Deciding where to sit
New stadiums are costly and controversial and don't always deliver on their promise. Is there a way for Hamilton to get it right?
June 14, 2008
John Kernaghan
The Hamilton Spectator
With Hamilton edging toward a role in another Games bid, the subject is once again stadiums, a topic on which almost no one is neutral.
A 30,000-seat facility would be the jewel in the 2015 Pan-American Games crown for Steeltown.
But wrongly designed or located, it could also be a flawed gem.
Still, sports fans love the notion of new stadia with better seats, superior sight lines, better-equipped washrooms and shorter food lineups.
And owners of pro sports franchises adore leveraging that fan passion to get public money to build new homes for their teams.
Taxpayers, meantime, are rightly skeptical.
Historically, stadiums are hugely costly, do not contribute all that much to the economy outside of initial construction jobs, can be very disruptive to communities and are not very accessible to ongoing public use.
But recent stadia development within multi-sport or special events have found ways to optimize daily use, assure public access and spur urban regeneration.
Those are some of the priorities Hamilton's point man in the Pan-Ams initiative has identified.
Tourism Hamilton director David Adames is preparing to revisit sites suggested in the past, plus is assembling ideas for what would go into a new Hamilton stadium.
So let the debate begin with Hamilton facing a decision to replace badly fading Ivor Wynne Stadium one way or the other.
How much would it cost, where would it be located, how would it look and who would it serve?
It's all speculative at this point, but some sense of the pros and cons and issues that might arise is possible based on past bids for the Commonwealth Games and trends elsewhere in stadium development and architecture.
What would a stadium in the $150- to $200-million range cost Joe Hamilton Taxpayer?
With the province and federal government each picking up 35 per cent of the price in a Pan-Am scenario, that's $105 to $140 million taken care of by other levels of government.
That leaves $45 to $60 million on the backs of Hamilton ratepayers. But it does not take into account the possibility of other Games funding from major sponsors, local private-public partnerships, perhaps some money from the main beneficiaries, the Tiger-Cats, and revenue from naming rights and long-term signage deals.
Nor does it consider the possibilities of cost overruns, and they do happen.
But the choice is a stark one if you think the Ticats are important to the city.
Outside of a Games scenario, Hamilton faces either a hugely expensive upgrade of Ivor Wynne or taking on that $150 to $200 million alone.
As most civic politicians point out, it's a no-brainer when you get $2.50 back from other government levels for every dollar you put up.
Under the 2010 Commonwealth Games bid, the proposed budgeting was even better, each buck put up bringing four back based on substantial private-sector funding.
Even so, a new stadium for Hamilton would need to do more than house the Tiger-Cats, host Games track and field and possibly opening and closing ceremonies.
It might have to build-in facilities like the City of Manchester Stadium did to maximize use after the 2002 Commonwealth Games.
It included conference and exhibition space as well as banquet and dining facilities for weddings.
Moreover, it offers six kinds of VIP or executive suites at home games of Manchester City soccer club.
More significantly, the stadium was part of an ambitious Sport City concept designed to lift impoverished East Manchester.
Meantime in Zurich, newly-minted Letzigrund Stadium was fast-forwarded for the current Euro 2008 tournament but also stages several track meets and pop concerts, serves a gymnastics club and youth basketball and also offers an array of VIP suites, a restaurant and meeting rooms.
It is open daily, what's more, for free to people wanting to use the track or picnic in the stands.
Adames mentions the possibility of the Canadian Football Hall of Fame and national sports organizations being candidates to relocate in a new stadium here.
But a stadium is more than bricks and mortar and glass or fun and games.
As NDP MP Wayne Marston points out, a stadium projects a city's profile.
"I think of all those gorgeous overhead TV shots of Hamilton in 2003 during the world cycling championships," the member for Hamilton East-Stoney Creek said.
He argued a properly-sited stadium would show sailboats on a blue bay and the verdant hump of the Niagara escarpment bisecting the city.
Right now when national broadcasters pan camera lenses from Ivor Wynne, you see smokestacks and belches of fire.
Even if all the stars align on the Games bid with formal approval by the governing Pan-Am body next year, city councillor Brad Clark sees challenges.
"It's a very tight time frame and you want to make sure you do it right."
He cautions that he'd need to see a strong business case for the Games before getting to the particulars of a stadium.
On that front, he said the prime focus is costs, especially long-term operational costs, traffic and other disruption, environmental concerns, not to mention a stadium design and location that projects a new image for Hamilton.
"It's no slam dunk."
Have your say on where a new stadium should go and whether the city can afford it. Go to Rick's Picks blog at thespec.com. to see what others have said and add your comments. Cast your vote on where it should go in our poll. Where do you sit?
Will it be the waterfront or Mountain?
Several stadium sites have been identified in previous Games bids and will be revisited within a 2015 Pan-Am Games bid scenario.
They include a waterfront/downtown location at Barton and Tiffany Streets, east-end sites at Confederation Park and at the Lafarge National Slag depot, plus an east Mountain option.
Airport area sites have been mentioned, too.
The waterfront and other sites represent wholly different approaches.
Here are pros and cons of the two scenarios.
* * *
Waterfront/downtown (Bay and Tiffany streets)
* UPSIDE: could be an important regeneration project, would form an important link between downtown and waterfront, provide local employment and recreation opportunities, present a bowllike setting for striking architecture with vistas of lake.
* DOWNSIDE: means relocation of residents and businesses, likely requires remedial environmental work, close to CN Rail yards, poses parking and traffic problems.
* * *
Lafarge National Slag on Windemere Road
* UPSIDE: close to major highways, meaning good access from all directions, opportunity for facility to make a statement about Hamilton to thousands streaming by on QEW, also provides lake views
* DOWNSIDE: relocation of current owner, no real regeneration effect, unattractive setting and no economic benefit to city core.