Tim Hortons Field | 40m | ? | Complete

[crhayes]

Your concerns are legitimate up to this point, but seriously, poor transit? Like we couldn't possibly improve it in time for the games? Not to mention that the only real 'connections' to the airport or Confederation Park are by car, which means more land taken up with parking lots that will remain empty and useless most days of the year, and the built-in obsolescence of car dependence.



Surely this also includes the long term benefits to the city. We're going to be investing big bucks either way. Doesn't it make sense to invest it in something that has the best chance of improving the quality of life in this city after the games are over? There is no way you can argue that the airport or Confederation Park options will bring anything in the way of spin-off development. The age of the suburban stadium is over. The true cost of servicing and maintaining an auto-dependent stadium far from existing infrastructure, when we no longer have access to cheap energy, must be part of this 'scrutiny'.

Highwater, there are two separate and intertwining issues here. We can talk about what is best for the city, both now and in the future, but we also have to consider how much it is going to cost. Somewhere there is an optimal cost-benefit ratio; that is what many of these studies aim to find.

The city, province, and federal governments do not have an unlimited amount of money to spend. We have set budgets and they have already been pretty clearly defined. Any cost that is incurred through remediation of a preferred site or in preparation for construction, whether it is the PERFECT location or not, is inherently going to detract from the funds available for the venue itself. Hence there is a tradeoff; pick the best location, spend money on remediation and have a worse venue, OR, pick a different and comparable site that has fewer costs involved in preparation for construction and have a better venue overall.

I am not supporting a suburban stadium; however it seems pretty obvious to me that there should be a second urban option, comparable to the waterfront location, considered in case the costs associated with remediation of the waterfront location are too great. In saying that, it seems Bratina is the only one with his head screwed on tight. Speaking hypothetically, but this is a possibility, what happens when they find out remediation of the site is going to cost $50 million dollars and they haven't considered any other urban options? That's approximately a third of the budget! The city will realize it's way out of their budget to clean up the land, realize they haven't looked at any comparable options, and the likelihood of defaulting to the airport lands increases.

[realcity]

How else are we going to ever clean up this massive piece of land? This is a perfect opportunity that shouldn't be missed.

Exactly Steel.

Do we leave it as a city-owned contaminated brownfield then? Maybe Queens Park will come and clean it for us and locate Google there.


Have tailgates at the Wilson and John parking oasis and then shuttle the drunk asses to the waterfront and back. The bus trip would make it even more eventful. A Tail gate special area could be tented off. I know guys that have gone to Bills games and never left the Tailgate party for the game.... I wasn't one of them. But the parties are that good.

[realcity]

okay lets just put 30,000 metal bleachers in the middle of a farm field and chalk off the area before each game.

[crhayes]

Exactly Steel.
"It's a swamp land". But somehow a bazilion tons of CN rail cars aren't sinking into the swamp. EvenSo, so what if it needs 'pillars' whatever? Build them then.

You can't assume that because the CN yard is fine adjacent lands are automatically suitable for construction. This is why studies are conducted and decisions are made based upon the results.


Do we leave it as a city-owned contaminated brownfield then? Maybe our fairy Queens Park godmother will come and clean it for us and locate Google there.

This is very disappointing coming from Bratina.

"It's a swamp land". But somehow a bazilion tons of CN rail cars aren't sinking into the swamp. EvenSo, so what if it needs 'pillars' whatever? Build them then.

Traffic access my ass. Run Shuttles. Mass transit. Ivor Wynne functions and that's even worse traffic access.

Have tailgates at the Wilson and John parking oasis and then shuttle the drunk asses to the waterfront and back. The bus trip would make it even more eventful. A Tail gate special area could be tented off. I know guys that have gone to Bills games and never left the Tailgate party for the game.... I wasn't one of them. But the parties are that good.

Realcity, you have good ideas but remember things are easier said than done. Anyone can blindly propose a myriad of ideas that would turn this city around in a heartbeat, but where is the money coming from? Money talks, bullshit walks. You are assuming that the city can come up with money at the drop of a hat to fund all of these proposals; it can't. If it could, don't you think we'd see a staggering amount of change throughout the city? In fact, if it had that kind of money how would the city have even become as derelict as it is?

[SteelTown]

Consider Burlington stadium: Young
Urges stadium planners to 'think outside the box'

November 13, 2009
John Kernaghan
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/671988

Ticat owner Bob Young says a Burlington site could be an option for the Pan Am Games stadium.

"I'd have no problem with Aldershot," he said yesterday in urging Pan Am planners to "think outside the box" on stadium locations.

"Maybe there is a site we haven't considered that will make the most economic sense."

Young added that "winning the Pan Am bid is going to almost look easy" compared to getting the facilities located and built.

The Aldershot site he identified is southwest of Waterdown Road and Hwy. 403, where GO and Via stations are located and a new highway interchange is planned.

The Pan Am stadium would host athletics for the 2015 Games, then become home to the Tiger-Cats if the club and other private sources can come up with $50 million to take the 15,000-seat facility to 25,000 seats.

Hamilton council has named the west harbour site near Bay and Barton streets as its preferred location, but the city will consider business cases for various sites, including Confederation Park, Hamilton airport and a downtown site.

"I'm OK with any site, as long as it makes sense economically over the long term," Young said.

Sources close to the Toronto 2015 bid claim a corporation was willing to come up with $25 million for naming rights for the stadium, but not at the west harbour site identified in the bid document.

While Young is still excited at Friday's Pan Am win and businessman David Braley, an early proponent of the bid, is "higher than I usually get," the reality of Games' development is a sobering backdrop.

Often, venues change location and even city from the bid plans to the final product. Vancouver 2010 is a prime example, with the skating oval originally slated for Burnaby ending up in Richmond.

That's a $180-million jewel that will become a huge sports excellence, recreation and wellness centre after the Games in February.

But if Hamilton fumbles this hand-off, Pan Am sources say two nearby municipalities would be eager to step up.

When the city's part in the bid was first pitched, Braley said if city council did not step up, the stadium would go elsewhere "so fast your head will spin."

He believes that threat is still there but the philanthropist is determined to keep Hamilton's piece of the pie and maybe even make it bigger.

Braley began working quietly on the concept of a regional Games four years ago and sat on the bid board as the federal representative.

[highwater]

Thanks, Bratina! :hell:

[Berklon]

They're going to screw this up, I just know it.

[realcity]

Keep debating the location and it will be built in Burlington

I just feel like quoting myself....


They will screw this up

[realcity]

"Young added that "winning the Pan Am bid is going to almost look easy" compared to getting the facilities located and built."

[SteelTown]

We'll get the stadium one way or another. We already have the money and majority of councilors support the waterfront location. All of this location stuff is just wasted air to talk about. Worried about cost overrun? Bill it to the province, they are responsible for cost overrun of the 2015 Pan Am Games.

[FairHamilton]

That's Young's shot to say don't look to him to provide $$ for the extra seating.

[realcity]

good point.... "private sector $" yeah right.... just like our private sector can build a hotel downtown.

[crhayes]

This seems like it's just another example of the media spinning a story negatively in order to stir up controversy.

[hamiltonguy]

I don't thank we should blame Bob Bratina for suggesting we need to do due diligence regarding possible sites.

However, Bob Young on the other hand.:hell:

If we loose the cats to Burlington, then they've lost at least one fan.

And as soon as I can, the city will have lost yet another resident.

[bigguy1231]

In defense of Bob Young, that was only one of six locations that he mentioned to the writer in the interview. The writer chose not to mention the other five in the article.

Bob Young was on CHML this morning and basically said the articles writer was just stiring up the pot to sell newspapers. He was just happy to be getting a new stadium no matter where it was built.

[adam]

Hamilton is a great city and deserves a better newspaper. Someone needs to start "The Hamilton Downtowner" or similar...

[SteelTown]

Love today's MacKay cartoon on the Spec, Sam Merulla as the Grinch.

[hamiltonguy]

In defense of Bob Young, that was only one of six locations that he mentioned to the writer in the interview. The writer chose not to mention the other five in the article.

Bob Young was on CHML this morning and basically said the articles writer was just stiring up the pot to sell newspapers. He was just happy to be getting a new stadium no matter where it was built.

Ah well then I reserve the :hell: for if and only if the ticats move.

[highwater]

Highwater, there are two separate and intertwining issues here. We can talk about what is best for the city, both now and in the future, but we also have to consider how much it is going to cost. Somewhere there is an optimal cost-benefit ratio; that is what many of these studies aim to find.

I realize that. My concern is that these studies will not take into consideration the real cost of a suburban stadium such as lost revenue from decreased economic spin offs, as well as long term unsustainability, and will only look at short term costs such as site remediation. I think my concerns are legitimate given this city's history.

I am not supporting a suburban stadium; however it seems pretty obvious to me that there should be a second urban option, comparable to the waterfront location, considered in case the costs associated with remediation of the waterfront location are too great. In saying that, it seems Bratina is the only one with his head screwed on tight.

This is why I was only critical of the Confederation Park and Airport options. I am fine with SJAM as a back up. Unfortunately Bratina clearly wants Confederation and the Airport to remain on the table, either of which would be a disaster for Hamilton.

[BCTed]

There is no reason for runaway costs for the Pan Am games if we do our planning intelligently. The University of Akron just opened their new 30,000 seat stadium in September, built at a cost of $61 million dollars. I would be doing all residents of the City, not just those in Ward 2, if I did not demand the highest level of scrutiny in developing our Pan Am Games plan.

The Akron stadium is 100% bench seating ---- I would much prefer to avoid locking Hamilton into another 50 years of that.

[bornagainbiking]

I don't know about you but this has plenty of merit.
look at it as a double venue option, it would be a definate selling point.
Just think:
Kitty corner to Copps for heaven forbid a Grey cup game or NFL game. Use the Jumbo tron as a Overflow site;
Parking there is alot of parking for the downtown and Hamilton Convention not to mention City Hall, so if a game was on a weekend or at night plenty of parking;
Hotel access, just think incorporate a walkway from jackson Square (like the Fallsview Hilton over to the Fallsview casino)or {the Sheraton at the airport in Toronto} and you would have the Sheraton connected. Heck if the new Hotel was built at Bay and Main/King you could see into the stadium from the upper rooms and maybe a luonge or restaurant up there. Most downtown hotels would be a casual stroll within eyesight of the stadium. So visitors with game packages would be parked at their hotel.
Transportation minutes from Hub and if you were to incorporate loading lanes on Bay, Cannon and York you would have plenty of bar bus or social event connectors;
Downtown business: This is even better than the waterfront. who would benefit, well just think Front street near the ACC. Hess village Jackson Square (a pre-game place to wander and grab a bite at the farmers market, coffee shops or several pubs {Walts, Honest Lawyer, Cottage Life}). Not to mention new activity on James from Wilson to Barton.
Existing traffic access. Well it is alot easier to drive straight down Cannon onto the 403 ramps (Guelph) or Plains road to Burlington or York/Wilson to Burlington Street than getting out of a basic residential area at the West harbour. There would have to be some thought into getting traffic smoothly onto the 403 to Brantford. Remember it is only a little over an hour to London so this market can be tapped as to get in and out of the downtown is easier than getting to Ivor Wynne.
The area may be small but go up. Also one downside of any waterfront arena is the wind off the water Brrrrrrrr
The Waterfront would be great and better than what we have and the airport is just anti downtown or commerce. Also force people to drive there.
Turn the Watrfont property into a park with a walking bridge to the waterfront over the RR tracks. This would be better for events like Aqua fest, wing fest walkathons and the fireworks on 1st of July. You could use the parking lot for the pre-game tailgate area with a path thru Central park to the arena.
Just think of a sports weekend catch a Bullsdog game and a TiCat game in 2 days. Hotel, teams and torutism package.
Finacially a bigger return to the city and especially business in the core!!!!!!!! Maybe put the Connaught back in the running as it is so close to the arena.
What about a first rate Soccer team with world cup fever and How well Toronto FC is doing this is a great location with a bigger stadium.
So go SJAM
It just looks a bit small but it would only be the arena as some of the adminitrative funstions could be at Copps, HECFI or jackson Square.
As an added bonus it there not a heating plant at SJAM.

[realcity]

good points. but won't amenities start appearing along Bay towards downtown? The west harbour location can begin to seed our bush leaque waterfront.

Marine Discovery.... has anyone been there? Should turn that into public housing.

THE HOTEL... we only have like one, two downtown now... The Plaza is barely solvent. A hotel at the water makes sense to me.

Transportation and parking can be handled with shuttle busses. which is not unlike NFL Games. Plenty of Parking at Wilson and John and Rebecca.

The waterfront is nothing but a park. I'd like to see more commercial, and condos. More park does nothing. Aquafest is gone isn;'t it for years now?

[SteelTown]

I'm not in favour of an open air stadium right in the downtown core area. You think Hess Village is problem? HA!

[SteelTown]

The Hall of Fame would like the opportunity to talk to Council in regards to a motion passed by the Hall of Fame Board to

“Investigate the move of the Canadian Football Hall of Fame and Museum to the new stadium site subject to final approval of the location, design and space for the Hall".

[realcity]

Doesn't BMO Field look very similar to our stadium?

http://celtickorea.com/xe/files/attach/images/5242/183/006/Toronto-BMO-Field-Soccer-Bleachers-1.jpg

same two decks on one side, one end zone seating, and one flying wing/roof. 20,000 seats.

Ours will have 5,000 more and a slightly larger, flying wing roof

[SteelTown]

Cats support city on new stadium
Will back whatever council chooses

January 13, 2010
John Kernaghan
http://www.thespec.com/Sports/Local%20Sports/article/704326

Tiger-Cats owner Bob Young will back whatever Pan Am Games stadium site the city chooses, wiping out fears the football club and city hall were on a collision course.

“We will make it work, whatever the city decides,” Young said today.

A report on the feasibility of two sites, the West Harbour location near Bay and Barton streets, and one in the airport area around Mount Hope, is expected Feb. 18.

The stadium is identified as a $102-million,15,000-seat stadium for track and field at the 2015 Games, but the city challenged the Ticats and other private partners to come up with $50 million to erect a facility to seat 24,000 to 27,000.

The club’s current home, Ivor Wynne Stadium, is near the end of its life. It costs $1.5 million a year to keep going and would cost almost $100 million to rebuild.

The city is committing $45 million towards the new stadium, while the provincial and federal governments will contribute $57 million.

Young has said the football club would donate “in the millions” to the project.

The Ticats owner has indicated a preference for a site at Confederation Park in the past, but city council voted that location off the table.

[realcity]

Even Confed Park is far better then the stupid airport site.

[highwater]

Can't think of anything worse than the airport. I'd rather see the damn thing in Burlington.

[SteelTown]

'Build it, we'll play in it'
Cats owner backs any site city picks for stadium

January 14, 2010
John Kernaghan
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/704705

The Tiger-Cats are behind whatever Pan Am Games stadium site the city chooses, says club owner Bob Young.

Young's commitment wipes out fears the football club and city hall were on a collision course over the stadium location.

"We will make it work, whatever the site," Young said yesterday.

A report on the feasibility of two sites, the west harbour location near Bay and Barton streets, and one in the airport area around Mount Hope, is expected Feb. 18.

Young said the site selection will create some controversy, "but that will be short-lived" and everyone will move on.

The stadium is identified as a $102-million, 15,000-seat stadium for track and field at the 2015 Games, but the city has challenged the Ticats and other private partners to come up with $50 million to erect a facility of 24,000 to 27,000 seats as the new home of the Cats.

The club's home, Ivor Wynne Stadium, is near the end of its life. It costs $1.5 million a year to keep going and would cost almost $100 million to totally rebuild.

The city is committing $45 million toward the new stadium, while the provincial and federal governments will contribute $57 million.

Young has said the football club would donate "in the millions" to the project.

Yesterday, he pointed to the urgency in getting a stadium project up and running.

He's hoping for a facility that will best serve both the city and the Tiger-Cats.

Young has been meeting with prominent city business people about the stadium development. That includes Tom Weisz, the CEO of Effort Trust and chairperson of the city's Future Fund, who is a strong proponent of the west harbour site.

Hamilton's commitment of $60 million to the 2015 Games will come from the Future Fund.

Weisz believes the west harbour location best fits the fund's mandate of making a dramatic change to the face of the city through increased prosperity and enhanced community life.

Young's vote of confidence came as the 2015 host corporation board prepared for its first meeting today. Businessman David Braley, Hamilton's representative on the board, said he hopes it can get to work soon to identify a CEO and review plans for the $1.4-billion Games and billion-dollar athlete's village.

[calvinkool]

The fact that they are still even considering the airport location makes me very angry.

[holymoly]

The fact that they are still even considering the airport location makes me very angry.

Me too. What are they thinking?!!

[SteelTown]

Fresh renderings that council will soon debate about the location.....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v174/Appster/stadiumvel.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v174/Appster/stadium2.jpg

[realcity]

wow that bottom one is awesome. I'm glad it has two 'wings' now.

I wouldn't mind if this was on Lake Ontario. I think that could be a different type of waterfront. It could easily be built up with highrises and commercial, and with a break water, some sweet marinas could be built, a break wall connecting with the trail. It has a real beach, close to the QEW, it could really compete with Burlington's waterfront just over the Skyway.

But that won't happen because of one person. Chad Collins. How is that democratic?

[markk]

Does anyone know when this decision about location has to be made? I can't believe the airport is still in the running.

[SteelTown]

Feb. 18th.

[realcity]

same time as Metrolink? Feb 19

[SteelTown]

Yep it's going to be a busy week.

[highwater]

Yep it's going to be a busy week.

Only if Metrolinx actually comes through. I'm not holding my breath.

[SteelTown]

It'll come through. If it didn't they would already announced that it'll be delayed yet again. People seem to forget that GO Transit and Metrolinx just merged together and wiped out the entire committee board. They are now looking for a new President. It takes time to adjust from all that and keep a multi-billion dollar crown corporation afloat.

The important part is to get this out before the provincial budget in March. Right now the province is reviewing all funding applications, we're working on a major one for McMaster. We've been practicing for the Q&A session from the ministry.

[SteelTown]

If you look North of the warm up track you can see a temporary GO Train station. White hut and big green letters, probably saying GO Transit.

[Gurnett71]

If you look North of the warm up track you can see a temporary GO Train station. White hut and big green letters, probably saying GO Transit.

What happened to the beautiful railyard :haha: to the north of the stadium/velodrome complex? Thought that there were some issues (cost and NIMBY) in trying to relocate the yard to Aldershot.

Wasn't there a proposal out there for that land that would see medium density housing (townhomes) and piazzas being built if the rail yard was moved?

[calvinkool]

Why is the location even up for debate again? I thought the waterfront location had already been chosen. I cannot even fathom how angry I will be if they decide to move it on to the mountain, this is a no brainer...

[SteelTown]

Chamber likes stadium by lake
Business group backs harbour site for Pan Am facility

February 11, 2010
John Kernaghan
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/720015

The voice of city businesses is trumpeting the west harbour as the best site for the Pan Am Games stadium.

The Hamilton Chamber of Commerce will flesh out that position next week as city councillors review an analysis of that site and an airport lands location.

Yesterday's recommendation came a day before a consultant's report on the feasibility of both sites was to be made public.

Chamber president Ruth Liebersbach said the west harbour is compelling for many reasons, including the symbolic aspect of building a signature facility to show the face of the city.

"We don't showcase the waterfront enough, and this will attract people locally and across the country."

Liebersbach said the chamber, which represents more than 2,000 businesses, seemed almost unanimous in backing the site near Bay and Barton streets.

The Pan Am stadium will stage track and field for the 2015 Games and also serve as home of the Tiger-Cats if the football club and private sector can come up with $50 million to add 10,000 seats to the 15,000 required for the Games.

Hamilton chamber CEO John Dolbec said his comments to councillors at the February 18 meeting will focus on how stadium development, in concert with other waterfront development, would help animate the lower city year-round and be a "shot in the arm for badly needed downtown revitalization."

Dolbec said the facility would build on parkland and trail initiatives to foster a dynamic waterfront to serve all Hamiltonians. But the chamber notes land contamination, proximity to a rail yard, parking and access to the stadium are challenges that need to be overcome.

The organization's position on the airport lands is that they would be better used for transportation and logistics companies geared to the airport.

[realcity]

I support our "other" waterfront location... the real waterfront. But I'll take this, but be prepared to hear grumblings about parking and accessibility. It won't be from me, im just saying be prepared. Downtown Hamilton is not exactly downtown Toronto.

[coalminecanary]

I think putting it by the lake is a mistake for two big reasons...

1. putting it out by the qew will mean that any and all outsiders will still see hamilton from the skyway view and will continue to not venture into the city. if it is by the bay, more people will come via 403/york which should be the true gateway to the city. if someone wants to go to a major event at the stadium, they are going to go whether it's located by the qew or by the bay.

2. putting it out by the qew wil make it much harder to provide adequate transit links to the stadium, and make it generally more difficult for hamiltonians to attend events.

bayfront location will give us a chance to clean up a small dilapidated area, put on a good face for visitors--show them what our downtown looks like, and will make it accessible to our own residents.

putting it out by the highway means we are pandering to passers-by instead of our own citizens... it would be a lame move.

bayfront all the way....

[realcity]

it's not just by the QEW, it's by our beach strip, waterfront, Confederation park, high level bridge, canal, it could have marinas if a break wall was built. or a pier like Burlington. Hamilton is neglecting it and I don't know why. We're a Great Lake city and our 'waterfront' is slightly bigger then Stratford's. We need to develop the other lakefront too. Im not saying it's because of the highway, im saying it because Chicago, Toronto, Cleveland and most all Great Lake cities are built up along the Lake.

Our "QEW Waterfront" is no different then Toronto's waterfront hemmed in by the same QEW. I resent that it's only identified by the highway. Trying to hide the factories from people doesn't make them go away.

[realcity]

We also will have a pedestrian bridge built over the highway for anyone who wants to ride their bike to a Ticats game.

It's not pandering to passer-bys, although out-of-town money would be good for our economy.

[coalminecanary]

All valid points about the lakefront being underutilized, but the fact is the stadium WILL be a draw to events hosted there, no matter where we place it. In my opinion, we are much better off to put it near downtown so people are drawn there instead of at the very edge of city limits, where no visitors will actually come into the city before or after their event.

A stadium downtown means that spectators can make a day out of the event at any time of year. That's simply not the case at confederation park.

Our lakefront is COMPLETELY different from Toronto's. Our city was built on the bay, not on the lake. Our downtown is close to the Bay, Toronto's is close to the Lake. Hamilton just happens to stretch out far enough to touch the lake as well as the bay. Hamilton itself is on the bay whether you like it or not!

Putting our stadium by the lake would be akin to toronto putting in a stadium on lake ontario -- but putting it at samuel smith park (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=Colonel+Samuel+Smith+Park,+Toronto,+Toronto+Division,+Ontario,+Canada&sll=43.575168,-79.512177&sspn=0.164906,0.114841&ie=UTF8&cd=1&geocode=FUg0mQIdJLdC-w&split=0&hq=&hnear=Colonel+Samuel+Smith+Park,+Toronto,+Toronto+Division,+Ontario,+Canada&ll=43.55651,-79.411583&spn=0.329914,0.229683&t=h&z=12)

[coalminecanary]

also - not trying to hide the factories, but trying to put out the idea of encouraging people to travel past them and actually experience our city.

this is something we aren't very good at, and a downtown/bayfront stadium could help with

[oldcoote]

http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/720279

Harbour West recommended for Pan Am Stadium
Consultant says north-Hamiltons ite best

Deloitte Canada has recommended that Hamilton's Pan Am Stadium be built on the West Harbour lands.

The Spectator has learned that the consultant hired to build a business case for turning the Games venue into a stadium appropriate for football has opted for the north-Hamilton site. It would have 24,000-30,000 seats, double the Pan Am plan.

Deloitte recommended the site over another proposal on the south Mountain near the airport.

The West Harbour site is bounded by Queen Stuart, Barton and Tiffany streets.
Need to Know

Size: The stadium can fit into the low-intensity industrial lands south of the rail tracks and north of Barton, although staff raise the possibility that the stadium would need some land south of Barton.

Land use: area is a mix of industry, rail yards and some homes. More study required of noise reduction, sun-shadow analysis, traffic mitigation, urban design.

Legacy: Visibility and location near waterfront and downtown area are assets; could be a case study for brownfield redevelopment.

Clustering: Copps Coliseum is about one kilometre from the site, as are trails and parcels of land for velodrome or other facilities.

Accessibility: Minimal on-site parking and car access due to current road network; but lots of parking downtown, and transit plans include GO trains and rapid transit.

Cost: High upfront capital costs due to land acquisition, remediation and demolition.

- City of Hamilton report

[SteelTown]

HA! Nevermind!

[bigguy1231]

Now lets hope our city council will do the right thing and select the West harbour site as recommended by the report.

[SteelTown]

I haven't heard a single councilor that supports the Airport as a site. Even Merulla who is against the whole Pan Am Games.

[bigguy1231]

I haven't heard a single councilor that supports the Airport as a site. Even Merulla who is against the whole Pan Am Games.

I think they just wanted to be able to say they looked at alternatives. The West harbour site has been the preferred site all along.

[SteelTown]

Stadium site costs set to double

February 12, 2010
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/720781

TOURISM HAMILTON'S executive director David Adames will make recommendations to city council next week about how to acquire properties on a three-block parcel of land in the west harbour where a Pan Am Games stadium has been proposed. A business report says the costs of acquiring and remediating the land could add $10 million to the projected cost.

Pan Am business plan backs west harbour site

The west harbour is the right site for the Pan Am Games stadium, but it will cost at least $10 million more than forecast, a business plan reveals.

The report by consultant Deloitte focuses on development of the site at Bay and Barton and says land acquisition and soil remediation could double the $10 million approved by council last February, sources told The Spectator.

But the bill could run even higher as some privately held properties have not been tested for soil contamination.

The plan, which is available to city councillors today, also lays out ways the city can cover those added costs.

The jump in price didn't deter the Deloitte report from recommending the west harbour over the airport area as representing the best business case for a stadium.

The terms of reference for the Deloitte plan were canted toward the west harbour site, as it was presented as the preferred location.

The terms of reference also noted $10 million "is likely insufficient" and asked Deloitte to examine sources to cover the increased costs.

City council committed to $60 million early last year as its contribution to a $102-million, 15,000-seat stadium and $11.4-million velodrome.

It is expected the business plan will warn tight timelines to meet the scheduling needs of the Toronto 2015 organizers could be compromised by environmental and planning appeals and hearings.

Mayor Fred Eisenberger, who anticipates the Deloitte team will endorse the west harbour, believes the provincial government, as lead partner in the Pan Am initiative, would find ways to speed up proceedings.

Pan Am plans call for almost $700 million in sports infrastructure to be built by July 2014, a year in advance of the Games.

The Deloitte team was also asked to gauge private-sector interest in contributing to a $50-million upgrade needed to increase the stadium to 25,000 to become home to the Tiger-Cats.

Deloitte's business plan goes to city council for consideration Feb. 18 with a blueprint on how to proceed.

Hamilton's stadium plans must be endorsed by the Toronto 2015 management team by the end of the year.

In 2011, Pan Am facilities will be designed, then building contracts awarded, with construction in 2012 and 2013 and completion in July 2014.

A $35-million pool at McMaster and $23-million soccer centre for Burlington are also in the Pan Am blueprint.

U.S. Steel (former Stelco)

Size: 2.71 acres

Use: Vacant

Acquisition status: Recommendations will be made to city council on an acquisition process.

B & M Metal Recycling

Size: 5 acres

Use: Processes copper wire, insulated aluminum and lead cable

Acquisition status: President Kathy Belanger is not commenting until the company hears from the city.

Former Rheem Canada

Size: 4.06 acres

Use: Not in use

Acquisition status: The city purchased the former water-heater plant last year.

Eight homes

Use: Residences

Acquisition status: Recommendations will be made to city council on an acquisition process.

[SteelTown]

Ticats willing to donate millions to 'make it work'

February 12, 2010
Ken Peters
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/720762

The Hamilton Tiger-Cats can't make money at Ivor Wynne Stadium.

So Tiger-Cat president Scott Mitchell fully supports the site selection for a new Pan Am stadium.

Word that a business plan recommends the west harbour site finds Mitchell supportive, if hardly surprised.

"I'm not overly surprised. But I think it's great. I think it is important to clearly come to some consensus. We will work hard to make a business case."

And that is the rub for the Tiger- Cats.

While a new stadium is important, there must be other amenities, such as retail and possibly housing, that ensures the site can make money for the franchise and other private investors from which the city hopes to secure a $50-million investment.

Mitchell said the organization is looking forward to working with the city on making a business case for whatever site is selected.

The three levels of government are committed to paying for a $102-million stadium for the Pan Am Games.

The private sector is being tapped to provide $50 million to expand a 15,000-seat facility to the 25,000 seats needed as a private home for the Tabbies.

Mitchell said it is premature to discuss just how much the Tabbies are prepared to pay.

Ticat owner Bob Young said earlier the CFL club will work with any site.

"We will make it work," he said.

Young said his club would donate "in the millions" to the project.

[SteelTown]

Neighbours torn over site
Concerns over traffic, housing values flagged at meeting

February 12, 2010
Danielle Wong
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/720760

Julie Davidson is willing to move out of the way if a Pan Am Games stadium comes to her neighbourhood.

"Although it's going to cost me living in this house, realistically, I think it would help pull the city, the downtown core, to the bay," Davidson, 48, told The Spectator. "We do need this stadium."

She lives with her husband and daughter in one of eight homes in the middle of a three-block west harbour site being suggested as the best location for a stadium.

Davidson said it would be worth moving if it meant the project would create more greenspace and bring people from outside the city into Hamilton.

But her position is an unpopular one in the west harbour, where many residents are against a stadium in their neighbourhood.

"I've lived here 57 years and my husband has been here 77 years. He has no intention of leaving," Catherine De Luca said. "We're going to chain ourselves to the house."

De Luca, who lives on one of the homes on Barton Street West, between Hess Street North and Caroline Street North, believed the airport would be a better location.

Her opposition was shared by many of the 75 people who attended a meeting hosted by Councillor Bob Bratina last night.

He and others acknowledged the majority there objected to the stadium over such issues as traffic and the site selection process.

Shari Selway, president of the North End Neighbourhood Association, said her group is not supporting the stadium until the city demonstrates how it will make the neighbourhood better.

"I think it's a crazy site," said resident Kathy Pipe, expressing concern it was always a foregone conclusion the stadium would be built there. "This site was the site. Why not just say that?"

Supporters weren't afraid to speak up. Denise Hancock, who said she was a "huge proponent, believed that the fact that only 75 turned out indicated the majority of area residents support the stadium.

Tiffany Street resident Mark Marsdin said earlier yesterday that the city's purchase of the Rheem Canada site has created a "dump" where the water heater plant operated. If he has to move, he believes the depreciated market value of his house would make it difficult to buy a new home.

If his house wasn't expropriated, he's worried a stadium would block the sunlight.

Ed Fisher, owner of Fisher's Pier 4 Grub & Pub, told The Spectator he doesn't know whether the west harbour is the right location, but didn't believe it would "make or break a small businesses like myself." He believed a lot of work needs to be done to transform the area.

"I don't know how that's going to be achieved in such a short time."

[SteelTown]

A different tack on site remediation

February 12, 2010
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/720758

Experts say they can't estimate costs of cleaning up the west harbour stadium site without knowing more about the substances there, but a Hamilton consultant says the city might not have to remove all the contaminants.

Luc Piccioni, a planning consultant specializing in brownfield redevelopment, said the stadium site might be treated like the new parking lot at Hamilton General Hospital, built on the site for a former Stelco nail factory.

That approach involves an assessment, in which a risk calculator determines if the risk of exposure to, or off-site migration of, toxic substances is low enough to leave them in place, perhaps subject to continued monitoring.

"I wouldn't venture to say what might be there (on the stadium site), but it would require remediation to commercial-industrial standards (not as strict as residential)," he said.

Piccioni noted the Giants' stadium in New Jersey was built on swampy landfill.

The west harbour site includes a former Stelco plant, the former Rheem hot water heater plant and a scrapyard. Such uses could leave behind heavy metals, solvents, PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) and other volatile organic compounds, asbestos and any number of other substances. Surface soil would almost certainly have to be replaced and ground water tested to determine the extent of contamination.

Mark Dunn of the Ontario Environment Ministry said the first phase of a site assessment is "where you do a file search and a walk-around, probably the equivalent of kicking the tires a little. That's what Deloitte may have done.

"Phase 2 is where you dig a little, perhaps drill a few test wells and get a handle on the things you might have to address. Phase 3 is where you define the areas needing remediation and remove some of the stuff that needs to go (buildings, stored scrap, etc.)"

He said risk assessment identifies materials that can -- or can't -- be managed on site. Some materials, for example, can be capped and contained safely under a structure. But a stricter standard would apply to a kids' play area.

[SteelTown]

Here's the business plan for the stadium (a busy day, stadium and LRT).....

http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/DC3BBCD6-82D8-45C1-AB04-B2B108A9087B/0/Feb18CM09006brevised.pdf

[SteelTown]

Big Pan Am payback expected

February 13, 2010
John Kernaghan
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/721368

A Pan Am Games stadium on a west harbour site would mean a massive economic gust to revitalize Hamilton's economy, a business plan forecasts.

The draft Deloitte analysis says the city's $60-million investment in sports and recreation infrastructure would result in:

* $214 million in direct and indirect spending during construction of a 25,000-seat facility

* 1,750 jobs during construction

* Up to a $9.9-million annual economic impact from stadium operations after the 2015 Games

* Annual tax revenue of up to $1 million from development at the old Ivor Wynne Stadium site.

"There hasn't been this kind of opportunity in this city in 40 years," Mayor Fred Eisenberger said. "The Pan Am Games are a rare chance to leverage that $60 million to up to $200 million in facilities and connect with other transportation and development initiatives."

Eisenberger said the Deloitte findings are as exciting as winning the bid.

But Councillor Sam Merulla, a persistent critic of city spending, says the documents released yesterday don't show any private-sector partners stepping up to contribute the $50 million necessary to increase the stadium size from 15,000 in the Pan Am bid to 25,000 for the Tiger-Cats football club.

"We're now in a situation of having to make the best of a bad fiscal decision," he said.

Merulla said he has always supported the city subsidizing the Tiger-Cats, but wonders where the CFL team is when it comes to financing the larger facility.

The business plan also laid out a 20,000-seat version of the stadium that could possibly be built for the $102 million budgeted in the Pan Am bid. And it outlined a steep jump in land acquisition and soil remediation costs that are $16 million higher than budgeted.

"Anything of this magnitude will have bumps and hurdles, but the question is, can we afford not to take advantage of it?" Eisenberger said.

The jump from $10 million to $26 million for land and cleanup would take the city's costs up to $76 million, but he said some of that increase may be covered by funding from other government programs.

Eisenberger added the city would face some of those remedial costs anyway, as it owns a large property in the block of land northwest of Bay and Barton streets.

"Otherwise that area just sits there and doesn't get developed."

He pointed out people tend to forget the alternative to a new stadium. That's a $93-million tab to rebuild crumbling Ivor Wynne and the $1.5 million it is costing the city annually to keep it safe and operational.

Eisenberger also noted the Ivor Wynne site in east Hamilton could fetch up to $7 million for the city.

The business plan report and a transportation impact assessment prompted city staff to recommend city council approve the west harbour site for the stadium and an $11.4-million velodrome at a meeting next Thursday.

Council was also urged to direct staff to begin consulting with the province and the Pan Am host corporation regarding budget, timelines and implementation plans.

Hamilton would receive more than $80 million from senior levels of government for the Pan Am facilities if the $35-million pool at McMaster University is included.

And Burlington is in line for a $23-million soccer facility.

[realcity]

now it's only 20,000 seats?


It should be 30,000, minimum 25k. if we want to host Grey Cups ever

[SteelTown]

The business case reviewed three options

Option 1 - 15,000 stadium - $102.3 million
Option 2 - 20,000 stadium - $102.3 million (would not include a range of quantity or quality of amenities)
Option 3 - 25,000 stadium - $152.3 million

Potential stadium financing sources
Naming rights could get $5 million over 10 years
$4.5 - $7.5 from Ivor Wynne's land purchase
Allocation of existing operating support (money going towards IWS) - $7 - $9.85 million
Ticket Surcharge (extra $1 to each ticket) - $4.61 - $5.46 million
Total - $14.11 - $27.81 million

[realcity]

sooooo, what is the City aiming for?

I get it... more studies.

[SteelTown]

The business case is to find a location. It recommends the West Harbourfront. Council on Thursday will vote on the site slection.

[SteelTown]

Proposed Next Steps

The Next Steps outlined below are meant to provide a high level overview of activities related to Hamilton’s participation in the Pan/Parapan Am Games. The Host Corporation will be driving the timeline in many regards and given that it has not yet been established it is difficult to develop a detailed workplan.

TIME DELIVERABLES

Q1 – 2010
• A comprehensive timeline with respect to planning issues and site preparation

Q2 – 2010
• Staff engage in initial Facility Agreement meetings with Host Corporation and Infrastructure Ontario
• Staff consult with Host Corporation and the Province of Ontario on timelines, budget and implementation plans for involvement in the 2015 Pan/Parapan Am Games
• Community and stakeholder consultation and establishment of community working groups

Q3 – 2010

Q4 – 2010

Q1 – 2011
• Host Corporation presents revised business plan to their Board and Ontario and Canada

Q2 – 2011

Q3 – 2011

Q4 – 2011
• Broadcast opportunity during Guadalajara 2011 Pan Am Games to promote Hamilton

Q1 - 2012

Q2 /Q3– 2012
• Construction is targeted to begin

Q3 - 2014
• Construction of all venues is targeted to be complete

Q3/4 - 2014
• New stadium is open
• Possible Test Events in Stadium and Velodrome

Q1/2 - 2015
• Possible Test Events in Stadium and Velodrome

Q3 - 2015
• Venue fit-out and overlay
• Games Opening Ceremonies in Toronto and then Pan Am flame relocates to Hamilton Stadium for the duration of the Pan Am Games
• Pan Am Volleyball, Track Cycling and Athletics competitions
• Parapan Athletics competition

[Bob Bratina]

After reviewing the documents related to a Pan Am Stadium site selection, I have to declare my total opposition to a West Harbour Site, and the creation of a "Stadium Entertainment Precinct". The site preparation costs look to be as much as $43 million dollars PRIOR to construction, and the notion that it can only work by cannibalizing existing bars and restaurants, especially Downtown is beyond ridiculous.

This exercise began simply to replace Ivor Wynne Stadium. The only reasonable approach for the tax-payers of this City is to locate that stadium on City-owned property, near existing major transportation corridors, and preferably not contaminated. Such sites exist. Such an approach would save the millions of dollars estimated for land purchase, demolition, and site clean-up.

[SteelTown]

I guess we found a councillor that supports the Airport site for a stadium.

[drpgq]

You've just lost my Ward 2 vote. Truly pathetic and backward thinking. Yeah, let's put it by a highway, because that's what every city is doing now. I hope your pandering to a small segment of your ward backfires.

[Berklon]

Very short-sighted and backwards thinking.

I'd rather have no new stadium than one located near the airport.

[emge]

WOW. I have to hope someone hacked into Councillor Bratina's account.

I usually support him, but that stance is completely indefensible.

[Bob Bratina]

Familiarize yourself with the documentation, and the agenda that is being presented. There are a great many Ward 2 residents who favour this site, and I have not objected at any time to its being considered.

We now see the realities with respect to cost, and sustainability. The business case makes a whole group of assumptions, including professional soccer. It also calls for $500,000 annual contribution to Capital Reserves. If you're familiar with City business you'll know that the annual deficit for infrastructure maintenance is $145 million dollars, giving our roads and facilities a grading of D minus.

The population of Hamilton as stated in the Consultants report is growing at well below the Provincial rate...2.9 per cent vs 4.6, and in the lower City, in actual decline. The question has to be asked, how can we support a "stadium entertainment precinct" and not harm existing Downtown businesses? Read the report.

The hidden agenda includes the expenditure of over 80 million dollars to enhance the West Harbour area. Most visitors will tell you that except for perhaps a couple of restaurants or other affordable amenities, that area is functioning very well. The only situation that needs capital investment at this time is a deteriorating retaining wall near the Marine Police basin.

I have to simply dismiss the knee-jerk negative responses above, because those individuals have no clue as to what is contained in the Deloitte-Touche and Gowlings documentation. The Deloitte Touche information is available on the City of Hamilton Website under City Government/ agendas/ Committee of the Whole/ February 18th. The Gowlings document is still confidential, but I don't see anything in that which in my opinion should be held back from the public, especially the site preparation costs which total as much as $43 million dollars PRIOR to construction. Arguments will be made that this figure can be significantly lowered by avoiding full remediation. In any case no funding source is given beyond vague references to Federal, Provincial and private participation. The naming rights to this stadium site are given as $5 million dollars.

Please inform yourself before launching into hokey anonymous tirades.

[realcity]

We need to consider again Confederation Park again. It would seed a 'real' waterfront on the Lake.

I don't know how one councilor is able to kill that location for the rest of city?

[markbarbera]

Sorry guys, you got it all wrong about Bob Bratina. He is repeatedly on record supporting a downtown stadium and definitely not the site out by the airport. To suggest otherwise is simply being dishonest.

Bratina fought hard to have an alternate downtown site considered, but council in its typical shortsightedness restricted the options to either the former Rheem site or a site by the airport, thereby deliberately engineering the outcome of the decision.

[drpgq]

Sorry guys, you got it all wrong about Bob Bratina. He is repeatedly on record supporting a downtown stadium and definitely not the site out by the airport. To suggest otherwise is simply being dishonest.

Bratina fought hard to have an alternate downtown site considered, but council in its typical shortsightedness restricted the options to either the former Rheem site or a site by the airport, thereby deliberately engineering the outcome of the decision.

I stand by my comments. The alternate SJAM site was a joke and never going to happen and was just a form of placating North End Nimbys. The Board trustees would do that deal when they wouldn't do a deal to redo their headquarters? Sure.

I'm fine with more intensive development on the site and have in fact have been hoping for that. This is the Skyscraperpage forum, so I'm not sure what kind of reaction you were hoping for here.

In terms of downtown entertainment, frankly I only see demand increasing. Hess is busier then ever. I just saw a sign last night at the Pheasant Plucker announcing the Augusta House. I'm for more entertainment options and I think it would be great if there were some taking advantage of being down in that area of town and am confident the city could support them.

I wouldn't exactly describe my comments as "hokey" either, more of an accurate assessment of the political lay of the land. Regarding anonymity, it is true I don't have my name as my handle here, only my initials, but I'm hardly completely anonymous if you make an effort.

[Bob Bratina]

The Board has just announced an Accommodation Review to deal with the continual declining enrollment of such schools as Sir John A., Delta, etc. It's very likely we will see the closing of schools, such as occurred with the Catholic Board. With regard to the suggestion, everyone with whom I discussed it , including the City Manager and the Director of Public Works, and others, saw merit in the SJAM proposal, because it was truly transformational. It would see a new school properly located in a residential area, and a Gateway feature for the Core, namely a stadium at York Blvd across from Copps.

There may well still be a stadium on that site if common sense prevails.

[thistleclub]

now it's only 20,000 seats?


It should be 30,000, minimum 25k. if we want to host Grey Cups ever

I'm guessing that the numbers take into account expansion seating for special occasions. The Ticats saw an atendance bump when Bob Young bought the team out of receivership but have a 30-year average of around 16,000 fans per home game. Even if there were money growing on trees, a 30,000-seat stadium that was perpetually half-empty (or, in the case of the USL, 85% empty) kind of degrades the value of naming rights, not to mention sapping the morale of anyone who sets foot in the stadium.

BTW, when we talk about a business plan for the viability of USL, does that model figure on Bob Young's private sector pals investing $50 million? After seeing constuction costs jump before ground is even broken, what sort of rental rates and player salaries do the analysts foresee as making one-fifth capacity a break-even proposition? High school finals, sure -- it's a charity gesture. A professional sports franchise regularly taking dates out of the pool of for fair-weather days that would otherwise be available to high-capacity, high-profile, big-ticket events? Surely the math is relative. What's the break-even point for the city, for taxpayers?

[Bob Bratina]

The following is an excerpt of a letter forwarded to Councillors from an informed individual who understands that the West Harbour proposal could well be beyond our financial capabilities. What this really shows is how preliminary site evaluation was not sufficient.

"To Hamilton Chamber Board Members:

There is another site and that is (within a mile of King and James). It is one owner, 25 acres, relatively clean compared to the 25 properties at the west harbour that will probably have to be expropriated. It can be purchased for $(xxxxxxxxx) and levelled for about $1,000,000. The site is level and on the market.

The all in cost of this property, ready to build a stadium, clean and level will guesstimated be in the range of $10,000,000. with no expropriation. The guesstimated all in cost of the west harbour will be in the area of $25,000,000.

The taxpayer will have to pick up an extra $15,000,000 and the expropriation could add more plus who knows how long it will take.

I will bring more detail tomorrow"

[Migs]

After reviewing the documents related to a Pan Am Stadium site selection, I have to declare my total opposition to a West Harbour Site, and the creation of a "Stadium Entertainment Precinct". The site preparation costs look to be as much as $43 million dollars PRIOR to construction, and the notion that it can only work by cannibalizing existing bars and restaurants, especially Downtown is beyond ridiculous.

This exercise began simply to replace Ivor Wynne Stadium. The only reasonable approach for the tax-payers of this City is to locate that stadium on City-owned property, near existing major transportation corridors, and preferably not contaminated. Such sites exist. Such an approach would save the millions of dollars estimated for land purchase, demolition, and site clean-up.
Ridiculous idea. Research Saskatoon and the location of CUC and tell me how that worked out for that city.

[SteelTown]

We now see the realities with respect to cost, and sustainability. The business case makes a whole group of assumptions, including professional soccer. It also calls for $500,000 annual contribution to Capital Reserves. If you're familiar with City business you'll know that the annual deficit for infrastructure maintenance is $145 million dollars, giving our roads and facilities a grading of D minus.

We pay annual capital cost towards IWS and we had to dig a little deeper last year because the lights broke down during a winter storm.

It's either spend $90 million or so for IWS, spend $60 million for a new stadium or get no stadium and kiss the Ti-Cats away. Fatal blow to Hamilton's civic pride.

The population of Hamilton as stated in the Consultants report is growing at well below the Provincial rate...2.9 per cent vs 4.6, and in the lower City, in actual decline. The question has to be asked, how can we support a "stadium entertainment precinct" and not harm existing Downtown businesses? Read the report.

Inner Hamilton's population is declining because of the current state of infrastructure is not catching up. We now have a chance to further enhance the waterfront, increase commercial activity and increase the density with massive brownfield cleanup. That's beefing our infrastructure in the inner city. Try finding a time to ever get $100 something million towards our waterfront/Ward 2 again.

A waterfront stadium will push the province to bring GO Transit to the CN line at James St North. It'll push the case in the future for A-Line funding. It'll make a difference for the B-Line funding. Think of all the lost potentials by voting this stadium site down.

You as a councillor can alter the entertainment precinct with council and tweak the plan. That's better instead of voting against the stadium.

The hidden agenda includes the expenditure of over 80 million dollars to enhance the West Harbour area. Most visitors will tell you that except for perhaps a couple of restaurants or other affordable amenities, that area is functioning very well. The only situation that needs capital investment at this time is a deteriorating retaining wall near the Marine Police basin.

Pretty sure that's the cost of the West Harbour Waterfront Recreation Master Plan. That issue is separate from the stadium and can be dealt with the Waterfront Trust for funding arrangement.

I have to simply dismiss the knee-jerk negative responses above, because those individuals have no clue as to what is contained in the Deloitte-Touche and Gowlings documentation. The Deloitte Touche information is available on the City of Hamilton Website under City Government/ agendas/ Committee of the Whole/ February 18th. The Gowlings document is still confidential, but I don't see anything in that which in my opinion should be held back from the public, especially the site preparation costs which total as much as $43 million dollars PRIOR to construction. Arguments will be made that this figure can be significantly lowered by avoiding full remediation. In any case no funding source is given beyond vague references to Federal, Provincial and private participation. The naming rights to this stadium site are given as $5 million dollars.

Please inform yourself before launching into hokey anonymous tirades.

So since you believe the stadium can be built at the site without full remediation, which I also believe can be done as well just look at the General Hospital, why vote against the waterfront site entirely?

If you read the Deloitte-Touche document again you'll notice the land needed is bigger than the SJAM site.

[emge]

Councillor, we've spoken in person, and I will send you an e-mail about this also copying what I've said.

I'm a resident of your ward. I'm certainly not endeavouring to remain anonymous, and to categorize negative responses - whether my own or others' - as "hokey tirades" is somewhat insulting.

My surprise is that you're willing to turn your back on the other benefits a downtown site brings, as opposed to the airport, on basis of initial cost or subsidy alone. No matter what, the stadium itself won't start as a money-making deal. Stadiums generally aren't. It's what they bring around them that matters.

The SJAM site proposal has merit, and I'm glad you're bringing it forward again. But if it is rejected, as is most likely the case, does this mean you automatically default to supporting the Airport location?

The airport site doesn't link to transit plans well and certainly doesn't speed up the timeline for B-line LRT, it's far out from the core as far as tourism/recreational purposes, and doesn't cluster with other things. It's also not transformative as far as Hamilton's image goes, it futher stigmatizes the downtown as not worth investment - and fails to bring in customers for businesses downtown. It certainly doesn't link to GO transit well (new or proposed) or help with waterfront revitalization at all! And it's greenfield, not brownfield remediation - and I find it difficult to believe you'd let a huge chunk of money for brownfield remediation pass the city by for a property in your ward!

The question is - what benefits will it bring to the area around it, economic and otherwise? And long-term, which one puts Hamilton in a better place? Economic spin-off isn't guaranteed, but if its out by the airport, the possibilities are so diminished, and the returns are so fragmented from the core, I can't support saving bucks, even substantial ones, to put a stadium on the fringes of the city. Those concession workers and parking attendants won't be downtown people working in the core and spending int the core, they'll be those who live near the airport -- or have to travel to the airport and back for every shift. If they end up moving the Canadian Football Hall of Fame to the stadium, as the report outlines is a possibility, how will a new airport location for that help things downtown? We won't need to build more hotels in the core for people who attend these events either... the list goes on and on.

In 20 years, will we be happier with a downtown stadium or an airport one? I plan to live here in 20 years. I want to think about then.

From a downtown councillor - from my councillor - from someone who has shown in conversation they understand something of the importance of downtowns - I find what you're saying hard to swallow.

As I've said, I usually support you. From time to time, I've heard you assure me or others that certain things would come to pass (e.g. the school board deal going through or the property on King/Hess finally being dealt with) and they haven't been. But that's reality, and those aren't necessarily matters that you have control over, or are large enough to change my vote on. Maybe this is just all spin to make sure the SJAM property idea gets noticed by council again. But if you end up using your important vote as a city councillor to support an airport location for the stadium? That's pretty sure to be a vote-changing matter.

Thanks.
Meredith K.A. Broughton

[bigguy1231]

Anyone who didn't see this comming is blind.

Mr. Bratina had a meeting last week with the locals. All the NIMBY types were out. We all know the councillor only a makes decisions based on who screams the loudest. The only consolation is he is just one vote on council.

As for the site remediation, it will have to be done whether they build a stadium on the site or not. The 43 million dollar amount mentioned by the councillor is a worst case scenario. It may or may not cost us depending on the amount of contamination. Lets do the assessments of the properties before jumping to any conclusions.

The other site advocated by the councillor at the SJAM location is totally unacceptable. It is not big enough and would prohibit any future expansion of the stadium.

This stadium and the other proposed facilities need to be built in the West Harbour location. That area needs redevelopement and I can't think of any better way to do it other than with the help of Federal and Provincial contributions for the stadium.

[SteelTown]

As for the site remediation, it will have to be done whether they build a stadium on the site or not. The 43 million dollar amount mentioned by the councillor is a worst case scenario. It may or may not cost us depending on the amount of contamination. Lets do the assessments of the properties before jumping to any conclusions.

Yep, and if we drag this out any longer the cost of remediation will only get bigger and bigger. Sooner or later this city is going to have to cleanup this large piece of property.

Also from my understanding the 2015 Pan Am committee needs the city to pin point the final stadium location by the end of Feburary. So if we don't decide now we'll never get a Pan American stadium.

[urban_planner]

I might just get an apartment downtown to vote this guy out, Im getting sick and tired of the pathetic decisions of council. Its sucks this is an election year it increases the odds of poor choices from council all in the name of a few votes. I am not suprised to hear the Nimbys are out'and now the council member is feels the fear of loosing a seat. We need a system that only allows one term. Atleast until we see things changed. Oh well can do much.

Its a shame that people only complain when they don't like something. I wonder how many people in the various wards would love to have the stadium at the bay but don't bother to voice there opinion.

This should be an interesting week.

[highwater]

It's very likely we will see the closing of schools, such as occurred with the Catholic Board.

I cannot believe you would celebrate the closure of schools in your ward. If you are worried about slow population growth in Hamilton, the last thing you should be doing is encouraging the closure of schools. SJAM has the best visual arts program in the city. In a city that is trying to leverage it's cultural sector, you should be fighting for the survival of this school, not rubbing your hands with glee at the prospect of it's demise. If you think a few North End NIMBY's can scream loud, wait till they come for SJAM.

[Bob Bratina]

Bigguy and Urban planner can look up the record and see that I have never opposed a West Harbour site if it could be proven to be affordable. There were sites I preferred, and sites that should have been evaluated, but I told the so-called "nimby" group you refer to that I would not block this site unless the business case failed. It has. The information we have received from Deloitte and Gowlings tells me that this site is a money pit that they admit will not work unless we build a new downtown around it, thus undermining the restaurants, bars, retail shops and hotels already present, paying taxes that are 25 per cent higher than comparative municipalities.

Some day these critics will be enjoying the GO/VIA service out of James Street North. When I began advocating for this in late 2004, the Mayor, the MP, the Planning Department, and VIA were all opposed. I persisted, luckily gaining a seat on the GO transit board, and contributing to this outcome, as well as the greatly enhanced service out of Hunter Street, including the HSR platforms. So if for some reason my political life takes a different direction, for these and many other reasons I will be able to reflect happily on my contributions to the Ward, the Downtown and the City. Can Bigguy and Urban Planner say the same?

[highwater]

...I will be able to reflect happily on my contributions to the Ward, the Downtown and the City. Can Bigguy and Urban Planner say the same?

Internet forum FAIL. When you have to drag out the hoary old "Oh yeah? Well I bet I contribute more to this city than you do!" cliche, it's a safe bet you've got a weak argument.

[urban_planner]

Bigguy and Urban planner can look up the record and see that I have never opposed a West Harbour site if it could be proven to be affordable. There were sites I preferred, and sites that should have been evaluated, but I told the so-called "nimby" group you refer to that I would not block this site unless the business case failed. It has. The information we have received from Deloitte and Gowlings tells me that this site is a money pit that they admit will not work unless we build a new downtown around it, thus undermining the restaurants, bars, retail shops and hotels already present, paying taxes that are 25 per cent higher than comparative municipalities.

Some day these critics will be enjoying the GO/VIA service out of James Street North. When I began advocating for this in late 2004, the Mayor, the MP, the Planning Department, and VIA were all opposed. I persisted, luckily gaining a seat on the GO transit board, and contributing to this outcome, as well as the greatly enhanced service out of Hunter Street, including the HSR platforms. So if for some reason my political life takes a different direction, for these and many other reasons I will be able to reflect happily on my contributions to the Ward, the Downtown and the City. Can Bigguy and Urban Planner say the same?


Affordable tell me anything on the face of this earth that is affordable. If this stadium gets built at the airport, confederation park, west harbour or at this rate somewhere outside of Hamilton it will not be affordable. Honestly success has a cost. Unfortunatly so much gets lost in Hamilton because nobody is willing to invest and that includes banks. I wonder if this is because of the lack of interest that banks see from outside or if its the banks view of city bosses. Anyway thats a whole other can of worms.

I can't at this point say the something about contributing the the downtown however that fact that I am in urban planning let say I hope to be able to be in a position to correct the so many bad decisions that have been made.


Mr Bratina, honestly I have nothing against you or anybody on council. I just wish that for once we could have council think outside the ward (box) and just think beyond your time on council. Picture this people hopping on the HSR or driving there cars downtown hoping out of there cars and heading from downtown to the waterfront. Perhaps taking a stop at a resturant along james st for dinner before or after the game or event. Verses heading out the a stadium most likely surrounded by agricultural areas out near the airport. If you think that building a stadium out near the airport is going to influence he airport your dead wrong. Honestly I am a huge supporter of taking advantage of the airport but so much has been lost to London International airport that what you see is what you get a Munro for a while.

Anyway I think the picture I paint in favour of the Harbour vs glanbrook is good. Man the opportunity to drastically change downtown and surrounding area is staggering yet missed by the tunnel vision of council or should we call it the voter vision. We hear about how we need to get an NHL team downtown to attract folks downtown yet to get the stadium down there is like pulling teeth. I walk from Gore Park down James st north as far as the tracks and its only 15 minutes this is close enough that building a stadium at the bay would be close enough to have very positive effects on the core.

This stadium debate goes much further then just the west harbour this has the potential to be massive in infuence. Good opportunity Bob to get your name on something great.

Anyway really just think about the concequences long term either way you vote. oh and thanks. this is the longest post I have had on this forum.

[Bob Bratina]

My original suggestion to build a new Sir John A. MacDonald high school came in 2005, long before the Pan Ams were considered. First consideration....the sad architecture of a failed building, reminiscent of the Barton Street Jail. This is not a building that inspires pride in its students, many of whom face challenges in their personal lives. Sitting outside to have lunch or kick a ball around puts them between two major arteries, Cannon and York. The athletic field is to say the least sub-standard. Beneath it is the rubble of the old McCoy Foundry which means it is never level, and poorly sodded. The ideal location is on City-owned property a block north on Bay at Scheaffe, or on the north side of Central park which is also City property. This places the school in a less-travelled residential area, adjacent to a green space, Central Park. A school on the Barton street property could have great classroom views of the Harbour and a safer, quieter cleaner environment for Sir John
A. students. In fact most of the teachers with whom I've discussed this idea are strongly supportive, understanding that the current school and grounds are less than ideal.

This creates another positive element for Downtown development. Whether its a stadium, hotel, conference centre, the site presents what is so difficult to find in dense urban areas, namely a substantial parcel of land.
So I will continue to advocate for a new Downtown high school. The comment by "highwater" is beneath contempt and is the probable indicator as to why most of my colleagues avoid making any contributions to forums such as this.

[bigguy1231]

Bigguy and Urban planner can look up the record and see that I have never opposed a West Harbour site if it could be proven to be affordable. There were sites I preferred, and sites that should have been evaluated, but I told the so-called "nimby" group you refer to that I would not block this site unless the business case failed. It has. The information we have received from Deloitte and Gowlings tells me that this site is a money pit that they admit will not work unless we build a new downtown around it, thus undermining the restaurants, bars, retail shops and hotels already present, paying taxes that are 25 per cent higher than comparative municipalities.

Some day these critics will be enjoying the GO/VIA service out of James Street North. When I began advocating for this in late 2004, the Mayor, the MP, the Planning Department, and VIA were all opposed. I persisted, luckily gaining a seat on the GO transit board, and contributing to this outcome, as well as the greatly enhanced service out of Hunter Street, including the HSR platforms. So if for some reason my political life takes a different direction, for these and many other reasons I will be able to reflect happily on my contributions to the Ward, the Downtown and the City. Can Bigguy and Urban Planner say the same?

Yes Bob, I am happy with the contributions I have made to this city in the past on a voluntary basis. I have been a member of numerous citizens committees at city hall over the last 30 years as well as many community groups. I am no longer able to get involved because of work commitments but look forward to getting involved again in the not too distant future.

As for the site in question being a money pit. How would the consultants know that without doing an environmental assessment. Do the groundwork then decide whether or not the site is viable. I don't see what the problem is with building up the area around the new stadium. Are you saying that our downtown should be confined to it's current boundries. Try thinking outside the box for once. It doesn't have to be all commercial. It could be a mix of residential, commercial and institutional. Or here's a thought it could be just greenspace.

[SteelTown]

Will 600 parking spots be enough?
New stadium sparking worry for neighbours

February 16, 2010
Dana Brown
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/722642

A new report about the proposed west harbour stadium is recommending the venue be outfitted with about 600 parking spots, or about 10 per cent of expected demand.

The plan is to have stadium users, such as Ticat fans, make use of roughly 10,000 parking spaces already in the downtown area, as well as using alternatives to vehicles to get to the site.

That could include shuttles from downtown lots, walking, biking, or riding light rail once it's in place. The stadium would be located near Bay Street North and Barton Street West.

"I think they're very good strategies," David Adames, executive director of Tourism Hamilton said of the recommendations in the report.

"Is it a different model? Yes. Will it need (a) very good communication plan? Yes."

The draft report, put together by IBI Group, says about 6,800 spots would be needed if 80 per cent of those headed to a 22,000-person event took a car. It assumes there would be 2.6 people in each vehicle.

There are about 3,900 off-street spots within one kilometre of the site, but that doesn't mean all would be vacant for use during event times.

In order to prevent parking in the area around the site, the report also recommends keeping and expanding an on-street parking ban, already in place for special events at Bayfront Park.

Adames said that there will be no on-site public parking during the Pan Am Games.

He also pointed out the possibilities for inter-regional transit to be used, such as VIA or GO.

Councillor Bob Bratina, who strongly opposes the site, questions who will walk from core parking spots to the stadium.

"This stadium is not on any great transit connections, so it's more likely that you're going to drive there," he said.

"So it's more likely ... if they don't build enough parking spots, it's going to spill out into just what the North End neighbours and others are afraid of."

The report says that once a light rail B line is operational it would be able to carry 68 per cent of people headed to an event in two hours.

There's also mention of possibly providing valet bicycle parking, which would give cyclists a supervised, covered place to store their ride.

Less parking would also reduce the traffic impact in the immediate area.

John Dolbec, CEO of the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce, said all city waterfront studies have underestimated the impact on traffic and parking of attracting more people to the area.

But he says those concerns don't shake the chamber's strong support for the waterfront site as the best choice for a stadium.

"While these issues do need to be addressed, in a balanced way, well-thought out way, nothing should hold us back from making this crucial strategic leap forward," said Dolbec, said in an e-mail.

Reaction to the strategy was mixed among a handful of area residents on the weekend.

"I think it's a good idea," said Lenore Lukasik-Foss, 40.

Lukasik-Foss said there's pretty strict enforcement for on-street parking during events now and if that continues, that would be fine.

But neighbour Johnny Nguyen, 19, isn't convinced it will work.

"I'm pretty sure whoever has a car will use it," he said.

Selina Pink, 47, who has lived on Bay Street North for a year and a half, said the streets are busy when there's an event, despite the ban.

And she's not sure traffic and congestion issues are being looked at enough.

"I think it will definitely increase congestion in the area no matter what their choices are," Pink said.

Mayor Fred Eisenberger cited several reasons the strategy is a good one, including ample parking lots within five to 10 minutes of the site, along with light rail and public transportation plans.

The west harbour site will be significantly more accessible than Ivor Wynne Stadium, he said.

"We need some vision here. It's not just about landing a stadium," Eisenberger said.

"It's about landing a whole range of other things that come out of that, including for downtown and the waterfront."

[SteelTown]

Bratina should just abstain from voting like he did when it came time to vote on the Royal Connaught project into mixed-income housing.

[markbarbera]

I'm amazed by the pile-on being performed on Bratina by the armchair critics of this forum. IMO Bob is doing exactly what I expect a councillor to do -he is challenging the blind acceptance of a financially unsound proposal and trying to force the consideration of alternate downtown locations that would not be as big a drain on the public coffers. This is deserving of support, not ridicule.

Those who are shouting out 'nimby' in the guise of arguing Bratina's position are throwing up a straw man in this debate. This is certainly not about nimbyism, it is about getting the best deal for this city, one that will help improve the fortunes of our downtown rather than working against its renaissance.

There is a disturbing pattern developing in the way that this city considers its options. Be it City Hall accomodations, rapid transit routes, or stadium sites, the options made available for consideration are being deliberately restricted. This is resulting in alternatives that may have greater merit being overlooked. This is poor practice.

Kudos to Bob Bratina for taking an unpopular stand in an attempt to force this city to drop the tunnel vision mentality. I hope he succeeds in getting this city to open up its options on such big-ticket investments and do some serious consideration instead of simply pandering to the 'sexy' proposals our city really cannot afford.

[SteelTown]

Take a look at the Richmond Olympic Oval. The same architect, from Cannon Design, that will design Hamilton's Pan American stadium. It also required remediation and is currently the pride of the City.

Site of the oval in Richmond - October 2006
http://www.richmond.ca/__shared/assets/Oval_construction_panorama15146.jpg

January 2006
http://www.richmond.ca/__shared/assets/Construction_Image_dated__2006-01-2013513.jpg

March 2006
http://www.richmond.ca/__shared/assets/March_2006_Construction_Site13673.jpg

July 2006
http://www.richmond.ca/__shared/assets/Construction_Image_dated_2006-07-1415114.jpg

July 2006
http://www.richmond.ca/__shared/assets/Construction_Image_dated_2006-07-2115115.jpg

August 2006
http://www.richmond.ca/__shared/assets/Construction_Image_dated_2006-08-1015643.jpg

Took them a year to cleanup the site.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=138476

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3151/3052676669_b8e1304919.jpg

[urban_planner]

Regardless if its Nimby'sism or not, The airport site does not have the best interest for the city in mind.

[markbarbera]

Regardless if its Nimby'sism or not, The airport site does not have the best interest for the city in mind.

Nobody's arguing that point. Saying that the airport site is worse than the Rheem site is just another straw man.

There are potential sites downtown that have not been given consideration which may be better suited for the stadium. Why has the downtown location been restricted solely to the lands surrounding the former Rheem site?

[markbarbera]

Take a look at the Richmond Olympic Oval. The same architect, from Cannon Design, that will design Hamilton's Pan American stadium. It also required remediation and is currently the pride of the City.


It may be Richmond's pride, but it is quickly becoming the bane of the athletes' existence. Bloody Richmond Oval can't keep a solid ice surface!

[SteelTown]

That's because of the environmentaly friendly Zamboni. After the Olympic it'll turn into a recreational centre.

The Oval centre has gotten tons of awards based on it's design and re-using of materials, especially the woods.

[SteelTown]

IMO Bob is doing exactly what I expect a councillor to do -he is challenging the blind acceptance of a financially unsound proposal and trying to force the consideration of alternate downtown locations that would not be as big a drain on the public coffers. This is deserving of support, not ridicule.

That time has come and gone already. Remember we had a consultant look at four sites, downtown, Confederation Park, Airport and the West Harbourfront. Council took the Confederation Park option out. Eventually downtown was taken out as well.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4071359&postcount=259

[markbarbera]

That time has come and gone already. Remember we had a consultant look at four sites, downtown, Confederation Park, Airport and the West Harbourfront. Council took the Confederation Park option out. Eventually downtown was taken out as well.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4071359&postcount=259

The bid committee took out a downtown option, not council. Why was it taken out? Why doesn't council have the guts to say 'no, it's our dime on the line here, give a downtown location proper consideration'?

'Consultants' should not be the ones calling the shots at City Hall. How did this become an acceptable norm?

[flar]

Something to consider regarding the site cleanup:

-A stadium should be able to get away with a cheaper and less thorough clean-up than a residential development.

-If the clean-up costs are so prohibitive, no residential developers will build anything there. How could they possibly make any money?

-This prime location will sit empty and contaminated forever unless some level of government pays for the clean-up. Why would private developers assume these costs when they could avoid them by building pretty much anywhere else in the region?