Special Report: Pan Am

Stadiums, Nodes and Growth

The synergies at Ivor Wynne far outweigh what synergies have been constructed as justification for a community-sized stadium at the West Harbour.

By Mark Richardson
Published January 10, 2011

The more I think about Hamilton as whole entity, the more I'd prefer not to see the new 6,000 seat Pan Am stadium in the West Harbour.

I supported the full-sized stadium for WH because the Hamilton Tiger-Cats were to play there and was hopeful that the large crowds, however sporadic, would spur development of the waterfront.

A 6,000 seat stadium will do very little to bring people to the harbour. By far, most of the IWS rentals are for participants of the events only, generally with very few if anyone in the stands as spectators. With this level of attendance, a small stadium will not give the West Harbour the growth catalyst results the city should be seeking.

I also believe a scalable stadium as an enticement that the Cats will stay is a pipe dream. In Ticat president Scott Mitchell's recent statements, he continues to state that the team will never play in Hamilton again, only in another municipality.

A scalable stadium (temporary removable bleachers) certainly has merits for sporting and community events; however, it is plainly evident we will ever see the Cats involved in a Hamilton stadium, no matter what voodoo is performed.

I've read that the City estimates there would be $3-5 million in remediation costs for the WH properties in question. That is a small price to pay for reclaiming the West Harbour for Hamilton and is well within the mandate of Future Fund spending.

I also think that you would be hard pressed to find anyone who would dispute that spending FF money on parks, an amphitheatre or other waterfront attractions at the site would be a waste of money.

Ivor Wynne Revisited

The place to build the scalable 6,000 seat stadium is where Ivor Wynne Stadium currently sits. The Spectator reported that a stadium at Beechwood would cost up to $15 million in city contribution. Compare that to the minimum $20 million required in city contribution just to make IWS safe for continued public use.

We could throw money into an obsolete and overly large IWS or we could construct a state-of-the-art, 6,000 seat stadium to replace IWS.

The synergies at Beechwood far outweigh what synergies have been constructed as justification for a stadium at WH. The harbour has become a node for recreation, but Scott Park has always been a node for sports performance.

What synergies exist for a stadium at a park known for rollerblading and walking, compared to a district with a pool, baseball diamonds and a rink.

As well, consider the proximity of the IWS district to the Scott Park node on the City's proposed east-west LRT line - yet again more sports and city building synergies.

Take your emotions out of this and really look at what we need to accomplish with what is coming and with what is in existence. I think you will see that we can do better for our harbour than a frequently used stadium with very, very few people in it.

Mark Richardson has lived in Hamilton since 1993. He is a Stationary Engineer and is one of Hamilton's many Industrial Nomads. He currently is employed at US Steel.

53 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By George (registered) | Posted January 10, 2011 at 11:36:06

From the article:

I also believe a scalable stadium as an enticement that the Cats will stay is a pipe dream. In Ticat president Scott Mitchell's recent statements, he continues to state that the team will never play in Hamilton again, only in another municipality.

As has been stated by others many times already, "Bob Young will not always own the team."

Any stadium must be planned for LONG term future use, and that includes CFL football.

Besides, I'm not sure that IWS location meets the location criteria of HOSTCO.

A scalable stadium at WH is the way to go for Hamilton's future.

Comment edited by George on 2011-01-10 11:38:58

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By lawrence (registered) - website | Posted January 10, 2011 at 11:37:09

Well said, Mark. My sentiments exactly.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By told you so (anonymous) | Posted January 10, 2011 at 11:37:29

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted January 10, 2011 at 11:43:22

told you so,

Please re-read the article and follow and read the link provided. The 15 million is city contribution to a Pan-Am stadium not including HostCo funding, this is as reported in the Spectator.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By lawrence (registered) - website | Posted January 10, 2011 at 11:45:22

Why is it dead @told you so? HostCo said they don't care where we build it. Community sports is enough of a Legacy for a 6,000 seat stadium. I wonder too if HostCo not supporting an upgrade to IWS under the Pan Am umbrella is really because of location, or because the Cats won't play there. As someone said above, Bob Young won't always be the owner. I disagree with the 'build at West Harbor' comment, but if we can find an alternate owner (perferrable a local citizenship group), before the wrecking ball hits Ivor Wynne, who knows. Will Bob Young even sell to us, or continue to look outside of the city? I'd be willing to fight him for 141 years of Hamilton history. We need to get over West Harbor for a stadium period, although I know people are not giving up for the same reason I have not given up on my Save Ivor Wynne Stadium plea.

Perhaps location isn't the problem. It's the type of ownership. Look at this Letter to the Editor from the weekends Spec.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By madams2 (registered) | Posted January 10, 2011 at 11:45:26

If I understand correctly, you are in favour of a stadium, however you prefer the current IWS location over the West Harbour.

Okay, as I understand it, HOSTCO has already stated publicly (last summer) that the IWS location does not meet their criteria as far as location and access is concerned. (Fellow RTH friends please confirm/deny for me).

So, without HOSTCO funding, Hamilton would be on the hook for 100% of the costs of a new stadium at the IWS location.

Doesn't sound like a better deal to me.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted January 10, 2011 at 11:49:41

For the West Harbour stadium fans I also proposed this plan of action for you and council on another thread today. If the Cats are to be forced to stay this is the only way to accomplish it.

Let's lay this out for real now: -IF council passes a first vote (remember there is always a conformation vote later) to put the Pan-Am at IWS -THEN the Cats have no where to play locally for 4 years -WHICH throws a horrible monkey wrench into their business plans, like the cost and loss of fans while playing in the Rogers Center for 4 years for Aldershot to be built -THIS pressure will flush all of the BS down the toilet and force Bob Young's to reveal if he will eat the cost and fan loss or if he will sit down and really negotiate the West Harbour -GIVE Bob 3 days before the IWS stadium conformation vote to conjure up a deal -IF he doesn't play we get a nice IWS replacement (after a conformation vote) and if he does play we get a nice new 25,000 seat stadium at the west Harbour. This is using the kind of pressure tactics that Bob has been using. He took the gloves off without warning, let's use the sudden rule change to our advantage.

Comment edited by mrjanitor on 2011-01-10 11:50:28

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By told you so (anonymous) | Posted January 10, 2011 at 11:51:18

@mr janitor

I can't find any info in the body of the Spectator report. I really don't know where the figure comes from

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted January 10, 2011 at 11:54:20

told you so,

From the Spec article linked to:

So the question is, should Hamilton invest millions, perhaps up to $15 million, as its share of a small stadium for the sake of taking some advantage of the senior government money, playing some reduced role in the games, and inheriting a taxpayer-owned small stadium when all is said and done?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By lawrence (registered) - website | Posted January 10, 2011 at 11:57:24

You are right @told you so. There really is nothing to those numbers. I would argue that either way, the cost to build at 75 Balsam would seemingly be much lower than at the Harbor. As Mark stated, the area is already a sports hub. The IWS grounds have played host to local and professional sports since the 1930 Pan Am games. That in itself justifies continuing the sports legacy in the centre of our city.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrgrande (registered) | Posted January 10, 2011 at 11:57:43

Okay, as I understand it, HOSTCO has already stated publicly (last summer) that the IWS location does not meet their criteria as far as location and access is concerned. (Fellow RTH friends please confirm/deny for me).

I think they just said that they're against renoing IWS. I think they'd be okay with building a new stadium on that site.

I'd still rather see it at the West Harbour, though.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By told you so (anonymous) | Posted January 10, 2011 at 11:59:21

@mr janitor those are figure for a WH sit not an IWS site

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By madams2 (registered) | Posted January 10, 2011 at 12:17:34

I've been trying to find where I read/heard that IWS location did not meet HOSTCO's criteria. I am starting to believe I heard it from Chris Murray at a city council meeting.

HOSTCO rejected this burlington location because of location and access. I believe IWS is in the same boat.

http://www.raisethehammer.org/blog/1892/...

Comment edited by madams2 on 2011-01-10 12:17:52

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted January 10, 2011 at 12:31:10

madams2,

Hamilton Go to 75 Balsam Ave. North is 4.4 kms, compared to the 2.9 kms from Go in Aldershot to the proposed stadium location. If 4.4 kms is too far for HostCo, I can't answer that. However the Hamilton Go station is extremely close to HSR hubs.

Map

Edit: Map didn't transfer, try getting directions from 36 Hunter St. East to 75 Balsam ave. North to view on your own

Comment edited by mrjanitor on 2011-01-10 12:34:58

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By renegauthier (registered) - website | Posted January 10, 2011 at 12:35:49

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted January 10, 2011 at 12:40:11

You make a good point about location on the LRT, although as mentioned Hostco seems concerned about GO access. Since I believe city staff have confirmed LRT will not be happening before the Pan Am games (unless I'm mistaken) it might be a challenge to convince Hostco that the location meets their criteria.

In any event, my primary concern would be how much study has been done on IWS, and if we'd be in a position to supply hostco with what they need by February 1st, their "drop dead" date. This is a factor I really don't know much about, but my sense is that the only location that has had enough study is the West Harbour (although again, maybe city staff could confirm).

You have some valid points, but because of the time pressure we now face, I fear that IWS, and other possible sites, have to neceessarily be disregarded simply because there is no time left. It's unfortunate, and I wish these kinds of discussions had happened a year ago - then again at that time the focus was on a 25,000 seat stadium for the cats, and not the best location for a scalable 6,000 seat stadium.

Truly unfortunate things happened this way. It's worth thinking about your proposal, but ultimately, due to the time factor, I think city staff would probably say, it's either West Harbour or nothing.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted January 10, 2011 at 12:47:09

Robert D,

Very true points. I am aware of the timeline issues and here is where I have made what I think are some very reasonable assumptions about the Pan-Am stadium at Beechwood.

The simplest way to explain my assumption is that a stadium has been there for 80 years already. What REALLY has to be studied about this location? The supporting infrastructure and utilities are already at the location so there is no issue there. The zoning is already there. We are downsizing, not upsizing so other than construction noise there will be a reduced traffic and noise impact on the neighbourhood. We may be able to re-use the foundation. I really can't see the validity of the 'study' argument for this site, other than to act as a roadblock for it's fruition.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By joejoe (anonymous) | Posted January 10, 2011 at 12:48:41

Mark,

Your concept of 'nodes' is a 1950's approach to development. Development focused on one purpose does not create healthy neighbourhoods or vibrant destinations. Just because WH serves predominantly recreational uses today doesn't mean we shouldn't try to expand it's use. Multi-purpose neighbourhoods provide sustainable and healthy communities. The fact that the WH location serves a (slightly) different purpose today is very much an argument FOR that location to get a stadium.

As for continuing with IWS, well, clearly IWS is not a people place today, and the existence of the stadium for 80 odd years there has done little to attract any other uses beyond the existing residential. WH on the other hand, has many more advantages when it comes to creating a viable and attractive destination, and the stadium will only add to that.

Ben

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ty Webb (anonymous) | Posted January 10, 2011 at 12:49:31

Why not just rip down the old half of IWS and refurbish the newer half?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted January 10, 2011 at 12:51:25

madame2,

As I recall the HostCo issue with IWS was with renovating it, there was no opposition stated with respect to tearing down and re-building a Pan-Am stadium on the same site.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Shempatolla (registered) - website | Posted January 10, 2011 at 12:53:10

@Mark

Well written although I disagree with your premise. Here's why.

First of all, I believe a smaller stadium has the potential to attract far more users and events across a broader spectrum that what currently takes place at IWS. This would include tournaments from soccer to lacrosse, rugby, etc. Concerts, expos, festivals, the possibility of outdoor film screenings... the possibilities are numerous.

The suggestion that Scott Park is some kind of anchor for sport, particularly high level sport are from days gone by I believe. Additionally I feel that the IWS precinct holds far more value to the city if it were redeveloped residential/commercial.

I believe there is a misconception of what is meant by a scalable stadium. This is not a temporary facility with removable bleachers. Rather a permanent facility built with modular principles and built with the intent/option/possibility of adding further modules to increase both seating capacity and amenities. It also allows for temporary erection of seats in support of larger events. Again this is not a collection of metal bleachers.

The fact that the Tiger Cats under their current management have delivered their "we will never play at WH" ultimatum is actually liberating for the city. It gives us the freedom to design the facility with other things than just CFL foot ball in mind. (BTW if the Tiger Cats are adamant that they will never again play in Hamilton after 2011 why has the notion of them negotiating another lease at IWS through 2014 been floated?)

While the Rheem site is in the Harbour district, it is not connected yet to Bay Front Park or the pier network. A pedestrian promenade over the tracks could certainly change that and link a new Stadium/Velodrome/residential precinct with both the downtown and waterfront.

The north south leg of LRT proposed for James St could encompass a spur/loop across Barton up Queen to York back to James.

My thought is that properly done a Stadium/Velodrome/ complex designed around community use, with the ability to grow to accomodate pro soccer, maybe foot ball can become an anchor for community growth and prosperity. Think of an arena complex. In use 7 days a week, by hockey teams, figure skating etc. They generate a hub of economic activity around them. Restraunts, stores, hotel/motel, etc.

The fact that this opportunity is generating such debate is only a good thing.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted January 10, 2011 at 12:57:10

Mr. Janitor,

I think transit, in terms specifically of the Pan Am perspective, is something that needs to be studied. We're familiar with how to get persons in/out of ivor wynne during a ti-cat game, but during the pan-am games, with a greater proportion of visitors coming from out of town, we might need to explain to hostco how we intend to accomodate the expected number of people arriving, not only via GO, but also driving. It may be as simple as pointing to a few shuttle buses, or it may require something more involved, I'm not certain.

There would also potentially be an issue with regards to demolition, and the construction schedule.

And of course the ti-cats, who play in the stadium in 2011, and the impact that might have on the demolition/construction schedule.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mystoneycreek (registered) - website | Posted January 10, 2011 at 13:06:08

The fact that this opportunity is generating such debate is only a good thing.

I couldn't agree more.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted January 10, 2011 at 13:15:44

Shemp,

All I can say is that I disagree with your small stadium usage assumptions. I don't think these functions will bring people in. I believe that past performance denotes future performance. To back that up let's look at the Hamilton Bulldogs attendance numbers. This is the feeder league for the NHL and they have had a very competitive record over the years, even winning the Calder Cup. A successful AHL feeder team in hockey mad Canada can only draw about 3000-4000 people a game. The only conclusion I can draw is that other than CFL, Hamilton has no interest in spectator sports, none at all. This holds true for the old indoor track meet the Spec used to host, the low crowds at curling championships and the low crowds at figure skating events, other than Disney on Ice. Free outdoor film screenings were tried at Gage Park in the past and were stopped, I went to a few and there weren't many people.

I don't think there is a misconception about a scaleable stadium, I think most folks get that any growth would be permanent. I think an expandable facility (implying a later contraction) is far more useful for a civic stadium, allowing seating if we do happen to get an occasional major event.

I feel that WH has far more potential for energy and growth for this city through re-development than the site where IWS currently sits.

re: 2011 vs. 2014 please read my post on that and how to use it to pressure the cats to get a full sized WHS. This change came after I exposed the soft underbelly of the Cats plan in this letter to the editor

I agree that a bridge will need to be constructed, and that it could be an amazing structure.

I disagree about your assessment of Scott Park, let's make it a node of sports excellence with a new stadium and dare I even suggest a velodrome.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Mr. Meister (anonymous) | Posted January 10, 2011 at 13:36:31

I always thought that WH was a terrible site for a stadium to house the Ti-Cats but for a small civic stadium for high school games and such I think it would work nicely. Especially after already spending all that money on acquiring the properties there. Taking advantage of the money from senior levels of government to pay for most of it is icing on the cake. Save the money and just build a 6,000 or 7,000 seat stadium and be done with it. I know McMaster has Ron Joyce which is a similar size but over the years I have come to the realization that McMaster is not very civic minded and would gouge the city if we needed to rely on their site. To bad the city did not get involved with McMaster when they started building and had contributed and established a long term agreement to use Ron Joyce for civic events. That ship I believe has long sailed. Unfortunately this will almost assuredly mean the end of the Tiger-Cats in Hamilton. I do not see the city building 2 stadiums and the Cats simply cannot/will not.

If a pedestrian friendly link over the tracks were to be built to connect to the existing parks it could be used as a site for a new musical festival.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted January 10, 2011 at 14:01:15

Meister, the ped bridge over the tracks looked great in one of the conceptual renderings for the West Harbour master plan. The new WH neighbourhood will tie in beautifully with the gorgeous Bayfront Park. I can see new condo dwellers enjoying that great spot and the waterfront trail for their morning jogs.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted January 10, 2011 at 14:07:34

This is the latest poll on the Spec site:

Do you support spending $20 million local tax dollars as Hamilton's share of the cost to build a 5,000-seat stadium at the west harbour?

Isn't Hamilton's contribution through the Future Fund, not tax dollars?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted January 10, 2011 at 14:09:17

"Isn't Hamilton's contribution through the Future Fund, not tax dollars?" The Spec is doing a FUD-tastic job on this file. :P

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Shempatolla (registered) - website | Posted January 10, 2011 at 14:23:25

the poll is currently running %84 against %16 per cent for. Now does that reflect views accurately or just views on the specs constituency?

??????

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Boomer (registered) | Posted January 10, 2011 at 14:50:49

Hamilton needs competition in the newspaper and television business. The current monopolies are too comfortable in their incompetence. I thought the Spec just laid-off a number of staff. Seems like they shuffled off the wrong people. As for CHCH, they've lost significance in my mind, unless or course you love hearing a newcast led off by murders, deaths, accidents, and then on to fluff, with no meat. Real "journalism" is dead, it seems. I never see an overall positive view of Hamilton from its own media. Radio is a total waste, especially CHML, which is acting like FOX TV in the States: only concern is controversy, and their owners are only interested in audience share, not quality and accuracy. I guess that could be said of all media. Those with the cash control the message. How sad. RTH needs to morph into a daily newspaper, tv, and radio empire. Anyone have some extra dough?.... OK, I'll settle for newspaper.... And I should be happy that there is a RTH, at least, and I am. Sorry to get off topic and ramble.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Al C (anonymous) | Posted January 10, 2011 at 14:52:38

Why not include a track around a small WH stadium?
It would increase the number of days of usage each year with track meets,
training, etc.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Shempatolla (registered) - website | Posted January 10, 2011 at 15:05:48

@ Boomer. We could do an RTH Web Cast. Live, pre recorded (PVRd ?) cover everything. Local politics, Sports (all levels), Arts, Events, Investigative report, human interest.

Yes the local media is brutal.

Ryan?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ty Webb (anonymous) | Posted January 10, 2011 at 15:09:41

RTH is already the news source of choice in Hamilton. The Spec is a joke, bare minimum effort is given to local stories and the rest is just picked up from wire services. Expand RTH to cover more areas and you'd outclick TheSpec.com before long.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By lawrence (registered) - website | Posted January 10, 2011 at 15:29:06

With the number of comments on many of the RTH articles/blog posts, it would seem RTH gets quite a few clicks each day.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrgrande (registered) | Posted January 10, 2011 at 15:37:29

FYI - Bratina will be doing a live chat with the National Post here Tuesday at noon.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted January 10, 2011 at 16:03:23

great, because a lot of national post readers really care.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Greg (anonymous) | Posted January 10, 2011 at 16:09:25

RTH is the news source of choice in Hamilton for about 300 people

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By slodrive (registered) | Posted January 10, 2011 at 16:24:19

(think I posted this in the wrong article....I'll post it again. Apologies for the double-dip.)

For hypothetical arguments sake (since I think the ship has sailed) just wanted to throw out a question here -- and feel free to relay your answer through the up/ down vote if it doesn't warrant a reply. (I won't take a -12 personally!! LOL!)

What if, as a last ditch effort, the city guaranteed any Ticat losses over, say $500,000, to the team under the condition that they play at the West Harbour and that a rainy day fund (a la Saskatchewan Roughriders) was introduced (so, if the team is profitable, a small percentage goes into the fund.)

When replying/ voting assume that both city and team deal in good faith and books are relatively open.

A situation like this, while it could make tax payers cringe a bit, would ensure both parties have some skin in the game are motivated to find additional investment and revenue streams.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By JonC (registered) | Posted January 10, 2011 at 17:33:59

@slodrive That wouldn't work, but only because the ti-cats would have to open their books to meet those terms and explain the ridiculous charges from other Young owned companies for prodcuts & services. Hell, we'd stop tossing them tax dollars every year. The biggest joke is that people still believe they lose money.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted January 10, 2011 at 17:55:49

Look, I'm no soccer fan but if it makes sense for the people that enjoy soccer to watch their home countries play or those that can actually enjoy the sport from a spectator viewpoint, should Hamilton participate in these games for soccer? I have no clue to be honest.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted January 10, 2011 at 18:05:37

I'm simply asking a question.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By HaHaHaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa (anonymous) | Posted January 10, 2011 at 19:14:55

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By HaHaHaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa (anonymous) | Posted January 10, 2011 at 19:17:29

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By z jones (registered) | Posted January 10, 2011 at 19:18:54

Let the down voting (shoot the messenger) begin.......

Down voted, not because of the message (which I and probably the site admins agree with) but because you're a douche about it.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted January 10, 2011 at 21:59:40

slodrive,

What if, as a last ditch effort, the city guaranteed any Ticat losses over, say $500,000, to the team under the condition that they play at the West Harbour and that a rainy day fund (a la Saskatchewan Roughriders) was introduced (so, if the team is profitable, a small percentage goes into the fund.)

A funding arrangement like this is most likely illegal under the Municipal Act section 112 (around 1989) don't know if that has changed. I went to the library today and printed some legal documents and the proposed IWS lease from 1989. The lawyers were stating that any subsidies or funding or rent under market value was illegal and that they would not represent the city due to the illegalities in the proposed lease.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By misterque (registered) - website | Posted January 11, 2011 at 02:12:21

The problem has been CHML, specifically Bill Kelly and Scott Thompson. You can listen to their Beck-like vitriol about the "lunch bucket" council, the saintly Bob Young, the straight shooting Scott Mitchell and the "private business called TiCats." It is painful to listen to, and it is really sad to hear it regurgitated in blogs, boards, and on the street.

On the day of the "emergency confederation park" council meeting the following people all had the same TALKING POINTS: Bill Kelly (CHML radio host), Scott Thompson (CHML radio host), Scott Mitchell (TiCat president), Bob Bratina (mayor, former TiCat announcer, former CHML radio host) and Jason Farr (councilor, former TiCat employee, former radio host).

I am sure that this is just a coincidence, but Mr. Thompson and Mr. Kelly has been selling the TiCat position so intensely you have to wonder. Their misinformation is so intense that one can immediately tell someone has been tuning into 900 kilohertz by listening for the following talking points:

1) the TiCats are a private enterprise. (Once you are into our tax dollars for more than 1/10 of a billion dollars you are no longer private or enterprise)

2) Confederation park has never been studied as a stadium site.

3) Council is completely incompentent by all measure and Hamiltonians are idiots for voting them back in.

4) Large stadiums are good for an economy. (which makes 1 even funnier).

5) Palleta and Young are building a stadium (conveniently forgetting the nearly $100 million from our taxes).

6) 6000 seat stadium is a waste of money (hundred times less waste of money than the TiCat palace).

7) 6000 seat stadium is a white elephant that will not be used. (Make it coverable with an inflatable and it will be used all year)

8) 6000 seat stadium is a panic response. (Many of us are NOT panicked about the TiCats leaving).

9) Council are flipfloppers and TiCats are smart private business owners.

10) There is no vision at city hall.

This is important because the same people that are supporting the TiCat palace are also dead against the Light Rail Transit plan that the city has. They are using the same "I have heard from...", a pause then derisive laughter, and "well it is obvious to anyone that..." type comments against the LRT.

If we don't get the message out that this kind of journalist disingenuity will not be tolerated in Hamilton we will lose a truly HUGE PILE of cash because of vision-less talking heads that will destroy anything through fear, unknowing and dread. Anyone have the time to make a complaint to the CRTC?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 07:39:39

Hey Mark, it looks like you might just get your wish!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 10:01:18

I am really shocked, honestly. Let`s use this to make the West Harbour stunning!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By lawrence (registered) - website | Posted January 11, 2011 at 10:46:30

One thing I will add, is that they better ask HostCo about this before we submit a proposal and we find they aren't okay with it, and lose our funding.

I ran for student council once when I was in middle school, and was having a great campaign. Might have won, had I had my parents sign the permission form. Little details.

I'll wait for the hands to meet, before I get too excited. We all know what this road has been like.

Comment edited by lawrence on 2011-01-11 10:55:24

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By lawrence (registered) - website | Posted January 11, 2011 at 11:09:35

@Hahaaaaaa..., I will tell you I have spent more time on this site in the past 6 or so months, than I have ever spent on any site. Look at the comment numbers on here, as opposed to TheSpec. It's a very active, informative site. Radio, print, web, whatever. I would read, watch, and follow it. I like that there are links to the posters websites so we can see what other bloggers are writing about, and the links work not like on TheSpec where if you post a link, you have to copy and paste it into a browser.

Nobody has covered this very important stadium issue, like RTH. Maybe they were a little pro harbor/pro Fred. So what. There isn't a doubt in my mind that their dreams for the Harbor, are very warranted and beautiful ones. I wanted Ivor Wynne, but I seen much potential in all of their visions. I even didn't mind Fred, even though my vision for a mayor was for a man like Mahesh Butani who was the first one to email me this morning of The Spec news.

We all have different opinions and visions for our city and while I disagree on some of the ones posted on here from time to time, I respect them and value the knowledge that lives on this site. I think many would be very surprised to know who follows this site. We all know even Bob Young has spent a little time browsing these posts.

I see great potential and value for our citizens, in this site becoming so much more. It may not be the flashiest site around, but functionality and quality of writing and commenting-wise, I know no other site like it.

Think before you speak. You are not just putting down one person. You are putting down some very smart and passionate people who do a lot on their own personal time, to make our city better. Dissagree with opinions, but don't put others dreams down.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted January 11, 2011 at 11:26:37

A part of me is thinking Hostco will torpedo this... officially because the money is for a new building, but the actual reason being they don't want the stadium to go in Hamilton's east end.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By hammy (anonymous) | Posted January 14, 2011 at 20:32:06

This is the best post I have read todate.
IWS is the only solution for the city.
Brownsfields should never have been part of the PanAm process. You can be sure no other community involved theirs when presenting a Pan Am bid.
Shame on the ones involved in this misguided direction.
If IW doesn't fly then what? It certainly won't be Hamiltons plan B at the WH.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By RenaissanceWatcher (registered) | Posted January 15, 2011 at 18:59:13

The Pan Am Athletes' Village in Toronto, housing up to 8,500 people, will be constructed on remediated brownfields in the West Don Lands near the waterfront: http://www.canadianconsultingengineer.co...

The West Harbour stadium site was in the Toronto Pan Am bid book and was therefore part of the winning Pan Am bid in 2009. If the Ivor Wynne Stadium refurbishment plan does not pan out for some reason, the Plan B West Harbour scalable stadium site would be acceptable to Hostco if the Hamilton proposal can also demonstrate an amateur sports legacy and significant community use greater than or equal to those in the Mississauga and Brampton proposals.

Comment edited by RenaissanceWatcher on 2011-01-15 19:15:32

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds