Tim Hortons Field | 40m | ? | Complete

[SteelTown]

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a382/hammer396/panamstadium.jpg

We've been awarded the 2015 Pan Am Games and we're getting a new stadium. Suppose to be built by 2014.

http://www.thespec.com/videogallery/668036
At 2:49 you can see the stadium.

[bigguy1231]

It's going to look good with a new stadium in that location. Lets hope they add the upper deck to the other side with the initial construction and not wait to add it later.

[Gurnett71]

Still have to soothe the naysayers on such a location for a new stadium, as per the letter to the Spec in yesterday's paper:

http://thespec.com/Opinions/LettertotheEditor/article/666873

Many negatives in putting stadium by bayfront

David Weir
The Hamilton Spectator
Caledonia
(Nov 5, 2009)
Re: 'Say goodbye to Ivor Wynne' (Editorial, Nov. 2)

The supposed visionary leaders of the City of Hamilton have their heads in the sand as usual.

Putting the new stadium down by the bayfront would have one positive -- it would look beautiful. Everything else would be negative:

* No parking

* Difficulty for people coming from out of town -- no nearby highway access

* Noise concerns

* No alternate uses for the stadium

* Gridlock leaving the games

Hamilton already owns the land by the airport, where all the negatives would turn into positives. It would also be a beautiful spot for a multi-use stadium with plenty of room for future expansion.

[matt602]

Yah... put it by the airport. Great idea.

[crhayes]

Hamilton already owns the land by the airport, where all the negatives would turn into positives. It would also be a beautiful spot for a multi-use stadium with plenty of room for future expansion.

LOL... once you have the stadium built what lateral expansion are you banking on?

[BCTed]

I hope that this stadium holds at least 30K or so and does not get built on the cheap.

[flar]

Still have to soothe the naysayers on such a location for a new stadium, as per the letter to the Spec in yesterday's paper:

http://thespec.com/Opinions/LettertotheEditor/article/666873

Many negatives in putting stadium by bayfront

David Weir
The Hamilton Spectator
Caledonia
(Nov 5, 2009)
Re: 'Say goodbye to Ivor Wynne' (Editorial, Nov. 2)

The supposed visionary leaders of the City of Hamilton have their heads in the sand as usual.

Putting the new stadium down by the bayfront would have one positive -- it would look beautiful. Everything else would be negative:

* No parking

* Difficulty for people coming from out of town -- no nearby highway access

* Noise concerns

* No alternate uses for the stadium

* Gridlock leaving the games

Hamilton already owns the land by the airport, where all the negatives would turn into positives. It would also be a beautiful spot for a multi-use stadium with plenty of room for future expansion.

Are you serious? Pretty much all the newer stadiums are in or near downtown areas. They learned from the mistakes of suburban stadiums. Here in Ottawa, many people think it was a huge mistake to put Scotiabank Place out in Kanata.

[BCTed]

Are you serious? Pretty much all the newer stadiums are in or near downtown areas. They learned from the mistakes of suburban stadiums. Here in Ottawa, many people think it was a huge mistake to put Scotiabank Place out in Kanata.

To be fair, there is generally a huge difference between an open-air football stadium and an enclosed hockey arena --- I believe that there is a much stronger case for placing an arena in a downtown area.

[flar]

To be fair, there is generally a huge difference between an open-air football stadium and an enclosed hockey arena --- I believe that there is a much stronger case for placing an arena in a downtown area.

I know there's a big difference between and arena and stadium, it's just an example from the same province. I don't follow football, but I believe all the newish baseball stadiums (past 10-15 years) are in downtown areas, most have skyline views in the outfield.

[highwater]

Still have to soothe the naysayers on such a location for a new stadium...

Why? Why should we have to waste our time 'soothing' Hamilton haters? Aren't they grown up enough to be responsible for their own thoughts and feelings? Our fruitless efforts to 'soothe' the suburbs are one of the main things holding this city back from its full potential. Amalgamation is a fait accompli. If they can't get over it and start working for the common good that's their problem, not ours. Enough with the hand holding.

[realcity]

It's going to look good with a new stadium in that location. Lets hope they add the upper deck to the other side with the initial construction and not wait to add it later.

I agree, finally the waterfront will start to look like an urban water of a city of half a million.

Also that stadium looks wonky. I hope it's matched with an upper deck on the west side.

Question is that rendering for 15,000 seats?

[SteelTown]

^ Yes, 15,000 seats. Yesterday during the celelbration Mayor Fred was standing in front of a 30,000 stadium rendering, two upper decks.

[realcity]

awesome
I got a bit excited so I did a logo

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b276/theshawsphotos/stadium-logo3.jpg?t=1257612664

[holymoly]

Great opportunity to start balancing out the view from the Skyway.

[realcity]

I don't think it will be very visible from the Skyway.

That rendering is missing lighting

[Waterfront]

Unfortunately, this won't really balance the view from the skyway as you won't see it from there. Its almost 5 miles away, and there will be a bunch of stuff in line of sight.

The 'artist rendering' of the stadium is also done from a carefully chosen perspective -- if you were to look another 5-10 degrees to the right, you would see all the industry (US Steel / Arcelor Mittal) you see from the Skyway - just from a different angle. The people sitting in the upper deck on the left side of the stadium will have a great view of the stacks and the chimney flames at night!! Plus train enthusiasts will enjoy overlooking the CN tracks and storage yard (about 20 sets of tracks run through there between the Stadium site and the harbour).

Oh yeah - they also better hire someone to clean the seats before every event ... oily soot and coal dust fallout from the industrial chimneys and sites coat this area every time there is an East wind. I have a boat roughly 1km east of here, and it is not uncommon to wash the boat on saturday morning, and have it covered in a film of grime again by saturday night.

[adam]

A new stadium on the waterfront is easily accessible by the highway. As far as parking goes... look at the Rogers Centre - people typically park away from the centre and walk... this isn't a problem for them, why would it be a problem in this case? We have plenty of parking lots (too many!) downtown. The Spec article is totally off base.

[Berklon]

awesome
I got a bit excited so I did a logo

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b276/theshawsphotos/stadium-logo3.jpg?t=1257612664

Your logo isn't showing.

I actually like the way the stadium looks with only one upper deck. I'm sure it'll look good with two as well.

I agree though, the perspective of this rendering definitely purposely avoids the smoke stacks and industry. This area has so much potential to look incredible, but just like the view from the Skyway - the industrial side seems to always get in the way and quickly gives a more negative impression of the city.

Also consider myself not a fan of the Spec article. Plopping this stadium in the middle of nowhere doesn't help this city at all. It's just more of the same mistakes that get made. We need to concentrate on the downtown and waterfront and build out from there. We need to stop spreading ourselves so thin and really try to make a specific place in the city top-notch.

[BCTed]

I know there's a big difference between and arena and stadium, it's just an example from the same province. I don't follow football, but I believe all the newish baseball stadiums (past 10-15 years) are in downtown areas, most have skyline views in the outfield.

Baseball stadia are also fairly different from football stadia because they get used for 81 regular season home games a year, while football teams play about a tenth of that.

[BCTed]

Also consider myself not a fan of the Spec article. Plopping this stadium in the middle of nowhere doesn't help this city at all. It's just more of the same mistakes that get made. We need to concentrate on the downtown and waterfront and build out from there. We need to stop spreading ourselves so thin and really try to make a specific place in the city top-notch.

I don't think the location is actually too bad. It is downtown-ish and right near Bayfront Park. Copps Coliseum is only about a five or ten minute walk away from it --- less than a kilometre, I believe.

[SteelTown]

I like Ron Lancaster Field at Lakeport Stadium.

[SteelTown]

Tiger Cats Say Sooner Is Better For New Stadium

Ken Mann
11/6/2009
http://www.900chml.com/Channels/Reg/NewsLocalGeneral/Story.aspx?ID=1162669

The president of the Hamilton Tiger Cats is sharing in the excitement.

Scott Mitchell says that the city is long overdue for some of the infrastructure projects, and he now looks forward to helping to execute the plan following confirmation that the Golden Horseshoe will host the 2015 Pan Am Games.

Mitchell also stresses that a new stadium will be much needed for the club's long term "viability and success".

There are suggestions that a new stadium could be built in as little as three years. Mitchell insists "the sooner the better", noting that "Ivor Wynne is a diminishing asset".

Tiger Cats owner Bob Young has verbally pledged to help pay the cost of building their new home.

[Berklon]

I don't think the location is actually too bad. It is downtown-ish and right near Bayfront Park. Copps Coliseum is only about a five or ten minute walk away from it --- less than a kilometre, I believe.

No, I meant the idea of putting the stadium near the airport or anywhere where it's surrounded by nothing is a bad idea - which is what the Spec article is saying. I like the Waterfront idea as it's close enough to downtown and keeps things a lot tighter.

It seems all Hamiltonians ever care about is where they're going to park their car. The Spec article fails to mention that the stadium will be very accessible from GO and Via (when they're set up) - which is a plus to help draw people from out of town. I like the idea of potential outdoor summer concerts in this stadium (which is even more important to drawing people from outside the city by use of GO and Via). The stadium needs to be used for more than just Pan-Am and CFL - the more use it gets for different types of events, the better it is for rejuvenating the downtown and Waterfront area.

[SteelTown]

http://www.thespec.com/videogallery/668036
If you freeze at 3:25 you can see a surface parking lot north west of the stadium. Directly across the practice field.

[realcity]

Your logo isn't showing.


what does that mean? look who's now a graphic designer critic


one of the stadiums telling feature are the overhangs.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b276/theshawsphotos/stadiumlogo4.jpg?t=1257619600


http://www.theaircanadacentre.com/images/template/logo.gif

http://www.seeklogo.com/images/R/Rogers_Centre-logo-298E97B23E-seeklogo.com.gif

[Berklon]

what does that mean? look who's now a graphic designer critic

:haha:

Let me re-word it... your link isn't working (for me at least).... unless your logo is a red "x". ;)

[adam]

I don't think the location is actually too bad. It is downtown-ish and right near Bayfront Park. Copps Coliseum is only about a five or ten minute walk away from it --- less than a kilometre, I believe.

I totally agree. This is the beauty of the downtown. Everything is within 1-2km from the centre of the city. From the bay front all the way to the base of the escarpment is only 3km.

[urban_planner]

They best not built this anywhere but the waterfront, if they do, I go from being a supporter of the Pan Am games for being a non supporter in a blink of an eye.

[SteelTown]

Tourism Hamilton, David Adames, is working on the business case for the stadium. The Ti Cats are waiting on this report before committing any funds for a 30,000 stadium.

The business case will probably come out in 2010. Right now they need to form the Pan Am committee and a new CEO.

[drpgq]

Oh yeah - they also better hire someone to clean the seats before every event ... oily soot and coal dust fallout from the industrial chimneys and sites coat this area every time there is an East wind. I have a boat roughly 1km east of here, and it is not uncommon to wash the boat on saturday morning, and have it covered in a film of grime again by saturday night.

How will this be different than Ivor Wynne?

[bigguy1231]

I don't think the location is actually too bad. It is downtown-ish and right near Bayfront Park. Copps Coliseum is only about a five or ten minute walk away from it --- less than a kilometre, I believe.

It's only 3 or 4 blocks from Copps. Most of the properties from just North of York between Bay and Hess will be apart of the complex. That complex also includes the velodrome and numerous training fields.

[BCTed]

25K seats would just be too small. Of the 54 regular season games played outside of Hamilton and Montreal (where capacity is only 20K), only six had attendances of less than 25K. The smallest crowd in the Western conference was 26,885.

Also, while the $150MM number that is being bandied about sounds like it would get the city something more substantial than BMO Field, it still sounds quite a bit on the light side ----the cost of the new retractable roof at BC Place alone will be literally more than triple that. A new stadium would likely be in use for many decades --- if this thing is going to get built, it should get built properly.

[SteelTown]

BMO Field cost $63 million for 20,000 stadium, it'll cost $102 million for 15,000 stadium.

[Gurnett71]

As I posted before, here we go with the anti-waterfront locale for a stadium with another letter to the editor @ The Spec today. Some people just can't see the "vision" of what our waterfront could look like.

http://thespec.com/Opinions/LettertotheEditor/article/669179

Stadium would hurt our 'sick' downtown
Elizabeth Ward
The Hamilton Spectator
Hamilton
(Nov 9, 2009)
Re: 'A design charette for our downtown' (Opinion, Nov. 5)

I read with interest Thomas A. Beckett's proposal for the downtown core.

As someone who lives in the North End and walks through the core to work every day, I couldn't agree with him more. The core is "desperately sick," and there is no vision or political will to change things.

I consider myself a huge supporter of Hamilton, and I recognize as a city we have so much potential with our beautiful old buildings, access to green spaces and vibrant arts community, which has managed to thrive despite lack of support from our municipal politicians -- for example, the recent struggles of The Pearl Factory.

The city has thrown its support both politically and financially behind the Pan Am Games, but I question how this will really be beneficial to Hamilton in the long run. If we must host the Games, I agree with an earlier letter writer who suggested a stadium in the Mount Hope area would be more logical.

My vision of Hamilton is one where a downtown core is alive and thriving and has seamless access to a waterfront area that all Hamiltonians can enjoy, rather than one marred by a stadium of interest to only a few.

[realcity]

is it going to be 25k or 30k?

[paleale2]

Stay tuned on this....

The waterfront location is NOT carved in stone. We will soon be hearing proposals put forth to council to locate the stadium where Sir John A Macdonald school currently exists.

The school could be rebuild at the Central Park location,along bay north, and this parcel of land ties in nicely with LRT, downtown nightlife, restaurants, copps etc...

The problem with the waterfront...is ...well water. The stadium would have to be build on massive pilings, to support it

[drpgq]

These letters are pretty silly. Honestly, who is enjoying the current state of the Rheem building on the proposed stadium site other than urban explorers?

As I posted before, here we go with the anti-waterfront locale for a stadium with another letter to the editor @ The Spec today. Some people just can't see the "vision" of what our waterfront could look like.

http://thespec.com/Opinions/LettertotheEditor/article/669179

Stadium would hurt our 'sick' downtown
Elizabeth Ward
The Hamilton Spectator
Hamilton
(Nov 9, 2009)
Re: 'A design charette for our downtown' (Opinion, Nov. 5)

I read with interest Thomas A. Beckett's proposal for the downtown core.

As someone who lives in the North End and walks through the core to work every day, I couldn't agree with him more. The core is "desperately sick," and there is no vision or political will to change things.

I consider myself a huge supporter of Hamilton, and I recognize as a city we have so much potential with our beautiful old buildings, access to green spaces and vibrant arts community, which has managed to thrive despite lack of support from our municipal politicians -- for example, the recent struggles of The Pearl Factory.

The city has thrown its support both politically and financially behind the Pan Am Games, but I question how this will really be beneficial to Hamilton in the long run. If we must host the Games, I agree with an earlier letter writer who suggested a stadium in the Mount Hope area would be more logical.

My vision of Hamilton is one where a downtown core is alive and thriving and has seamless access to a waterfront area that all Hamiltonians can enjoy, rather than one marred by a stadium of interest to only a few.

[Berklon]

Stay tuned on this....

The waterfront location is NOT carved in stone. We will soon be hearing proposals put forth to council to locate the stadium where Sir John A Macdonald school currently exists.

The school could be rebuild at the Central Park location,along bay north, and this parcel of land ties in nicely with LRT, downtown nightlife, restaurants, copps etc...

The problem with the waterfront...is ...well water. The stadium would have to be build on massive pilings, to support it

The waterfront would look pretty sweet with a stadium, but this other location wouldn't bother me. As long as it's downtown or close to it.

Just please let this idea of putting it near the airport or anywhere else in the boonies die already. At one point this city has to learn from it's own mistakes as well as others.

[Gurnett71]

The waterfront would look pretty sweet with a stadium, but this other location wouldn't bother me. As long as it's downtown or close to it.

Just please let this idea of putting it near the airport or anywhere else in the boonies die already. At one point this city has to learn from it's own mistakes as well as others.

:yes: :yes: :yes:

Poll on thespec.com:

With the Pan Am decision in, the location of Hamilton's new stadium is stirring some controversy. Which of the three options do you prefer? Take the poll and click here to comment in Have Your Say
Near airport
Waterfront (Reem site) (sic)
Confederation Park area

Waterfront winning this race so far with 56.5% of votes. Airport 22.37% and Confederation Park 20.06%

[realcity]

lol
the Spec seriously spelt Rheem wrong?

[Gurnett71]

lol
the Spec seriously spelt Rheem wrong?

what else is new??:haha:

[SteelTown]

QEW and 403 will have HOV lanes before 2015. All the athletes will be bussed into Hamilton along the HOV lanes. Lucky they'll enter Hamilton through the 403 and not through the Skyway Bridge.

Once they enter Hamilton from York they'll enter to James St to the stadium.

During the Games certain streets will be closed to cars. Much like the World Cycling Championships. I imagine York from Bay to James will be closed, probably will have events on the redeveloped York, and James St North will be closed.

[SteelTown]

From CHCH...........the business plan and recommendation will be presented to Council at February 2010. Tourism Hamilton preferred option is the West Harbourfront location and mostly importantly the Ti Cats also prefer the West Harbourfront location.

[FRM]

IMO the waterfront location has a much higher potential of doing good for the area and the city than anywhere else, including the SJAM property.

where did you hear of the SJAM proposal from paleale?

[SteelTown]

It's Councillor Bratina's idea for the John A McDonald High School.

[Gurnett71]

Would SJAM site be able to accomodate a 30,000 seat stadim, velodrome and practice facility?? Looks kind of cramped. Have to admit that the transport links would be a little better at SJAM, I think. And with Copps across the street, this could be an elite athletic training centre in one neat package.

[SteelTown]

You'd be lucky to fit a stadium alone at McDonald's property.

I'm 100% for the West Harbourfront location. This is our greatest chance to do a massive brownfield cleanup.

[highwater]

what else is new??:haha:

And they haven't even outsourced the editing yet.

[BCTed]

BMO Field cost $63 million for 20,000 stadium, it'll cost $102 million for 15,000 stadium.

The $100MM+ certainly sounds better than the ~$60MM for BMO Field, but it still sounds less than substantial.

BMO Field is about as bare-bones a stadium as you can get ---- the stands are alumimum with super-cheap plastic seating. The stadium needs constant upkeep because the stomping of the fans causes nuts, bolts, other fasteners to come loose. I would like to think that Hamilton's main stadium for the next several decades would be much more impressive than that.

[bigguy1231]

The West harbour location would be great. But if they are going to build something for the future, 25 or 30 thousand seats is just not big enough. They should be looking at something around 40,000 seats.

In Regina they are planning a dome stadium at a cost of 400-600 million dollars. I think I read something that said that would get them 45,000 seats.

I'm not saying we need a dome, but if they are going to build something that is going to be around for 50 years, don't chinze on it and build for the future.

[hamiltonguy]

The West harbour location would be great. But if they are going to build something for the future, 25 or 30 thousand seats is just not big enough. They should be looking at something around 40,000 seats.

In Regina they are planning a dome stadium at a cost of 400-600 million dollars. I think I read something that said that would get them 45,000 seats.

I'm not saying we need a dome, but if they are going to build something that is going to be around for 50 years, don't chinze on it and build for the future.

Ticats games rarely have attendance that would sell out a 25,000 seat stadium.

For Grey Cups, Playoffs and Labour Day, bleachers can be added in the end zones.

[bigguy1231]

Ticats games rarely have attendance that would sell out a 25,000 seat stadium.

For Grey Cups, Playoffs and Labour Day, bleachers can be added in the end zones.

That may be true, but if some time in the future they decide there is a need to expand, that expansion would probably cost as much as the initial construction. It's cheaper to put 10,000 more seats in now during the original construction than add them later.

Besides that who the hell wants to sit in end zone bleachers in November for a Grey cup or playoff game.

[thistleclub]

Ticats games rarely have attendance that would sell out a 25,000 seat stadium.

Indeed. The Cats haven't had a packed-to-the-rafters season since 1972-73. Average regular season home game attendance from 1978-2008? Just over 20,000.

I support a proper stadium facility, but if a bigger facility (say, 40,000 capacity) is dependent upon investment from the Ticat camp, my initial thought is that they might be resistant to spending $50 milion on a building that would become instantly identifiable as perpetually half-empty.

Then again, Bob Young has already sunk half that sum into the team without gaining any legacy structure at all. And now his organization is taking business cues from... Tourism Hamilton? I guess anything is possible.

[Gurnett71]

I think a 25,000 seat stadium is about right for the Cats and Hamilton. Kind of makes each of the games an event in that there are a limited number of tickets available and the team can adjust ticket prices accordingly, if the demand is there.

Again, as others have said above, for the "big" games like Labour Day, playoffs or the Grey Cup, temporary bleachers can be set up to raise total capacity to well over 40,000 maybe 50,000.

Instead of temporary bleachers, maybe they can do the old Ontario Place forum thing with general admission tickets on the grassy knoll in the south endzone.

[hamiltonguy]

Besides that who the hell wants to sit in end zone bleachers in November for a Grey cup or playoff game.

The people desperately trying to get tickets for the playoff game sunday?

Or people who love football. I sat in one the last time the Grey Cup was in the Hammer.

[waughste3]

Why does it have to be bleachers? There are temporary seating systems that have bucket seats. Just look at the top picture of this website (http://www.eventseating.co.nz/).

http://www.eventseating.co.nz/

And any new CFL stadium should have a minimum capacity of 40,000 with the possibility to expand bowl seating and add suites.

[BCTed]

I am not a fan of the idea of expanding a stadium over time simply because any stadium built that way seems to be on the cheap side and tends to look amateurish or lopsided.

It would be nice if a substantial, symmetric structure with 30K - 35K permanent seats were built.

[Rottie]

The West harbour location would be great. But if they are going to build something for the future, 25 or 30 thousand seats is just not big enough. They should be looking at something around 40,000 seats.

In Regina they are planning a dome stadium at a cost of 400-600 million dollars. I think I read something that said that would get them 45,000 seats.

I'm not saying we need a dome, but if they are going to build something that is going to be around for 50 years, don't chinze on it and build for the future.

Nothing written in stone yet but Regina is contemplating a retractable domed stadium with 33,000 permanent seats and expandable to 45,000 to 50,000 for Grey cups and other events. Hopefully it becomes reality. Great to hear Hamilton is getting a new facility. Now if only we can get Ottawa in the league with a new facility and the proposed new stadium in Winnipeg off the ground. Good news for the CFL.

[Rottie]

The estimated price of Regina's stadium is 350 mil.

[hamiltonguy]

Why does it have to be bleachers? There are temporary seating systems that have bucket seats. Just look at the top picture of this website (http://www.eventseating.co.nz/).

http://www.eventseating.co.nz/

And any new CFL stadium should have a minimum capacity of 40,000 with the possibility to expand bowl seating and add suites.

You gotta be kidding me.... 40,000!!!!!! You people are NOT realistic. The Tiger-Cats NEVER EVER EVER, draw crowds that would approach that size. Waste of money both now, and for maintenance.

[urban_planner]

I think it needs to be 30,000 not 40,000 NHL doesn't even attract that many people and its a far more popular sport. However it needs to be more then 25,000. I honestly think that if we get a new stadium and the cats are playing more fan will show up just to see the stadium and that would attract some new fans. Also some people don't go to games because then don't like Ivro Wyne, whether its the seating itself or the location in the middle of a neighbourhood.

Just a few thougts

[bigguy1231]

The estimated price of Regina's stadium is 350 mil.

I read an article the other day, I think it was on the Sportsnet website and the new estimates range between 400-600 million. Thats the first I had heard of the proposal, so I was just repeating what I read. It would be great if it gets built. Their fans deserve it.

[isaidso]

My vision of Hamilton is one where a downtown core is alive and thriving and has seamless access to a waterfront area that all Hamiltonians can enjoy, rather than one marred by a stadium of interest to only a few.

I wouldn't call 30,000 people only a few people. Why can't the waterfront be shared? You talk about the enjoyment of all Hamiltonians, then turn around and deny a significant portion of the population their enjoyment. Isn't it a little selfish to want all of the waterfront?

[isaidso]

I think it needs to be 30,000 not 40,000 NHL doesn't even attract that many people and its a far more popular sport. However it needs to be more then 25,000. I honestly think that if we get a new stadium and the cats are playing more fan will show up just to see the stadium and that would attract some new fans. Also some people don't go to games because then don't like Ivro Wyne, whether its the seating itself or the location in the middle of a neighbourhood.

Just a few thougts

It definitely needs to be 30,000 seats, no smaller. Most teams see a bump in attendance with a new facility. Ivor Wynne is so old that it's not a stretch to imagine a rather permanent bump in attendance. There are always some fickle people who won't show up unless you pamper them.

Hopefully the Bills will move to Los Angeles, and the Tiger-Cats will get an additional bounce.

[isaidso]

Just to clear things up, this is the stadium at 15,000 seats for the Pan American Games.

http://coldneck.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/panamstadium.jpg

After the games, the Hamilton Tiger-Cats will expand the stadium to 30,000 seats. The plan is for it to look like this. Note the upper deck added to the other side, and seating at the other end zone to create a complete 'bowl'.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/DC_83/CommonwealthStadium.jpg

[thistleclub]

I realize that this is just an artist's rendering, but if expansion plans involve mirroring half of the seating in a 15,000-seat venue (ie upper deck, endzone crescent), how would that bring you to 30,000 seats? My math at this hour isn't the greatest.

[SteelTown]

Stadium 'outlived its usefulness'
City on right track erecting new waterfront venue, some fans say

November 11, 2009
Dana Brown
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/670425

Philip Pickles has been attending games at Ivor Wynne Stadium for at least 25 years and he's ready for a change.

Although he's "a little" attached to the east-end stadium, the 39-year-old Hannon resident thinks a new waterfront venue at the old Rheem Canada site is the way to go.

"It's had its time," said Pickles of aging Ivor Wynne. "The stadium's outlived its usefulness."

Pickles would like to see a new venue offering some shelter to shield fans from blustery weather.

And he's not the only one ready to say goodbye to the old stadium.

Several fans at the Ticats' last home game said they supported the city's initiative to move forward on a new stadium, a move given a huge boost when southern Ontario recently won the right to host the 2015 Pan Am Games.

Hamilton is to provide the track stadium and velodrome and a practice pool at McMaster.

"It would be nice to have a new facility," Art Shore said. "Every major city seems to be spending money on a new facility. Why can't we?"

Shore, 72, has been heading to games at the stadium since he was a young man and suggested the site might suit a downsized venue for high school football.

As for losing a local landmark?

"We have a lot of great local landmarks," he said.

The Pan Am win means millions in federal and provincial funding to help construct a new 15,000-seat stadium. For a full-size venue for football, the cost would top $150 million, with the extra money to come from the private sector.

Keeping Ivor Wynne safely operating for the next several years will cost up to $20 million and a proper renovation carries a price tag of around $94 million.

The city has already purchased the former Rheem Canada plant to prepare for building a Pan Am stadium.

Carol Nagy, 44, of Burlington called having a new facility a "fabulous idea."

"I'm not terribly tied to a stadium," she said, noting that things change and modernize.

An educational centre or something that supports business would be good for the Balsam Avenue site, Nagy said.

Dave Howse, 47, said a new waterfront venue would be a great draw for the city and would be more accessible than Ivor Wynne.

He does concede, though, he will miss the legendary venue.

"It's a great old stadium."

Not everyone thinks the project is in the best interests of the city right now.

"I'm thinking that Hamilton could use the money better somewhere else," Eden Pearson said.

Pearson, 40, said with issues such as ongoing flooding, there are other things the city needs to take care of first.


A look back at Ivor Wynne Stadium:

Source: Hamilton Tiger-Cats

Originally called the Civic Stadium, Ivor Wynne opened its doors to the public for the first time in 1930.

The venue was initially constructed to hold the British Empire Games, the first major athletic event Canada hosted. With only about 2,000 seats, the stadium got a revamp after the Hamilton Tiger-Cats became permanent tenants at the venue in 1950.

Capacity was boosted with about 15,000 new seats and construction was completed in 1959.

In 1970, Civic Stadium, which was showing its age, was renamed in honour of Ivor Wynne, the McMaster University athlete, athletic director and first dean of students. The city ultimately shelled out $2 million for stadium renovations, bringing seating in the venue up to about 30,000, the largest venue in the Canadian Football League.

Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been poured into subsequent renovations over the years, including a new scoreboard and sound system, a new drainage revamp, new sewer connections and sky boxes for the 1996 Grey Cup which cost $1.2 million.

[flar]

Just because the Ti Cats didn't average many fans over the past years (when they barely ever won a game) doesn't mean they might not attract 30,000 or more fans in the future, with a better stadium and a better team on the field. It's pretty silly to say, oh we've only been getting 20,000, so let's build a stadium to fit exactly that many. If I were the owner of a professional team I would try to increase attendance, not strive for the status quo.

[thistleclub]

Just because the Ti Cats didn't average many fans over the past years (when they barely ever won a game) doesn't mean they might not attract 30,000 or more fans in the future, with a better stadium and a better team on the field. It's pretty silly to say, oh we've only been getting 20,000, so let's build a stadium to fit exactly that many. If I were the owner of a professional team I would try to increase attendance, not strive for the status quo.

True. At the end of the team's golden age, they were pulling 31,000 average -- and at the time, even the Grey Cup games were only pulling a few thousand more than that. But there have been a few seasons since then that they have rallied fewer than 15,000 a game. This is a team, lest we forget, that was bankrupt in 2003 and almost had its franchise yanked by the league a decade earlier. I agree that a larger facility potentially changes the dynamic, but it's an investment that the club needs to sort out, not taxpayers.

As far as a $200+ million arena, the additional investment would almost certainly have to be mostly private sector-based. If the team owners (and their local business afiliates) don't believe that much in the future of the franchise, why should the city? Take the Cats out of the picture and consider how many working and ideally profitable days a 40,000-seat open air venue would see in this city. Remember as well that taxpayers are already on the hook for dark days at Copps. And that, thanks to the Coyotes kerfuffle, the Bulldogs -- the venue's principal tenants -- are once again looking for an exit.

The idea that a Grey Cup win is a game changer as far as attendance goes is not as bankable as you'd think, either. In the 30-year sample that produced an average regular season home game attendance of 20,200, the team went to the Grey Cup seven times (1980, 1984-1986, 1989, 1998 and 1999) bringing it home twice -- in 1986 and 1999. In the 20-year period that produced and profited from those showings (1980-2000), average regular season home game attendance was just over 19,000.

Attendance bump from those Grey Cup wins?

1986 - 17,287
1987 - 16,999

1999 - 20,051
2000 - 20,057

As I said earlier, with this team anything is possible.

[SteelTown]

30,000 seats is fine, it should be the minimum. If needed you could add temporary seats to expand 40,000 seats. During Grey Cup perhaps have the ability to increase it to 50,000 seats.

If you have a stadium that's 40,000 you are increasing the break-even point and the city could lose money each year. With 30,000 the break-even point should be zero.

[Gurnett71]

I wouldn't call 30,000 people only a few people. Why can't the waterfront be shared? You talk about the enjoyment of all Hamiltonians, then turn around and deny a significant portion of the population their enjoyment. Isn't it a little selfish to want all of the waterfront?

Just to clarify: please note that the portion of my post that you quote above is actually a letter to the Spec. http://thespec.com/Opinions/Letterto...article/669179

For the record, I am for the waterfront location for the new stadium.

[SteelTown]

I think everybody is generally on board with a waterfront stadium at SSP Local: Hamilton.

[Gurnett71]

I think everybody is generally on board with a waterfront stadium at SSP Local: Hamilton.

Yeah, I think the location of the stadium really isn't that much of a debate here on SSP but it seems that there is still a lot of uncertainty in the general public.

I guess we can continue to argue the relative size of the stadium here...

[SteelTown]

We'll get more concrete information in February when Tourism Hamilton presents the business plan for the stadium to council. At that time we'll start to hear about private donation towards the stadium. The bunsiness plan will also require council to make the final decision on the stadium and velodrome location.

I think we're going to have a 30,000 stadium and not 15,000 during the 2015 Pan Am Games. It’ll be much cheaper to build a 30,000 at once than coming back to add more seats from a 15,000 seat stadium.

[realcity]

I am not a fan of the idea of expanding a stadium over time simply because any stadium built that way seems to be on the cheap side and tends to look amateurish or lopsided.

It would be nice if a substantial, symmetric structure with 30K - 35K permanent seats were built.

I agree. make a nice stadium. Do it right in the first place. If it's worth doing then its worth doing properly.

[realcity]

Just because the Ti Cats didn't average many fans over the past years (when they barely ever won a game) doesn't mean they might not attract 30,000 or more fans in the future, with a better stadium and a better team on the field. It's pretty silly to say, oh we've only been getting 20,000, so let's build a stadium to fit exactly that many. If I were the owner of a professional team I would try to increase attendance, not strive for the status quo.

Exactly. a new stadium would easily attract more ticket sales.... plus sustain them with a stadium that is far more comfortable and offers a better location and amenities.

[SteelTown]

I can't wait for the day to sit on an actual chair with a cup holder for my drink. Enough with the bench! A day after going to Ivor Wynne my back is totally screwed up.

[realcity]

to further support a 30,000 stadium. Won't there be other uses? like concerts. what else could this stadium be used for?

[SteelTown]

Training for track and field, a field for people to run in circles. Over the wintertime they'll put a bubble over the field to keep it open all year around. Basically a North End recreational centre. And yes to concerts as well.

Plus don't forget it'll be the future home of a new USL soccer team in Hamilton, Bob Young would like a USL team in Hamilton. He's co-owner of a USL team in the states.

[matt602]

I can't wait for the day to sit on an actual chair with a cup holder for my drink. Enough with the bench! A day after going to Ivor Wynne my back is totally screwed up.

I couldn't agree more with this. I have only gone to a few Ti-Cat games but the seating and atmosphere was my biggest complaint. Almost no shelter from the wind or extreme temperature and good god, benches? Definitely hard to sit through an entire football game in those things unless you bring/buy some booze to help you not notice. Call me a pampered Toronto boy but when I go to a sporting event I'd like to be comfortable.

[realcity]

o ya USL would be awesome... they have a longer season... more games if im correct

[SteelTown]

From what I have from the proposed Commonwealth stadium, basically the same idea, design and location

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v384/Aallen396/CommonwealthStadium.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v384/Aallen396/Stadium.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v384/Aallen396/Commonwealth.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v384/Aallen396/stadiu2.jpg

The seats next to the scoreboard at the endzone are temporary seats. On the other side of the endzone the upper section are also temporary seats.

"15,000 temporary seats will supplement the 27,000 permanent seats for the Commonwealth Games. The 42,000-seat new Commonwealth Stadium."

[geoff's two cents]

Thanks for posting, Steeltown. Assuming this is actually built, I wonder if city planners would ever consider (down the road) developing a retail/restaurant district adjacent to the stadium, with low-rise and high-rise residential density, of course.

It occurred to me that pubs or restaurants with streetwall frontage might back onto the south side of the stadium itself, thus affording some spectacular waterfront and game views. A USL team would, I think, make something like this all the more feasible.

[SteelTown]

^ This reminds me during the Commonwealth bid the Canadian Football Hall of Fame would relocate at the base of the stadium.

I wonder if that's being discussed.

[Gurnett71]

I really like the way the Commonwealth Stadium proposal linked downtown to the waterfront and made allowances for some higher density housing with piazzas/outlooks to the waterfront. Now, if we can only convince CN to move the railyards and unlock some more prime waterfront lands!

[bigguy1231]

The whole idea of putting the stadium in the West Harbour location was to open the area up to the Harbour. Hopefully the city can get CN to relocate the rail yard so we can get real access to the harbour from that location.

[isaidso]

Is it not possible to build parkland/public space over the rail lines to connect the city to the water? You wouldn't be able to plant big trees, but one could certainly hide the rail underneath.

[isaidso]

"15,000 temporary seats will supplement the 27,000 permanent seats for the Commonwealth Games. The 42,000-seat new Commonwealth Stadium."

So this is 27,000 without the end zone seats and 42,000 with them?

[SteelTown]

Cost issues raised over Pan Am site
Harbour challenges

November 12, 2009
Ken Peters
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/671358

A Pan Am stadium for Hamilton appears to be a slam dunk, but the location may be anything but.

Councillor Bob Bratina, whose ward includes the preferred west harbour site, wants the city to consider other locations, including Confederation Park, Hamilton airport and the Sir John A. Macdonald school property.

Bratina said there are several issues with the 12-hectare west harbour site bounded by Barton, Stuart, Bay and Queen streets that could add $20 million to $30 million to the construction price.

Homes will have to be expropriated, the property may have to be decontaminated and the stadium may have to be built on expensive pilings. As well, the project may be subject to a lengthy Ontario Municipal Board appeal.

The city recently bought the former Rheem Canada site, the eastern third of the proposed stadium site. The city wanted it, even without the Games, because it could create a link between the waterfront and the core.

Hamilton councillors are expected to receive a consultant's report in February that sets out the business plans for the various sites. Once that report is considered, council is to make a final decision.

"We need to have every option open, and that includes Confederation Park," Bratina said. "It includes every option. There are too many complexities on that (west harbour) site to make it a slam dunk."

Bratina said he "personally" doesn't believe the preferred site is the ideal location. He said the transit connections aren't great.

Hamilton council voted 12-3 in February 2009 to take $60 million from the Future Fund to help pay for a 15,000-seat stadium. Council set the west harbour site as the preferred location.

Mayor Fred Eisenberger said council's position remains in place.

"Nothing has changed," said Eisenberger this week.

But Bratina wants the location issue to be reopened. He believes the Macdonald school site would be preferable to the west harbour.

Councillor Chad Collins, who was instrumental in pushing to have the Confederation Park site removed from consideration, said the city position remains clear. The city would use $60 million on a stadium but the "carrot" for the municipality is that the senior levels of government would contribute substantial amounts that would permit the city to replace an aging Ivor Wynne Stadium.

The province and the federal government are set to contribute $54 million. The city would look to the private sector to contribute another $50 million to upgrade the facility to Canadian Football League standards as the future home of the Hamilton Tiger-Cats.

Eisenberger wants the designation of the west harbour to change from the preferred site to the selected site. But while he can't say when council will vote on the issue, the mayor said he wants the shovel in the ground on the Pan Am project sometime in spring 2011 to have the facility open by 2013.

Eisenberger said it makes sense for the city to have some sites as a fallback if the barriers to the west harbour lands prove too onerous.

"But there is no sense these alternate sites are being considered in any way as the site of the stadium unless there is some reason this site doesn't come to pass for whatever reason," he said.

Eisenberger said he was not aware of any rumblings from councillors who may want to revisit the stadium location issue.

[realcity]

Keep debating the location and it will be built in Burlington

[drpgq]

Is Bratina getting flak from his North End constituents? Because I live in his ward too and his other suggestions seem borderline nuts. How do you suggest a location where there's already a high school? Am I missing something here?

Maybe Bratina actually wants it there, but is just making a half assed effort to please his constituents.

[SteelTown]

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

[highwater]

Maybe Bratina actually wants it there, but is just making a half assed effort to please his constituents.

If that's the case, he's taking a huge risk just for the sake of placating what I'm sure is a minority of his constituents. He's creating unnecessary confusion and divisiveness at a time when council should be working together to achieve something positive for all Hamiltonians, not just North End NIMBY's and the sort people who can't imagine a higher purpose for public infrastructure other than providing acres of parking.

[thistleclub]

How do you suggest a location where there's already a high school?

Also home to Hamilton Community Energy (http://www.hamiltonce.com).

[Bob Bratina]

The Spectator reporter asked me if I would oppose the Barton/Tiffany site and I said no, which wasn't used in the story. The fact is there are 2 "approved" sites, waterfront and the airport. Both sites are to be assessed concurrently so as not to lose time should either be unacceptable for whatever reason. There are four concerns about the waterfront site; the cost of land assembly, the unknown cost of remediation, the bearing capacity of the subsoil, and the relatively poor transit and transportation connections.
Old maps predating the industrial era show the area as swampland. It's likely that the stadium and other structures would have to be built on pilings, so there is a possibility the site preparation costs would be in the tens of millions of dollars even before the start of construction, not to mention road and transit infrastructure costs. All this has to be factored into the final recommendation to Council.

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.

[markk]

^
Makes sense. thanks for providing clarity.

I just truly hope this stadium does not end up in airport lands. The stadium should become an iconic city landmark, and I think building near the airport would be a massive mistake.

[SteelTown]

Based on the funding formula the province is paying any cost overruns, not the federal or local government.

[bigguy1231]

If you want an example of a nice compact 30,000 seat stadium all you have to do is take a ride down to Buffalo. The University at Buffalo has one on campus. I have attended a couple of football games there. It's a nice setup, that was built for the World University Games back in the 90's.

I'll post a picture when I get the time.

[Fortunate4Now]

University of Buffalo's North Campus Stadium


http://admissions.buffalo.edu/images/counselors/easbie_main.jpg

http://prv-web.eng.buffalo.edu/dev/admissions_redesign/images/main/campus_athletics.jpg

[highwater]

...and the relatively poor transit and transportation connections.

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.

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.

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'.