Tim Hortons Field | 40m | ? | Complete - Page 51

devil's advocate · #**1001** Posted **Jul 7, 2010, 4:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by markbarbera

Actually, Valley Park is nearly a 30 minute walk from the ORC land.

My mistake I thought the proposed site was the land of Highland-Up. Mt. Albion-Stone Church-Pritchard. Where an old unused scientific lab building stands with open acres around it, but it is further south bordering Rymal road correct? If so it is still under a 15 minute walk, as I use to walk from Rymal/Pritchard from a friend’s home whenever I missed the 22-Upper Ottawa bus to the 11-Parkdale bus stop.

isaidso · #**1002** Posted **Jul 7, 2010, 4:17 PM**

If this is a car oriented site with lots of land, will there at least be parkland and room for tailgating? That's the only way I can see them improving the football experience when they've stuck it in the middle of nowhere.

SteelTown · #**1003** Posted **Jul 7, 2010, 4:22 PM**

Google map of the proposed East Mountain stadium site

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&q=H...21887&t=h&z=16

It's right of Leon's and left of Pro Hockey Life. Next to a big box complex.

bigguy1231 · #**1004** Posted **Jul 7, 2010, 4:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by devil's advocate

My mistake I thought the proposed site was the land of Highland-Up. Mt. Albion-Stone Church-Pritchard. Where an old unused scientific lab building stands with open acres around it, but it is further south bordering Rymal road correct? If so it is still under a 15 minute walk, as I use to walk from Rymal/Pritchard from a friend’s home whenever I missed the 22-Upper Ottawa bus to the 11-Parkdale bus stop.

You weren't mistaken that is the site along with land North of that.

realcity · #**1005** Posted **Jul 7, 2010, 4:32 PM**

I'm looking at that map, a little off topic, but I love that we have a street called "Old Mud"

SteelTown · #**1006** Posted **Jul 7, 2010, 5:00 PM**

Meeting is done, council to pick final stadium location on August 12th.

realcity · #**1007** Posted **Jul 7, 2010, 5:12 PM**

Big surprise. Come Aug 12 they will say they need until Aug 31 to decide. Bunch of do nothings. They know their decision they just like playing professional politician and don't have the guts to speak.

SteelTown · #**1008** Posted **Jul 7, 2010, 5:16 PM**

From now until August 12th they have to complete the techincal report on both stadium locations. We know next to nothing about the East Mountain site location.

August 12th timeline also allows the City to work with the Katz Group. You can bet Mayor Fred will be speaking to Patrick LaForge. Maybe the Katz Group will come to the table with more money and turn the table around.

After the report council will make the final decision.

devil's advocate · #**1009** Posted **Jul 7, 2010, 7:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

You weren't mistaken that is the site along with land North of that.

Thank you for the clarification; I still do not see where mark got the 30 minute walk from. None the less this is a horrible location for a stadium, the 43-Stonechurch and 11-Parkdale only run once an hr after 7pm in that area with no Sunday service for the 43. So public transit would have to be greatly beefed up, but we they will most likely run a few extra game day buses from Lime ridge mall which they already do. Plus the issue that there aren't any sidewalks on those streets besides the newly placed sidewalks East of Up.Mt. Albion.

Also wasn't there supposed to be low rise apartments being built on the corner or Highland and Mt.Albion (Behind Janet Lee Public School). Anyone know what happened with that because I know they did ground levelling a few years back and almost certain began foundation on a small portion of that land.

SteelTown · #**1010** Posted **Jul 7, 2010, 7:35 PM**

I think you are going to see a movement to have an amphitheatre built at the West Harbour.

calvinkool · #**1011** Posted **Jul 7, 2010, 11:43 PM**

THIS IS ABSURD. Leave it to this city to bend over and take it like a *****. Every major economist that has weighed in on this issue agrees the west harbour is best for the revitalization of this city, not to mention this is supposed to be a PAN AM STADIUM. Let's all rise up and put a stop to this before it gets out of hand. A stadium out in the massive sprawl we call the upper city is an awful idea, its ludicrous and frankly anyone who supports the east mountain location is an idiot. The point of the west harbour site in the first place is to promote green living, so where is the sense in catering to all the red necks that cant walk 10 feet from the loads of parking lots in the core to the harbour. **** Bob Young, since he clearly has no vision let the ti cats leave. Who even cares if they stay THEY SUCK ANYWAYS. If the city can't find it's balls and put their foot down my tolerance will finally be broken. I used to support Eisenberger but clearly he doesn't have what it takes to lead this city into the future.

markbarbera · #**1012** Posted **Jul 8, 2010, 12:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by calvinkool

THIS IS ABSURD. Leave it to this city to bend over and take it like a *****. Every major economist that has weighed in on this issue agrees the west harbour is best for the revitalization of this city, not to mention this is supposed to be a PAN AM STADIUM.

I think you are getting caught up in emotion. Name one major economist that has studied the West Harbour location. I know of two studies, one conducted by a consultant hired by the city and another conducted by one hired by the Ticat organization. The two studies were at odds over the viability of the stadium site, and the city study had some pretty hefty assumptions applied to it in order to get a marginally favourable viability result.

I have found from my readings on the subject that many economists are actually sceptical about the real contribution a stadium makes to downtown revitalization. Healthy downtowns are brought on by people living and working there, not by coming down a couple dozen nights of the week to see a game then go home. Refocusing on the priorities of the Setting Sail plan is what will revitalize the area.

drpgq · #**1013** Posted **Jul 8, 2010, 12:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by calvinkool

THIS IS ABSURD. Leave it to this city to bend over and take it like a *****. Every major economist that has weighed in on this issue agrees the west harbour is best for the revitalization of this city, not to mention this is supposed to be a PAN AM STADIUM. Let's all rise up and put a stop to this before it gets out of hand. A stadium out in the massive sprawl we call the upper city is an awful idea, its ludicrous and frankly anyone who supports the east mountain location is an idiot. The point of the west harbour site in the first place is to promote green living, so where is the sense in catering to all the red necks that cant walk 10 feet from the loads of parking lots in the core to the harbour. **** Bob Young, since he clearly has no vision let the ti cats leave. Who even cares if they stay THEY SUCK ANYWAYS. If the city can't find it's balls and put their foot down my tolerance will finally be broken. I used to support Eisenberger but clearly he doesn't have what it takes to lead this city into the future.

Eisenberger only has one vote. The Chamber had been in favour of WH, but who knows what they'll say now.

highwater · #**1014** Posted **Jul 8, 2010, 12:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by markbarbera

I have found from my readings on the subject that many economists are actually sceptical about the real contribution a stadium makes to downtown revitalization.

What do they have to say about the contribution suburban stadia make to downtown revitalization?

highwater · #**1015** Posted **Jul 8, 2010, 12:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by markbarbera

I think you are getting caught up in emotion.

And we can't have that! That might lead to a lively forum!

markbarbera · #**1016** Posted **Jul 8, 2010, 12:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by devil's advocate

Thank you for the clarification; I still do not see where mark got the 30 minute walk from.

I guess I walk slower than you. For what it's worth google maps puts the walk at 17 minutes, which is exactly halfway between my 30 min walk estimate any your initial 2 minute walk estimate.

From what I understand the fireworks were cancelled not because of the road infrastructure, but because the park could not handle the crowds of over 20,000 people. At least that was Brad Clark's take on it in this Spec article. He says Upper Stoney Creek will have fireworks returning next year, but in a larger venue. Possibly in the near future they'll be fired off at a Pan Am stadium should it end up there.

markbarbera · #**1017** Posted **Jul 8, 2010, 12:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by highwater

What do they have to say about the contribution suburban stadia make to downtown revitalization?

Likely as effective as putting a stadium downtown.

A football stadium simply is not a catalyst for urban revitalization. Building one in a downtown brownfield just fills the doughnut hole. It does not fix the problem, it just hides it.

dennis1 · #**1018** Posted **Jul 8, 2010, 12:58 AM**

One thing guys; NHL>CFL.

dennis1 · #**1019** Posted **Jul 8, 2010, 1:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelTown

Google map of the proposed East Mountain stadium site

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&q=H...21887&t=h&z=16

It's right of Leon's and left of Pro Hockey Life. Next to a big box complex.

I wonder what all the homes in the area will have to say about a bunch of drunk football fans coming.

dennis1 · #**1020** Posted **Jul 8, 2010, 1:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by isaidso

If this is a car oriented site with lots of land, will there at least be parkland and room for tailgating? That's the only way I can see them improving the football experience when they've stuck it in the middle of nowhere.

This is acutally so bad. You have an NHL in a downtown setting. A CFL team in a field? More bad planning.

Go with the Original plan.