Sports

Confederation Park Back on the Table?

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.

Ryan McGreal, the editor of Raise the Hammer, lives in Hamilton with his family and works as a programmer, writer and consultant. Ryan volunteers with Hamilton Light Rail, a citizen group dedicated to bringing light rail transit to Hamilton. Ryan writes a city affairs column in Hamilton Magazine, and several of his articles have been published in the Hamilton Spectator. He also maintains a personal website and has been known to post passing thoughts on Twitter @RyanMcGreal. Recently, he took the plunge and finally joined Facebook.

61 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By Unacceptable (anonymous) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 16:43:16

Totally, utterly, appallingly unacceptable.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By brian (registered) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 16:52:11

It would be easier to go there..but it is a PARK... i always thought you build parks for the purpose of not having things like that built there. Why not Gage Park its big enough!..oh well they dont care what the people think.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By H+H (registered) - website | Posted September 02, 2010 at 17:04:57

More like Conflagration Park.

This one ring circus we call Council is making me nuts! Did anybody actually think MIP was going to be the sole focus of the next step in this bizarre process? By voting to open up all possible sites, with MIP as the bait, they started the whole process all over again only this time with a 2 week deadline. Chad Collins had better get busy trying to get his supporters in line.

Sadly, I confess to feeling some stadium/Pan Am fatigue. But I can't let that happen. Sometimes, if only for a moment, I find myself saying, "Who cares. Whatever. Just get on with it." Hardly the thoughts of which visions are made. Or on which cities are built.

On the other hand, as mystoneycreek posted today, is it really such a bad thing if we let the Pan Am parade pass up by? I think he makes a good point.

Compromise is OK, but only if it's truly a "mutual promise" that's based on both sides achieving a lot of what they both feel they need. As Ryan so rightly points out, this now seems to be about doing the least amount of harm versus the most amount of good.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By randomguy (anonymous) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 17:46:02

The worst part about Confederation Park is that it is the site that gives the least benefits for the city. Where is an opposing team going to stay? Probably in a Burlington hotel as it is easier to get there. Transit-wise, last I checked there's one bus to Confederation Park that runs Saturday and Sunday in the summer only. Fantastic. Just skip the games, and I say that as a Ticat season ticket holder.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By bigguy1231 (registered) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 17:52:03

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 | Context

[ - ]

By Jason (registered) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 18:03:32

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 | Context

[ - ]

By Cityjoe (anonymous) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 18:11:51

ENOUGH ALREADY!!
Didn't we make a decision on this some time ago?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By bigguy1231 (registered) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 18:17:58

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 | Context

[ - ]

By Be T (anonymous) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 18:20:30

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 RenaissanceWatcher (registered) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 18:21:02

Yes, Cityjoe. At a Committee of the Whole meeting on January 12, 2009, Hamilton city council unanimously voted in favour of a motion removing Confederation Park from the short list of Pan Am stadium locations. They will need a two-thirds majority to reconsider their motion.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Be T (anonymous) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 18:24:16

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 LauraF (registered) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 18:26:55

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 | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 18:32:02

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 | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 18:33:04

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 | Context

[ - ]

By Creeker (anonymous) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 18:35:04

Confed should be taken right off the table. The more I've researched and informed myself of the different locations the more I realise the Harbour location is the best location. Maybe what they should do is guarantee the LRT to be built in conjunction with the stadium, maybe that would give the Tiger Cats enough push to accept the location.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By z jones (registered) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 18:43:43

As a taxpayer I hereby throw down the gauntlet: West Harbour or nowhere!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 18:53:11

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.

Comment edited by HamiltonFan on 2010-09-02 17:54:53

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 19:06:03

What's good for Hamilton is good for the Tiger Cats!

Fixed it for you.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By LOLBOB (anonymous) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 19:06:26

O HAI! CAN HAZ STAY-DIUM?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By LOLBOB (anonymous) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 19:06:54

IM IN UR BACK ROOM
BAITING AND SWITCHING.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Be T (anonymous) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 19:17:54

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 arienc (registered) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 19:23:31

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 | Context

[ - ]

By UrbanRenaissance (registered) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 19:43:47

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 | Context

[ - ]

By Henry and Joe (anonymous) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 19:50:52

"MIP will move forward with or without the stadium, and frankly, I think that site would be worst for the city, for the Cats as a business, and for the Pan Am games" - arienC

I agree with this statement. I am feeling the stadium fatigue that Graham mentioned as well.

Didn't we vote for West Harbour 7 times? or is it a best 8 out of 15 to actually stick with our vision?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By FenceSitter (anonymous) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 19:52:56

Maybe Emma Reilly is just trying to sell papers.

Maybe this outrage will just make MIP look even better. Could be a simple ploy.

Do not put it past Council to put it back on the table. Anything could happen.

HamiltonFan or any other supporter of CP. I ask you a question. What is so great about CP?

Great visibility I guess, great lake views, but I really do not get it. If one had concerns about WH becoming a white elephant, what about CP?



Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By z jones (registered) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 19:55:20

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 | Context

[ - ]

By jonathan dalton (registered) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 20:20:44

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 | Context

[ - ]

By brian (registered) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 20:22:18

Im certain on CH they said Chad Collins would have to raise the issue again for Confederation since he put forth the motion to take it off potential sites. I dont think he will change his mind on that and it needs 2/3 majority to add it back on anyway. It is kinda too late in the game also and they have to focus on one site (even if that site is longwood/aberdeen). We all know how slow this has been and i bet they push forward longwood/aberdeen without knowing all the facts and problems. Wouldnt suprise me the dreaded East Mountain comes back in the picture in the next few days (nothing would be a surprise at this point). This has been such a total joke no matter where anyone wanted the stadium.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Be T (anonymous) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 20:22:53

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 Be T (anonymous) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 20:24:15

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 Be T (anonymous) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 20:36:35

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 Be T (anonymous) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 20:38:03

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 jonathan dalton (registered) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 20:44:58

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 | Context

[ - ]

By Chewbaca73 (anonymous) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 21:02:05

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 Jason (registered) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 21:39:17

No chance they build at CP. It's horrible in every way.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Brandon (registered) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 21:49:44

Here's a good question: Why is Bob Young going to get any money for naming rights of the stadium?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 21:55:41

You mean OUR stadium?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By arienc (registered) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 22:11:06

It seems that everyone's discounted the biggest stakeholder in this issue...Hostco and the Pan Am games. Their primary mission is to make the Games a success. Everything else is secondary to their interests.

The Pan Am games require a venue that makes the most sense from the perspective of the athletes, and their families/guests, etc. Most of these will be centred in the athletes' village in Toronto.

Access to Toronto is thereby a very important factor as far as Hostco is concerned.

Remember, Burlington lost their (much smaller) stadium because we decided to move it away from the GO line.

I suspect that MIP is just as bad, as far as Hostco is concerned. The journey would require two bus rides (or shutttle buses) from the Liuna GO station, at an even greater distance than Burlington had proposed.

I maintain that Hamilton will get zero funding from the federal and provincial governments should the accessibility for the athletes not be there. This pretty much rules out East Mountain AND MIP.

The secondary issue for the provincial and federal governments is that there be an anchor tenant, as it appears with West Harbour. Without the Cats making a major about face (unlikely as i don't think Bob Young will go back on his vow) there will only be enough funding for a 5-7,000 seat stadium - which is unnecessary as far as the city is concerned and untenable as far as the political careers of council goes.

If West Harbour is chosen, Toronto will get the high profile soccer games. The Cats will continue to play at Ivor Wynne until who knows when.

Confederation Park sits very close to a GO line, and requires only the building of a platform which has been announced already. So as far as Hostco is concerned, it's less appealing than West Harbour, but at least acceptable as a venue for major competition.

If Confederation Park is acceptable to the City of Hamilton, that's where the stadium will be. "Mistake by the lake" part 2?

Otherwise, expect the Cats AND Hostco to push for an Aldershot location next. Which is much less likely as Burlington would be unable to come up with nearly the funding Hamilton will.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By arcadia (anonymous) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 22:42:33

Confederation park won't happen but I think it's the right choice. It currently has bad transit access but could cheaply have a nearby Go station. It has parking and car access and is on the beach trail. It's a park but this is no Cootes Paradise, people drive here, park, and use the variety of crummy and dated amenities. It has the largest outdoor wave pool in Canada, which is about as lame a use of prime waterfront space as I can imagine, and will not be there in ten years. A stadium there would be a great interruption to the vision of Hamilton people get from the QEW.

You can argue against it but if you come back to 'west harbour or nowhere' or 'the cats are welfare bums' then you're saying nothing useful. This stadium is getting built and the large majority of councillors and Hamiltonians think the Cats are worth an investment much larger than the revenue they generate. Deal with that. I personally could take or leave the Cats and the CFL but I'm in the minority. So the real debate now is between MIP and nothing, it seems, and that's ok. But between CP and MIP I'd choose the latter, because we'd lose no employment lands.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 22:47:00

arienc,

A couple of thoughts:

  1. The mayor said the other day that if MIP works, the city may adjust phase one of LRT to consist of a line from James North GO Station down to King and over to McMaster. This would put all 3 of our Pan Am facilities on one LRT ride. Velodrome at WH has the new GO Station. MIP stadium has a stop at Main/Longwood. McMaster swimming would be end of the line.

  2. Currently the Hunter GO train veers east at Dundurn/Hunter where the tracks split. For PanAm's, a temporary GO Station could be set up at MIP and have PanAm trains veer west at Dundurn/Hunter into MIP. Long term there is potential for a permanent station at MIP.

  3. Don't discount GO buses, which will have HOV lanes to travel in by 2015. And of course for local residents, HSR, biking and walking is an option for all 3 of our venues. If we locate a stadium at Confederation Park everyone will need to come by car.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By bigguy1231 (registered) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 22:47:22

arienc,

What Go line presently runs close to CP. It is something they are talking about for the future. With the way they plan and build things in this city it could be 20 years before that happens.

Besides, it would be well over a kilometer, by road, from that proposed Go station to the stadium site at CP. Not quite as close as the one being proposed for the WH, which may end up right next door. You do realize that the WH location is much closer to Toronto than the CP site by rail. The GO train will have to pass the WH site before it gets to the CP station.

Comment edited by bigguy1231 on 2010-09-02 21:48:09

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted September 02, 2010 at 23:23:41

I love these options. Running GO trains right past the West Harbour site over to Confederation Park. Or we could just set up a GO station right beside the West Harbour then run LRT Trains to the MIP.

Seriously folks.

This entire process seems to have turned tail. We had a site, we had funding, we were ready to go. Then Bob Young pulled out and brought the EM back, and now we're having formerly dropped sites reappear one after another. Funding is disappearing, and in a short time we may come full circle and fall out of the bidding altogether.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By arienc (registered) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 23:24:38

Bigguy...the CP line is presently used by GO for their seasonal Niagara train service. There's a plan to expand this to a full-service GO train line within the next 5 years.

http://www.gotransit.com/public/en/docs/...

I'm completely with you on WH. But Bob Young isn't. Interestingly the GO plan points out the James St. N. location as being "geographically favourable, near waterfront and future stadium site"

Yes, I know the line is 1 km away from Confederation Park (or about 500m as the crow flies). Which is almost identical to the distance MIP will be from the B-line LRT. Both of these options would require pedestrians to make an extremely inhospitable journey between stadium and transit.

There's no way a GO station would be built at MIP. It is on a different line, and would require a jog out of the way from downtown, slowing down the express service to downtown Hamilton and beyond.

Comment edited by arienc on 2010-09-02 22:35:19

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By arienc (registered) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 23:38:06

Furthermore...would this really be that big of a loss? It's not exactly "greenspace".

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Cityjoe (anonymous) | Posted September 03, 2010 at 01:52:06

Frank Gehry !?? Really? Now that's impressive! (& I'm gonna be Depressed if even Frank Gehry's assistance can't make this thing giddy-yup!)

If this doesn't work, could we ask that Saudi Prince that owns a large amount of shares in Fox News? Maybe he would build a stadium, if we let him put up a matching 'terror mosque' in the complex. ;) (sarcasm, with Jon Stewart reference.)

Thanks LOLBOB! Funny! :)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By F. Ward Cleat (anonymous) | Posted September 03, 2010 at 02:25:57

Just Bob 'flip-flop' Bratina stirring the pot.......but if your assessing Confederation Park you have to know there's only 'one lane in and one lane out,' and that's not Foxy's fiction that's the reality.......
I don't think BY is stupid enough to be behind this ploy, but heh, nothing would surprise me anymore.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By brian (registered) | Posted September 03, 2010 at 08:05:40

What a bunch of clowns. Brian Mchattie now suggesting confederation and more added to the list...with less than a few weeks to go

the LaFarge slag site on Windermere Road;

  • the former Lakeport brewery;

  • the old Studebaker property;

  • the rail yard near Aberdeen and Longwood;

  • a former raceway near Upper Centennial

..exactly how much more of a joke can these people be.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted September 03, 2010 at 08:24:07

Hey I have an idea! Let's do a 2 year study of all the possible sites and pick the best one. Then, let's take 2 weeks and do it again hoping to get a better answer!!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By frank (registered) | Posted September 03, 2010 at 08:41:36

Lol, exactly nobrainer. It's great to keep pushing back the deadline but at this rate all of the related infrastructure developments that will be required to service the facility mainly LRT.

Arienc, if you zoom into the parking lot at Limeridge Mall it doesn't look like a mall either! Zoom out a bit, there's a wave pool and waterslide complex followed by a half decent campground and some more green space on one side and straight up green space going in the other direction (aside from the entrance works)... Besides, even IF it was 100% paved, it would still have all the other problems it still has.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted September 03, 2010 at 08:55:33

It's worth mentioning that the current GO station is a disaster, because it's all of two blocks past the Hunter St. Tunnel, which makes full day service almost unworkable. Both LIUNA Station and the MIP are on the edge of full train yards with much more capacity (the Aberdeen yard is barely used nowadays), and getting GO busses into the middle of downtown Hamilton is just a pain for everyone.

I'm sure there's a plan that promises a GO station right by Confederation Park or any other proposed site. I've been hearing these promises for years, and all I've seen is routes get cut and prices go up.

I don't want to hear plans, and I don't want to hear excuses. I want train service for Hamilton on par with Aldershot.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By arienc (registered) | Posted September 03, 2010 at 09:14:31

Undustrial...the link I've provided illustrates the planned layout for a station at James N. When that station becomes operational, Hamilton will have all-day GO service as Aldershot does today.

If the stadium does get built at Confederation, I think Metrolinx will try to push the developer into accomodating a GO station and lot at Centennial. As it stands right now, a GO station there seems to be unworkable as the space is being developed for other purposes (Walmart?). The plans also indicate stations at both Fruitland Rd. and Fifty, which make little sense so close together in a sparsely populated area.

If the GO line was being extended Brantford way, something like Aldershot, MIP, Ancaster, Brantford might make sense as stations. But that would mean downtown would be excluded and the plans already well in progress shelved. That's just not happening. Despite the best wishes of communities along the lines, express inter-city train lines do not zig-zag.

Frank...if you look at that spot, the total area is about the size of 2 1/2 Ivor Wynne stadiums. The parking area on the right side itself is a little bigger than Ivor Wynne Stadium. The grassy area in the middle could also be developed. The stadium could easily fit on the footprint of that parking lot with lots of room to spare and no loss of greenspace.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By frank (registered) | Posted September 03, 2010 at 09:39:44

Arienc the problem is that while a stadium footprint might get to be the size of Ivor Wynne, BY has problems with things the way they are... He wants a giant (really giant) parking lot and control over any incoming revenue... so 2.5 IVS won't cut it this time around. Developing PARKS should NEVER be part of the plan.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted September 03, 2010 at 14:51:07

This all seems so simple to me.

The city needs to publicly tell bob young:

Supply your acutal business case. Supply your numbers. Supply your "Studies". Make them public. Let us all analyze them.

THEN we can talk about alternatives - whether they be alternative locations or alternative solutions to enable the chosen location (WH) to overcome the obstacles.

As long as his information is secret, we are simply stabbing in the dark and there is NO WAY we will reach a solution in two weeks. We already didn't reach one in two YEARS because Bob never disclosed any details from which the city could build a mutually agreeable solution.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted September 03, 2010 at 20:16:38

I just used a cutting-edge combination of high and low tech measuring equipment to work this out. And by that I mean I used a piece of cardboard and google maps.

With the average distance between stations on the GO line between Aldershot and Port Credit (all expanses of massive low-density housing), the distance between Aldershot and the Hunter Station is actually a little long. If we were to follow this pattern eastward, we would have the following GO stations at or around Centre Mall, Confederation Park, Fruitland Road and Fifty Rd/Winona, and it still wouldn't be as dense as what Oakville and Burlington Have. Going west, even if we also built a station at the MIP or former Aberdeen yard, a station in Ancaster (downtown or Meadowlands) would also be fairly reasonable, given these distances (though the lines are now a bike trail).

I'm not suggesting we build all these right now, but we need to put this in some perspective. Hamilton as a whole has a very small fraction of the train service of Aldershot alone. It's like there's an invisible line at the York St. Bridge. We have a far denser population, and yet get almost nothing, despite train tracks all over town. It's easier to hop a freight train from many parts of East Hamilton to the West End. Unless this changes, rail simply can not be a serious option for many people here.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By cityfan (registered) | Posted September 04, 2010 at 00:31:54

I've been too busy to comment lately. tonight attended my late friend Mark Graham's Olympic Park renaming ceremony on the West Mountain attended by Mayor Fred and Terry Whitehead.

It's amazing how some people don't appriciate parkland in this city of ours. I guess I'm talking to the CP supporters here (attn. Bob Bratina) Parkland is for future generations to enjoy. It's very important. We have Gore and Victoria and Bayfront Park to name a few gems. Why is CP back on the table I haven't got a clue. Who's stupid idea was this. please let me at 'em.

I've read alot of comments from RTH and all I can say without a dought is that the Pan Am stadium (I emphasize PAN AM stadium!) should go to the WH. By reasons that I can't understand but except is that now WH is second to the MIP site as the compromise. This can also work as location for the PAN AM GAMES! But please PLEASE!!! everyone who cares about this issue stop the council from deciding to build over parkland to put down a stadium/parking lot on the CP lands. This is a huge error in judgement for our great city. We need to perserve our parklands!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Kiely (registered) | Posted September 04, 2010 at 08:21:51

Ugh, at least if they build this thing on the EM I'll never have to lay eyes on it. Confederation Park is the LAST place I want this thing built.

How much time and effort has been wasted on this stupid stadium already? This thing has consumed this city. A city consumed by arguing over the location of a wasteful luxury while our land and water are polluted, our sewer and waste water systems remain woefully inadequate and people continue to lose their jobs, is a sign of a city so far away from understanding what really matters that it is starting to get a little worrisome.

It doesn't matter who wins in this debate, all we are arguing about is how we will waste 100+ million dollars. That is one of the few provable facts in this whole fiasco.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted September 04, 2010 at 09:49:26

A lot of the problem with public perception of parks is the way we tend to blanket them with green asphalt (grass), a few trees and a swing set. Parks can be so much more than this.

Lots of development makes sense in parks - stuff that is free and open for use for everyone. A playground, bike path, community garden, or a football field open to anyone who can walk on. The key is that these facilities are free and open, and don't cost big money to park. I can understand fees at something like Confederation park with Wild Waterworks, or public golf courses/ski hills, but even then, these are activities which are both far more open to the public (scheduling, cost etc) and actually encourage activity, rather than spectatorship.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Fleet Footie (anonymous) | Posted September 06, 2010 at 13:15:08

"* the LaFarge slag site on Windermere Road;
* the former Lakeport brewery;
* the old Studebaker property;
* the rail yard near Aberdeen and Longwood;
* a former raceway near Upper Centennial

...exactly how much more of a joke can these people be."


One more... http://bit.ly/9V07ka

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted September 07, 2010 at 20:51:30

I find it hard to believe that all the sites mentioned above are 'mutually agreeable'.

LaFarge site - it does offer highway visibility & access (check two boxes for the 'Cats), it would be brownfield remediation.Apart from that what does it offer for the City? It certainly doesn't appear to fall within the parameters for use of the Future Fund. There is no public transportation (or limited, I honestly can't say I have ever taken a bus down that way). Really, it's a ver esthetically unappealing place and won't showcase Hamilton at all. I don't even think Hostco would approve that site.

Lakeport Brewery & Studebaker factory - No highway visibility for the Ticats.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By frank (registered) | Posted September 08, 2010 at 09:44:05

Burlington just got their stadium taken away because it wasn't close to GO transit and we're talking about putting one at Confederation Park? LOL!! I'm sick of this BS, get rid of it, keep the money let Toronto deal with it.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted September 08, 2010 at 10:24:08

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the total surface area of Confederation Park... well... freaking huuuuuge?

I mean, does anybody know what the actual proposal was for the confed park location? Couldn't the stadium coexist with WWW and the other amenities?

Either way, the location has terrible transit problems, so I'm not really pleased with it for that reason. But if it came down to, say, MIP or Confed., wouldn't it be better to build on the park rather than lose important employment lands? It's not like there still won't be room for playgrounds and fields there.

@Undustrial

Realistically, they're not going to lay new tracks, and all the rail lines running through the north end or at the Aberdeen rail yard are constantly clogged with freight.

Imho, the only possible location for a new Go station would be at the below-grade region running alongside dundurn - you could build on top of the the cricket-field/overflow tank at Dundurn and Main. That would work well for MIP (stadium or no), but it is kind of redundant with Hunter Street terminal since it is very close, compared to other Go stations. But mac students and people in the west end would be ecstatic to have a train station right there.

Either way, I doubt it's going to happen.

Comment edited by Pxtl on 2010-09-08 09:29:24

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