HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton > Downtown & City of Hamilton


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #161  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2010, 6:13 PM
realcity's Avatar
realcity realcity is offline
Bruatalism gets no respec
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Williamsville NY
Posts: 4,059
now it's only 20,000 seats?


It should be 30,000, minimum 25k. if we want to host Grey Cups ever
__________________
Height restrictions and Set-backs are for Nimbys and the suburbs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #162  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2010, 12:16 AM
SteelTown's Avatar
SteelTown SteelTown is offline
It's Hammer Time
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 19,119
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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #163  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2010, 12:40 AM
realcity's Avatar
realcity realcity is offline
Bruatalism gets no respec
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Williamsville NY
Posts: 4,059
sooooo, what is the City aiming for?

I get it... more studies.
__________________
Height restrictions and Set-backs are for Nimbys and the suburbs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #164  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2010, 12:41 AM
SteelTown's Avatar
SteelTown SteelTown is offline
It's Hammer Time
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 19,119
The business case is to find a location. It recommends the West Harbourfront. Council on Thursday will vote on the site slection.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #165  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2010, 12:45 AM
SteelTown's Avatar
SteelTown SteelTown is offline
It's Hammer Time
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 19,119
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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #166  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2010, 4:01 PM
Bob Bratina Bob Bratina is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 23
Pan Am Plan Unsupportable

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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #167  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2010, 4:06 PM
SteelTown's Avatar
SteelTown SteelTown is offline
It's Hammer Time
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 19,119
I guess we found a councillor that supports the Airport site for a stadium.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #168  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2010, 4:54 PM
drpgq drpgq is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Hamilton/Dresden
Posts: 1,681
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #169  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2010, 5:01 PM
Berklon's Avatar
Berklon Berklon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hamilton (The Brooklyn of Canada)
Posts: 2,506
Very short-sighted and backwards thinking.

I'd rather have no new stadium than one located near the airport.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #170  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2010, 5:51 PM
emge's Avatar
emge emge is offline
Needs more coffee...
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 837
WOW. I have to hope someone hacked into Councillor Bratina's account.

I usually support him, but that stance is completely indefensible.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #171  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2010, 6:02 PM
Bob Bratina Bob Bratina is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 23
Pam Am

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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #172  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2010, 6:05 PM
realcity's Avatar
realcity realcity is offline
Bruatalism gets no respec
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Williamsville NY
Posts: 4,059
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?
__________________
Height restrictions and Set-backs are for Nimbys and the suburbs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #173  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2010, 6:08 PM
markbarbera markbarbera is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 3,050
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #174  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2010, 7:19 PM
drpgq drpgq is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Hamilton/Dresden
Posts: 1,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbarbera View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #175  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2010, 7:46 PM
Bob Bratina Bob Bratina is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 23
Sjam

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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #176  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2010, 9:59 PM
thistleclub thistleclub is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by realcity View Post
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?
__________________
"Where architectural imagination is absent, the case is hopeless." - Louis Sullivan
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #177  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2010, 10:25 PM
Bob Bratina Bob Bratina is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 23
Pan Am Site update

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"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #178  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2010, 10:32 PM
Migs's Avatar
Migs Migs is offline
Regina 4 Life
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Regina, Sk, Canada
Posts: 3,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Bratina View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #179  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2010, 11:35 PM
SteelTown's Avatar
SteelTown SteelTown is offline
It's Hammer Time
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 19,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Bratina View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Bratina View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Bratina View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Bratina View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #180  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2010, 12:07 AM
emge's Avatar
emge emge is offline
Needs more coffee...
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 837
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
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton > Downtown & City of Hamilton
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:39 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.