Sports

I just heard something heavy drop. I think it was the irony.

By Graham Crawford
Published June 08, 2012

So, Bob Young and Scott Mitchell are both deeply disappointed, not to mention surprised and miffed that McMaster University has just told them that they will not be allowed to play any of their games at the Ron Joyce Stadium during the 2013 season while Ivor Wynne Stadium is torn down and re-built.

Here are some excerpts as they appear on the Spectator website in a story by Steve Milton:

  • "We'd been meeting for six months and had got down to a lot of the finer details," said a clearly miffed Scott Mitchell, the Ticats president. "And we'd had no negative feedback at all."
  • "I guess we're very disappointed in the way the news was delivered. It had all been positive and then to be given the final decision in a call, without any discussion beforehand," Mitchell said. "And they had been planning to issue a press release right away."
  • "I find it ironic that it was MRX (a holding company that plans the Vanier Cup and also owns the Ticats) paired the Vanier Cup and Grey Cup together and Mac seemed to be having a pretty great time at that," Mitchell said.
  • "What do we do now? Anyone got a good stadium for us? We're awfully disappointed, as you can expect It certainly goes against our interests and our ability to serve our fan base and our market here.” - Bob Young
  • "Unfortunately, yes, I've dealt enough with universities to know that universities are political places.They have multiple stakeholders, you only need a couple of those different stakeholders to voice an objection and it becomes very hard to move forward. We're very disappointed. We've been talking to them for six months about hosting games. It would have been helpful if we'd known six months ago.” - Bob Young
  • "It does throw everything up the in the air that a different decision from Mac would not have." - Bob Young

Don't you just hate it when someone you were counting on lets you down? I know I do.

Graham Crawford was raised in Hamilton, moving to Toronto in 1980 where he spent 25 years as the owner of a successful management consulting firm that he sold in 2000. He retired and moved back to Hamilton in 2005 and became involved in heritage and neighbourhood issues. He opened Hamilton HIStory + HERitage on James North in 2007, a multi-media exhibition space (aka a storefront museum) celebrating the lives of the men and women who have helped to shape the City of Hamilton.

104 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted June 08, 2012 at 13:34:47

I am just bowled over by this story. It is hilariously beautiful. Couldn't have happened to a better organization.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Biff (anonymous) | Posted June 08, 2012 at 13:38:59

We HAD a stadium for you Bob, the one with a waterfront view, multi-modal access, and did we mention it was free? Oh wait, your meathead of an assistant decided to screw it up.

Permalink | Context

By Conrad66 (registered) | Posted June 08, 2012 at 13:41:41 in reply to Comment 78189

You got that wright Biff ... if anyone fallowed this closeesly .. im sure am one of them !

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Conrad66 (registered) | Posted June 08, 2012 at 13:39:51

Love it way to go Mac .... what do you think about Karma now Bob .... juste because of your whinning to were to put the Stadium it made TO2015 pull back from Hamilton .. even Macs pool they were supposse to have .... from the Pan Am game . i juste love it :)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By A Positive Hamiltonian (anonymous) | Posted June 08, 2012 at 14:24:52

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 depends (anonymous) | Posted June 08, 2012 at 17:04:53 in reply to Comment 78195

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 Cityjoe (anonymous) | Posted June 12, 2012 at 11:35:14 in reply to Comment 78215

We all get voted down from time to time. So maybe put on your big kid Depends & live with it?

Permalink | Context

By highwater (registered) | Posted June 08, 2012 at 15:05:12 in reply to Comment 78195

So you're comparing a billionaire-owned, publicly-subsidized, for-profit corporation to a disabled person? That's your argument?

Permalink | Context

By Conrad66 (registered) | Posted June 08, 2012 at 14:35:53 in reply to Comment 78195

I guesse you were not in Hamilton while this bebate was going on ..... hey i see your on a PC look it up !!!!!!!!!!! , like they say what comes around gosse around

Permalink | Context

By A Positive Hamiltonian (anonymous) | Posted June 08, 2012 at 15:18:12 in reply to Comment 78196

I agree the stadium debate and reaction of key players was not something Hamilton can be proud of. However, I think it is weak for people to be happy about another piece of bad news because they havent gotten the chip off thier shoulder and moved forward.

Permalink | Context

By Woody10 (registered) | Posted June 09, 2012 at 23:18:58 in reply to Comment 78201

Not happy, just amused how they can complain about being dumped on at the last minute when that's what they did to the city AFTER the awarding of the games. Pathetic, bad business, and poor accountability all rolled up into one.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted June 08, 2012 at 23:33:47 in reply to Comment 78201

I don't think it's bad news at all. 1 year with the Cats out of town is 1 less year of whining, poor PR and crappy football.

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted June 13, 2012 at 07:53:59 in reply to Comment 78228

Just stop with your hyperbole and nonsense.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By realitycheck (anonymous) | Posted June 08, 2012 at 14:51:24

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 H+H (registered) - website | Posted June 08, 2012 at 17:07:05 in reply to Comment 78198

Hey realitycheck, Check out "dramatic irony". It'll help you to understand. Thanks.

Permalink | Context

By realitycheck (anonymous) | Posted June 09, 2012 at 11:57:50 in reply to Comment 78216

What I now understand is you do not fuly understand the general term "irony" or any of its derivatives, as dramatic irony does not apply here either. But kudos for the attempt at face-saving, feeble as it was.

Here is some unsolicited life learning for Graham Crawford and his supporters: let go of the past, stop fighting things simpy for the sake of the fight, accept losses gracefully and avoid being consumed by shadenfreude and the desire for revenge. The result will be a more peaceful and positive life experience than evidenced by the discourse posted here.

Permalink | Context

By Scheherazade (anonymous) | Posted June 12, 2012 at 12:43:00 in reply to Comment 78244

Everyone loves a pedant.

Permalink | Context

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted June 09, 2012 at 19:17:57 in reply to Comment 78244

Lighten up

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By A Positive Hamiltonian (anonymous) | Posted June 08, 2012 at 15:15:03

My message (not an argument) is that it is ugly when people celebrate the failure of others because of their emotional attachment to an issue. Real leaders take a negative occurrence and make it positive, not simply highlight and underscore the negative as if it is some sort of victory against one of our own teammates.

Permalink | Context

By highwater (registered) | Posted June 08, 2012 at 15:56:47 in reply to Comment 78200

First of all, this isn't a 'failure'. They'll pick themselves up and go off to Western or wherever, and be just fine. It is however, a taste of their own medicine, and the people they hurt with their selfish, manipulative behaviour have every right to savour a little schadenfreude without finger-wagging from the usual apologists.

Permalink | Context

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted June 08, 2012 at 17:40:38 in reply to Comment 78207

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.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2012-06-14 06:53:05

Permalink | Context

By Scheherazade (anonymous) | Posted June 12, 2012 at 12:43:36 in reply to Comment 78221

Speaking on behalf of reasonable people everywhere... I would really like you to piss off.

Permalink | Context

By highwater (registered) | Posted June 09, 2012 at 00:18:32 in reply to Comment 78221

It's going to take more than this pathetic misogynist attack to silence me. Grow up.

Permalink | Context

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted June 09, 2012 at 12:07:54 in reply to Comment 78229

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.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2012-06-14 06:53:14

Permalink | Context

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted June 09, 2012 at 13:30:57 in reply to Comment 78245

As someone who's got a child from an unplanned pregnancy, this kind of judgemental bullshit is unbelievably hurtful. Turning the most difficult time in people's lives into an opportunity to sound off about your ideology has consequences, which you will likely never have to personally face. Don't assume that you understand other people's hardships, or that your simplistic solutions have any hope of improving their situations.

Please just stop.

Permalink | Context

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted June 09, 2012 at 14:06:09 in reply to Comment 78247

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.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2012-06-14 06:53:19

Permalink | Context

By highwater (registered) | Posted June 09, 2012 at 12:49:09 in reply to Comment 78245

Pathetic is you stalking one of the few expressly female commenters on this site, and hijacking a completely unrelated topic to work out your impotent rage at being unable to control women in a free, democratic society.

Go find some other corner of the internet to pollute with your misogyny.

Permalink | Context

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted June 09, 2012 at 14:04:45 in reply to Comment 78246

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.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2012-06-14 06:53:29

Permalink | Context

By Woody10 (registered) | Posted June 09, 2012 at 23:21:53 in reply to Comment 78250

Rape?

Permalink | Context

By highwater (registered) | Posted June 09, 2012 at 08:23:41 in reply to Comment 78229

And ditto to the misogynist who downvoted me and upvoted asmith. There are women on the internet get over it.

Permalink | Context

By Cityjoe (anonymous) | Posted June 12, 2012 at 11:14:44 in reply to Comment 78235

One of the things I find really depressing is the misogynist views that seem far more evident (& Tolerated!) in the GHA than in other places.
Thanks Highwater, & others for taking some really idiotic comments & their author to task. IMHO, these ideas are responsible for a lot of what prevents Hamilton & area from being a modern progressive place to live & work.
(If over 50% of the residents of the GHA are female, as in most places, perhaps we should stop expecting them to continue to be punished for a fictional woman's apple eating?!)

Permalink | Context

By city booster (anonymous) | Posted June 08, 2012 at 17:28:46 in reply to Comment 78207

How this can be interpreted as anything but a failure is beyond belief. Lose,lose lose. Mac,city, Ticats

Permalink | Context

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted June 08, 2012 at 17:09:59 in reply to Comment 78207

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.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2012-06-14 06:52:44

Permalink | Context

By Cityjoe (anonymous) | Posted June 12, 2012 at 11:21:52 in reply to Comment 78217

A. Smith - Not only am in favour of Choice on the matter of abortion, in some cases I'm in favour of Retro-Active Abortion.

Permalink | Context

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted June 12, 2012 at 12:33:22 in reply to Comment 78379

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.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2012-06-14 06:52:49

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted June 12, 2012 at 13:27:07 in reply to Comment 78393

A Smith, if you want to talk about abortion, go find an abortion website to troll.

These recent comments are a new low, even for you. Stop abusing this forum and its members now, or your posts will be deleted.

Permalink | Context

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted June 12, 2012 at 13:38:57 in reply to Comment 78401

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.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2012-06-14 06:52:54

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted June 12, 2012 at 14:11:34 in reply to Comment 78403

I consider you duly warned that it's time for you to stop abusing this forum.

Permalink | Context

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted June 12, 2012 at 14:45:04 in reply to Comment 78405

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.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2012-06-14 06:53:01

Permalink | Context

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted June 12, 2012 at 13:36:50 in reply to Comment 78401

Might have to do that anyways - with bottom comments unfiltered, the abortion threadjack encompasses half of this article's comments by-length.

Permalink | Context

By gamer (anonymous) | Posted June 08, 2012 at 15:26:17 in reply to Comment 78200

Newsflash! They ceased to be on our team when they screwed the community. It's called karma.

Permalink | Context

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted June 08, 2012 at 16:59:07 in reply to Comment 78202

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.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2012-06-14 06:53:03

Permalink | Context

By Cityjoe (anonymous) | Posted June 12, 2012 at 11:23:31 in reply to Comment 78214

The best excuse ever for prohibiting the practice of stoning people!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By waterboy (anonymous) | Posted June 08, 2012 at 15:49:51

Universities are many things Bob;

Philosophy, science, politics, art... but ultimately it comes down to a decision based on critical thought. What is best served by the University and community, Macs decision is correct.

Maybe Guelph and Western will rip up their tracks and fields for your short term need. Try Wilfrid Laurier University. Barring that try Nelson High school in Burlington.

That waterfront stadium would seem to have been a better more practical location after all.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By -Hammer- (registered) | Posted June 08, 2012 at 22:24:22

I see that Raise the Hammer opted to take the high road on this one. Instead of focusing on the fact that the team has over 140 years of history, that it is still bringing a multi-million dollar redevelopment to the East End, in a historic location that has seen many Grey Cups concerts and events, could have given potential rent money from these games go back into a Hamilton institution, but now are likely to build more of a regional interest in the team and potentially bring people from out of town to our city for the future.

Instead of focusing on the positives and discussing the negatives and actually move forward on a stadium debate that has long subsided, you opted to post this one-sided, clearly vengeful post, that has all the tact and poise of Nelson from the Simpsons saying "Ha Ha".

Well done.

Permalink | Context

By logonfire (registered) | Posted June 11, 2012 at 10:47:59 in reply to Comment 78224

Really, the only thing wrong with this decision (thinking dispassionately) is that it came late in the game. Having the games there is not good for the McMaster community nor the neighbourhood so, in that sense, it was a good decision. The error comes at leaving the decision to such a late time in the negotiations. There are those who are happy that the Ticats got slapped back in the face after their late decision hurt Hamilton. However, there are many in the community who will blame McMaster for turning its back on the Hamilton community by being "elitist." This situation is one in which no-one wins.

Permalink | Context

By Woody10 (registered) | Posted June 09, 2012 at 23:25:41 in reply to Comment 78224

When they threatened to move this institution from our city and thumb their noses at the more than loyal people/fans of Hamilton, that's when this became nothing but a business decision. It's not too late to change their minds and do the right thing.

Permalink | Context

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted June 08, 2012 at 23:13:18 in reply to Comment 78224

We used to feel that the Ti-Cats were an important, historic part of our city. Then Bob Young explained otherwise by threatening to "take his ball and go home".

Since then we've learned to appreciate 'juggling'.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Simon (registered) - website | Posted June 08, 2012 at 22:45:56

Like most things that involve the Tiger Cats...there is more behind the scenes than Mac or the Tiger Cats are letting on.

The reasons Mac is giving don't really make sense. Traffic congestion, from 20k fans - really - how is that different than 8:30 am any weekday from September to April. Who are these fans that would be parking on campus anyway? Most of Mac's parking is across Coots - where students are then shuttle bussed to campus. Not to mention Mac is probably one of the easiest places to get to by transit in the City.

I have a feeling that just maybe Mac had had enough of the Tiger Cats "negotiations" - its not like Mac didn't know exactly how this deal was going to go down. I'm just surprised that the Tiger Cats didn't publicly threaten to leave for Western or whatever before Mac pulled the plug.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Kevin (registered) | Posted June 08, 2012 at 22:55:06

Beautiful.

Permalink | Context

By Cityjoe (anonymous) | Posted June 12, 2012 at 11:28:25 in reply to Comment 78226

Yup, beautiful!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By tootragic (anonymous) | Posted June 09, 2012 at 00:34:08

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 joey (anonymous) | Posted June 09, 2012 at 00:43:16

Hamilton please look at other professional sport owners and the differences they have had with their cities, we are not the first and won't be the last - get over it already.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By ScreamingViking (registered) | Posted June 09, 2012 at 01:28:37

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 H+H (registered) - website | Posted June 09, 2012 at 02:39:04

I have to say I'm a little perplexed at many of the comments here. Setting aside the really over-the-top and unrelated to anything comments, some seem to suggest that I, and RTH, have taken a cheap shot at the TiCats. Really?

The post directly quotes Mitchell and Young from row Spec article. It doesn't expand, explain, or eviscerate. Admittedly, It does end with a comment about the irony (dramatic for those who need it) of the situation. About how a partner you trusted changes their mind and says no at the last minute. The difference is that in the case of Mac, it won't cost the citizens of Hamilton any money (at least not so far but you never know what the Cats will do next), although there will be lost revenue on the part of some local businesses (bars, restaurants, parking lots). But remember, the Cats were not planning on playing all of their "home" games in Hamilton during the 2013 season in any case. Moncton has been mentioned many times.

In the case of the stadium, it will cost the citizens many tens of millions of dollars, not just in building costs, but also opportunity costs. The IWS site will never amount to much more than it has been for the past 75 years. It can't. It's surrounded by residential. This happened at the last minute when our "partner" changed their mind about where the stadium should be built. We were left scrambling and forced to take nothing or to take third best, or worse, as our location of choice. The Future Fund was nearly emptied to do this.

I'm a Hamilton booster. I put my money, time, and energies doing so. Having said that, I'm not about to overlook the fact that a trusted partner turned their back on us and forced us into a once in a lifetime (not to mention multiple generations) decision on the largest publicly funded building project this city has seen (excluding the RHVP) in decades. That's why dramatic irony seemed appropriate. As is the case with dramatic irony, the audience sees and understands the implications of what is being said but the characters in the play do not.

The stadium deal is done. We all know that. The money will be spent on the stadium, whether you support it or not. Surely, we can be permitted to point out the irony in the situation between Mac and the Cats without being labelled devils or Hamilton haters.

Permalink | Context

By ScreamingViking (registered) | Posted June 09, 2012 at 17:13:23 in reply to Comment 78233

I'm a little surprised you're perplexed that some of us have a different perspective regarding reaction to Mac's decision and its impact on the Tiger-Cats. My own remark was directed more at those who seem to be taking glee from the situation, more than the original post that gave them an outlet to express it.

I appreciate a good ironic turn, but in my opinion much of this whole line of commenting does come off in the vein of "serves you right" or Nelson's "Ha-Ha!" as mentioned by another person - something that people often like to say with a sardonic tone, but really does not need to be said at all (and I write that knowing full-well I've probably made a few uncalled-for quips on this site; I've definitely done it elsewhere)

I respect your point of view and the fact you do have deep feelings about what's best for Hamilton, and make an effort to contribute to that. I tend to agree with what you have to say quite often, but in this instance I just didn't see the need for this particular point to be made. Personally, I don't think it serves the city very well, nor those who care about its future.

Permalink | Context

By Kiely (registered) | Posted June 09, 2012 at 15:01:57 in reply to Comment 78233

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 Woody10 (registered) | Posted June 09, 2012 at 23:31:33 in reply to Comment 78253

That area (I hope I'm wrong) will never develope like west Harbour could have. Everything was in place downtown, Ivor wynne? Not even close. I for one will drive in and drive out, back downtown to the restaurants and bars, even if they do build some half decent places close by.

Permalink | Context

By CaptainKirk (anonymous) | Posted June 09, 2012 at 16:18:36 in reply to Comment 78253

Disagree. The WH is completely different animal than is the IWS site. WH is a brownfield, by the waterfront which could have showcased our city nationally, in a new light, while providing a physical link to the downtown all the while having a synergistic dynamic with all the pother wonder downtown improvements going on. A stadium alone will not make a difference.

The IWS site does none of that. It is a residential neighbourhood, not connected to Ottawa St. The stadium being there for several decades already has proved that it will make virtually no difference to the area.

Permalink | Context

By Kiely (registered) | Posted June 09, 2012 at 20:58:05 in reply to Comment 78255

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 CaptainKirk (anonymous) | Posted June 09, 2012 at 23:28:19 in reply to Comment 78263

Ottawa St. can be connected to IWS? How? And why hasn't it been for the last several decades?

Ottawa St. is perpendicular to the path to IWS and for all of its charm, it is not an entertainment area and is about 1.4km away. "Let's go to Gilberts Used Tires before the game, and afterwards we can go to Barber's commercial kitchen equipment suppliers."

James St N., is 4 blocks or 450m away form the WH site which is only 850m or so away form Hess Village.

WH is part of the waterfront which is the most beautiful part of the city. A part of town that would have gone a long way in promoting to national television audiences for decades to come the beauty of the city of Hamilton, something that IWS works against. Not only is the waterfront a great destination, but it is going to undergo further development.

With all due respect Kiely, I think you're way off on this one.

Permalink | Context

By Kiely (registered) | Posted June 10, 2012 at 19:04:08 in reply to Comment 78270

What a bunch of negative obtuse responses lacking anything close to vision, creativity or imagination. Silly me for trying to show a half-full glass to those who would rather just whinge.

Well if you can see no pros there will be no pros and you can all sit back and say "told you so"... and won't that make you all feel great about yourselves. You can all continue to "up vote" your opinions on how messed up everything is... that will make everything better.

Comment edited by Kiely on 2012-06-10 19:05:04

Permalink | Context

By George (registered) | Posted June 09, 2012 at 22:52:16 in reply to Comment 78263

IIRC the IWS was to be sold for about $7m for residential development that would have created some annual tax revenues.

Again and I don't know why this has to repeated so often, a stadium at WH would fit and work with many other amenities in the area. That dynamic does not exist at the current IWS site.

And BTW, James is much closer to the West Harbour site than is Ottawa is to IWS. Can't wait to go fabric shopping before and after the games.

Ottawa St. = James St.? really?

I don't understand. Why would you go to Ottawa St. before and after a game?

Downtown has many, many bars and restaurants. Ottawa St does not.

Comment edited by George on 2012-06-09 22:57:54

Permalink | Context

By ScreamingViking (registered) | Posted June 09, 2012 at 17:28:20 in reply to Comment 78255

While the West Harbour site is a brownfield, the neighbourhood surrounding it is very residential. The proximity to downtown is a key difference, as is the aesthetic setting (south of the recreational waterfront vs. south of heavy industry). Accessibility is another difference, but I think the IWS site ranks higher in that regard.

I fully agree that a stadium alone would not have made a difference at the west end of Barton. And it has not in all the decades IWS has been located where it is further east near the same street.

But I have to ask - if the stadium alone won't be a difference maker, then what would be? Is it about effort, and how we use that facility and put energy into the lands that circle it? I think that's been more the issue with IWS in the past, and I see little reason why that needs to be the way in the future. There are plenty of underutilized commercial and institutional sites within a few blocks of our new stadium and there is no reason why a bit of effort and focus can't bring them to life in the same way we wish for the West Harbour.

Comment edited by ScreamingViking on 2012-06-09 17:30:02

Permalink | Context

By George (registered) | Posted June 09, 2012 at 19:09:26 in reply to Comment 78258

I think the IWS area's best hope is LRT and its associated TOD. That's a proven model.

Also, I don't buy the access issue for WH. Copps houses 18,000 people with no problem. WH is very close to the 403, close to Burlington st, and the high volume roads of Cannon, York, King and Main.

People park on lawns at IWS. Downtown has no parking issues.

Rehashing old stuff here.

From http://www.thespec.com/news/local/articl...

"Rosentraub is a professor of sport management at the University of Michigan. His studies have shown pro sport teams deliver “disappointingly low levels of economic activity on a regional basis” but can rejuvenate hollowed-out city cores with a combination of stadiums, entertainment and real estate."

"An American stadium expert says major sports and entertainment developers would have jumped at the chance to provide plans for Hamilton’s rejected west harbour Pan Am site."

"Rosentraub, who has worked with the cities of Los Angeles and San Diego on downtown stadiums related to revitalization projects"

"San Diego’s Petco Park area, which he says would most closely mirror Hamilton’s downtown situation.

The latter has the fewest number of parking spots at any American sports facility and actually encourages fans and others to walk to the area from an LRT station.

“San Diego has a strong car culture and when you suggest people in California walk, they want to commit you,” he joked. But cities are finding that is the kind of development which attracts and keeps young professionals."

"Rosentraub said it would have been interesting to see what AEG might have come up with at the west harbour site. The $50-million private-sector piece wouldn’t be a problem for them. They put up $2.8 billion in L.A., he noted.

“When you’ve got a company like that in, it’s like having both the New York Yankees and Canadian men’s hockey team on your side.”

He said a company called MSI in Columbus, which does boutique developments, might have been a good fit, too.

Rosentraub is consulting with the City of Edmonton on studies to develop a stadium/entertainment area with AEG and the owners of the Edmonton Oilers, the Katz Group.

The Katz Group and AEG have shown interest in Copps Coliseum, the Hamilton Convention Centre, Hamilton Place and attendant parking."

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted June 09, 2012 at 22:05:43 in reply to Comment 78259

I think the IWS area's best hope is LRT and its associated TOD. That's a proven model.

I've said for the past several months now that if I was Bob Young, I would become Hamilton's LRT 'champion'. The proposed Scott Park stop is right at the stadium...and it would really go a long way to helping them soothe some of the blows they dealt to their young, urban fans....but their PR department is something akin to a government motor bureau office with how low they regard the public.

The Katz Group and AEG have shown interest in Copps Coliseum, the Hamilton Convention Centre, Hamilton Place and attendant parking.

And this could be the break Hamilton has waited for all these years to land in the 'big leagues' in the entertainment world instead of heavily subsidizing poorly-used facilities every year. Instead, some councillors are wanting to shun the big global giants and give some local banquet hall owners and mini-hoteliers the reins over these facilities. With friends like this.......

Permalink | Context

By George (registered) | Posted June 10, 2012 at 09:17:30 in reply to Comment 78264

Great point about Bob Young being our LRT champion. Apparently he has connections within the province, and becoming a champion and actually getting LRT could go along way to rehabilitating his image which has taken a brutal beating since they turned their backs on the WH. LRT would be best for the city, and best for the Tiger-Cats and the new stadium. I can't believe that anything else could make an impact on that neighbourhood as much as Transit Oriented Development can.

Re: Katz/AEG - I believe they are only interested in Copps and by council being interested in looking at some local players for the Convention Centre and Hamilton Place, it allows for Katz/AEG to have a legitimate shot at Copps.

Comment edited by George on 2012-06-10 09:24:01

Permalink | Context

By D. Shields (registered) | Posted June 22, 2012 at 13:49:26 in reply to Comment 78276

Quoting George: "Great point about Bob Young being our LRT champion. Apparently he has connections within the province, and becoming a champion and actually getting LRT could go along way to rehabilitating his image which has taken a brutal beating since they turned their backs on the WH."


George don't you think something is VERY VERY WRONG when we need somebody to intercede for Hamilton & it's needs? A need is a need. Do we need a Go Between on every important issue to simply get things done here?

Permalink | Context

By ScreamingViking (registered) | Posted June 09, 2012 at 19:45:09 in reply to Comment 78259

A little off topic, but...

Also, I don't buy the access issue for WH. Copps houses 18,000 people with no problem. WH is very close to the 403, close to Burlington st, and the high volume roads of Cannon, York, King and Main.

People park on lawns at IWS. Downtown has no parking issues.

I don't think West Harbour was inaccessible; and we would have adapted. I simply think the Ivor Wynne site has a bit better access, in 4 directions along many of the same roads you noted. Both would have been much better than Confederation or East Mountain in that regard - being close to a major highway is a plus for "visibility", but when your access roads/ramps have few lanes, getting in and out is a debilitating migraine.

Parking has never been an issue for me attending games at IWS, and I've never parked on somebody's driveway or lawn. Same would have likely held true in the WH.

I just think the opportunity is there in Ward 3 just as it is in Ward 2. If the city plays its cards right, we can experience renewal in both.

Comment edited by ScreamingViking on 2012-06-09 19:46:10

Permalink | Context

By George (registered) | Posted June 09, 2012 at 20:08:33 in reply to Comment 78261

Completely agree with the first two paragraphs.

Permalink | Context

By theOther (registered) | Posted June 09, 2012 at 10:26:45 in reply to Comment 78233

And let's start preparing now for intermittent reports through 2013 about the painful financil haircut the team will be getting due to this tragic and unforeseen dislocation. Consequently, the 'Caretaker' may have to scale back on those commitments he's made on the club's contribution to our fabulous new stadium precinct zone.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted June 09, 2012 at 13:58:02 in reply to Comment 78239

now we'll only get 488 parking spaces instead of 500. Such a cool 'precinct' concept. Live Nation and AEG will be envious.

Permalink | Context

By highwater (registered) | Posted June 09, 2012 at 08:27:21 in reply to Comment 78233

...or abortionists, apparently. :P

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Flying Wildcats (anonymous) | Posted June 09, 2012 at 10:54:10

They could always play at HAAA again - imagine that game day experience!

Permalink | Context

By George (registered) | Posted June 09, 2012 at 13:42:59 in reply to Comment 78240

With Ryerson school, and the tennis courts in such close proximity is it even possible? I'm not so sure.

Comment edited by George on 2012-06-09 13:44:58

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By RenaissanceWatcher (registered) | Posted June 09, 2012 at 14:57:21

According to a February 22, 2012 London Free Press article by Norman DeBono titled "Touchdown London? Mustangs turf in Tiger-Cats spotlight", the Tiger-Cats had been in talks with the City of London four months earlier (i.e. October, 2011) about hosting several Ticat games at Western TD Waterhouse Stadium in 2013. http://www.lfpress.com/sports/football/2...

This makes the Ticats' signing of former Western and current CFL standout wide receiver Andy Fantuz to a four year contract through 2015 a move to attract a London football audience as much it was for the Hamilton football fans.

This will also give the Tiger-Cats a London "threat to move" option. The Tiger-Cats' first threat to move in July, 2010 coerced the City of Hamilton to relinquish the main Pan Am athletics stadium (and its share of the interest in the Pan Am Legacy Fund) and later its preferred west harbour location when, in January, 2011, it adopted the joint Bratina/Young "plan" to demolish and rebuild Ivor Wynne Stadium. That "plan" has already added an unforeseen cost to the city of demolishing and relocating Brian Timmis Field. Will the Tiger-Cats use the London "threat to move" card if the City of Hamilton votes against paying the team up to $1.5 Million per game (at which time the team may still be playing some or all of its games in London) if the new stadium is not constructed by July, 2014? Or will they play the London "threat to move" card sometime after 2015 to extract from Hamilton a rewrite of the new Ivor Wynne Stadium lease at a significantly reduced rent because they claim they are not making enough money at the new venue? Time will tell.

Comment edited by RenaissanceWatcher on 2012-06-09 15:00:08

Permalink | Context

By George (registered) | Posted June 09, 2012 at 17:06:23 in reply to Comment 78252

I don't see a London threat.

No viable stadium.

Who is going to pay for a new one?

There was, and is, no alternative site.

The Tiger-Cats were bluffing and the council made a huge mistake by giving in.

I really believe the Tiger-Cats would have been better off if the council called the Tiger-Cats' bluff and they eventually acquiesced to the West Harbour site. Surely IWS is not a better site. They really are missing the boat on Hamilton's resurgence.

Comment edited by George on 2012-06-09 17:18:46

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By bobby1 (anonymous) | Posted June 09, 2012 at 15:24:00

Wow,where did a bunch of these comments come from when the topic is Ticats & where they will play next season???
As for Bob Young,when you want to play hardball,expect one of the other teams to throw you a curve ball!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By CaptainKirk (anonymous) | Posted June 09, 2012 at 23:27:36

Ottawa St. can be connected to IWS? How? And why hasn't it been for the last several decades?

Ottawa St. is perpendicular to the path to IWS and for all of its charm, it is not an entertainment area and is about 1.4km away. "Let's go to Gilberts Used Tires before the game, and afterwards we can go to Barber's commercial kitchen equipment suppliers."

James St N., is 4 blocks or 450m away form the WH site which is only 850m or so away form Hess Village.

WH is part of the waterfront which is the most beautiful part of the city. A part of town that would have gone a long way in promoting to national television audiences for decades to come the beauty of the city of Hamilton, something that IWS works against. Not only is the waterfront a great destination, but it is going to undergo further development.

With all due respect Kiely, I think you're way off on this one.



Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Woody10 (registered) | Posted June 09, 2012 at 23:39:37

Just think, none of these decisions or discussions would be taking place if bob young had been a man of his word and our council smart enough to stand up to him. It's still unbelievable to most logical people. In five years he'll be gone and we'll be stuck with the wrong stadium in the wrong area.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By TB (registered) - website | Posted June 10, 2012 at 07:49:33

Thank god Bob Young fumbled the ball on the west harbour idea. It would have been a crime to waste that site on a football stadium. We need someone with the vision to create something along the lines of Chicago's Millennium Park. It was 25 acres of brownfield, parking lots and railroad tracks. Look at it now:

http://explorechicago.org/city/en/millen...

Permalink | Context

By George (registered) | Posted June 10, 2012 at 09:29:50 in reply to Comment 78275

Soldier Field, home of the Chicago Bears is adjacent to Millennium Park.

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ix=...

WH is a perfect place for a stadium, along side Bayfront park and the rest of the waterfront.

Comment edited by George on 2012-06-10 09:45:54

Permalink | Context

By ScreamingViking (registered) | Posted June 10, 2012 at 18:03:37 in reply to Comment 78277

Grant Park, actually (which Millennium is a part of)

Chicago's waterfront, north and south of downtown, is a lesson in preserving prime land for public use. It's what Toronto's could have been before the wall of condos.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted June 10, 2012 at 21:48:11 in reply to Comment 78285

Chicago's waterfront is incredible. We'll never get anything remotely close to that here - it takes vision and planning.

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted June 12, 2012 at 05:46:39 in reply to Comment 78289

So when are you stepping up to run for office? I hear a lot of talk coming from you, but no action.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By TreyS (registered) | Posted June 10, 2012 at 16:45:15

WH is a perfect place for mixed-use, high density residential and retail, it should be a village down there. Not a stadium. Once the rail yards are gone and the land is cleaned, which is going to happen in our lifetime.

Permalink | Context

By TB (registered) - website | Posted June 10, 2012 at 20:09:59 in reply to Comment 78281

The rails don't have to go, in fact they can eventually provide for high speed public transit. They just need to be covered in the same way as in Chicago. Millennium Park is actually a huge roof garden covering parking lots and a railway station.

Permalink | Context

By George (registered) | Posted June 10, 2012 at 17:02:24 in reply to Comment 78281

Yes, mixed use is great! Plenty of room for stadium, residential and retail.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mb (registered) | Posted June 10, 2012 at 22:37:21

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.

Comment edited by mb on 2012-06-10 22:38:41

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mb (registered) | Posted June 10, 2012 at 23:06:44

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 Realitycheck (anonymous) | Posted June 11, 2012 at 07:24:16 in reply to Comment 78291

Congratulations to mb for being the first person on this thread to demonstrate the correct use of dramatic irony.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted June 11, 2012 at 08:30:58 in reply to Comment 78294

In this melodrama, the audience knows that the shock and surprise experienced by Bob Young and Scott Mitchell at McMaster suddenly pulling out after months of positive negotiations parallels the shock and surprise experienced by Hamiltonians after Young and Mitchell did exactly the same thing to the City. Their evident lack of self-awareness here is so archetypal a case of dramatic irony as to be almost canonical.

Permalink | Context

By realitycheck (anonymous) | Posted June 11, 2012 at 10:58:15 in reply to Comment 78297

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 fern (anonymous) | Posted June 11, 2012 at 12:01:29

mayor bratina ways in http://mayorbratina.com/2012/06/11/tiger-cats-and-mcmaster/

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By RenaissanceWatcher (registered) | Posted June 12, 2012 at 08:14:01

Here is the link to an article by Steve Milton titled "Cohon mystified by Mac's stance" on thespec.com today. CFL Commissioner http://www.thespec.com/sports/ticats/art...

In August, 2010, Cohon sent this letter to then Mayor Eisenberger in support of an east mountain stadium site: http://raisethehammer.org/article/1136/c...

In today's article, Milton quotes Cohon: "The philosophy of the club is to try to keep it close to the fans for 2013."

This was not the case in mid-January, 2011. The Tiger-Cats had two stadium location options: the west harbour or the Ivor Wynne Stadium rebuild jointly announced by Bob Young and Mayor Bratina through a National Post press conference withno prior consultation with city council or the larger commuity. The west harbour option would have allowed the Tiger-Cats to play all of its games at the old Ivor Wynne Stadium until the new west harbour stadium was ready. The Ivor Wynne Stadium rebuild option has put the City of Hamilton, McMaster University and the Ticats themselves into a massive pickle.

Comment edited by RenaissanceWatcher on 2012-06-12 08:19:45

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By irony (anonymous) | Posted June 12, 2012 at 12:00:33

Irony would be McMaster's stated reasons for not hosting the Ticat games being the same reasons the Ticats used to dismiss the Tiffany site. A further irony is that the most vocal WH proponents agree with Mac's decision

Permalink | Context

By Scheherazade (anonymous) | Posted June 12, 2012 at 12:42:25 in reply to Comment 78386

Enjoying a little schadenfreude isn't the same as agreeing with Mac's decision. Fact is I don't give a crap one way or the other any more. Bob Young and Scott Mitchell stamped out any feelings I had for their team.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By chris angel (registered) | Posted June 14, 2012 at 04:41:13

If it is any consolation to the many RTH posters any deal for a stadium at the WH site was a long way from being a done deal even with the support of Bob Young and the Ti-Cats. Talk about drama, the way this is portrayed by some on this thread is breathtaking. The Ti-ats and Bob Young torpedoed a once in a multi generational opportunity!!! Surely ALL the financing would just have fallen into place in the necessary time frame. Every Hamiltonian is / was as single minded about this issue that they would have supported the depletion of the Futures Fund. Really I doubt it on both counts. Time to get over it and get on with it. This is one of the longer threads I have seen in the June 8th publication and outside of a deeply troubled posters brief hijack this has been a celebration of defeat. If it were the defeat of evil celebration would be in order but this just feels like petty grudge holders cheering when their strawman stumbles. That will not Raise The Hammer.

Permalink | Context

By highwater (registered) | Posted June 14, 2012 at 09:39:12 in reply to Comment 78501

Yeah, sometimes we're petty. So what? We're human. You know what else won't raise the hammer? Wagging your finger like a school marm at a group of otherwise very active and engaged citizens who are enjoying a moment of very human, very understandable schadenfreude before getting back to the daily drudgery of trying to make our communities a better place.

Permalink | Context

By Chris Angel (registered) | Posted August 30, 2012 at 12:18:59 in reply to Comment 78515

Well of course Highwater please by all means continue being petty then. Who needs personal growth especially when it threatens cherished beliefs. Sorry to interrupt your pity party, go back to creating straw men and other simple exercises in futility.

I don't know why I thought this was a forum for more than just a small group of "engaged citizens". When is the wedding by the way? Will it be an open bar or will kool-aid only be served?

Speaking of school marms I am shocked that no one stepped forward to criticize either the spelling or grammar in my original post. That is the usual first line of defence when one of "the engaged citizens" detects a post that does not conform with the views held by said group. I will look for you to jump in next time this tactic is employed. Unless of course your comment is as totally hypocritical as I strongly suspect.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By RenaissanceWatcher (registered) | Posted June 16, 2012 at 20:26:13

The May 28, 2012 Stadium Precinct Subcommittee report will be presented at the Hamilton GIC meeting on June 20, 2012. http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/4CB5...

A few highlights of the report are listed below:

  1. The RFP for the stadium closed on May 22, 2012.

  2. The winning stadium design bid will be made on August 17, 2012.

  3. The public will be informed of the winning stadium bid on September 26, 2012.

  4. Details of the two stadium designs not selected by Infrastructure Ontario will not be released to the public.

  5. Co-chair Morelli commented that “…there will be ongoing public meetings on the issue to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to express their ideas and be involved in the process.”

  6. Mayor Bratina asked for clarification that the “City of Hamilton’s financial commitment is still capped at $45 Million“. and staff responded that this is correct.

  7. A proposed capital budget of $2.82 Million to hire a Director, Manager, Administrator and communications Officer and a proposed business plan budget of $1.49 Million from 2012 through 2015 for the Hamilton part of the Pan Am Games.

And now, a few observations.

On January 31, 2011, Hamilton city council, with its feet held to the fire by Bob Young, Mayor Bratina and Toronto 2015, voted to spend up to $60 Million (the figure was not capped at $45 Million) to build the new Pan Am stadium at the Ivor Wynne Stadium site instead of the originally preferred west harbour site. No public consultation occurred prior to that vote. http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/F7A1...

On October 21, 2011, the three stadium design bidders paid a visit to Hamilton. No public consultation occurred prior to or during their visit. http://www.thespec.com/news/article/6128...

On May 22, 2012, the RFP on the new stadium closed. The three bidders’ stadium designs have been finalized. They cannot be changed until after Infrastructure Ontario chooses the winning stadium design on August 17, 2012.

The upshot of all of this is that the Hamilton community, other than a few city representatives and Bob Young, were given no opportunity “to express their ideas and be involved in the process” before the stadium design bid competition ended despite contributing up to $60 Million (44%) of the stadium cost. A stadium design with no prior public consultation will be imposed on the Hamilton community on August 17, 2012 and announced on September 26, 2012. Stadium construction will commence in December, 2012. Any local input between now and then will consist of tweaking the stadium design imposed on the Hamilton community. It will be a bit like choosing the colour of the walls of the kitchen in a house design you did not select on a lot you were coerced to build upon whilst paying 44% of the total cost. If this type of experience happened to consumers in the housing market in Ontario or elsewhere in Canada, the media and government officials would be calling out the project manager. In this case, the project manager, Infrastructure Ontario, is getting a free pass from the media and government officials on the Hamilton Pan Am Stadium debacle. Why?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By billsmith80 (registered) | Posted June 16, 2012 at 21:48:40

"Infrastructure Ontario, is getting a free pass from the media and government officials on the Hamilton Pan Am Stadium debacle. Why?"

That's an easy one. Because if you took everyone's opinion into account all the time you would never get anything built anywhere. This is Infrastructure Ontario's process because it works. And I/O does it this way everywhere all the time. Nothing special about the Pan Am Stadium.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By RenaissanceWatcher (registered) | Posted June 17, 2012 at 08:39:11

billsmith80

We are now almost eighteen months into the Ivor Wynne Stadium rebuild project and the residents in the surrounding neighbourhoods have not even been informed by Infrastructure Ontario whether the stadium configuration will be east-west or north-south nor have they been afforded any input. You may see the Infrastructure Ontario handling of the Hamilton Pan Am stadium file as a success so far. My view is that there has been disgracefully poor communication and planning by Infrastructure Ontario with the neighbourhoods surrounding the new stadium to date. We'll just agree to disagree on this issue.

Comment edited by RenaissanceWatcher on 2012-06-17 09:18:30

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Woody10 (registered) | Posted July 25, 2012 at 14:32:17

Funny how there's usually some public consulatation on large projects (Red Hill, City Hall, Library etc.) with big draft plan pictures and boards.

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