Tim Hortons Field | 40m | ? | Complete

SteelTown · #1 Posted **Nov 7, 2009, 12:07 AM**

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 · #2 Posted **Nov 7, 2009, 2:34 AM**

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 · #3 Posted **Nov 7, 2009, 3:06 AM**

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/Letterto...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 · #4 Posted **Nov 7, 2009, 3:08 AM**

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

crhayes · #5 Posted **Nov 7, 2009, 3:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gurnett71

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 · #6 Posted **Nov 7, 2009, 3:30 AM**

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

flar · #7 Posted **Nov 7, 2009, 5:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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/Letterto...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 · #8 Posted **Nov 7, 2009, 11:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by flar

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 · #9 Posted **Nov 7, 2009, 3:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BCTed

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 · #10 Posted **Nov 7, 2009, 3:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gurnett71

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 · #11 Posted **Nov 7, 2009, 4:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · #12 Posted **Nov 7, 2009, 4:24 PM**

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

realcity · #13 Posted **Nov 7, 2009, 4:52 PM**

awesome
I got a bit excited so I did a logo

holymoly · #14 Posted **Nov 7, 2009, 5:14 PM**

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

realcity · #15 Posted **Nov 7, 2009, 5:38 PM**

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

That rendering is missing lighting

Waterfront · #16 Posted **Nov 7, 2009, 5:39 PM**

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 · #17 Posted **Nov 7, 2009, 5:45 PM**

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 · #18 Posted **Nov 7, 2009, 5:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by realcity

awesome
I got a bit excited so I did a logo

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 · #19 Posted **Nov 7, 2009, 6:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by flar

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 · #20 Posted **Nov 7, 2009, 6:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berklon

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.