Halifax Stadium Discussion

[beyeas]

Again, what you said that was incorrect was that it is "not allowed".

It might not be feasible or practical to put a CFL stadium at SMU given the particulars of SMU's situation, but it is not that such a thing is "not allowed" (as evidenced by other CFL teams being "allowed" to operate at a university stadium).

The question of whether such a stadium should go on SMU campus is a valid debate and you have good points to argue against it. But you are missing the point that what I said I disagreed with is that you cannot dismiss based only on the argument that (in your words) it is not allowed.

[Waye Mason]

Semantics. One says not allowed, the other says unlikely those old rich people in the south end will let it happen. Tomato, tomato.

[beyeas]

Generalizations are just "opinions for stupid people". LOL
Especially since it overlooks the fact that although the SE has the richest street in the city, the SE district also has one of the lowest average ages for residents... setting aside the fact that many of the biggest NIMBY's in this city live in other parts of town (Pacey, Watts, Bousqet...).

I am sure it is just as cool to generalize about other parts of the city too... or are the NIMBYs that fill those districts just salt of the earth workin' folk?

News flash big guy... NIMBYs are everywhere and I guarantee that wherever you put a stadium people will complain, and the complaint cheerleaders of them all will be people who don't live in the southend.

You call Southenders old rich people... I'll call them "people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy as you". Semantics I guess.

[someone123]

The South End stuff is just more tired old Halifax folklore from circa 1970.

Right up there with "What do you think this is? Toronto?" or "the NDP destroyed my Ultramar".

None of it holds up to scrutiny.

[beyeas]

Exactly... and put much better than I did (or at least with less anger )

The "We are not Toronto" one always makes me laugh... almost as much as that person who said that we should do these developments because then the economy would grow too fast.

[brettinhalifax]

account deleted

[Waye Mason]

Jeesus, joking, already

I am in fact one of the aforementioned South Enders (Vernon Street, best street in HRM!) I know that not all south enders are rich old people. Some are lower middle income families in their thirties, like me!

That said, I know from fighting HRSB back in 2005-6-7 that on the GIS maps HRSB produced there are not a lot of school age kids in the far south end (south of Inglis in the Inglis Elementary catchement area there are almost none). The demographics on the people south, east and west of SMU is old, kidless, and if you look on the city GIS, wealthy, or at least expensive properties.

That said, the reason the NDP wins Halifax Citadel in part because it is because half the district lives in apartments, or condos, or inherited a house, etc, and the NDP campaigns hard in those places and the PC has not.

Sadly, there are those in this neighborhood who protest anything at all, up to and including being worried about their property values because of the noise for the then proposed IWK helicopter landing pad. I was compelled to write a letter saying "damn the noise, save the kids" that time, it was just so silly. Obviously those people represent a vocal minority, who would be really vocal about a bigger stadium at SMU.

Has anyone actually heard if SMU would support a 10-15K stadium or not? Is there an official or semi-official word?

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by brettinhalifax

I'm about to pull a 180.

I have always been in favour of a pretty modest stadium. Something that could host CIS bowl games, concerts, maybe the FIFA Women's World Cup and was expandable to around 25,000 to accommodate a CFL team. I thought that the only potential event that wouldn't fit in the stadium was the Grey Cup. But I figured that a once a decade event didn't justify doubling or tripling the size or cost of the stadium.

But today, Qatar was awarded the 2022 World Cup. Qatar is a country in the Middle East with a population smaller than the Maritimes. And if Qatar can host a World Cup, why not Canada? Canada's national teams have higher rankings than Qatar, Canada has 20 times the population and an economy 15 times larger. Last week I thought a Canada hosting the World Cup was pure fantasy... but now, why not?

So now I think there are 2 potential big events for a Halifax Stadium, Grey Cups and a World Cup group. Maybe there is a business case to be made for a more elaborate stadium like the ones being built in Winnipeg and Hamilton. Those stadiums will suitable for the CFL and expandable to 40,000+ for Grey Cups and World Cups. But they also have budgets over $160 million.

I guess it isn't really a 180 because I can now see the case for both kinds of stadiums.

A cheap CIS, Vanier Cup, Women's World Cup Stadium
An expensive CFL, Grey Cup, World Cup Stadium.

In my opinion, the Winnipeg proposal seems to have gotten out of hand with multiple tiers that will greatly increase the cost. I still like the idea of a more basic stadium that can eventually be expanded to 40,000. The Women's FIFA Cup would be a great start and probably result in some federal funding for Halifax. However, I have read that the seating requirements the Women's FIFA Cup is 20,000 seats. Several stadiums of this size have been built for $70 million or less. This would also allow for a CFL team.

The CFL can be more than a dream for Halifax. The expansion fee for Ottawa was $7,000,000. If shares at $1000 each were sold to individuals then only 7,000 shares would be required to pay the expansion fee (I would buy at least 2 shares). I like the idea of a CFL team being a municipally owned team that could possibly be run by Trade Centre Inc. since they have experience in organizing large events.

The talk about Canada hosting the World Men's Cup has indicated the year 2034 as a possibility. I think most sports fans would want to see something happen long before then - personally, I am hoping for the first stage of a permanent stadium by 2015 for the World Women's Cup.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

Jeesus, joking, already

I am in fact one of the aforementioned South Enders (Vernon Street, best street in HRM!) I know that not all south enders are rich old people. Some are lower middle income families in their thirties, like me!

Fair enough... sorry for biting that hard at that. I have had battles on here over the sterotype that all people who live in the southend are a) rich and b) anti-development. Hence the reason why I went off that quickly.

Also... apparently we are neighbours, given that I am a 30-something who lives one street behind you.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by beyeas

Fair enough... sorry for biting that hard at that. I have had battles on here over the sterotype that all people who live in the southend are a) rich and b) anti-development. Hence the reason why I went off that quickly.

I think that was me - however, I have mellowed a bit over the past few months.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by beyeas

Again, what you said that was incorrect was that it is "not allowed".

That's correct. It wouldn't be allowed, and I stand by that. South end residents would tie that up in the courts for decades. It's already been established that this discussion was about Saint Mary's and south end Halifax, not some other part of the country.

[Waye Mason]

Originally Posted by beyeas

Also... apparently we are neighbours, given that I am a 30-something who lives one street behind you.

Kids at LMST? My daughter is in grade 6F!

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I still like the idea of a more basic stadium that can eventually be expanded to 40,000.

That's the right way to go. Build something simple, affordable, but that can easily be added on to later. Isn't 45,000 what Grey Cup would like to see as a minimum capacity though?

Another design element that lends itself to easy expansion is to experiment with stands that don't cover the full 150 yards of play (110 yard field + 2 end zones of 20 yards each). If you had a 12,000 seat stand on each side that only stretched from goal line to goal line, you leave another 40 yards of potential stand on each side of the field.

Carrying on with that idea further, one could build a 12,000 seat stand that stretched only from the 10 yard line to the other 10 yard line. You'd have 24,000 seats altogether. Building out these stands all the way to the end would give you another 12,000 seats for a total of 36,000 seats. (100 yards: 24,000 seats; another 50 yards: another 12,000 seats)

You wouldn't have to do it all at once if the design allowed for incremental additions. You could build sections of 3,000 seats. 1 new section of 3,000 seats at each end of a stand, then the same on the other side: 24,000---27,000---30,000---33,000---36,000

For the Grey Cup, you could add up to 6,000 seats at each end zone for a total of 48,000. Using this technique coupled with a sunken bowl allows for even more flexibility in capacity.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

Kids at LMST? My daughter is in grade 6F!

Nope... just got married 4 months ago so no kids yet LOL
Not to get off topic on this thread, but it will be interesting to see whether they go through with the previous plans for re-doing the LMST and UStA sites.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by isaidso

That's correct. It wouldn't be allowed, and I stand by that. South end residents would tie that up in the courts for decades. It's already been established that this discussion was about Saint Mary's and south end Halifax, not some other part of the country.

Anyway... I am dropping this stupid argument, and the last thing I will say is that there is a world of difference between "not allowed" and "not feasible". I agree it is likely not feasible given reasons you have cited, but that doesn't mean it is not allowed.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I think that was me - however, I have mellowed a bit over the past few months.

Meh... I am clearly over it.

LOL

[Waye Mason]

Originally Posted by beyeas

Nope... just got married 4 months ago so no kids yet LOL
Not to get off topic on this thread, but it will be interesting to see whether they go through with the previous plans for re-doing the LMST and UStA sites.

I don't think there is the slightest chance of LMST being replaced. Parents are not screaming for it. The old building needs a million bucks in work, but thats it.

is there a thread for politically motivated school construction announcement discussion?

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Waye Mason

I don't think there is the slightest chance of LMST being replaced. Parents are not screaming for it. The old building needs a million bucks in work, but thats it.

is there a thread for politically motivated school construction announcement discussion?

No, but an interesting thread would involve what school buildings need to be closed given our declining enrollment and the need to take cost out of the P-12 system, and what could be developed on their property. St. Pat's High is the poster child for that -- a building in a prime location no longer used for teaching yet kept from development by HRSB.

[beyeas]

I'll get back to the stadium discussion before the moderator slaps my hand :-)

As much as I think that a setting like Gorsebrook would be amazing for a stadium, I actually do agree with people that it is likely not feasible for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the backlash from neighbours (in that case, Oakland Street in particular).

That in and of itself isn't a good reason to not pursue a southend location, but realistically it is going to be difficult enough to get people on-side with building a stadium that the location will have to be chosen carefully to not cause additional problems.

The southend is by no means exclusive on that front though, as there are a number of other potential sites that will likely be met with equal opposition and result in things being tired up in court. One need only look at the fact that the condo building near Burnside that is being appealed to the URB as a primo example of how this happens all over the city. The opposition to anything over 7 stories in the north end is also a good example. You don't need to be rich to be a NIMBY, and you don't need to be rich to have influence... you just have to be loud, and it helps if you have a NIMBY city counsellor on your side (e.g. Watts). Those two combined are more than enough to kill projects, or at least delay them until they are no longer feasible.

In an odd way, the "best" stadium location (given the huge amount of negative inertia/apathy working against the project) is the one that is the least objectionable to the most people. Accessibility is always going to be an issue in Halifax, given the geography... the fact is that no matter where you put it SOMEONE is going to have to cross a bridge etc. I personally have resigned myself to the fact that in the interest of building a stadium at all, we may have to give up on choosing the "best" location in favour of the "least objectionable one".

To wrap up my little rant :-), as much as I love Halifax, the thing that annoys me is how it seems like throughout the city there are people who won't accept that they don't live is a small sleepy quiet town any more, but rather a growing city that needs to grow more and grow in a "smart" fashion. There are absolutely those in the SE who seem want to forget that they are living in an urban environment, and what comes along with the convenience of that is the fact that you get all the "background" that comes from being in an urban location. Everyone seems to want, in every part of the city, to have a "sub-urban" experience that they think they are entitled to. Hence the reason (among others) why people living next to a business park or along Windsor street or etc etc protest condo buildings and claim they are blocking their sun, will create traffic bla bla bla.

The fact is that there is a vocal minority spread throughout the city that wants the city to not grow, have been able through their protestations to prevent smart growth, and have then ignored the fact that no matter what they want the city IS growing around them.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

No, but an interesting thread would involve what school buildings need to be closed given our declining enrollment and the need to take cost out of the P-12 system, and what could be developed on their property. St. Pat's High is the poster child for that -- a building in a prime location no longer used for teaching yet kept from development by HRSB.

We probably SHOULD start a thread on this.

The PCs had proposed a plan to rebuild from scratch the LMST school, close one other in the SE (I can't remember which... Inglis Street maybe), and then also when the UStA lease expires in a few years they would not renew the lease, renovate that building as a junior high, and then close to two other south-end junior highs (Cornwallis, and Gorsebrook I think). I had paid close attention to this because my property backs onto the LMST property.

I agree that St Pats is absolutely the poster child of land that should be freed up and redeveloped. It is PRIME real estate in my opinion.

Who knows if that plan still exists. In a sense it is sort of relevant in this thread though since closing Inglis and Gorsebrook would open up more land in the Gorsebrook area obviously, although as I said above that likely is a moot point anyway.