation, it will have to be done whether they build a stadium on the site or not. The 43 million dollar amount mentioned by the councillor is a worst case scenario. It may or may not cost us depending on the amount of contamination. Lets do the assessments of the properties before jumping to any conclusions.

Yep, and if we drag this out any longer the cost of remediation will only get bigger and bigger. Sooner or later this city is going to have to cleanup this large piece of property.

Also from my understanding the 2015 Pan Am committee needs the city to pin point the final stadium location by the end of Feburary. So if we don't decide now we'll never get a Pan American stadium.

[urban_planner]

I might just get an apartment downtown to vote this guy out, Im getting sick and tired of the pathetic decisions of council. Its sucks this is an election year it increases the odds of poor choices from council all in the name of a few votes. I am not suprised to hear the Nimbys are out'and now the council member is feels the fear of loosing a seat. We need a system that only allows one term. Atleast until we see things changed. Oh well can do much.

Its a shame that people only complain when they don't like something. I wonder how many people in the various wards would love to have the stadium at the bay but don't bother to voice there opinion.

This should be an interesting week.

[highwater]

Originally Posted by Bob Bratina

It's very likely we will see the closing of schools, such as occurred with the Catholic Board.

I cannot believe you would celebrate the closure of schools in your ward. If you are worried about slow population growth in Hamilton, the last thing you should be doing is encouraging the closure of schools. SJAM has the best visual arts program in the city. In a city that is trying to leverage it's cultural sector, you should be fighting for the survival of this school, not rubbing your hands with glee at the prospect of it's demise. If you think a few North End NIMBY's can scream loud, wait till they come for SJAM.

[Bob Bratina]

Bigguy and Urban planner can look up the record and see that I have never opposed a West Harbour site if it could be proven to be affordable. There were sites I preferred, and sites that should have been evaluated, but I told the so-called "nimby" group you refer to that I would not block this site unless the business case failed. It has. The information we have received from Deloitte and Gowlings tells me that this site is a money pit that they admit will not work unless we build a new downtown around it, thus undermining the restaurants, bars, retail shops and hotels already present, paying taxes that are 25 per cent higher than comparative municipalities.

Some day these critics will be enjoying the GO/VIA service out of James Street North. When I began advocating for this in late 2004, the Mayor, the MP, the Planning Department, and VIA were all opposed. I persisted, luckily gaining a seat on the GO transit board, and contributing to this outcome, as well as the greatly enhanced service out of Hunter Street, including the HSR platforms. So if for some reason my political life takes a different direction, for these and many other reasons I will be able to reflect happily on my contributions to the Ward, the Downtown and the City. Can Bigguy and Urban Planner say the same?

[highwater]

Originally Posted by Bob Bratina

...I will be able to reflect happily on my contributions to the Ward, the Downtown and the City. Can Bigguy and Urban Planner say the same?

Internet forum FAIL. When you have to drag out the hoary old "Oh yeah? Well I bet I contribute more to this city than you do!" cliche, it's a safe bet you've got a weak argument.

[urban_planner]

Originally Posted by Bob Bratina

Bigguy and Urban planner can look up the record and see that I have never opposed a West Harbour site if it could be proven to be affordable. There were sites I preferred, and sites that should have been evaluated, but I told the so-called "nimby" group you refer to that I would not block this site unless the business case failed. It has. The information we have received from Deloitte and Gowlings tells me that this site is a money pit that they admit will not work unless we build a new downtown around it, thus undermining the restaurants, bars, retail shops and hotels already present, paying taxes that are 25 per cent higher than comparative municipalities.

Some day these critics will be enjoying the GO/VIA service out of James Street North. When I began advocating for this in late 2004, the Mayor, the MP, the Planning Department, and VIA were all opposed. I persisted, luckily gaining a seat on the GO transit board, and contributing to this outcome, as well as the greatly enhanced service out of Hunter Street, including the HSR platforms. So if for some reason my political life takes a different direction, for these and many other reasons I will be able to reflect happily on my contributions to the Ward, the Downtown and the City. Can Bigguy and Urban Planner say the same?

Affordable tell me anything on the face of this earth that is affordable. If this stadium gets built at the airport, confederation park, west harbour or at this rate somewhere outside of Hamilton it will not be affordable. Honestly success has a cost. Unfortunatly so much gets lost in Hamilton because nobody is willing to invest and that includes banks. I wonder if this is because of the lack of interest that banks see from outside or if its the banks view of city bosses. Anyway thats a whole other can of worms.

I can't at this point say the something about contributing the the downtown however that fact that I am in urban planning let say I hope to be able to be in a position to correct the so many bad decisions that have been made.


Mr Bratina, honestly I have nothing against you or anybody on council. I just wish that for once we could have council think outside the ward (box) and just think beyond your time on council. Picture this people hopping on the HSR or driving there cars downtown hoping out of there cars and heading from downtown to the waterfront. Perhaps taking a stop at a resturant along james st for dinner before or after the game or event. Verses heading out the a stadium most likely surrounded by agricultural areas out near the airport. If you think that building a stadium out near the airport is going to influence he airport your dead wrong. Honestly I am a huge supporter of taking advantage of the airport but so much has been lost to London International airport that what you see is what you get a Munro for a while.

Anyway I think the picture I paint in favour of the Harbour vs glanbrook is good. Man the opportunity to drastically change downtown and surrounding area is staggering yet missed by the tunnel vision of council or should we call it the voter vision. We hear about how we need to get an NHL team downtown to attract folks downtown yet to get the stadium down there is like pulling teeth. I walk from Gore Park down James st north as far as the tracks and its only 15 minutes this is close enough that building a stadium at the bay would be close enough to have very positive effects on the core.

This stadium debate goes much further then just the west harbour this has the potential to be massive in infuence. Good opportunity Bob to get your name on something great.

Anyway really just think about the concequences long term either way you vote. oh and thanks. this is the longest post I have had on this forum.

[Bob Bratina]

My original suggestion to build a new Sir John A. MacDonald high school came in 2005, long before the Pan Ams were considered. First consideration....the sad architecture of a failed building, reminiscent of the Barton Street Jail. This is not a building that inspires pride in its students, many of whom face challenges in their personal lives. Sitting outside to have lunch or kick a ball around puts them between two major arteries, Cannon and York. The athletic field is to say the least sub-standard. Beneath it is the rubble of the old McCoy Foundry which means it is never level, and poorly sodded. The ideal location is on City-owned property a block north on Bay at Scheaffe, or on the north side of Central park which is also City property. This places the school in a less-travelled residential area, adjacent to a green space, Central Park. A school on the Barton street property could have great classroom views of the Harbour and a safer, quieter cleaner environment for Sir John
A. students. In fact most of the teachers with whom I've discussed this idea are strongly supportive, understanding that the current school and grounds are less than ideal.

This creates another positive element for Downtown development. Whether its a stadium, hotel, conference centre, the site presents what is so difficult to find in dense urban areas, namely a substantial parcel of land.
So I will continue to advocate for a new Downtown high school. The comment by "highwater" is beneath contempt and is the probable indicator as to why most of my colleagues avoid making any contributions to forums such as this.

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by Bob Bratina

Bigguy and Urban planner can look up the record and see that I have never opposed a West Harbour site if it could be proven to be affordable. There were sites I preferred, and sites that should have been evaluated, but I told the so-called "nimby" group you refer to that I would not block this site unless the business case failed. It has. The information we have received from Deloitte and Gowlings tells me that this site is a money pit that they admit will not work unless we build a new downtown around it, thus undermining the restaurants, bars, retail shops and hotels already present, paying taxes that are 25 per cent higher than comparative municipalities.

Some day these critics will be enjoying the GO/VIA service out of James Street North. When I began advocating for this in late 2004, the Mayor, the MP, the Planning Department, and VIA were all opposed. I persisted, luckily gaining a seat on the GO transit board, and contributing to this outcome, as well as the greatly enhanced service out of Hunter Street, including the HSR platforms. So if for some reason my political life takes a different direction, for these and many other reasons I will be able to reflect happily on my contributions to the Ward, the Downtown and the City. Can Bigguy and Urban Planner say the same?

Yes Bob, I am happy with the contributions I have made to this city in the past on a voluntary basis. I have been a member of numerous citizens committees at city hall over the last 30 years as well as many community groups. I am no longer able to get involved because of work commitments but look forward to getting involved again in the not too distant future.

As for the site in question being a money pit. How would the consultants know that without doing an environmental assessment. Do the groundwork then decide whether or not the site is viable. I don't see what the problem is with building up the area around the new stadium. Are you saying that our downtown should be confined to it's current boundries. Try thinking outside the box for once. It doesn't have to be all commercial. It could be a mix of residential, commercial and institutional. Or here's a thought it could be just greenspace.

[SteelTown]

Will 600 parking spots be enough?
New stadium sparking worry for neighbours

February 16, 2010
Dana Brown
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/722642

A new report about the proposed west harbour stadium is recommending the venue be outfitted with about 600 parking spots, or about 10 per cent of expected demand.

The plan is to have stadium users, such as Ticat fans, make use of roughly 10,000 parking spaces already in the downtown area, as well as using alternatives to vehicles to get to the site.

That could include shuttles from downtown lots, walking, biking, or riding light rail once it's in place. The stadium would be located near Bay Street North and Barton Street West.

"I think they're very good strategies," David Adames, executive director of Tourism Hamilton said of the recommendations in the report.

"Is it a different model? Yes. Will it need (a) very good communication plan? Yes."

The draft report, put together by IBI Group, says about 6,800 spots would be needed if 80 per cent of those headed to a 22,000-person event took a car. It assumes there would be 2.6 people in each vehicle.

There are about 3,900 off-street spots within one kilometre of the site, but that doesn't mean all would be vacant for use during event times.

In order to prevent parking in the area around the site, the report also recommends keeping and expanding an on-street parking ban, already in place for special events at Bayfront Park.

Adames said that there will be no on-site public parking during the Pan Am Games.

He also pointed out the possibilities for inter-regional transit to be used, such as VIA or GO.

Councillor Bob Bratina, who strongly opposes the site, questions who will walk from core parking spots to the stadium.

"This stadium is not on any great transit connections, so it's more likely that you're going to drive there," he said.

"So it's more likely ... if they don't build enough parking spots, it's going to spill out into just what the North End neighbours and others are afraid of."

The report says that once a light rail B line is operational it would be able to carry 68 per cent of people headed to an event in two hours.

There's also mention of possibly providing valet bicycle parking, which would give cyclists a supervised, covered place to store their ride.

Less parking would also reduce the traffic impact in the immediate area.

John Dolbec, CEO of the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce, said all city waterfront studies have underestimated the impact on traffic and parking of attracting more people to the area.

But he says those concerns don't shake the chamber's strong support for the waterfront site as the best choice for a stadium.

"While these issues do need to be addressed, in a balanced way, well-thought out way, nothing should hold us back from making this crucial strategic leap forward," said Dolbec, said in an e-mail.

Reaction to the strategy was mixed among a handful of area residents on the weekend.

"I think it's a good idea," said Lenore Lukasik-Foss, 40.

Lukasik-Foss said there's pretty strict enforcement for on-street parking during events now and if that continues, that would be fine.

But neighbour Johnny Nguyen, 19, isn't convinced it will work.

"I'm pretty sure whoever has a car will use it," he said.

Selina Pink, 47, who has lived on Bay Street North for a year and a half, said the streets are busy when there's an event, despite the ban.

And she's not sure traffic and congestion issues are being looked at enough.

"I think it will definitely increase congestion in the area no matter what their choices are," Pink said.

Mayor Fred Eisenberger cited several reasons the strategy is a good one, including ample parking lots within five to 10 minutes of the site, along with light rail and public transportation plans.

The west harbour site will be significantly more accessible than Ivor Wynne Stadium, he said.

"We need some vision here. It's not just about landing a stadium," Eisenberger said.

"It's about landing a whole range of other things that come out of that, including for downtown and the waterfront."

[SteelTown]

Bratina should just abstain from voting like he did when it came time to vote on the Royal Connaught project into mixed-income housing.

[markbarbera]

I'm amazed by the pile-on being performed on Bratina by the armchair critics of this forum. IMO Bob is doing exactly what I expect a councillor to do -he is challenging the blind acceptance of a financially unsound proposal and trying to force the consideration of alternate downtown locations that would not be as big a drain on the public coffers. This is deserving of support, not ridicule.

Those who are shouting out 'nimby' in the guise of arguing Bratina's position are throwing up a straw man in this debate. This is certainly not about nimbyism, it is about getting the best deal for this city, one that will help improve the fortunes of our downtown rather than working against its renaissance.

There is a disturbing pattern developing in the way that this city considers its options. Be it City Hall accomodations, rapid transit routes, or stadium sites, the options made available for consideration are being deliberately restricted. This is resulting in alternatives that may have greater merit being overlooked. This is poor practice.

Kudos to Bob Bratina for taking an unpopular stand in an attempt to force this city to drop the tunnel vision mentality. I hope he succeeds in getting this city to open up its options on such big-ticket investments and do some serious consideration instead of simply pandering to the 'sexy' proposals our city really cannot afford.

[SteelTown]

Take a look at the Richmond Olympic Oval. The same architect, from Cannon Design, that will design Hamilton's Pan American stadium. It also required remediation and is currently the pride of the City.

Site of the oval in Richmond - October 2006


January 2006


March 2006


July 2006


July 2006


August 2006


Took them a year to cleanup the site.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=138476

[urban_planner]

Regardless if its Nimby'sism or not, The airport site does not have the best interest for the city in mind.

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by urban_planner

Regardless if its Nimby'sism or not, The airport site does not have the best interest for the city in mind.

Nobody's arguing that point. Saying that the airport site is worse than the Rheem site is just another straw man.

There are potential sites downtown that have not been given consideration which may be better suited for the stadium. Why has the downtown location been restricted solely to the lands surrounding the former Rheem site?

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by SteelTown

Take a look at the Richmond Olympic Oval. The same architect, from Cannon Design, that will design Hamilton's Pan American stadium. It also required remediation and is currently the pride of the City.

It may be Richmond's pride, but it is quickly becoming the bane of the athletes' existence. Bloody Richmond Oval can't keep a solid ice surface!

[SteelTown]

That's because of the environmentaly friendly Zamboni. After the Olympic it'll turn into a recreational centre.

The Oval centre has gotten tons of awards based on it's design and re-using of materials, especially the woods.

[SteelTown]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

IMO Bob is doing exactly what I expect a councillor to do -he is challenging the blind acceptance of a financially unsound proposal and trying to force the consideration of alternate downtown locations that would not be as big a drain on the public coffers. This is deserving of support, not ridicule.

That time has come and gone already. Remember we had a consultant look at four sites, downtown, Confederation Park, Airport and the West Harbourfront. Council took the Confederation Park option out. Eventually downtown was taken out as well.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...&postcount=259

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by SteelTown

That time has come and gone already. Remember we had a consultant look at four sites, downtown, Confederation Park, Airport and the West Harbourfront. Council took the Confederation Park option out. Eventually downtown was taken out as well.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...&postcount=259

The bid committee took out a downtown option, not council. Why was it taken out? Why doesn't council have the guts to say 'no, it's our dime on the line here, give a downtown location proper consideration'?

'Consultants' should not be the ones calling the shots at City Hall. How did this become an acceptable norm?

[flar]

Something to consider regarding the site cleanup:

-A stadium should be able to get away with a cheaper and less thorough clean-up than a residential development.

-If the clean-up costs are so prohibitive, no residential developers will build anything there. How could they possibly make any money?

-This prime location will sit empty and contaminated forever unless some level of government pays for the clean-up. Why would private developers assume these costs when they could avoid them by building pretty much anywhere else in the region?