Sports

The Myth Of The Inaccessible Stadium

By Adrian Duyzer
Published August 17, 2010

A few weeks ago, the supposed lack of parking at the West Harbour stadium location was the key criticism of the site leveled at it by the supporters of the East Mountain location.

On July 21, Raise the Hammer published Plenty of Parking for West Harbour, which listed all of the parking lots we could find within a ten-minute walk of the West Harbour location, coming up with a total of 4,766.

These numbers were later confirmed by city reports, and the fact that the West Harbour location had easy access to 4,700 parking spots took hold. The myth that the West Harbour had no parking mostly evaporated.

However, a new myth has taken its place: the idea that the West Harbour location is inaccessible.

This mantra is repeated over and over again by Bob Young and the Hamilton Tiger-Cats ("a 30,000 person stadium in an inaccessible urban and residential area is a huge mistake") and Tiger-Cat backers like Ron Foxcroft, who claimed in a radio interview that the West Harbour location has "one lane in, one lane out". (He also claimed there was only parking for about 600 people, showing that some people will perpetuate myths no matter what the evidence indicates).

Another oft-repeated claim is that the city prepared reports showing the West Harbour didn't work as a stadium location, with its supposed inaccessibility ranking as one of the top factors for its unsuitability. These reports were ostensibly ignored by City Council which approved the site anyway.

Of course, none of this is true. The West Harbour location is highly accessible by multiple transportation nodes. The city's reports show this and in fact, a traffic study was carried out by IBI Group, which examined the site from a perspective of up to 27,000 event attendees on a regular basis, spiking up to 32,000 attendees for peak events.

In the West Harbour report, the Transportation Impact Assessment commences on page 113. A presentation by IBI Group is also summarized here.

However, most people won't want to spend their time paging through city reports, for good reason: they're long and boring and that's why we have councillors. Unfortunately, this has made it harder to counter the myth that the West Harbour location is inaccessible.

That's why we've created a map showing the accessibility of the West Harbour stadium. (A miniature version is shown below, but the full version is required to get the complete picture, including the legend.)

This map demonstrates the many ways in which people could access the West Harbour location: by highway (the 403 is just 2.6 km / 5 minutes away), by GO transit (Ticat research says 39% of season ticket holders and 53% of single game ticket purchasers would use GO), by proposed LRT lines, by a dense network of city streets including many with capacities of 4, 5, and even 6 lanes, and even by boat!

Compare this to a proposal like the East Mountain, where the only way to reach the stadium is by car.

As we've previously noted, an event at the East Mountain with 25,000 attendees will generate around 9,700 car trips. It will take more than 1.5 hours for those cars to seethe down the RHVP and Linc, and longer still to funnel through the interchange and into the parking lot. It will take the same time to get out (also note that the parking lot will hold a maximum of 7,000 cars and there is nowhere else for the rest of the cars to go).

The city's report backs up this conclusion, noting in the traffic impact study that traffic would have to be staggered to get everyone to the East Mountain, and events would have to start later than 7:00 pm.

That's not an issue with the West Harbour location, where a dense network of city streets, combined with easy access to major arteries and the 403, would disperse traffic rapidly.

Adrian Duyzer is an entrepreneur, business owner, and Associate Editor of Raise the Hammer. He lives in downtown Hamilton with his family. On Twitter: adriandz

62 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By hipgnosis (anonymous) | Posted August 17, 2010 at 14:40:37

Anyone else look at this map and think about how amazing Central Park would be for game day tailgate parties? What a great gathering spot before game time!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Brandon (registered) | Posted August 17, 2010 at 15:01:45

I suspect that the real problem is that the 'Cats won't be the ones earning all the money from the parking.

If only they would release all these "studies" that show how bad West Harbour is.

Any one else reminded of Colin Powell in front of the UN years ago?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By UrbanRenaissance (registered) | Posted August 17, 2010 at 15:08:05

Anyone else look at this map and think about how amazing Central Park would be for game day tailgate parties?

Yup, Central Park or Bayfront could be home to some epic pre and post game tailgating. If they could get city permission to sell food and drink it would make a nice little revenue generator for the Cats as well. I also love the idea of a game day ferry service. This kind of out of the box thinking is what the debate needs, not more childish threats and name calling.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Tybalt (registered) | Posted August 17, 2010 at 15:12:21

Brandon has identified the issue correctly. The issue is not the inability of people to get to and from the location, it never has been. The issue for the Tiger-Cats is about the control of revenues, and ideally control of access to the site. They want to control every penny that enters the vicinity of the new stadium. That is not a public interest, and in fact it's not even in the fans' interests.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Tybalt (registered) | Posted August 17, 2010 at 15:14:48

The boat idea is very interesting. PNC Park (or whatever telephone company it is named after now), the home of the San Francisco Giants, uses its waterfront location to spectacular effect in this regard, and the pleasure boats and yachts in the Pacific Ocean just beyond the stadium are the site for some legendary tailgates.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Crowbar (anonymous) | Posted August 17, 2010 at 15:21:28

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.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jason (registered) | Posted August 17, 2010 at 15:22:45

My neighbour is a Pittsburgh steelers fan. Every year he goes for a game and takes the ferry to the game from downtown. Says the whole game day experience is incredible. How it can be more incredible than sitting on a gridlocked suburban highway beats me, but I'll have to take his word for it.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jason (registered) | Posted August 17, 2010 at 15:28:31

Crowbar - Barton, Stuart, queen, bay, York, cannon aren't side streets. And since when is a few minutes to a freeway considered "not close by"? Add in two modes of rail, bus, bike and foot access and this site is amazingly accessible.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Crowbar (anonymous) | Posted August 17, 2010 at 15:34:34

Jason: I'm not from Hamilton. I'm trying to get educated on this issue. Looking at your map are those streets you mention 2 lane or multi-lane? Is it a residential area? I cannot tell by looking at the map.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jasonaallen (registered) - website | Posted August 17, 2010 at 15:45:37

Crowbar - click on the link in Adrian's article just above the little map, and then click on the individual colours for the streets. Very few of them are only two and three lanes. Many are four, some are even six. Theoretically it's a 'residential' area, but nobody seems to have told the 40' transport trucks that scream down the 5 lanes of Main Street from the 403 at 65km/hr. My issues with Main/King/York as freeways aside, I would be more than willing to put up with it 10 times a year in return for the benefits of an urban stadium...cause I'd be walking to the games, once I bought my season's tickets.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Crowbar (anonymous) | Posted August 17, 2010 at 15:49:23

Jason: Thanks for responding. What about the overall material condition of the neighbourhood? Is this a run down area with many vacant buildings? If it is, this may be discouraging Bob Young from locating there.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jason (registered) | Posted August 17, 2010 at 15:52:14

Ya the little map isn't easy to read. Enlarge it and you'll see how close it is to York, cannon, queen etc. And the 403 is right there.
Access would be among the best of any CFL stadium.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted August 17, 2010 at 16:01:22

Crowbar, the area is a real mixed bag. The actual stadiium and velodrome site are former industrial areas that are vacant. think of the ultimate brownfield. This is it. However, the waterfront is right there and for example, last year alone the Hamilton Waterfront Trust recorded over 1 million transactions at it's facilities on the waterfront, which currently only consist of a Williams Coffee Pub, an ice cream shop and harbour boat tours. Add in many tens of thousands more people who come to walk, rollerblade, exercise, attend festivals at the waterfront and it's one of the most popular areas in Hamilton. A home just off Bay St with views of the harbour just sold for almost $700,000. Another one on the other side of the stadium site, just off Barton west of Queen is currently listed at $725,000. 5 or 10 years ago people would have slapped anyone who'd dare to suggest that homes in this area would sell for more than 4 or 500,000, let alone $700,000.
I live just off York near Locke, about a 6-7 minute walk to the stadium site and I consider it to be one of the best neighbourhoods in the entire city. As do my neighbours and friends who don't live in the area.

Proximity to the harbour, downtown, James North, Locke, Hess and great parks make this area a really amazing part of Hamilton. Adding in a new stadium/velodrome/condo/restaurant district at the waterfront in walking distance to all of the above mentioned areas would probably be a real tipping point in seeing this area become a full out boom-town neighbourhood. Cleaning up all these acres of brownfield land in the middle of the city would be incredible.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By JM (registered) | Posted August 17, 2010 at 16:03:08

Crowbar - this isn't Mississauga (not sure where you are from). Our "main streets" aren't 8 lanes wide like the typical GTA suburb. They won't even be that large on the east mountain site.

JM

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted August 17, 2010 at 16:04:04

@jason

I notice you neglected to mention the ever-vacant Sheila Copps Discovery Centre.

Seriously, if I enter politics, I'm never naming anything after the Copps family. Not that they aren't wonderful people, but their name on a building seems to be bad luck.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Robbie K (anonymous) | Posted August 17, 2010 at 16:04:34

Crowbar, what area are you from? Perhaps I can give you some local perspective as I know most of the roads in the GTA. To use a familar site mostof us know, King/Main/York have much greater capacity and flow much better then Front/Spadina/Queen in Toronto. Infact York drives similar to lakeshore (ignore the part by the CNE of course :) ). So no, they are not highways, but they move very well.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted August 17, 2010 at 16:08:56

Pxtl. LOL. so true.

Actually I think that area will be even more lively and better for the public by adding restaurants, hotel space and a banquet hall as possibilities to the old Discovery Centre. It's such a beautiful building that was horribly underused. Imagine a nice rental hall overlooking the harbour with all those glass walls? And restaurants with patios out back and along the west side of the building. No offense to the museum folks, but these new uses are going to bring a lot more activity and people to the area.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted August 17, 2010 at 16:10:21

JM, the roads on the EM are all one lane in each direction. Just ask any of the 500 people who attended the Ticat rally at Carmens what the traffic jam was like after the event. Yes, thats right - 500 people. LOL. Imagine 25,000?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By dsahota (registered) | Posted August 17, 2010 at 16:11:12

Thanks for responding. What about the overall material condition of the neighbourhood? Is this a run down area with many vacant buildings? If it is, this may be discouraging Bob Young from locating there.

There are several abandoned factories, but those factories are the proposed location of the stadium / adjacent parking so they would no longer be an issue if the stadium were built. Bayfront park is well kept up, the residential area nearby is mixed. When I walked down Hess towards bayfront last week there's a group of about 8 new houses with Corvettes, Mercedes and even a Rolls parked in the driveway, but then there's a lot more 50+ year old smaller residential buildings that are generally well kept up but some are more run down. Older 2 1/2 storey houses in the area would likely have gone for under $200k in the past, so low property values are one of the key impediments to people fixing up their houses. The less appealing parts of the area are a few local mixed industrial businesses (scrap metal, etc) and a large City Works yard on Barton.

So I guess in summary, its a mixed neighborhood that's seen some new money come in recently. Excluding the factories, its not full of vacant buildings, but there are a few residences that could use some love and some businesses that probably need to move to allow for a more appropriate (and higher valued) residential / commercial district around the stadium.

Comment edited by dsahota on 2010-08-17 15:13:20

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Crowbar (anonymous) | Posted August 17, 2010 at 16:12:46

Jason: Sounds good. There appears to be a railway marshalling yard located on Stuart Street, directly across from the proposed stadium site.
This would not be an advantage.
We are driving up from Windsor on Friday to go to the Argo-Ti Cat game. We intend to come through Hamilton on the #403 and get off at Main Street to view first hand the West Harbour site. Making a determination as to who is right on this issue is very complicated. Cheers.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted August 17, 2010 at 16:18:35

Crowbar - sounds great! Have a great time discovering the area. Dsahota makes a great point above - probably the most 'run down' or less valued homes in the area are the ones closest to the old factories and empty buildings of the stadium site.

The marshalling yard is a bit of a pain, but having lived in Portland and been to Vancouver and of course, Toronto with it's a huge marshalling yard right next to the Skydome and new condo district, I don't think it's too much of a problem. That home I mentioned, listed at $725,000 on Crooks St is literally on a cliffside overlooking the marshalling yard.

Be sure to head up Bay St to Bayfront Park and Pier 4/8 as well as on James North. You'll notice on Cannon and York how close the stadium site is just beyond Central Park.

And please find some time to head up to the now defunct East Mountain proposal and check it out. The ONLY thing it can trump the west harbour with is highway access, but they'll be a jammed mess if a stadium and 100 acre box centre were to go there. The piece of land in question is in between the highway off ramp called 'Stonechurch' and the Leons store.

Cheers

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Crowbar (anonymous) | Posted August 17, 2010 at 16:22:47

Jason: Thanks for your help.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By westandonguard (registered) | Posted August 17, 2010 at 16:48:09

Ask White Star, who own a lot of land along the Bay Street corridor what their thoughts are regarding the marshalling yards and CN rail easements. They seem to have development design solutions backed and supported by Chamberlain Architects, experts in these matters. Just saying.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mikeyj (registered) | Posted August 17, 2010 at 16:58:44

Nice work Ade,

I think it's always been clear to anyone who knows the area that there is no reasonable reason to object to West Harbour because of Accessibility or Parking, I guess when your wasting public time and money in pursuit of your own self-interests you have to make up something, but it's always nice to see more publicly accessible data reaffirming the actual facts.

I wonder when it'll dawn on these anti-WH crusaders that they had their fair shake and the empty "anti-business" rhetoric and unsubstantiated claims still aren't convincing anyone...

Well anyone who's not getting their city planning information from radio pundits or people with vested interests in the Ti-Cats.

If they keep up at the current rate, RTH will be refuting a never ending stream of unfounded objections until the thing is built... I'm exhausted just thinking about reading it.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By SSP (anonymous) | Posted August 17, 2010 at 17:15:29

@Crowbar: I think Flar from skyscraperpage's photos of the West Harbour/Bayfront area speak for themselves:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=154207

Be sure to check out the Bayfront Parks during your visit. And may I suggest a bite at The Harbour Diner, James St North @ Picton St W.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted August 17, 2010 at 17:37:27

Here's an idea, open LIUNA station as a full-service Go Station, and run an express commuter train on game days from a Stoney Creek station. Many European cities have several major train stations, and using them to cut across town takes an enormous load off other kinds of transportation.

As for the marshalling yard, I'm wary of any idea which decreases our train capacity in the coming years...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By westandonguard (registered) | Posted August 17, 2010 at 18:21:49

the idea would be to EMBRACE the train and rail capacity -- as well as future LRT!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jason (registered) | Posted August 17, 2010 at 18:27:35

A good example of high density condos existing next to a marshaling yard and next to a stadium can be found 40 minutes down the QEW (90 minutes on TFC game days).

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By whatsthepoint (anonymous) | Posted August 17, 2010 at 18:28:20

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.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By F. Ward Cleat (anonymous) | Posted August 17, 2010 at 19:01:50

whatsthepoint whats the point of any plan, vision or dream? To get it done.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted August 17, 2010 at 19:03:15

Relocating where, exactly?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jason (registered) | Posted August 17, 2010 at 19:10:25

The Cats aren't going anywhere. They can't even develop a business plan in a city offering to build them a new stadium. They sure as heck won't bother developing one in some smaller city with no Cat fanbase who aren't interested in building them a new stadium.
They'll play in the WH. And I hope Mitchell still works for them when they do.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Kiely (registered) | Posted August 17, 2010 at 19:12:53

Good posts in this thread Jason!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted August 17, 2010 at 19:26:27

One really has to wonder who would want a team that acts like this in their town. Not that I don't doubt a buyer would eventually be found, but it would very likely mean a fair drop in price.

"CFL Team seeks new home. If purchased, we promise to lose our games consistently, go bankrupt on a regular basis and embarrass all your politicians in the lead-up to major elections.

$50, or best offer"

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By westandonguard (registered) | Posted August 17, 2010 at 19:35:34

This needs to be a retractable roof stadium -- the only reasonable investment for all seasonal use.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted August 17, 2010 at 19:39:05

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.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By cityfan (registered) | Posted August 17, 2010 at 19:55:52

I just read all these posts and I gotta say that there was alot of good points.

I asked my Father recently of (74 yrs old and lived in Hamilton for 45 plus years after arriving from England) where he would like to see the stadium built and he said West Harbour because downtown 'IS' Hamilton! Why would you put it anywhere else, it dosen't make any sense. Bob Young and his braintrust is missing the point with his fan base.

oh and BTW My Dad is a Argo Fan! lol

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted August 17, 2010 at 19:59:05

As I say, if it's WH I want to see the deal because Bob will have won, either way Fred is going to come out of this mess battered and bruised big time for reelection.

Comment edited by HamiltonFan on 2010-08-17 18:59:26

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By westandonguard (registered) | Posted August 17, 2010 at 20:10:31

Everybody needs to win. And if the Cats say yes to WH, then everybody DOES win -- and we can move on with the real issues.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jason (registered) | Posted August 17, 2010 at 20:54:12

If the Cats play at WH, everyone wins Mr DiIanni... I mean, HamiltonFan.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By JeffTessier (anonymous) | Posted August 17, 2010 at 21:04:51

Well, maybe. As HamiltonFan said, any deal with the Ti-Cats is going to be a pretty loaded thing. It's likely that Young will, as HamiltonFan said, demand the keys to the city, or even the keys to the stadium, and for council to negotiate reasonable terms they will have to risk another round of accusations that they're prepared to let the team leave. "The mayor says he wants us to stay, but he's not acting like it in the negotiations."

During the COW meeting when councillors were calling for city staff to reach out to Bob Young and get the Ti-Cats back to the table, I kept waiting for someone, anyone, to interject and propose that council be clear *now* about what terms are acceptable to the city. The mayor tried - he threw in a "sustainable for whom?" query while some councillors were just about running to the phones to call Young - but he was drowned out.

@cityfan, my father-in-law is mid-70's, lived in Hamilton his whole life. His take on this? "Go, Cats, go." As in, leave.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jason (registered) | Posted August 17, 2010 at 21:11:35

Way off topic, but Jeff Tessier I love your photography! Keep up the great work. If I'm not mistaken, the cool light fixture in Mulberry St is your work right?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jonathan Dalton (registered) | Posted August 17, 2010 at 22:00:42

Nice article. I'd just like to add one point, it must be emphasized that parking will be spread throughout a radius around the site. That means traffic will be distributed even further from the main access roads of Queen, Bay and Barton. Relatively few vehicles will actually be driving into the blocks immediately surrounding the site. Traffic will increase gradually in density approaching the site, as opposed to a suburban location in which one highway and a few arterials will serve as the bottleneck. This is all quantified in the IBI report, of course.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted August 18, 2010 at 00:05:56

Why is this still being discussed?

My response to this question turned into a blog post.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted August 18, 2010 at 06:36:27

"If the Cats play at WH, everyone wins Mr DiIanni... I mean, HamiltonFan."

I agree Jason with of course the condition the Cats will be happy but that will be a foregone conclusion if they do play out of the WH site.

Is that a compliment you're giving me referring to me as Mr. Dilanni? Don't answer that! ;)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Shempatolla (registered) - website | Posted August 18, 2010 at 10:27:47

I would like to see the business plans of any of these so called "sutiors" for the TiCats. While there notions might seem quaint and serve to distract their constituents of the other problems their municipality's may have. I doubt very much whether ANYONE who pays taxes in those communities is prepared to fork over $1.5 million a year in operating costs to subsidize a private business, never mind put out the $200 million or so it will require to build a stadium AND then hand over the keys to that investment for a period of at least 10 years. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

Bob Young has no valid cards left to play so he and his organization are lashing out trying to discredit the mayor and council and in essence our entire city because they didn't get what they wanted. If he is serious about not wanting to lose any more money, moving the franchise is not going to solve his problem. I've posted before a more likely outcome is that Bob comes back to the table or perhaps more likely is that he does not own the team by the time that his lease runs out at Ivor Wynne.

Now. Depending on what the city does with Katz/AEG at the end of the month, a potential new owner for the team would be that group. The TiCats themselves may not make them money but if they take over management of HECFI , they perhaps would not mind running the team as well. Just a thought.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By JM (registered) | Posted August 18, 2010 at 11:35:43

From what I've been reading, it doesn't seem Katz/AEG is that interested in the Cats. Spec reported them as a "secondary" item......

Who knows, maybe we could rebrand them as the Tiger-Katz? haha. Seems fitting when there's name changing at evolutionary points in the teams history. Wildcats and Tigers become Tiger-Cats @ Ivor Wynne become Tiger-Katz @ WH. Please don't take me seriously on this!! LOL

JM

Comment edited by JM on 2010-08-18 10:38:00

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted August 18, 2010 at 12:28:21

As I say, if it's WH I want to see the deal because Bob will have won, either way Fred is going to come out of this mess battered and bruised big time for reelection.

As someone with a long history in environmental groups or social justice organizations which rely on government funding, this type of thing infuriates me. After years of sugar-coating our messages and pulling our punches, seeing this kind of political assassination turns me red. Bob Young has received millions from taxpayers, millions more from fans, and still feels he's entitled to tens of millions in extra costs, the deciding vote about stadium location, a massive, profitable parking lot and the rights to build a supercentre next door? And he's willing to ruin the careers of half of council to get his way?

Cut him loose. End all taxpayer funding of the Cats and any hope of a spot at ANY stadium (including a renovated Ivor Wynn). Remodel the football hall of fame and give it to baseball, hockey, laccross, soccer or ping pong. And send a heartfelt letter from council to any other like them which might consider funding a purchase about exactly how Bob Young likes to do business.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jap (anonymous) | Posted August 18, 2010 at 16:12:05

The comments are right on! I like the boat access idea! It coul bring sevral impressive boats to the harbour. I never hadany probem about parking. There is so much empty brownfields that will fill that issue. But I may have sme concern for access. The existing road may sffice but to addres Young's concern, we could solve that problem by completng the perimter road that was proposed (but cancelled) wch would connect 403 to the QE. t gives a cmplete answr to Young. It's an offer he can't refuse!!!!!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By waterboy (anonymous) | Posted August 18, 2010 at 18:35:18

Maybe the following is better off in a new thread or blog entry. It could go on for 5 years.

I hope the Stadium is named for the City and people first, rather than referencing an individual or corporation.

We know it can be a quick million dollar pocket fee to the park or stadium owners but Corporate naming changes so often... quick... what is the Skydome now called?

The best name I ever came across was this old decrepit building in Rome. They simply called it the Colosseum. Apparently it had a lot of history through blood sweat and tears. Works for me. Madison Square Gardens is a great North American venue, aptly named, in my mind.

What do we call this new Hamilton Stadium? Can we generate a top ten list? No doubt a top ten worst list will also be created, especially by detractors so I'll open with the inevitable Hamilton Bob Young Brownfield.

How about; Hamilton City Stad or West Harbour Stadium or Hamilton Metro Calderon... let the masses decide.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted August 18, 2010 at 20:22:46

I like Bayview Field.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Shempatolla (registered) - website | Posted August 18, 2010 at 20:39:16

Democracy Park

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By brian (registered) | Posted August 18, 2010 at 23:21:42

Bob Was Wrong Memorial Park

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Henry and Joe (anonymous) | Posted August 19, 2010 at 01:14:38

Addition to Jonathon Dalton's comment,

" it must be emphasized that parking will be spread throughout a radius around the site. That means traffic will be distributed even further from the main access roads of Queen, Bay and Barton. Relatively few vehicles will actually be driving into the blocks immediately surrounding the site."

Good point. I found the summary of the IWS survey in the IBI report interesting. The survey found that 1000 people were dropped off in the immediate 0.8 to 1.0 km area and another 2300 cars with approx 3 people/car were parked in that vicinity which accounts for a total of only 8000 of the 19 200 in attendance. It goes on to say:


"The total observed parked cars and the total number of observed people dropped off on adjacent streets would account for a maximum of approximately 8000 people. (19 200 total attendance) This suggests a significant use of other methods to arrive at the stadium such as walking, parking at informal locations such as paying to park on private property, parking outside the surveyed area, or being dropped off on nearby streets"

I always considered my mode of arrival at the stadium to be a statistical outlier, since we would park at a friend's business north of the RR tracks near Beach Road (1.1 km from the stadium). I remember doing this back in the 1980s, and I know my old school Italian Dad and his posse were doing this for many years prior to that.

Of course, we're talking about 2 different sites, but it is interesting that many people find unique ways to get to the stadium when there isn't a driveway to driveway experience.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Peter (anonymous) | Posted August 19, 2010 at 01:34:13

Lancaster Field has a nice ring to it.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By djenkins6 (anonymous) | Posted August 19, 2010 at 05:49:49

I'm writing to add my comment that West Harbour is the place for the stadium. Multiple methods of access will mean easy access unlike the gridlock that will ensue at an east mountain stadium. Tiger Cats want to control access to the east mountain site so that they get all the revenue for any events, in West Harbour they have to share the revenue and thats the real reason they don't like it.

Look at Cardiff Millennium Stadium as an example of a stadium right in the city close to the railway station that helped to rejuvenate the city. The atmosphere in Cardiff on game days is unbelievable with all the people arriving by train and bus, and filling the car parks all around the city. The bars and restaurants are packed, and even when the stadium is filled, the people who don't have tickets go to the bars/restaurants to watch to share the experience before and after the game with the ones who had tickets.

Right now access would be manageable, add in LRT and it will really improve the fan experience, being able to use McMaster parking lots (more revenue) in the evening for example and get on an LRT, or from the other direction make us of section of eastgate parking lot as park and ride facilities will bring people in and out very efficiently. A north south LRT from the airport will enable fly in's to be at the venue in 30 to 60 minutes.

Now a bit of imagination, how about ferries bringing people from Niagara and Toronto straight to a pier close by the stadium, this would be impossible at an east mountain location.

The permanent velodrome will bring world class athletes to the best North American site of this kind year round, and with the Hamilton topography which cyclists loved during 2003 event, will open up the possibility of more such events. How about an annual around the city race like the around the bay road race.

The vision of the city is right and the West Harbour is the only option that makes sense.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By frank (registered) | Posted August 19, 2010 at 08:55:41

Well said djenkins6 and welcome.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Quinn (anonymous) | Posted August 19, 2010 at 10:05:54

I live in Edmonton and I believe it is worth noting that Commonwealth Stadium was built in a very similar type of area although a little less centrally located. Access is very good with only one LRT line, very limited parking and a major transit terminal. The LRT line used to be CN mainline and the area was a mix of warehouses factories and residential.

Another point that I think is important is I have noticed that the automobile culture that most of us grew up with is starting to fade. I cannot bribe my sixteen year old son enough to get him to get his licence; it's just not that important to him or his peers. In ten years time parking will not be near the issue that some people want to make it out to be today.

I was ecstatic when I heard Hamilton would finally be able to replace Ivor Wynn and in disbelief when I found out the owner of the Cats was balking at the location. Downtown looks to be an awesome place for the new stadium and I hope it happens.

Leave city planning to city planners!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Tybalt (registered) | Posted August 19, 2010 at 15:49:58

"This needs to be a retractable roof stadium -- the only reasonable investment for all seasonal use."

I don't think this is right. Assuming that an articifial surface like FieldTurf or one of its newer clones is used, you can do what MLSE have done with BMO Field in winter - put a bubble dome over field in winter so that the field can be used for recreational purposes or for conventions, etc. (Of course, once BMO went to grass, that came out of the equation). A retractable roof stadium adds unnecessary expense and what is worse, takes the joy of "football weather" out of the equation.

I want opposing teams to FEAR the cutting wind and biting cold of Bayview Stadium in November. We're Hamiltonians, we know how to stay warm in the stands.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Tybalt (registered) | Posted August 19, 2010 at 16:01:04

"Now a bit of imagination, how about ferries bringing people from Niagara and Toronto straight to a pier close by the stadium, this would be impossible at an east mountain location."

I love the idea of a ferry coming in under the Skyway, past Willow Cove on starboard side, and docking at a pier in front of a new GO station built at the CN yard, meeting LRT coming north from Locke Street. A man can dream, right? (OK, that one's a pipe dream)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted August 20, 2010 at 17:50:12

Ultimately, multi-use transportation options like WH win over high-capacity single-use options because people can choose. If the roads to the West Harbour become clogged with cars and impossible to park on, we can bike, bus and/or walk there instead, which lightens the load. And as anyone who commutes knows, it often only takes a small increase in the total number of cars to turn a freeway into a parking lot.

It's a self correcting system.

Major highway upgrades in response to stadium gridlock are not. They'll take years and tens of millions to get shovels into the ground, and will take far longer (and generate far more congestion) before they're finished.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By brian (registered) | Posted August 21, 2010 at 02:03:25

Hey Quinn nice to hear from someone from Edmonton. I know Bob Young has these "experts" but i wonder if he has gone to other CFL stadiums to make comparisons etc..or if any of his experts have made comparisons..parking etc. Has he checked into see how many events other CFL stadiums are getting...and actually if it is very profitable doing so. I don't think he has, i think he is going on this "expert' approach and not a common sense approach. Outdoor football stadiums in Canada basically make no money..this isnt rocket science..it's not a secret. You can only hold so many events in a outdoor stadium that is open at best 6 months of the year. There is also the fact the CFL cities have arenas open all year round. You could draw concerts (from copps and make it lose even more money) but there is only so many people that can draw 20,000 plus. I stated in another comment that when Toronto has a concert on...they sign a deal that states that artist can't play within a certain mile distance of Toronto (a certain time frame)..and that includes Hamilton. That has been going on for years and why alot of concerts tours bypass Hamilton or luckily end up on another leg of a north american tour. Having a 2nd tier soccer league that averages 4,000 per game isnt going to be a money maker either.

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds