Comment 42908

By mystoneycreek (registered) - website | Posted July 07, 2010 at 15:08:18

Fascinating. I've been wondering why this site was never an option. This stadium facility -in one form or another- has been there since 1930...when it was built for the British Empire Games.

I'm curious about the counter-arguments, the noise, etc... Um, don't these fall on the side of the argument that says the stadium should be 'somewhere out there', away from residential development...which is entirely contrary to the notion of a 'downtown' facility? To me, this sees ANY urban stadium as a negative. So maybe the discussion ends there. (I'm still a little confused about the transit negatives; Barton is within walking distance, Main, too... And wouldn't this be on the LRT route?)

Let's suppose for a second that the Ti-Cats had said 'What we'd like to do is use the 'superproperty' of IVS and Scott Park as the backdrop for the new stadium. We'd like to develop the area in a community-use sense -some green space, some recreational facilities in addition to building the facility that we need, and that the Pan Am Games need.' What then?

Sorry, I'm a little stuck on the bit that suggests that this Hamilton fixture that's been around for the better part of a century effectively needs to go. What if, on another speculative tangent, it has been 'revitalized' ten years ago, and was capable of hosting the events for the Games. (With some modification, let's suppose.) What then?

It's interesting; so much talk about 'bad change' (the general loss of the downtown, the specific loss of The Century, the presumed loss of The Connaught, etc), and yet we're so eager to strip away something that has defined Hamilton for so many favour of a business decision that is proving to be incredibly contentious.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools