Tim Hortons Field | 40m | ? | Complete

[dennis1]

August 2, 2010

By Hand

Mayor Fred Eisenberger
Hamilton City Hall
71 Main Street West
Hamilton, ON L8N 3J5

Subject: Building Our City Together

Dear Fred,
Over the course of the past six months, the Hamilton Tiger Cat Football Club has endeavoured to undertake a comprehensive review of all of the potential stadium sites within the City that met our fundamental criteria as it pertains to parking, highway visibility, and ease of access and egress for our fans.
As you know, we have retained a number of experts to assist us with our analysis. We have shared those findings with you, City officials, and your colleagues. I think that you would agree that this has been helpful to everyone in understanding the business dynamics of operating a CFL franchise in our market.
Conversely, it goes without saying that Bob Young and our organization are grateful for the information that we have received from the City, prior to and throughout the facilitation process with Michael Fenn. It has elevated our understanding of the objectives of the city, particularly as it pertains to the essential challenge of revitalizing the North End of Hamilton.
While the aforementioned business issues regarding parking, access, and highway are of vital concern to us, it is gratifying to know that the Province of Ontario will provide for a GO station at LIUNA as well as one at Centennial, regardless of the location of the Pan Am stadium. By every measure, this is a very good thing for the City.
Throughout our research into possible stadium sites in the North End, and specifically, the proposed Rheem site at 128 Barton Street, we have encountered a number of concerns from local residents, planners, as well as local lawyer, Herman Turkstra.
These concerns pertain directly to the advisability of siting a 30,000 person stadium within a residential community. We have taken it upon ourselves to review the relevant planning documents upon which the City would rely to permit the siting of the Pan Am Stadium. We reviewed City planning documents back to 1995, when the notion of a stadium in the North End was specifically rejected after a great deal of public consultation. You, yourself were a member of that Council, as were Councillors Morelli, Jackson and Collins.
The existing City of Hamilton Official plan adopted in June of 2005, and in force today, does not permit the siting of stadiums on subject lands.
Given the unforgiving timelines facing Hostco, and the Pan American Games Committee, and the necessity to be precise in the planning process, the Hamilton Tiger Cats retained Mr. Peter Walker FCIP, RPP of the firm Walker, Nott, Dragicevic Associates Limited to obtain an independent opinion pertaining to land use designations for the 128 Barton Street site (the Rheem site). Mr. Walker enjoys an enviable reputation as one of the pre-eminent planners in Ontario.
I am enclosing a copy of Mr. Walker's interim opinion in its entirety for you and the members of Council. The Report is very clear. To quote Mr. Walker's Conclusion:
"Based upon the foregoing, development of a major sports stadium focused on the subject property, at the very least, would warrant an Official Plan amendment application to amend either the existing or adopted planning documents. Such an application would require extensive supportive rationale (reports/studies) and involve major public consultation under the Planning Act, given the planning process that the city has pursued to-date. Such an application would also be subject to appeals to the OMB by parties who did not agree with such City Actions."
This opinion is consistent with the professional opinion advanced by local lawyer Herman Turkstra who represents area residents within the North End community. The opinion of Mr. Walker also carefully reflects the stated and adopted planning direction expressed in Setting Sail West Harbour Secondary Plan (OPA 198) (Schedule M-2 "Special Policy Area" - Barton Tiffany).
It may well be that your own legal department and expert planners have turned their minds to the prospect of OMB appeals on the Official Plan Amendments, that appear to be vital precursors to the development of a 30,000 person stadium on the Rheem site.
It is not for the Hamilton Tiger-Cats to comment about the prospect of success one way or the other at the OMB. The essential point that must be considered with some sense of urgency is the fact that the reality of OMB appeals on the West Harbour site negates its viability for the Pan Am Stadium. Simply put, the planning, public consultation process, OMB hearing and determination process will take a great deal of time and there is no real ability by Council, or the Tiger-Cats, to make any determination of the outcome.
The West Harbour Stadium site purports to support the remediation and re-development of the West Harbour lands in a manner that is frankly not contemplated in the City's Setting Sail planning document.
The Tiger-Cats share your vision about optimizing our Harbour to the benefit of the greater community. That process has been underway for many years. Your colleague, Chad Collins, and others have played a leadership role in making the West Harbour and other "harbour" lands a people place. Your Council wisely approved the Setting Sail document which is in fact a "blueprint" for forward thinking development in that community based upon an intelligent mix of housing, community development, and recreational use. Ironically, those improvements are underway, block by block and neighbourhood by neighbourhood.
The Setting Sail document which the City has submitted to the Province for approval will provide long term, sustainable commercial benefits for small business in the North End, 365 days per year, not simply around Tiger-Cat Games and other occasional use. Surely, this is the form of development contemplated in the Urban Hamilton Official Plan describing the subject lands as "Neighbourhoods".
Fred, I hope you would agree that the proposed compromise Alternative West Harbour Vision tabled by the Hamilton Tiger-Cats would go a long way in making the West Harbour a “people place.”
Working together, we believe that a 3,500 person amphitheatre would create a more sustainable venue for a much longer period of time during the year. It would be our hope that it would not contravene the spirit of your Setting Sail planning document.
The Tiger-Cats are prepared to contribute $1.5 million in capital as well as $100,000 per year in support to make this project a reality.
Fred, the stadium debate has been needlessly divisive. I hope that you would agree with me that it is time for the Tiger-Cats and the City to set aside our differences and begin the necessary work of building a sustainable legacy stadium on the East Mountain.
Of equal importance is the need for all of us to work together to realize the true potential of the West Harbour.
I want to assure you and Council that the Hamilton Tiger-Cats will work with you on this vital City Building opportunity.

Sincerely
HAMILTON TIGER-CATS FOOTBALL (2007) CORP.
Scott Mitchell
President


cc Members of Council
Premier Dalton McGuinty
Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis, MP
Ted McMeekin, MPP
Andrea Horwath, MP
Paul Miller, MP
Senator David Braley
Michael Fenn
Ian Troop
Hon. David Peterson
Mark Cohon
Jamie Rilet

one last beg.

[Anders Knudsen]

They must think Chad Collins is a swing vote, by calling him out like that - even though Bob Young must hate him for vetoing Confederation Park. Still it's sad they won't offer more than a pittance - just pay for the remediation and I'd bet this would actually count for something.

[Berklon]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

So what are you saying, downtown Hamilton and the West Harbour will only be redeveloped and revitalized if there's a stadium built there? I beg to differ. All we need to do is stick to the plan. A big-money mega-project has never been a panacea, and it isn't gojng to be here either.

The stadium is just one variable to the redevelopment (and it could be more heavily weighted than some of the other variables) - especially for the West Harbour itself.

Imagine any successful downtown of a city roughly the size of Hamilton - now take 5 attractions of that downtown and move them to different extreme ends of the city. You now have a much weaker downtown while at the same time each of those attractions don't draw as many people because there isn't as much traffic and they're each less convenient for people to attend. You can look at it as being spread too thin across the city... or another way would be the "together we stand, divided we fall" kind of scenario.

I have yet to have this simple question answered... what exactly does this city gain by having a stadium in the East Mountain other than the fact that there'll be a stadium in the East Mountain? It's a missed opportunity.

A stadium doesn't get built very often - the last thing we need is to waste it by putting it an area like the East Mountain. We've already seen many cities regret their decision to build stadiums/arenas so far away from the downtown area. It's better to learn from someone else's mistake than it is to learn from your own.

[dennis1]

Bob Young is now trying to bribe the city with 100k a year? Patheic.

[SteelTown]

Mayor dismisses Ticat view of zoning issues at harbour site

August 04, 2010
John Kernaghan
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/819644

Planning hurdles at the city's favoured west harbour stadium site mean city hall should get behind the Tiger-Cats east Mountain location, the football club is urging Mayor Fred Eisenberger.

The mayor says, however, there is no "legal impediment" for building the stadium at the west harbour and he expressed concern about the club's tactics in pushing its preferred location.

A letter from Ticat president Scott Mitchell says expert planning advice sought out by the team shows the city would require a major amendment to the city's official plan to build a Pan Am stadium.

Toronto consultant Peter Walker advised the Tiger-Cats an application to change the zoning at the Bay and Tiffany streets location "would require extensive supportive rational (reports/studies)" and would also be subject to appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board.

Mitchell wrote the club came across concerns by residents, planners and local lawyer Herman Turkstra when it researched the west harbour area.

His letter said the stadium debate was "needlessly divisive" and added that given unforgiving timelines imposed by Pan Am organizers, "it is time for the Tiger-Cats and the city to set aside differences and begin the necessary work of building a sustainable legacy stadium on the east Mountain."

In a statement, Eisenberger called the comment by Walker "an opinion" and said the matter has been examined thoroughly by city planning staff and legal division.

"Indeed, good planning backed by extensive independent reports including the IBI Group have confirmed that this is the best site for the City of Hamilton," the mayor said.

He agreed with Mitchell's comment the debate is needlessly divisive, but believed the Tiger-Cats preference to negotiate through the media is adding to the divisiveness. He noted Mitchell and his staff met with city officials yesterday "and did not offer any indication that yet another salvo was about to be delivered later this same day."

The Tiger-Cat letter had a conciliatory tone, noting club owner Bob Young and the organization were grateful for information provided by the city, especially in terms of "the essential challenge of revitalizing the north end of Hamilton."

[SteelTown]

LINE DRIVE
The stadium fight has moved to the parking lot. The Ticats vow to pay for thousands of east Mountain spots, and the city says it has more room for cars near the west harbour.

August 04, 2010
Emma Reilly
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/819691

The Tiger-Cats are offering to foot the bill for upwards of 6,000 parking spots at the east Mountain stadium site.

Meanwhile, the city says it has found thousands of additional parking spots around the west harbour.

The competing plans make parking a key battleground for the city and the CFL team as they approach the critical Pan Am stadium decision deadline next week.

The Ticats' new offer for parking at its preferred site will cost the team at least $3 million on top of the $15 million it has pledged for the capital costs of the stadium.

The average cost of one paved parking spot is roughly $5,000, not including land acquisition, storm management and a new stormwater tax the city is imposing on big patches of asphalt.

The parking lot would be on the province-owned land across the street from the stadium site.

And with up to 7,000 spots, a paved lot would take up the entire swath of available provincial land.

It would be almost double the size of the 4,000-spot Lime Ridge Mall lot.

Tiger-Cats president Scott Mitchell says it's the football club's responsibility to supply the parking spots the team sees as crucial to its fans' "driveway to driveway" experience.

"The parking issue is our concern, not necessarily theirs," Mitchell said yesterday.

He added: "We're prepared to come up with a solution that doesn't cost the city a penny."

Mitchell said it's too early to pin down a specific dollar amount the Ticats are prepared to offer for the plan, as the team isn't sure if it will provide one paved lot or a parking garage of some sort.

While the Ticats grapple with parking at east Mountain, a report presented to city councillors in a closed meeting yesterday suggests the number of available parking spots at the west harbour has blossomed to 4,615.

That includes the 600 spots initially included in the west harbour proposal, an additional 1,500 parking spaces in the west harbour district on property the city already owns and 2,515 spots within a 700-metre walk.

The Ticats' parking proposal stalled the release of a city staff report comparing the costs of the two potential sites that councillors were expecting yesterday.

Several councillors said the east Mountain was rumoured to be more expensive than west harbour by between $42 million and $50 million.

"We were hoping to get our head around our numbers today," said Councillor Lloyd Ferguson said.

He said the city had previously understood it would be on the hook for the cost of parking.

Mayor Fred Eisenberger said plans for the west harbour site -- which covers about 8 hectares -- included 600 onsite parking spots to be paid for by the city.

The east Mountain site is only 6.8 hectares.

Eisenberger says the city isn't willing to pay for more land to create extra parking spots for the Tiger-Cats.

"Clearly, the only evaluation that we're doing is on the stadium site. Anything that comes over and above that should be the responsibility of the Tiger-Cats," he said.

"Certainly there's no appetite for the City of Hamilton to go acquire these lands on behalf of private development."



BY THE NUMBERS

6,800 parking spots needed at an east Mountain stadium site

4,615 spots available for the west harbour site, including:

600 spots in the city's original proposal

1,500 new spots on city-owned land by the west harbour

2,515 spots within 700 metres of the west harbour

[dennis1]

Several councillors said the east Mountain was rumoured to be more expensive than west harbour by between $42 million and $50 million.

Waiting for sources.....

[thistleclub]

..with up to 7,000 spots, a paved lot would take up the entire swath of available provincial land. It would be almost double the size of the 4,000-spot Lime Ridge Mall lot.

Also about twice the capacity of the Meadowlands lots in the area bordered by Legend Court, Golf Links Road and the Linc. It's a lot of lot.

[coalminecanary]

Originally Posted by SteelTown

The Ticats vow to pay for thousands of east Mountain spots

...which they will take the revenues from in perpetuity.

How generous...

[dennis1]

http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/819691

Here.


The East Mountain will be more expensive than the WH. There we go. Is there any doubt now?

[ihateittoo]

i know this question has been asked atleast 15 times before, but the current plans they are debating west harbour vs. east mountain are they both for 15 000 seat stadiums? with the hope of securing private money in order to upgrade? These are soccer stadiums now too... right? and the tiger-cats are still fighting even though the future fund has been ruled out of their reach?

They are providing 15 million + 3 for parking (which they will make back easily) If the east mountain is chosen, where do the tiger-cats want the rest of the money to come from? federal and provincial levels? but we lost most of the funding because we lost the "gem" of the games right?

These debates keep going but I have lost a clear picture of what it is they plan on building and how.

[Anders Knudsen]

Originally Posted by ihateittoo

i know this question has been asked atleast 15 times before, but the current plans they are debating west harbour vs. east mountain are they both for 15 000 seat stadiums? with the hope of securing private money in order to upgrade? These are soccer stadiums now too... right? and the tiger-cats are still fighting even though the future fund has been ruled out of their reach?

They are providing 15 million + 3 for parking (which they will make back easily) If the east mountain is chosen, where do the tiger-cats want the rest of the money to come from? federal and provincial levels? but we lost most of the funding because we lost the "gem" of the games right?

These debates keep going but I have lost a clear picture of what it is they plan on building and how.

future fund isn't ruled out, council can overrule the board. Provincial and federal money remain committed to the soccer stadium.

[SteelTown]

If the East Mountain stadium site is as suggested over $45 million more expensive compared to the West Harbour site than the Ti Cats can forget about City's council approval for the East Mountain.

I can picture Merulla yelling and having a major hissy fit.

[markbarbera]

Capital costs is a significant consideration, but of greater concern is annual operational costs. If one site is more expensive to build initially , but will have a lower annual operational cost, then it may be of greater benefit to go with that one.

In order to fairly compare compare costs, you need to consider both the capital cost and the operational costs for the stadium's estimated useful life.

Also, you need to look at what is being included in the capital cost estimate. For example, in the case of the EM, it would be fair to include road expansion costs if they are new expansion not previously considered. However, if they are expansion plans already on the books (like the Trinity Road expansion for example), they should not be lumped together as a stadium cost, seeing that Trinity Road will be expanded regardless of how the EM site is developed.

I really don't think we should get caught up ruminating over rumour. Lets wait for the real numbers to appear.

And, no matter what the outcome, it's pretty safe to assume Merulla will have a hissy fit before all is said and done.

[emge]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

And, no matter what the outcome, it's pretty safe to assume Merulla will have a hissy fit before all is said and done.

At least some things never change...

Unlike a lot of other things in this city, I really think we have a shot at making the right decision on this one -- and the higher cost of the East Mountain is probably going to be a very big problem for some councillors.

I still would have preferred to see another downtown location for the stadium (or dream insanely big - get rid of the jail on Barton and put it there..) but if the chose is EM or WH.... the choice is clear.

[markbarbera]

Seriously, at this point I think the best thing for the city is to just give Pan Am a pass on the stadium.

Frankly, we can't afford a new stadium. A loan is a loan and we'd have to eventually pay back $60 mil to the Future Fund no matter what decision is made.

With all the proposals, counter proposals being rushed through so close to a deadline we are making a decision without clear, sober thought. The West Harbour neighbourhood is prime residential land far too valuable to be squandered on a stadium. And the East Mountain is not truly a satisfactory alternative.

Seriously, what is the with the mad rush? Why is this city acting like a panic stricken shopper on Christmas Eve rushing to max out the credit card on something we don't even know we'll like or use? This is not a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Ivor Wynne can last a good decade or so. There will be a very strong chance of landing the Commonwealth Games in the interim. Let's do proper planning instead of trying to fit a square peg in a round or triangular hole.

Pan Am can make due without a new stadium in Hamilton. We'd still have swimming and soccer at Mac, volleyball and cycling downtown. Rehab the WH land and place the velodrome there. Afterwards allow WH to develop as envisioned in Setting Sail. And set up a task force to do a detailed review of the city to determine a suitable future site for a football stadium, a process where citizens and stakeholders are involved from the onset and a decision is made by consensus and not by battling children hiding behind sofa-cushion forts.

I would rather this city take its time and arrive at a well-thought-out decision rather than rush into one that's tainted by heightened emotion, rumour and innuendo, and very little evidence of rational thought.

[matt602]

You know, at this point I am thinking exactly the same way.

[markbarbera]

Letter to the Editor today by Trevor Garwood-Jones, much-respected Hamilton architect and urban enthusiast.

Stadium will never revitalize area
Trevor Garwood-Jones
architect
Hamilton
The Hamilton Spectator

(Aug 5, 2010)

Re: 'The mythology of stadiums; People, relax: No stadiums drive growth or save cores' (Opinion, July 30)

This article by Don Drury should be required reading for all Hamiltonians interested in the stadium location debate.

Drury's statements are based on established facts as opposed to much of the "pie-in-the-sky" rhetoric published to date. Stadiums need to be seen and easily accessed via major highways, not located in areas with narrow, congested sidestreets and inadequate parking.

More importantly, because stadiums are used sporadically, a new one in the west harbour region could never revitalize the area, as some are suggesting.

The west harbour site has been zoned mostly for housing with some mixed commercial businesses, and for good reason; these are the only kinds of urban developments that would keep people in the area and bring it back to life.

The arrival and departure of 20,000 people after a sporting event, all within a three-hour timeframe, will not create a community feel. With or without a stadium, the area will continue to feel like a shunting yard unless it's converted into residential units with attractive landscaping and parkettes nice enough to view from the patios of the coffee shops and restaurants that are bound to spring up after this is achieved.

One can only hope that the members of city council will base their vote on the facts and not on the wishful thinking of well meaning, but misguided individuals.

http://www.google.ca/#q=trevor+garwo...e061f3f925b74a

[highwater]

All well and good, but none of it an argument for EM. In fact, it's an argument for WH, since the WH will cost us less and at the very least clean up a brownfield site. I happen to believe a stadium will provide some economic benefit, even if it is far from a silver bullet. If we must have a stadium, and we only have these two sites to choose from, we must choose the site that will do the least harm. Without a doubt that site is the WH, and it would seem that many of his respected Hamilton architect colleagues and fellow urban enthusiasts agree.

[markbarbera]

Why do we have to choose a site for a stadium that is not really needed and we really can't afford?

Why make a choice that will leave half the city disenfranchised no matter which choice is made?