Sports

You See It.

By Graham Crawford
Published July 22, 2010

Here's a video that provides a new way of 'looking' (pun intended) at the Stadium site and debate - the West Harbour has everything the EM doesn't:

Graham Crawford was raised in Hamilton, moving to Toronto in 1980 where he spent 25 years as the owner of a successful management consulting firm that he sold in 2000. He retired and moved back to Hamilton in 2005 and became involved in heritage and neighbourhood issues. He opened Hamilton HIStory + HERitage on James North in 2007, a multi-media exhibition space (aka a storefront museum) celebrating the lives of the men and women who have helped to shape the City of Hamilton.

37 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By JM (registered) | Posted July 22, 2010 at 08:41:49

I "like" this..... very much. Ryan/Jason you need to "borrow" this feature from Facebook!

Going to the game is more about than just getting to the game... or finding a place to park at the game. Its about the experience, and everything you take in before and after the game. Sorry, but you can't get anything out of a soul-less parking lot.

JM

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By mystoneycreek (registered) - website | Posted July 22, 2010 at 08:46:22

Superlative commentary, wonderful effort. Well done to all those involved. It certainly elicited the desired reaction in me. Kudos.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Lurkalicious (anonymous) | Posted July 22, 2010 at 08:54:24

For people familiar with skyscraper page, Aaron Segaert is the talented photo essayist "Flar", someone who has done more to promote our fine city than a billion dollars worth of Tourism Hamilton PR work.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted July 22, 2010 at 08:54:55

Excellent job.

This is my Hamilton exactly. Hamilton has a lot of terrific features, and if we focus and build on those, she can be what we all want her to be.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By skully2001 (registered) | Posted July 22, 2010 at 09:11:22

This needs to be sent to every member of city council...what's the collective email address that allows you to email all of 'em at once? I saw it in one of the threads, but can't recall which one...

I also want to email them the link to today's Star article by Storm Cunningham...more required reading for city council.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By TreyS (registered) | Posted July 22, 2010 at 09:17:58

I hate when people say "no pun intended" or "pun intended", ok i get it. I noticed the pun, you don't need to point it out to me. You don't hear people say, "metaphor intended", or "onomatopoeia not intended".

anyway good vid Graham and Flar, thanks

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted July 22, 2010 at 09:49:25

Thank you Graham and Aaron. A thousand times thank you.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Henry and Joe (anonymous) | Posted July 22, 2010 at 10:38:30

Thanks Graham and Aaron,

Your art work always makes me a little emotional.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By UrbanRenaissance (registered) | Posted July 22, 2010 at 11:34:48

Wow, well done guys!

When I first started researching where I wanted to move to in Hamilton, one of the first things I came across was Flar's amazing photo-tours of each neighbourhood. (Incidentally, it was also how I first came across RTH.) My fiancée and I spent hours going through that massive thread trying to settle on where to live. Tourism Hamilton could learn a thing or two from you guys.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By jonathan dalton (registered) | Posted July 22, 2010 at 12:15:35

Awesome.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By DanJelly (registered) - website | Posted July 22, 2010 at 15:54:59

Nice job on the video. Well done.

I hate when people say "no pun intended" or "pun intended", ok i get it. I noticed the pun, you don't need to point it out to me. You don't hear people say, "metaphor intended", or "onomatopoeia not intended".

Oh snap! (onomatopoeia intended)

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Kiely (registered) | Posted July 22, 2010 at 16:02:30

I hate when people say "no pun intended" or "pun intended", ok i get it. I noticed the pun, you don't need to point it out to me. You don't hear people say, "metaphor intended", or "onomatopoeia not intended". - TreyS

"Pun intended" is used to clarify the fact that it was intentional, because many puns can come across as sloppy writing, poor choice of words or malapropisms if they were not intended. So the author is sort of saying "I know, poor choice of words but it was intended".

As for "no pun intended" that is better used in speech after inadvertently making a pun. In writing if no pun was actually intended it is better to correct the wording.

Comment edited by Kiely on 2010-07-22 15:03:21

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By F. Ward Cleat (anonymous) | Posted July 22, 2010 at 16:38:49

I've seen it for decades. A beautiful city at the head of the lake. Where the trees still dominate the landscape in spring, summer and fall. Beneath the canopy lies an aging industrial centre some of which is still productive while much of it is left to ruin. This stadium debate is not so much about a stadium, as it is about a citys immediate future. Should we take this PanAm opportunity and begin the restoration or ignore the ruins once again.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Michelle Martin (registered) - website | Posted July 22, 2010 at 18:50:28

Nicely done (compliment intended).

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By z jones (registered) | Posted July 22, 2010 at 18:50:42

Oh snap! (onomatopoeia intended)

Well played Sir.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted July 22, 2010 at 20:34:28

Should we take this PanAm opportunity and begin the restoration or ignore the ruins once again.

It's Hamilton. Take a wild guess what we'll do.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By kourt (anonymous) | Posted July 22, 2010 at 20:55:28

Wow! Fantastic work Graham and Aaron...as UrbanRenaissance stated earlier, Tourism Hamilton could certainly learn from your fine example.

The undeniable winds of change are in the air...we in Hamilton will certainly loose our share of battles in the coming years as we continue our rebirth, but there's no going back now...too much critical mass of positive things happening by the great people in our communities with vision, passion and pride. That said, we do not want to loose this particular battle - this one's just too important.

It's absolutely evident to me now more than ever that we need a new team of qualified / strong / influential / visionary / passionate / diverse city leaders that can "work together" to move this city forward into our next phases of regeneration and growth over the next few years. Any city leader that supports the East Mountain must go...they either don't get it, or they don't have the courage to do the right thing when we need them the most...either way they must go.

As for the ti-cats...what can you say. Sad old school thinking...they think a stadium-by-the-highway is the only way to go no matter how many experts in urban planning and sports marketing tell us otherwise. Perhaps they should be more focused on drawing fans into their stadium by putting a winning team on the field.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Meredith (registered) - website | Posted July 22, 2010 at 22:14:19

When I first started researching where I wanted to move to in Hamilton, one of the first things I came across was Flar's amazing photo-tours of each neighbourhood. (Incidentally, it was also how I first came across RTH.) My fiancée and I spent hours going through that massive thread trying to settle on where to live. Tourism Hamilton could learn a thing or two from you guys.

Likewise - when we moved here, Jarod and myself spent a lot of time researching where to live, and Aaron's photo tours were a huge factor in us eventually choosing Stinson.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted July 23, 2010 at 06:58:39

Aaron also took the awesome panorama that serves as the footer for my personal website. He's one hell of a talented photographer.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2010-07-23 06:00:09

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By WRCU2 (registered) | Posted July 23, 2010 at 07:44:21

I see IT and I feel IT is good to give praise where praise is due.

Has city council or any members of our local media done anything praiseworthy of late? Does our Mayor deserve praise for being a leader so great?

Are there any property developers out there who have broken from the mold and taken on projects we would brandish as bold?

I like the slide show very much in spite of the sleepy time musical score. Still I am left wondering, waiting, watching for IT; Dreaming of a new Hamilton media stint, that's what I'm hoping for.

There is so much talent in this city, I am surprised that IT has been detained. Much of IT is here at RTH, what a pity IT has been contained.

What if we all got together someday just for the hell of IT? We could share in some angry drinks and savory solutions of spit!

If we can see IT then why haven't we seized IT yet? That is the part that I don't get:-(

I'm sorry that my wit is all wet;-)

Comment edited by WRCU2 on 2010-07-23 06:55:57

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted July 23, 2010 at 16:13:02

Ryan: "Aaron also took the awesome panorama that serves as the footer for my personal website."

Say what you will about a one-way Main, but it does kick some big-city drama into dusk panoramas.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Capitalist (anonymous) | Posted July 23, 2010 at 16:46:27

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Jason (registered) | Posted July 23, 2010 at 16:58:00

The Ticats could locate anywhere they choose if they were footing the bill.

Aaron, aka- flar is remarkable at what he does. Tourism Hamilton should be purchasing rights to his stuff. Incredible work. Also, great work by Graham putting it together.
I was on the high level bridge the other day and that view would be even more amazing with condos alongside a new stadium instead of the toxic old factory buildings.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Petard (anonymous) | Posted July 24, 2010 at 13:09:57

@Jason: "The Ticats could locate anywhere they choose if they were footing the bill."

Ah so now it comes out. It isn't about city building, it's about capitalism. Who knew Jason was such a corporatist? Capitalist he is one of you. See his answer isn't for the benefit of the city, it's about who is ponying up the capital. Jason, your own words betray you. Shame.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted July 24, 2010 at 23:40:15

I'm not saying I would like their choice, but if they were paying 100% of the cost to construct and operate a stadium, how could anyone stop them?
In this case, it is tax money being spent to make a wrong decision, and that is unacceptable. If they want to make a ridiculous choice that will be a money pit for decades to come, they should do it on their own dime. In fact, I challenge the Cats - if they think a suburban stadium is such a great idea why not pay for it themselves? Why leave all of us on the hook after Bob Young has had his 10 years of naming rights and parking money and perhaps decides it's time to sell the team and head back to the USA?
If the EM is the right choice, it should be a money maker for decades and be a prized asset that future owners clamour to own. Why is the public being put on the hook here instead of the Cats??

Why are condo, office, hotel, retail and entertainment developers coming out of the woodwork now in support of the West Harbour and offering to join forces to develop the land around the stadium (the whole purpose for choosing WH in the first place, by the way) and yet the only voice of support for the EM is from a group who owns a banquet hall across the street and has been trying to construct a hotel for a few years now with no luck??

For decades people have wondered why Hamilton seems frozen in time while new condo, entertainment options and hotels are built in Toronto and then the rest of the GTA?
Finally we get top notch builders like the Molinaro Group offering to bring their fabulous mixed-use condo/retail concept to Hamilton's downtown and our own council is poised to tell them to get lost?? This was the whole reason for choosing WH 10 years ago. Not because a stadium is some magic bullet, but because we're sitting on the most valuable, undeveloped, scenic waterfront land left in Southern Ontario. If council chooses to stay the course, keeping our city frozen in 1975 I hope they all pay a big price in the next election. Some of us actually want Hamilton to succeed, revive and prosper. If we won't even make the basic, proper choices to enable our own success, why would Balsillie, Katz or Molinaro??

Comment edited by jason on 2010-07-24 22:46:48

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Herman Turkstra (anonymous) | Posted July 25, 2010 at 12:45:55

A wonderful video. There are few points that are missing: (1) 25000 people will arrive in 7500 cars. 2500 of those will go through the North End Neighbourhood. The 1200 children living there did not seem to be a factor in the video. (2) 8 local citizens including me, spent five years studying the Barton-Bay area and concluded, along with all the professional planners and experts and commenting agencies that the area should be developed for housing to bring hundreds of families to live in the wonderful area depicted in Graham's video; (3) Bob Young has scoured the capital markets looking for even one person or company willing to invest in the West Harbour stadium, and he found none; (4)Six internationally renowned sports marketers visited the site and all provided Michael Fenn with the opinion that the West Harbour stadium site will fail economically; (5) If it were successful, it would be used 100 days a year and empty 265 days a year. Just sitting there. A concrete hulk. (6) No one who is currently promoting the West Harbour site has spent any time in the living rooms of the people who made the choice to live in the city core, next to the West Harbour, nor the parents of the children who live there, and so the promoters of the West Harbour site have in effect told the people on Caroline and Hess and Queen that they can be horrendously impacted in their daily lives for the good of the current dream. Unfortunately we've seen this dream before and we know it didn't work. What works is people like Graham and Ryan and Dave and other individuals making small differences in our city life which cumulatively make this a much better place than all the million dollar mega projects will ever do. Our salvation is not in a stadium. It is in thousands of tiny steps, working together.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Nay-bour (anonymous) | Posted July 25, 2010 at 13:36:39

Hello Graham, would you consider redoing the video with the stadium in the HAAA grounds on Charlton and Queen. I guess not. If you did, you would then become a neighbour to the stadium and an opponent for sure. Particularly when the open air concerts are run and the tail-gate drunks are cruising Herkimer and Queen and maybe even Aberdeen.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted July 25, 2010 at 14:13:41

HAAA can barely hold a running track. Let's please stay reasonable.

Herman, thank you for your response and for participating in the discussion. I live in the north end of Strathcona, a short walk to the stadium site and would absolutely love to be able to walk over there soon to enjoy new restaurants, cafes, shops, and see bustling new condo neighbourhoods and parkspace. Being right near York Blvd and a 6-7 minute walk to the stadium site I am much closer and will be much more impacted than you will. Yet, I long for the day when that 6 minute walk brings me dining and entertainment options instead of toxic dump sites and dangerous, polluted brownfields. I also recognize the fact that despite all of the wonderful condo plans in Setting Sail, nothing will ever get built there without a massive infusion of government money to clean up the land and remove the brownfields.

My question to you as a relatively close neighbour to the site is this - how do you and the other 8 citizens involved in Setting Sail propose that this land be cleaned up and filled with condos, shops and dining options? We've heard from two condo developers this week alone who sound eager to bring some great new developments to this area once it's cleaned up. By turning down the government money and Future Fund money for this project, are you suggesting that you would prefer to see it sit empty like this for decades in the midst of our neighbourhood and downtown?
Hamilton seems frozen in the 1970's in many of our urban neighbourhoods. Anyone who thinks "someone will develop it eventually" only needs to look at our past few decades to realize that Hamilton could very will still be frozen in the 70's when it's 2020 or 2050, or 2070.

Sorry for the long ramble, but I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

Cheers

Comment edited by jason on 2010-07-25 13:14:08

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By JonD (registered) | Posted July 25, 2010 at 16:47:36

I discovered Aaron's photos about a year ago while still in Toronto and they got me past Hamilton's stigma and made me realize what gems there are here. They're one of the reasons why my family and I are here today.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By UrbanRenaissance (registered) | Posted July 26, 2010 at 01:19:06

I second the thanks to Mr. Turkstra to contributing to the debate but I just don't buy your arguments.

(1) 25000 people will arrive in 7500 cars. 2500 of those will go through the North End Neighbourhood.

You're assuming every single person attending will arrive by car? Seriously? The WH location will be walkable from both the current GO station, and the planned GO station on James. It will also be easily accessible from both of the planned LRT lines, game day city bus shuttle service (like Ivor Wynne currently has), and hundreds of households in the immediate area. And as for the 1200 children, is post game traffic more dangerous than the toxic nightmare they currently live next to?

(2) 8 local citizens including me, spent five years studying the Barton-Bay area and concluded, along with all the professional planners and experts and commenting agencies that the area should be developed for housing to bring hundreds of families to live in the wonderful area depicted in Graham's video

Then why hasn't it happened? Probably because, as others have pointed out it is incredibly difficult for private enterprise to get funding to clean up brownfields. With the WH we have all 3 levels of government pitching in to clean up the former Rheem plant. Which will make further development easier by eliminating the contaminated ground.

(3) Bob Young has scoured the capital markets looking for even one person or company willing to invest in the West Harbour stadium, and he found none

Has he? We only have his word on that, don't we? Who's their big investor for the EM site? Oh that's right, it's the City of Hamilton. The city will be on the hook for the highway improvements, buying the ORC land, moving a hydro line, dealing with the increased flooding the the lower city caused by the new paving. Not to mention nearly draining our Future Fund for something that provides practically no benefit to the city.

(4)Six internationally renowned sports marketers visited the site and all provided Michael Fenn with the opinion that the West Harbour stadium site will fail economically

Daryl Katz seems to disagree; as do economists, our downtown BIA, and other local developers. I'm assuming these groups know something about business too. It certainly doesn't help that the Ti-Cats haven't released a shred of evidence supporting any of their claims.

There are lots of ways the Ti Cats can make money in the WH other than stadium parking if they just put a little thought into it. How about getting special permits to sell food and drink in Bayfront park at pre/post game tailgate parties? Maybe they could split the revenue from game day transit and parking with the city? I'm sure someone with a business background could come up with even more revenue generators outside of the parking-food-booze trifecta.

(5) If it were successful, it would be used 100 days a year and empty 265 days a year. Just sitting there. A concrete hulk.

Is that worse than a crumbling, (potentially) toxic dump no one can afford to fix, for 365 days per year? Also you're assuming that there will only ever be a stadium and nothing else. The areas around the Roger's Centre, ACC, and Percival Molson Stadium seem to do just fine those other 265 days.

(6) No one who is currently promoting the West Harbour site has spent any time in the living rooms of the people who made the choice to live in the city core

I chose to live in the city core, (on Caroline North no less!) and I certainly didn't move here so I could spend more time driving to events in Stoney Creek. The whole point of moving here was to be close to everything. Most of the people I met at the rally also lived in the area. I can sympathize with those who don't want to live next to a stadium but would they rather live next to the mess that's currently poisoning the neighbourhood?

Once again, Mr. Turkstra I appreciate you contributing and I really appreciate what you've done for the city, but I just can not agree with your position on the stadium.

Edit: Wow, sorry for the long post. I guess I got on a bit of a rant there.

Edit by site administrator: correct an error on request of the comment author.

Comment edited by administrator UrbanRenaissance on 2010-07-26 09:43:56

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted July 26, 2010 at 08:16:14

Probably because, as you have pointed out it is incredibly difficult for private enterprise to get funding to clean up brownfields

Point of clarification: that was Carl Turkstra, not Herman.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By UrbanRenaissance (registered) | Posted July 26, 2010 at 09:09:51

Whoops! My mistake, I guess that's what happens when you're posting at 1 am. Apologies for attributing that to the wrong Turkstra. That line should read "As others have pointed out..." Could you make that correction Ryan?

Comment edited by UrbanRenaissance on 2010-07-26 08:34:58

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By sselway (registered) | Posted July 26, 2010 at 16:26:10

The video is great. My only suggestion is to ADD the photo of the 25,000 seat stadium, ADD the photo of the future parking lots (you KNOW it won't stay at 600), ADD the photo of the traffic jam on July 1 and make it a NO WEST HARBOUR STADIUM.

Herman Turkstra is correct that a Citizen's Advisory Group participated in a study of that area with planners etc, but Setting Sail went through a whole public process and was adopted by the city in 2005. Setting Sail has wide community support.

Setting Sail commits to STRENGTHENING the existing neighbourhood. You are playing with OUR future. Stick with the plan: 1. enhance the character of the neighbourhood. 2. Clean up contaminated sites (just because we don't want a stadium there doesn't mean it shouldn't get a clean up. AND by the way, where are the facts? What does the environmental assessment say? Why is it confidential? "Everyone knows" is an opinion not a fact.) 3. Compatible development (intensification) 4. Landscaping and amenities 5 open spaces and parkland (What you really are doing is bringing "suburbia" type development TO our downtown neighbourhood.)

Bringing people to the downtown, intensification, will be what "rejuvenates" the downtown. Business follows people who LIVE here. What business will thrive on visitors 8 times per year? A Hotel? Hah! I have an historic hotel for you. . . .

A West Harbour Stadium is a BIG mistake.

Contact: Friends of the West Harbour at save.westharbour@gmail.com

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By H+H (registered) - website | Posted July 26, 2010 at 17:00:41

sselway

"The traffic jam on July 1st"?

I thought that was the day where all of the citizens of Hamilton were invited to enjoy their waterfront amenities and celebrate the founding of Canada. You know, the waterfront they all paid to create. Our lives indeed. The fact that so many of them participate does, I understand, cause some challenges for the surrounding neighbourhood. On that day. And on other days when citizens enjoy their harbour.

As for the west harbour stadium site, which is in another neighbourhood entirely, one could review the Setting Sail intensification goals as almost suburban in their scope. Lots of detached houses, townhouses, some 3-4 storey buildings, and a couple or three taller buildings is not my idea of urban intensification. All this so long as there are no shadows nor any impact on the current breezes! I have read the plan. Housing around the Meadowlands almost meets this brief. Personally, I'm thinking of something more urban (dare I say urbane) than what some people have in mind. And no, I'm not thinking of St. Jamestown in Toronto. St. Lawrence Market area anyone?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Jason (registered) | Posted July 26, 2010 at 20:05:24

The stadium location is far easier to access by car than Bayfront Park. Plus, over 100,000 people come out to the July 1 fireworks.
I'm a huge fan of neighbourhood planning but there needs to be a lot more common sense when figuring out where the money will come from to cleanup this land.
The waterfront has been cleaned up with public money and all of us have a right to enjoy it. Local residents surely benefit more than the rest of us due to enhanced views, amenities and home values, but that doesn't mean they can gate the north end for their use only.
If it's fine for someone to buy a harbourfront home and demolish it in order to build their waterfront dream home, surely it's fine for the city to demolish a gross brownfield site and build a wonderful waterfront precinct for thousands of other Hamiltonians who would love to live, dine, shop and be entertained by our beautiful harbour.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Shawn Selway (anonymous) | Posted July 26, 2010 at 22:48:34

Not sure where Jason or H+H gets the idea that northenders want to gate the area. Personally I have no problem with crowds or cars: enjoying as I do the privilege - broadly subsidized, as Jason and H+H point out -- of living in the neighbourhood, I just walk to the fireworks. Also umpteen other events through the year. Eat your hearts out. However, I think that on this question we're discussing, which is rather large, where you live should not disqualify you from commenting. All motives are mixed anyway. Otherwise we would all be angelic robots, not a condition I see much of. It is a land use question. What is the highest and best use for that site? On that question, H+H's remarks are interesting, because they actually contain a thought about that point. I agree that Setting Sail guidelines for Barton-Tiffany do resemble Meadowlands density. I think that some of Meadowlands gets a bad rap. It is not all that sprawly. But what negates the density is the vast parking lot plateau with the individual retail boxes. In any case, more "urban and urbane" would indeed be preferable, and that particular site does offer that potential. I think the consultants may have set the bar low there out of uncertainty about how much investment could realistically be expected. Towers I just can't see much use for in central Hamilton, because we have so much empty footage, brown, beige and otherwise, that building up would just thin the fabric. One or two glamour spires maybe... But I'm not sure and that's maybe another discussion. Barton Tiffany seem to me to have more potential than the other two residential sites in Setting Sail, but really, there is nothing in principal that would keep one from building well on either of them either. Nor is there some cosmic law that says a stadium must be bad. But at least with regard to the mediocre proposals for Barton Tiffany we have some notion of what is envisaged. For the stadium we have none that I know of, except that meaningless pair of CAD renderings prepped for the Commonwealth Games bid book. Am I wrong in thinking that? Also, H+H, you have offered a concrete example of what you think is decent residential. Can you offer an example of a good "multi use sports complex"? Setting aside for the moment the unique character of the hillside site. No two sites of that size are going to match, unless they are on the flat with no surrounding constraints at all, in which case they would be irrelevant. Worse, exurban.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted July 26, 2010 at 23:30:31

good post Shawn.
I'm really interested in seeing an entire waterfront neighbourhood/district built in this area, not just a stadium. I live about 6-7 minute walk to Barton/Hess and would love to have a pile of dining/cafe and entertainment options there instead of crummy brownfields.

I really like the concepts found on www.revitalizedowntown.ca by the Katz Group. And the AEG districts and the recent new proposal that was unveiled by Whitestar this week, and now with official support from Molinaro who have built some great mixed use residential buildings in Burlington. www.molinarogroup.com

I can't stand to think that we'll blow this opportunity to revitalize that entire area and add some huge momentum into downtown renewal just because of some backroom (probably illegal) dealings at the provincial level. Since when do they care about Hamilton? The last people we should be listening to, or let dictate our decisions is the province or feds.

I hope everyone on council and the mayor gets turfed if they blow this opportunity. I've enjoyed this mayor more than any others since amalgamation, but at the end of the day the buck stops with our elected leaders, no matter how unfairly they are being treated by the province and the Cats.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

Comment Anonymously
Screen Name
What do you get if you multiply 5 and 1?
Leave This Field Blank
Comment

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Site Tools

Feeds