By Ryan McGreal
Published September 02, 2010
With the purported reintroduction of Confederation Park as a potential site, the Pan Am stadium debate has completed the sad transition from a question of which location will produce the most benefit to which location will cause the least harm.
At this point we've clearly abandoned all hope of achieving the goal of revitalizing an otherwise-inert brownfield. The lingering question concerns whether we'd rather sacrifice a lively waterfront park or a long-term innovation employment district for the privilege of providing a free home to a struggling $15 million-a-year retail sports operation.
By brian (anonymous)
Posted September 02, 2010 15:52:11
( Permalink )
By H+H (anonymous)
Posted September 02, 2010 16:04:57
( Permalink )
By randomguy (anonymous)
Posted September 02, 2010 16:46:02
( Permalink )
By bigguy1231 (registered)
Posted September 02, 2010 16:52:03
Besides the obvous problems with building at CP, there is the weather problem. Who in their right mind wants to sit at a stadium on the lake in the early Spring or Fall. The winds howling off the lake will be bone chilling.
Remember the mistake by the lake in Toronto. Opening day for the Blue Jays was always an adventure. It was more often than not parka time.
( Permalink )
By Jason (registered)
Posted September 02, 2010 17:03:32
I'm sorry but confederation park is a non starter for me and I hope others will join me in mustering up enough resolve to email council and let them know this is unacceptable. The cats are simply trying to wear us out. Don't let them. The point of a compromise is to meet in the middle. NOT to give one party their first choice location and gobs of public money. Compromise or go home Cats.
( Permalink )
By Cityjoe (anonymous)
Posted September 02, 2010 17:11:51
( Permalink )
By bigguy1231 (registered)
Posted September 02, 2010 17:17:58
It looks like Bratina is responsible for this rumour. They interviewed him on CHCH news and he is pushing for it to be reconsidered.
They also interviewed Whitehead and Powers who both wanted nothing to do with reopening the CP discussion.
( Permalink )
By Be T (anonymous)
Posted September 02, 2010 17:20:30
( Permalink )
By RenaissanceWatcher (anonymous)
Posted September 02, 2010 17:21:02
( Permalink )
By Be T (anonymous)
Posted September 02, 2010 17:24:16
( Permalink )
By LauraF (registered)
Posted September 02, 2010 17:26:55
Confederation Park was voted down in January 2009... 11-5. Cl. Collins was the first to voice concerns over Confederation Park, however several councillors felt the same way. It "snowballed".
CATCH article... http://www.hamiltoncatch.org/view_articl...
The links are broken, due to thespec.com's new format, but here they are:
Dreschel's Article: http://www.thespec.com/opinion/article/1...
http://www.thespec.com/news/local/articl...
http://www.thespec.com/news/local/articl...
And a great Op-Ed by Terry Cooke: http://www.thespec.com/opinion/article/1...
( Permalink )
By highwater (registered)
Posted September 02, 2010 17:32:02
Greenspace on the lake is made for a mini golf course, video games, batting cages, climbing wall, bumper cars and a half kilometre asphalt gokart course.
You mean recreational facilities that can be enjoyed by people of all ages for most of the year, as opposed to a stadium for a corporate welfare bum tenant and a sea of asphalt that will sit empty 355 days of the year on some of our most valuable lakefront?
( Permalink )
By jason (registered)
Posted September 02, 2010 17:33:04
Be T,
you conveniently forgot the huge waterpark, home to Canada's largest wave pool and the PARK. Yes, what a novel idea to allow east Hamilton residents access to parkspace. It's not like they live in an over polluted region with lots of truck traffic or anything.
I like the new master plan for Confederation Park with it's shops, cafes, urban village concept and waterfront walkways. That makes much more sense than plopping a huge stadium down there.
I just emailed council. I urge others to do the same. There's only 2 weeks left of this nonsense.
( Permalink )
By Creeker (anonymous)
Posted September 02, 2010 17:35:04
( Permalink )
By z jones (registered)
Posted September 02, 2010 17:43:43
As a taxpayer I hereby throw down the gauntlet: West Harbour or nowhere!
( Permalink )
By HamiltonFan (registered)
Posted September 02, 2010 17:53:11
Comment edited by HamiltonFan on 2010-09-02 17:54:53
( Permalink )
By highwater (registered)
Posted September 02, 2010 18:06:03
By LOLBOB (anonymous)
Posted September 02, 2010 18:06:54
( Permalink )
By Be T (anonymous)
Posted September 02, 2010 18:17:54
( Permalink )
By arienc (registered)
Posted September 02, 2010 18:23:31
To be fair, based on the view from Google Earth, the existing Confederation Park parking lot looks to be large enough to hold 2 Ivor Wynne Stadia. There also seems to be an open space in between the lots which could hold a third.
There are also advantages in being close to the GO line (which will be about 10 minutes train ride from Downtown, and connected to the rest of the Golden Horseshoe via transit.
The big disadvantage I can see is a lack of options for connected development. But apart from pubs, restaurants and the like, the potential for massive spinoff development isn't that realistic anyhow.
One thing this would do is make it necessary to terminate LRT at Confederation Park instead of Eastgate, and likely spur bigger scale development of the hideous Centennial/Barton area. I think from a business standpoint it's far better than MIP (although inferior to West Harbour). As I outlined this weekend, with the Cats entrenched position and time running out it looks increasingly more likely that Confederation Park is the only suitable option that both keeps the Cats in Hamilton and passes Hostco's need for the facility to be connected to the Pan Am Games athletes via transit.
MIP will move forward with or without the stadium, and frankly, I think that site would be the worst for the city, for the Cats as a business, and for the Pan Am games.
( Permalink )
By UrbanRenaissance (registered)
Posted September 02, 2010 18:43:47
Here's yet another twist!
Frank Gehry (yes that Frank Gehry) is interested in designing a large west harbour development that will "put Hamilton on the map". According to the article it will be a large building designed for a single use. (Given the timing and location, it sounds like a stadium to me.) If the Cats want visibility what would be better than having one of the world's best architects design your stadium precinct?
Comment edited by UrbanRenaissance on 2010-09-02 18:52:08
( Permalink )
By Henry and Joe (anonymous)
Posted September 02, 2010 18:50:52
( Permalink )
By FenceSitter (anonymous)
Posted September 02, 2010 18:52:56
( Permalink )
By z jones (registered)
Posted September 02, 2010 18:55:20
I get marked down for "not adding to the conversation here" and you guys upvote LOLBOB
LOLBOB is humorously expressing the deep frustration we all feel with what an asshole Bob Young is and how pathetic our councillors are. You are just being a douchebag.
( Permalink )
By jonathan dalton (registered)
Posted September 02, 2010 19:20:44
Really how many stupid ideas have we seen in the last few months that get exposed as such after the initial e-mail, tweet or councillor talking out their ass to the media fails to produce anything worth reporting? We're talking about the very first site to be outright rejected. It's not on the table, hasn't been for a year, wasn't on there for long in the first place, and can't be put back without 2/3 of council.
( Permalink )
By brian (anonymous)
Posted September 02, 2010 19:22:18
( Permalink )
By Be T (anonymous)
Posted September 02, 2010 19:22:53
( Permalink )
By Be T (anonymous)
Posted September 02, 2010 19:24:15
( Permalink )
By Be T (anonymous)
Posted September 02, 2010 19:36:35
( Permalink )
By Be T (anonymous)
Posted September 02, 2010 19:38:03
( Permalink )
By jonathan dalton (registered)
Posted September 02, 2010 19:44:58
i bet they push forward longwood/aberdeen without knowing all the facts and problems
If they push forward with anything, they will be pushing forward without knowing all the facts and problems. They have 2 weeks.
( Permalink )
By Chewbaca73 (anonymous)
Posted September 02, 2010 20:02:05
( Permalink )
By Jason (registered)
Posted September 02, 2010 20:39:17
No chance they build at CP. It's horrible in every way.
( Permalink )
By Brandon (registered)
Posted September 02, 2010 20:49:44
Here's a good question: Why is Bob Young going to get any money for naming rights of the stadium?
( Permalink )
By realfreeenterpriser (registered)
Posted September 02, 2010 20:55:41
You mean OUR stadium?
( Permalink )
By Unacceptable (anonymous)
Posted September 02, 2010 15:43:16
( Permalink )