Revitalization

New Ticats President Wants Mass Demolitions for Soccer Pitches

By Ryan McGreal
Published August 09, 2013

An article this week on CBC Hamilton featured an interview with Glenn Gibson, the new president of the Hamilton Tiger-Cats. One line in particular really jumped out at me:

Why couldn't Hamilton be the soccer capital of Canada? Why couldn't Hamilton take out a whole layer of buildings on Barton Street and build ten soccer pitches that integrate with the big stadium? Why couldn't we do something like that?

The standard pitch measurement for a soccer field is 105 by 68 metres, for an area of 7,140 square metres or 1.76 acres. Add in room for teams and spectators to congregate around the field, and you're looking at a well over 2 acres per field. Ten soccer pitches along Barton Street would consume more than 20 acres of land.

To get an idea of how much area that covers, here's a map of the stadium with a little over 20 acres along Barton shaded in blue:


View Ten Soccer Fields on Barton Street in a larger map

To make room for Gibson's vision of ten soccer pitches on Barton, we would have to demolish approximately 200 buildings. Say what you want about the current economic and social state of the neighbourhood, but these are people's homes and businesses.

Demolishing that much property would be utterly devastating to the community: dispersing its residents, destroying its social cohesion and discarding all the embedded energy and value in those buildings.

How on earth is it, in 2013, that there is still anyone in a position of power in this city who believes mass demolition is somehow a good thing? Have the past 70 years of rampant stupidity in urban planning taught us absolutely nothing?

I would just dismiss this as casual musing ... except that the Ticats have a real knack for getting Council, the Province and taxpayers to accept and bankroll their business plans.

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.

117 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By moylek (registered) - website | Posted August 09, 2013 at 07:15:12

... not to mention the acres of parking which would go with it.

A North Burlington green-fields model of urban renewal, right here in the heart of the city!

Permalink | Context

By R. (anonymous) | Posted November 15, 2013 at 12:15:17 in reply to Comment 90688

I think if Hamilton has its sights on an NHL franchise it has to show it can at least support a CFL team. Hamilton is fortunate to have a a historic football franchise like the Ticats; hopefully the team can become financially solvent and stay in the city so we can host more Grey cups. I don't know if I like the proposal mentioned in this article but I do think we need to try and host more grey cups, and look at how we can benefit from having the Ticats in our city. A big problem with timmie's field however is the surrounding transportation infrastructure, unfortunately it also appears to be very difficult to remedy that in built up area like that.

Permalink | Context

By -Hammer- (registered) | Posted August 09, 2013 at 21:55:08 in reply to Comment 90688

Yes, because the area has such a shortage of it now.

Empty lot and Strip Mall with massive parking lot.

https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=barton+St&...

Car Dealership Parking lot with Derelict Blockbuster

https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=barton+St&...

Gas Station and Tim Hortons, note the swath of blacktop

https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=barton+St&...

Chapple St Parking Lot, with the church in the background that is worth keeping no matter what and needs to be on the heritage register if it's not already.

https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=barton+St&...

Melrose Parking Lot with Variety store, can just barely see the DQ shack

https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=barton+St&...

A fairly interesting castle like brick building the would make a great meeting place for a large park, surrounded by...you guessing it. Parking.

https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=barton+St&...

We can clearly see which franchise invests back into their property. We can clearly also see they both just love parking lots.

https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=barton+St&...

Behind our glorious strip mall, another parking lot.

https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=barton+St&...

But I guess it would be better the follow the status quo of street parking then making some greenfields and some street parking.

Comment edited by -Hammer- on 2013-08-09 21:56:32

Permalink | Context

By Kiely (registered) | Posted August 12, 2013 at 16:05:44 in reply to Comment 90743

Yes, very accurate inventory of parking lots in the area... and much of this 20 acre proposal knocks down the relatively well taken care of family homes right next to all of them.

Permalink | Context

By -Hammer- (registered) | Posted August 13, 2013 at 23:02:11 in reply to Comment 90820

No, Ryan's picture does, and most of the parking lots are on the north side of Barton, not included as part of that picture above. Gibson hasn't produced a proposal, he's offered a musing. Perhaps a somewhat unclear, or somewhat poorly executed musing, but a musing all the same.

Permalink | Context

By Kiely (registered) | Posted August 14, 2013 at 11:27:11 in reply to Comment 90863

This city can do without some dimwit's musings... we have more than our fair share of musing-dimwits already.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Simmons (registered) | Posted August 09, 2013 at 08:47:25

Before we fly off the handle, I think even the most cynical citizen would have to know this is a politically disastrous move. It's a large swath of land where there are dozens of modest homes. I think it's only spitballing. Good vision, execution needs work.

Permalink | Context

By -Hammer- (registered) | Posted August 09, 2013 at 22:10:14 in reply to Comment 90690

Good vision, execution needs work.

My exact thoughts on this, especially when you consider how many brownfields and lack of greenfields in the lower city.

Permalink | Context

By Gored (anonymous) | Posted August 09, 2013 at 09:01:30 in reply to Comment 90690

As politically disastrous as knocking down a whole block of Gore Park?

*crickets chirping*

Permalink | Context

By Kiely (registered) | Posted August 09, 2013 at 11:17:37 in reply to Comment 90693

Not a single politician in this city is worrying about losing their seat over the Gore, not one. And they probably are right in assuming the real political fallout (not the on line variety) over demolished Gore buildings will be nada.

Permalink | Context

By -Hammer- (registered) | Posted August 09, 2013 at 21:58:09 in reply to Comment 90713

I agree with this, it's somewhat sad but true. However if Blanchard does follow through with a large successful condo development, and it is just that, successful, you can bet they will all happily try to take credit.

Permalink | Context

By Wyvor Inne (anonymous) | Posted August 09, 2013 at 08:57:15 in reply to Comment 90690

"Good vision"? His "vision" is demolishing 10 blocks of Barton Street! What kind of work on the execution could possibly make this vision look good??

Permalink | Context

By -Hammer- (registered) | Posted August 09, 2013 at 22:16:24 in reply to Comment 90691

Have you...ever driven down Barton St? I think you'd be hard pressed to make it worse.

Permalink | Context

By z jones (registered) | Posted August 12, 2013 at 17:24:07 in reply to Comment 90749

If you think bulldozing blocks of Barton St won't make it worse you're part of the problem.

Permalink | Context

By -Hammer- (registered) | Posted August 13, 2013 at 23:23:35 in reply to Comment 90826

Yes, please let us save these architecturally wonderful, density lacking, plain brick boxes that are in such exceptional states of repair.

https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=james+st+N...

https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=james+st+N...

https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=james+st+N...

https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=james+st+N...

https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=james+st+N...

https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=james+st+N...

https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=james+st+N...

https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=james+st+N...

We certainly should preserve them, despite that they haven't had successful storefronts in years, and are incredibly poor candidates for adaptive reuse. We also can't ever have them replaced with new higher density development, or greenfields that the area is desperately lacking. That might promote an urban agenda of walkability, better leverage our infrastructure and raise property values.

Comment edited by -Hammer- on 2013-08-13 23:28:32

Permalink | Context

By dicktoinary (anonymous) | Posted August 14, 2013 at 08:04:14 in reply to Comment 90864

Just because you looked a few words up in the dictionary doesn't mean you comprehend them. You are embarrassing yourself with your total lack of understanding of urban planning realities. Just because someone COULD replace those with higher functioning structures doesn't mean someone WILL. Removal of any structure in Hamilton at this point is another nail in the coffin. If you want higher density development, walkability, higher property values and lower infrastructure costs, the LAST thing you should be promoting is tearing ANYTHING down.

Permalink | Context

By -Hammer- (registered) | Posted August 16, 2013 at 00:22:55 in reply to Comment 90869

So your solution then instead of attempting to attract development there, and opening up parcels that COULD be rebuilt is instead to say "NO, it's fine the way it is" when it clearly isn't and hasn't been for decades.

As far as doesn't mean someone will. Somehow whenever someone says I WILL be building something, that's never enough. The Vranich development is coming along nicely and he DID follow through. As is the McMaster Health centre nearby. Building larger, buildings that employ more, house more, and add density to an area making small businesses successful.

Also, as far as WILL, the city CAN quite easily created greenspace from a small bulldozed parcel. Something that we know increases property values, and we know is in short supply in that area.

We also know that the city can subsidize development in certain areas to attract developers (who sometimes DO need a blank slate to work with). Sometimes in the form of purchasing units to be used as public housing, like it does already, and can set it's own design criteria.

http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/2609...

We also know that buildings kept in poor repair DO lower property values. We also know the generic, architecturally lacking housing tends to drastically lower in values over time (which is why so many oppose the generic suburban sprawl going up on the mountain, and went on in this area during the 60s). We also know that two floor boxes simply do not and can not offer higher population density that leads to the many benefits of a urban environment.

Stop trying to equate higher density development to building preservation, because a two floor box is pretty much the very definition of a low density development.

Permalink | Context

By banned user (anonymous) | Posted August 14, 2013 at 09:31:32 in reply to Comment 90869

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 z jones (registered) | Posted August 14, 2013 at 11:04:55 in reply to Comment 90872

Fucking Allan Taylor is back again.

Permalink | Context

By highwater (registered) | Posted August 14, 2013 at 09:41:51 in reply to Comment 90872

I know someone who lives on Beechwood. She and her husband are both working professionals. I'm sure she would be fascinated with your insightful analysis of the socio-economic makeup of her community.

Comment edited by highwater on 2013-08-14 09:42:50

Permalink | Context

By -Hammer- (registered) | Posted August 15, 2013 at 23:49:11 in reply to Comment 90873

Yeah, and I know people who live on Melrose who are scared to walk down Barton St at night. I've taken the bus late at night after a Ti-Cat game and have been harassed by guys clearly on narcotics. However lets instead make our conclusions on evidence instead.

http://media.metroland.com/thespec.com/s...

This is from Code Red. The spec's reporting the area is depressed and in trouble, there is a direct correlation between poverty, drug use, psychiatric issues and medical problems, and many of the actual pictures of the building in question show them to be in ill-repair and derelict. Just because you know one person is doing alright down there, doesn't mean everything is fine.

Comment edited by -Hammer- on 2013-08-15 23:49:36

Permalink | Context

By highwater (registered) | Posted August 16, 2013 at 07:13:00 in reply to Comment 90953

I didn't say everything is fine. I said the area is not the total hell hole that crackhouse thinks it is. That there are professionals and families living happily there who would probably appreciate it if other people stopped suggesting destroying their entire neighbourhood as a means to solving social issues.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted August 16, 2013 at 06:17:03 in reply to Comment 90953

When I moved onto my street, there was a crack house across the street. It took a few years of working with the police and community pressure, but eventually the crack operation was closed down and the dealer left.

The building was in bad shape after years of occupancy as a crack house, but here's what didn't happen: the building was not expropriated and demolished. Rather, the building was sold to a family who bought it, spent time and money gutting and renovating it and have lived in it ever since.

You are clearly bullish on mass demolition based on your history of comments here, but mass demolition is almost never a good thing for the community in which it takes place.

We've been going down the mass demolition route in Hamilton for decades, and the (entirely predictable) result is a lower city pitted with vacant lots, surface parking, disinvestment and depressed property values.

Demolition is an economic dead end. It disperses embedded energy and destroys value. Demolishing a bunch of buildings on Barton will make it much harder for the rest of the street and the communities it serves to recover from the traumas of the past several decades.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2013-08-16 06:43:02

Permalink | Context

By -Hammer- (registered) | Posted August 16, 2013 at 11:29:16 in reply to Comment 90959

Also, by the way, losing our board of Ed building seems to have not only resulted in a larger health centre in the core, but seems to have attracted two higher density developments nearby (one that is now in use, the other which is still being build, but likely will be immediately used, vs the old building that stood derelict and unused), a grocery store, removed a large swath of surface parking in favour of underground parking and now seems to be attracting another developers interest that wants to do the same.

It seems in this case, the demolition was a good thing, even before the building has been completed.

Permalink | Context

By -Hammer- (registered) | Posted August 16, 2013 at 11:15:06 in reply to Comment 90959

This is clearly though not a widespread trend, if it was, Barton wouldn't still be one of the core area's Code Red touched/practically centred itself on.

Regardless, demolition is not a dead end, sometimes old development must give way to new development. Espcially when you are in a urban design paradigm that doesn't work, in an area dominated by low density. This area is just as much a low density suburb as the sprawl on the mountain. It's an area that does not have the population densisty needed for smaller buisnesses to sustain themselves (unlike the core which is now begining to approach that density due to new developments high density developments like the Chateau Royale and reworked large, formerly commercial developments like Filmwork Lofts turned into higher density developments) and it's an area that simply lacks the space to build larger buisnesses. It's an area that is economically depressed and has been for decades, and continues to be one of the lowest income, highest poverty rated areas in the city.

So given that there is no place to build new development in the area. How exactly do you propose to fix the area? How exactly do you plan on building greenspaces without knocking something down? How exactly can you entertain a transit hub when you have nowhere to build it and no room to convert the roads to accomadate it? How exactly do you plan on creating population density, when you can't build an apartment building anywhere, without breaking the bank repurposing a strucutre never designed for such a development?

Let me be clear, I'm not saying level all of Barton St. I'm saying to clean out low density dead rot of little archtectural worth and replace it with greenspaces, or higher desnity development that the city is perfectly capable of doing/incentivizing. Things that we know are good for an area and have shown to work (see Durand). I understand the city has a history of letting owners demolish strucutre and then not replace them, but if the city itself is doing the work, there is no reason it can't be done.

You can't say you support high density on one hand, and then say but we must never remove or redevelop our low density developments on the other.

Comment edited by -Hammer- on 2013-08-16 11:21:47

Permalink | Context

By banned user (anonymous) | Posted August 14, 2013 at 09:48:51 in reply to Comment 90873

comment from banned user deleted

Permalink | Context

By highwater (registered) | Posted August 14, 2013 at 09:59:18 in reply to Comment 90874

I've been to their home a number of times. It's a perfectly nice street with lots of families, as are the surrounding streets. I suggest you take a walk around there before slandering a decent community with your ignorance and bigotry.

Permalink | Context

By highwater (registered) | Posted August 14, 2013 at 10:05:32 in reply to Comment 90877

And I just remembered I know another couple who live on that stretch of Connaught as well. Again, working professionals, perfectly nice family street. Your kind of ignorance has no place in this discussion.

Permalink | Context

By Kiely (registered) | Posted August 14, 2013 at 11:31:58 in reply to Comment 90878

Ya, I live on Connaught too, but I am not denying the poverty, prostitution and drug epidemic in my neighbourhood. To do so would be to live in denial.

Permalink | Context

By highwater (registered) | Posted August 14, 2013 at 12:13:52 in reply to Comment 90887

Crack Houses is suggesting that this characterizes all the families who live in the area that Gibson would like to raze, and that therefore it would not be a loss, it would actually be a benefit. I find that offensive.

Comment edited by highwater on 2013-08-14 12:16:45

Permalink | Context

By banned user (anonymous) | Posted August 14, 2013 at 13:47:47 in reply to Comment 90894

comment from banned user deleted

Permalink | Context

By banned user (anonymous) | Posted August 14, 2013 at 10:45:40 in reply to Comment 90878

comment from banned user deleted

Permalink | Context

By banned user (anonymous) | Posted August 14, 2013 at 10:40:06 in reply to Comment 90878

comment from banned user deleted

Permalink | Context

By banned user (anonymous) | Posted August 14, 2013 at 10:41:24 in reply to Comment 90879

comment from banned user deleted

Permalink | Context

By Kiely (registered) | Posted August 12, 2013 at 16:10:32 in reply to Comment 90749

That section is actually a pretty good stretch of Barton, with major chains and franchises (McDonald's, DQ, Tim's, Subway, Home Hardware, Fresh Co. etc...) occupying a good chunk of the commercial spaces. Certainly not the portion of Barton I'd nominate for demolition.

Permalink | Context

By Simmons (registered) | Posted August 09, 2013 at 12:21:06 in reply to Comment 90691

The vision is actually making Hamilton the soccer capital of the country.

Gore is a different political scenario. Gibson wants to knock off housing.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By aerosoccerlis (anonymous) | Posted August 09, 2013 at 09:00:04

why doesn't he put his soccer world up by the airport?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Vod Kann (anonymous) | Posted August 09, 2013 at 09:03:51

I agree that plan is a logistic and economic nightmare however you are off on your last point....

"I would just dismiss this as casual musing ... except that the Ticats have a real knack for getting Council, the Province and taxpayers to accept and bankroll their business plans."

If that were true we would be seeing the new stadium on Stoney Creek Mountain or Confederation Park.

While I love the Ivor Wynne site on a personal level, I think would be safe to say that it is far from the Ticats first choice as far as a business plan goes.

Permalink | Context

By Core-B (registered) | Posted August 09, 2013 at 10:12:02 in reply to Comment 90695

if it was their first choice (remember them saying they would never play there?) that would be incredibly stupid.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted August 09, 2013 at 09:37:10 in reply to Comment 90695

IWS was a compromise, but it was achieved only in the face of arguably the biggest, broadest citizen-based movement in the city's recent history. If the Ticats hadn't been able to exercise extensive influence at the City and Provincial level, the stadium location would have been a complete non-issue.

Permalink | Context

By Vod Kann (anonymous) | Posted August 09, 2013 at 10:24:08 in reply to Comment 90699

Not entirely true

Confederation Park, later revealed to be the Ticats #1 choice, was immediately dismissed by council and was never formally revisited, even when it was one of the few options on the table. Council was right, it was a bad idea.

In a sense though you make my point. Even if the "10 pitch plan" was formally proposed, does that mean that council, planning comittees, every existing business and resident on Barton and the general public are going roll over and let it happen? Did citizens and taxpayers throw up their arms and say "oh well East Mountain it is...."? The Ticats are not an omnipotent entity.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted August 09, 2013 at 10:33:09 in reply to Comment 90710

I never claimed the Ticats are omnipotent. I said they "have a real knack for getting Council, the Province and taxpayers to accept and bankroll their business plans," which is obviously true.

If they decide the City should demolish several blocks of Barton Street to make room for soccer fields or whatever, they'll have the influence to give that proposal some legs. Goodness knows there are still enough people in Hamilton who think much of the lower city should be razed that the idea would have some supporters.

Again, I'm not saying they can guarantee their desired outcome, but the last freaking thing this city needs is a ridiculous fight over a stupid idea, and it's deeply disconcerting to me that someone with a position of influence would even suggest such a thing.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Borrelli (registered) | Posted August 09, 2013 at 09:12:26

If we all try reeeeeally hard to ignore the Ti-Cats, maybe, just maybe, they'll go away.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Rimshot (anonymous) | Posted August 09, 2013 at 09:49:41

Rookie mistake. You're supposed to choose between piecemeal demolition and wanton disregard.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By movedtohamilton (registered) | Posted August 09, 2013 at 09:54:08

I'm puzzled by the dynamic of this issue. Why haven't representatives of social/digital media and analog media contacted Glenn Gibson and asked him for clarification of his "musings"? Not that hard to do.

Permalink | Context

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted August 09, 2013 at 22:11:31 in reply to Comment 90703

Why? Whether he's just spitballing or he's serious, either way it's crazypants.

Comment edited by nobrainer on 2013-08-09 22:12:21

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Kiely (registered) | Posted August 09, 2013 at 11:14:57

So Bob has apparently hired another idiot... surprise, surprise.

Permalink | Context

By Today (anonymous) | Posted August 09, 2013 at 11:47:44 in reply to Comment 90712

Kiely, idiots? I know where they are and I don't have to look very far, that is for sure.

Permalink | Context

By Kiely (registered) | Posted August 12, 2013 at 08:59:17 in reply to Comment 90718

Yes, you know, the people who looked a gift horse in the mouth claiming it doesn't have the features they want and then end up taking a worse offer than the original gift horse... ya, those idiots.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By lawrence (registered) - website | Posted August 09, 2013 at 11:28:03

We already have a bit of a soccer world at Mohawk Sports Complex. We have also already proposed 10 hectares (I believe that's the number) be purchased north of Barton for soccer pitches, a football field, and to replace ball diamonds at Scott Park. Its already been proposed that Scott Park will become a soccer pitch much to dismay of large baseball community at Scott Park who it seems will be put out at least a year with demolition and construction of new high school.

Permalink | Context

By Kiely (registered) | Posted August 12, 2013 at 16:24:30 in reply to Comment 90714

soccer pitch much to dismay of large baseball community at Scott Park who it seems will be put out at least a year with demolition and construction of new high school.

That's because the baseball fields are used by residents of the community, the soccer field really was not. For those that don't know, the SP baseball league contributes more to the area (especially the youth), than the stadium and soccer field. The previous soccer field was used mainly by some men's league and young ladies who get dropped off in BMW SUVs (i.e., not local residents). But it is looking like the city gets its stadium and a soccer field and the community loses what is most valuable to it... raw deal if you ask me. Hopefully a well-located nice new baseball park will make it a better deal for local residents.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted August 09, 2013 at 22:51:02 in reply to Comment 90714

I'm intrigued by this comment. What do you mean by "10 hectares north of Barton for soccer pitches"?? I might go to Guelph myself and take all the air out of the Ticat bus tires if it means keeping them out of here and doing any more damage to our city.

Permalink | Context

By lawrence (registered) - website | Posted August 11, 2013 at 22:54:50 in reply to Comment 90756

I knew hectares was in the size I had read but it was +- 4 hectares or 10 acres. Bit of a difference. See this document. Page 29 mentions size, page 28 has an image.

Also notice picture of ideal development which shows Barton Street NOT being a line of soccer pitches.

Also note that soccer pitches/purchase of land has nothing to do with Ticats per say. One pitch is required to replace Brian Timmis, the high school will need their own practice field (likely will play games at stadium like Delta does now), and we need to replace 3 baseball diamonds that will likely move from Scott Park site. I and other's wish this didn't have to happen though. Scott Park baseball is great and has been around for a long awhile.

Hamilton Stadium Community Plan (Phase II) - Public Engagement Session No. 3

Permalink | Context

By Kiely (registered) | Posted August 12, 2013 at 08:49:38 in reply to Comment 90795

we need to replace 3 baseball diamonds that will likely move from Scott Park site.

They better have a damn good reason for moving them. Scott Park baseball is one of the few traces of any sort of community in this area. The only proposal in that presentation that makes any sense is the one with no commercial. We do not need more commercial on that block. There are plenty of empty commercial spaces within spitting distance of Scott Park already.

Permalink | Context

By -Hammer- (registered) | Posted August 12, 2013 at 01:50:36 in reply to Comment 90795

There is not a single thing in this document I disagree with.

Permalink | Context

By Ticatfan (anonymous) | Posted August 11, 2013 at 14:34:15 in reply to Comment 90756

derelict Consumers Glass site Jason. You have a problem with remediating brownfields for the betterment of the city and particularily those that live in Ward 3?

Permalink | Context

By -Hammer- (registered) | Posted August 12, 2013 at 01:13:43 in reply to Comment 90785

A valid point brought up here, that I feel this article twists. Perhaps yes, the word integrate would imply a direct link to the stadium prescient, and expropriating that many houses is not only costly and politically unsound, it really shouldn't happen. Even if these houses are cookie cutter, 60s housing, in various states of repair and are the exact same type of housing development we scream against when it happens on the edge of the city, these are people's homes and isn't a requirement for a substantial brownfield remediation as is the case in the West Harbour (except for maybe the ones Lloyd St)

The north side of Barton street to the rails is a swarm of street parking https://www.raisethehammer.org/comment/9... (which we agree is a deterrent to a health urban environment), abandoned industry and failed or generic storefronts with one maybe two buildings of worth (specifically St. Vladimir's church and arguably the building at Barton and Melrose) which boarder the land parcel, and could easily be left alone.

Better though to take a negative spin, and salt the earth with anything progressive the Ti-Cats might do, or make honest suggestions/alterations to said plans and try to reach a compromise, because we can't ever drop any wrong done in this city and move forward.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Today (anonymous) | Posted August 09, 2013 at 11:46:09

Ryan, keep up the Cats bashing. You hate them just admit it. They shouldn't have bought a building in an older part of downtown Hamilton that could use the monies. You will never admit that. That goodness that Bob and the Cats saved my precious WH area as a nice ambient area for myself and my wife to go for walks. You and Fred would have destroyed that area with a big sports stadium. Shame on both of you, real shame!

Permalink | Context

By Trollday (anonymous) | Posted August 09, 2013 at 11:49:58 in reply to Comment 90717

LOL at the WH stadium location being "a nice ambient area for myself and my wife to go for walks." Sure I like to take my dates for walks through boarded up demolished post industrial wastelands too.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted August 09, 2013 at 11:48:52 in reply to Comment 90717

ahhh, yes. Such a lovely area to go for a stroll:

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/402503...

Permalink | Context

By Today (anonymous) | Posted August 09, 2013 at 11:52:36 in reply to Comment 90719

Jason, open your mind and go down to WH and walk by the water and relax with a lunch. And you want a big sports stadium right next to there! No thank you at all. That had to be one of the craziest ideas ever from a Hamilton politician IMHO and my wife and others who see much more potential there than a sports stadium.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By rednic (registered) | Posted August 09, 2013 at 14:31:08

Didn't we already clear a block of Barton (west) for these guys?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By CaptainKirk (anonymous) | Posted August 09, 2013 at 14:47:44

There is no better stadium site than West Harbour for promoting our city via national TV audiences, and drawing out of towners, and locals who don't come downtown, to enjoy the beautiful, expansive waterfront AND re-emerging downtown.

There is TONS of room for a stadium AND lots of other waterfront development.

A little late in the game to hire a Hamilton guy as Prez.

Permalink | Context

By -Hammer- (registered) | Posted August 09, 2013 at 22:24:48 in reply to Comment 90734

Yeah, but that's not going to happen a mid-sized amphitheatre instead with some mixed development is nearly as good.

Permalink | Context

By CaptainKirk (anonymous) | Posted August 10, 2013 at 11:01:01 in reply to Comment 90750

Sure those are good, but they would not promote the city nearly as well as a stadium would. Money worth spending from the future fund rtaher than squandered.

Besides, A WH stadium and mixed use development are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are complementary.

Permalink | Context

By -Hammer- (registered) | Posted August 10, 2013 at 20:37:33 in reply to Comment 90765

They are Kirk, and I agree the WH would have been a good place for it, but it's not going to happen. They've already put up the girders at Tim Horton's Field, which is going to be around well over the next 20 years.

Hamilton simply isn't going to need a new stadium in the near future, unless we either get a soccer team that draws nearly as well as the Ti-Cats (unlikely) and the league demands well kept grass or someone buys an NHL team, relocates in to Hamilton and stays around long enough to demand a new arena to replace Copps (which is even more unlikely), especially if the Bulldogs aren't drawing a consistent 7-8,000.

Permalink | Context

By Kiely (registered) | Posted August 12, 2013 at 16:33:25 in reply to Comment 90773

Why would anyone with any sense bring a NHL team to a city that can't sell out AHL games when you could plop it right in the middle and less than one hour drive from three cities that routinely sell out OHL games in Guelph, Kitchener, London?

Woodstock Ontario will get an NHL team before we do.

Comment edited by Kiely on 2013-08-12 16:45:13

Permalink | Context

By -Hammer- (registered) | Posted August 16, 2013 at 01:13:50 in reply to Comment 90823

I agree with you partially on this one. Not enough attendance at Bulldogs games doesn't bode well for when an NHL franchise starts to tank on the ice.

On the other hand, the Hamilton Predators sold out season tickets in a manner of days, vs the Coyotes where the team can't even give the tickets away. If you were desperate to get them out of there, even if only for a couple years, Hamilton would make sense.

Comment edited by -Hammer- on 2013-08-16 01:14:33

Permalink | Context

By CaptainKirk (anonymous) | Posted August 13, 2013 at 08:00:26 in reply to Comment 90823

AHL attendance has nothing to do with NHL attendance. Toronto does not sell out their AHL team.

Furthermore, during the Phoenix Coyotes bankruptcy court case, the NHL's own experts testified that a Hamilton NHL team would be among the top 5 revenue generators in the NHL.

Permalink | Context

By -Hammer- (registered) | Posted August 16, 2013 at 01:09:50 in reply to Comment 90839

I disagree with you on this one Kirk. A high, consistent AHL attendance displays that the market is loyal to the game and a team, regardless of it's level of play, and as we all know a loyal fanbase is one that shells out the cash.

Lets also look at the AHL markets that possess(ed) NHL sized arenas. Toronto Chicago, Winnipeg, Hamilton, Cleveland, Iowa, Milwaukee, San Antonio and arguably Albany and Charlotte.

Toronto and Chicago already have an NHL franchises. Cleveland and Hamilton have had up and down support (Hamilton actually drew quite well before they became the Habs affiliate and when they made it to the Calder Cup). Iowa, Milwaukee, San Antonio & Albany have fairly consistently been poor in attendance. Charlotte is a new franchise with average attendance (so far), and Winnipeg was consistent, top 5 support.

Only Winnipeg has made the jump from the AHL to the NHL, and many of these locations are in markets that, at least on paper seem like very good NHL markets.

Toronto is not a good example. Toronto does not sell out their AHL team, because they have an NHL team that predates the AHL team's presence. They also are in one of the most competitive sports markets in Canada with boasts seven pro franchises an a junior hockey franchise in Mississauga. The Marlies are also owned by the same people as the Leafs and pretty much stated, they moved them there just to fill dates at Ricoh and to reduce travel expenses (much to the chagrin of St. John's).

The bigger problem though, is that we aren't dealing with reasonable, sane people in the NHL. Despite seeing how successful shared revenue works in the NFL, the NHL has consistently tried to limit and reduce revenue sharing between it's teams and has tried to keep the cap low. The reason for this is, more money banked for the more financially successful teams.

Instead of putting teams in places that you know would make exceptionally high gate revenues (of which the NHL is exceptionally gate driven) and raising everyone's revenue and perhaps not creating a lot of new TV revenue, they instead put teams in places that don't work to keep the cap low (earning money through saving) and continuously have Bettman try to expand and chase television revenue in non-traditional markets (that I will admit would be very high if there was interest) and leaving sucker owners to eat the losses, while dragging the game through the mud.

The fact that Phoenix went through six iterations of the Phoenix Roadrunners hockey franchise, and it folded each time should have screamed the infeasibility of Phoenix as a hockey market. However the NHL still wants to keep losing money there because they think a TV deal might some day come from it, even though it won't.

Permalink | Context

By Kiely (registered) | Posted August 14, 2013 at 11:36:02 in reply to Comment 90839

We have an AHL team that plays a very entertaining high level of hockey and the community barely supports it, you say oh but it's because it isn't the NHL...

Ah yes, the Hamilton, "entitled to the best" attitude again. Funny how hockey fans in the other communities I mentioned support their local hockey teams regardless of level but our AHL team somehow doesn't deserve our support because well it isn't NHL. For a recovering shit-hole Hamilton sure does have a strange knack of looking down its nose at certain things.

Comment edited by Kiely on 2013-08-14 11:38:39

Permalink | Context

By Today (anonymous) | Posted August 09, 2013 at 15:33:53 in reply to Comment 90734

I disagree Captain, a very, very poor choice for a stadium. I am relieved that the city of Hamilton did not make a huge mistake by destroying what will in time be a waterfront at WH without a monstrosity sports stadium that would ruin the feel of this area. We can do better, much better with proper long range planning, than an quick type solution with a sports stadium that may have been done hastily on contaminated lands and then, a few years down the road, perhaps in need of tearing it down to properly take care of these lands:
__________________________________________________________________________________________

"With this growing popularity comes a tendency by some to look for the quick solution, to adopt a formula that may have worked somewhere else. In the 1980's it was the "festival marketplace" fad. In the 1990's, it is the "urban entertainment district" and/or stadiums. In a time of pervading sameness and homogenization worldwide this is particularly dismaying because waterfronts above all factors give each community a chance to express its individuality and help distinguish it from others."

Source: Urban Waterfront Manifesto - http://www.waterfrontcenter.org/about/manifesto.html

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By ViennaCafe (registered) | Posted August 09, 2013 at 18:02:36

"Have the past 70 years of rampant stupidity in urban planning taught us absolutely nothing?"

Nothing endures like stupidity.

Permalink | Context

By Kiely (registered) | Posted August 12, 2013 at 09:00:11 in reply to Comment 90739

Yep, lingers like the stench of rotten flesh.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By -Hammer- (registered) | Posted August 09, 2013 at 21:08:27

Or, you could actually instead of selecting all the area past Gage, consider the opposite side of Barton up to Loyd St in your estimates.

Yes, down with inner city parkland and greenfields that we all acknowledge are in exceptional short supply. Down with removing, and stand behind the protection of the DQ shack with a large parking lot, the strip mall variety store with a large parking lot, the used car dealership which itself is a giant parking lot, the empty lot which if not for cinderblocks would be a parking lot, the derelict Blockbuster video, a gas station, a Tim Hortons and a McDonalds both with decent sized parking lots, the 8 derelict, density lacking two floor buildings around 774 Barton St, the literal parking lots on Melrose & Barton and Chapple St. the strip mall that does boast a grocery store and a massive parking lot and some cookie cutter, density lacking, 60s housing in various levels of repair, the decaying industrial buildings that hug the rails, and two nice churches and a two floor gym that could easily be incorporated into the area with the gym acting as a meeting area.

Maybe ten pitches is a bit much, and certainly there is stuff there that makes sense to keep, so there is some exaggeration here, however I wouldn't say his idea is completely without merit, it just needs reworking. Removing some of what is on Barton St. especially the swath of parking lots along it or even closing a portion of Barton St. and cutting a cyclist path through it and diverting traffic towards the larger car traffic vein in King St. I don't really see this as a bad thing, especially when you are replacing so much parking with public greenfields.

Comment edited by -Hammer- on 2013-08-09 21:22:39

Permalink | Context

By -Hammer- (registered) | Posted August 09, 2013 at 22:03:23 in reply to Comment 90740

and this is of course, speaking nothing of the brownfield industrial lands that boarder the railway and would be a perfect place for a GO Platform.

Permalink | Context

By rednic (registered) | Posted August 09, 2013 at 22:32:10 in reply to Comment 90745

How about we build some soccer fields of those brown fields instead of spending more money tearing peoples houses down to satisfy Bob Young's masturbatory fantasy for Hamilton. The Tie cats provide less jobs in hamilton ( for Hamiltonians) than Big Bee ...

Permalink | Context

By -Hammer- (registered) | Posted August 09, 2013 at 22:59:26 in reply to Comment 90753

You mean like those ones close to Barton St. the very area that the Gibson is talking about? Take Ryan's picture, move it across Barton St, cut it off at Gage and Lottridge and extend it to the rails. Looks like a lot of brown feild to me. One could say that is also a whole layer of buildings along Barton St.

As I said, the idea is not without merit, it just needs some reworking. However you are taking the word integrate to meaning "It must be linked to the stadium directly at the hip, no exceptions" which I'm honestly not certain if that's Gibson's intent on this.

Permalink | Context

By Ticatfan (anonymous) | Posted August 11, 2013 at 13:59:48 in reply to Comment 90757

Thats actually the idea. This site is so anti Young it is making up stuff to make him look bad when the idea being proposed actually makes sense for the city and would greatly improve an area deperate for improvement

Permalink | Context

By rednic (registered) | Posted August 12, 2013 at 22:29:58 in reply to Comment 90784

Is Bob young going to fund all of these expropriations ?

If no the taxpayers have a say.

As a programmer I understand How Bob young made his fortune ... It may be ok for software but extending the same business practices to peoples home's is just wrong.

'Hammer' Do you understand how Bob made his fortune in Software ?

He took something for free ... boxed it it and offered tech support ....That is RedHat Linux.

RedHat does not contribute back to the Linux code base either. (Do you understand what that means?)

I'm sure the poor soul who owned a house on Tiffany then bought in the east end would agree..

Comment edited by rednic on 2013-08-12 22:31:18

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted August 13, 2013 at 06:16:44 in reply to Comment 90832

RedHat does not contribute back to the Linux code base either.

In the interest of accuracy, this isn't correct. Red Hat has long been the single biggest organizational contributor to the Linux kernel, contributing 10-12% of the code written for each release.

Permalink | Context

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted August 09, 2013 at 22:09:26 in reply to Comment 90745

Yeah because nothing says urban renewal like surrounding a transit hub with soccer fields.

Permalink | Context

By -Hammer- (registered) | Posted August 09, 2013 at 22:30:40 in reply to Comment 90746

or having a large sports district easily accessible by rail, especially if you are throwing large regional soccer tournaments, and linking to your stadium for game days. Say nothing of smaller scale commercial development nearby which would be possible with some area reworking, or the surrounding low density housing that suddenly a transit hub and greenfields would increase property values and attract developers to seek higher density development. Also using the term masturbatory really bolsters your argument.

Comment edited by -Hammer- on 2013-08-09 22:59:57

Permalink | Context

By -Hammer- (registered) | Posted August 09, 2013 at 23:13:24 in reply to Comment 90752

Sorry, edited the wrong post. The masturbatory comment was for rednic

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By misterque (registered) - website | Posted August 09, 2013 at 22:27:13

Is $75 million dollars in expropriation fees ridiculous for the CFL. Not really. Between Winnipeg, Calgary, BC, Ottawa, and Hammer town. Tax payers have thrown more than a billion dollars down the toilet after this failing entertainment franchise. CFL cronies claim their quaint sport to be historic community necessity when the want free money, and simultaneously claim it to be a private business when we want to see the numbers. With the support of their business partner CHML pretty much anything could be achieved in this city.

Permalink | Context

By Today (anonymous) | Posted August 10, 2013 at 00:23:39 in reply to Comment 90751

Forgot misterque, how are the Montreal Expos doing these days in Montreal? Fantastic I've heard.

Permalink | Context

By Today (anonymous) | Posted August 10, 2013 at 00:22:13 in reply to Comment 90751

Hey misterque, check out the deal TSN and the "failing" CFL signed recently. Hey, you obviously know your stuff. Keep up the good knowledge base. LOL

Permalink | Context

By -Hammer- (registered) | Posted August 09, 2013 at 22:49:18 in reply to Comment 90751

Except that Winnipeg, Saskatchewan and Edmonton are all community owned by their municipality and their profits all go to the coffers of their respective cities and are publicly accessible and reviewable, and also mirrors most of the league and makes it easy to extrapolate team profits based on attendance.

Speak nothing of the 1.2 million a year for the next 20 years the Ti-Cats are renting the new stadium for. So even before we account the intangibles the Ti-Cats bring (including the distinct possibility of a Grey Cup festival that in recent years has brought $80 million in economic impact to Calgary, $118 million to Vancouver and $133 million to Toronto), the city of Hamilton has already made back nearly half of it's investment in this new stadium.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By stadium quo (anonymous) | Posted August 11, 2013 at 08:56:15

Maybe "ten soccer pitches" is a euphemism for "20 acre parking lot" in Tiger-Cat speak. In other words, demolish the buildings now and wait 20 years until the city can find the funding to build ten soccer pitches.

Permalink | Context

By Steve (registered) | Posted August 12, 2013 at 21:56:10 in reply to Comment 90777

Hey, don't worry. We'll have that $ right after we figure out where to find the non-budgeted money for the new Scott Park Community Center, which will be right after we find the non-budgeted $ for Cathy Weaver/Pinky Lewis update/expansion.

Code Red Baby, Code Red.

Permalink | Context

By Today (anonymous) | Posted August 11, 2013 at 10:06:02 in reply to Comment 90777

Well, in Raise the Hammer speak, yes, it would be negativity in this respect. But maybe just maybe "Tiger-Cat speak" has some green in it. Of course, if your assumption is "Tiger-Cat speak" is about liars, well, that is the way it is.

Man, some of you people here really do think our Tiger-Cats have some sort of huge power control system over this city. That's actually quite a compliment to a sports team come to think of it.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ticatfan (anonymous) | Posted August 11, 2013 at 13:57:23

the sad thing is that the proposal is not to tear down houses on the south side of Barton but to tear down junk on the north side of Barton that won't be missed. are you really so anti Ticat that you'd oppose an idea that would remediate brownfields and tear down derelict buildings? Sheesh

Permalink | Context

By Today (anonymous) | Posted August 11, 2013 at 20:18:59 in reply to Comment 90783

There are some Ticatfan that are so anti Ticat in this city that Caretaker and anyone associated with the Cats could say "hey here is 10 billion dollars and we'll clean up whatever site you want RTH", and many RTH sorts would say they are sponges. That's just the way I see it from reading so many posts on this site. Sad, but I've come to expect from here.

Permalink | Context

By Tomorrow (anonymous) | Posted August 11, 2013 at 21:37:38 in reply to Comment 90790

Let's be clear. It's not anti Ticat. It's anti Young and his clown Mitchell who have flushed so much good will down the drain in the past few years. These guys are trying to paper-over a deep rift that has developed in the fan-base and a few new hires aren't going to do it. Young can do what he wants, but if he's looking for community support, there has to be accountability with this franchise and the only common denominator is Mitchell who has failed on and off the field over and over and over again. Until he gets the boot, there will always be friction between the Ticats and the community.

Permalink | Context

By Oskee wee wee (anonymous) | Posted August 12, 2013 at 03:28:41 in reply to Comment 90792

Bingo!

I have always loved the Cats, but I absolutely hate what Young, and especially Mitchell have down to the team and the city.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Baffled (anonymous) | Posted August 11, 2013 at 20:30:25

Am I the only noticing that "soccer field" and "Green space" are becoming catch phrases for lets knock everything down? Maybe Blanchard should have tried to put a soccer field in the Gore and he would have been applauded.
Sheesh.

Permalink | Context

By Steve (registered) | Posted August 12, 2013 at 21:51:57 in reply to Comment 90791

Touché. Yes, Sanford School teardown in the name of a soccer pitch. Now more teardown in the name of the beautiful game...

Budget Demolition's cup runneth over!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Today (anonymous) | Posted August 12, 2013 at 12:18:52

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 Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted August 12, 2013 at 13:16:57 in reply to Comment 90813

And with this post, you jump from outspoken contrarian to obvious troll.

There are points in favour of the various sites that were considered. West Harbour has synergy with the Bayfront improvements and massive transit investment impending on James North. East Mountain had highway visibility and plenty of room for parking and surrounding related development. Ditto the Confed park. Aberdeen/Longwood had good transit and highway, but little room for parking or related businesses.

IW2 had the cost savings of keeping a stand. It offered a minimal parking boost thanks to clearing out the Brian Timmis stadium. Both of these advantages have been obliterated by the tear-down-and-rotate plan.

IW2 is now irredeemable and is a black mark against everybody involved in that boondoggle, and you look ridiculous for praising it.

Permalink | Context

By Today (anonymous) | Posted August 13, 2013 at 14:30:32 in reply to Comment 90815

You certainly have the right Pxtl to call me whatever type of troll you desire. Strictly your business. Have a nice day.

Permalink | Context

By Wyvor Inne (anonymous) | Posted August 13, 2013 at 14:33:46 in reply to Comment 90852

Everyone loves when the troll gets passive aggressive.

Permalink | Context

By Kiely (registered) | Posted August 14, 2013 at 11:43:12 in reply to Comment 90853

They always are.

Has anyone ever been socked in the mouth by an internet troll? I didn't think so.

Comment edited by Kiely on 2013-08-14 11:44:14

Permalink | Context

By Today (anonymous) | Posted August 13, 2013 at 14:41:27 in reply to Comment 90853

That's an excellent comeback Wyvor, nice job!! Make sure your diagnosis is based on the 5th edition of DSM. Then I'll really be impressed.

Permalink | Context

By -Hammer- (registered) | Posted August 12, 2013 at 14:02:39 in reply to Comment 90815

I will agree that the West Harbour had merits and was certainly my preferred site.

However to say IWS2 or rather Tim Horton's Field is irredeemable is unfair. It hasn't even been completed, and could certainly aid in bringing new life to the area, espcially if the plans Lawrence made here http://www.raisethehammer.org/comment/90... come to fruition. I will agree though, this is a clear trolling attempt.

Comment edited by -Hammer- on 2013-08-12 14:02:59

Permalink | Context

By CaptainKirk (anonymous) | Posted August 12, 2013 at 14:56:09 in reply to Comment 90817

With all due respect, I agree with Pxtl. There's been a stadium there for over 80 years. Over those 80 years it's had big chunks knocked down and rebuilt, Nothing is changing for that neighbourhood other than the stadium will now seat thousands fewer. It's in the wrong place.

Permalink | Context

By Kiely (registered) | Posted August 12, 2013 at 16:42:17 in reply to Comment 90818

But the neighbourhood would likely have had a big vacant hole where IW is now if the stadium went to WH, so while I may have some issues with the development it beats the big vacant lot that would have sat in the center of my neighbourhood for the foreseeable future.

So why is knocking down buildings with no plan for redevelopment and leaving nothing but an empty lot bad for other neighbourhoods but okay for mine?

Permalink | Context

By Go Go (anonymous) | Posted August 13, 2013 at 08:41:35 in reply to Comment 90824

"So why is knocking down buildings with no plan for redevelopment and leaving nothing but an empty lot bad for other neighbourhoods but okay for mine?"

Because it's ward 3 and no one gives a rats ass. What has Bernie Morelli done in the last 20 years? Nothing. I've lived in ward 3 for 7 years and its still the same as when I got here...

Permalink | Context

By Kiely (registered) | Posted August 14, 2013 at 11:42:34 in reply to Comment 90841

Because it's ward 3 and no one gives a rats ass.

Ya, was sort of a rhetorical question but that does appear to be the reality.

Permalink | Context

By CaptainKirk (anonymous) | Posted August 12, 2013 at 18:24:51 in reply to Comment 90824

zjones is correct. The plan was to sell the IWS land for about $5m to $7m to developers to build homes, that in turn would contribute further to the tax base.

Permalink | Context

By Kiely (registered) | Posted August 12, 2013 at 20:26:37 in reply to Comment 90827

Do I need to get in to the difference between this city's plans and its reality?

Permalink | Context

By CaptainKirk (anonymous) | Posted August 13, 2013 at 00:11:00 in reply to Comment 90829

If anyone gets their way in this city, it's the developers. Absolutely no doubt they would have bought and developed that land in no time, just as they do everywhere else in this city.

Permalink | Context

By Kiely (registered) | Posted August 14, 2013 at 11:41:26 in reply to Comment 90833

they would have bought and developed that land in no time, just as they do everywhere else in this city

Really??? Is this sarcasm?

You do realise there are similar development properties in better spots for less money that remain unsold.

Permalink | Context

By Today (anonymous) | Posted August 14, 2013 at 19:39:24 in reply to Comment 90889

Nice Kiely, nice!!

Permalink | Context

By z jones (registered) | Posted August 12, 2013 at 17:21:24 in reply to Comment 90824

The city was going to sell the land to be redeveloped. It's one thing to take out a stadium, which wasn't helping anyone locally except people renting out their lawns as parking spots, it's another to bulldoze homes and businesses to make room for parking lots, I mean soccer fields.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By lawrence (registered) - website | Posted August 12, 2013 at 15:55:12

Hamilton Stadium Community Plan (Phase II) - Public Engagement Session No. 3

A lot is changing. Also seeing a lot of work going into area homes.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jean Pierre (anonymous) | Posted August 20, 2013 at 16:55:23

Amazingly, the new Hamilton Magazine poll has 51% of voters in favor of the idea?! www.hamiltonmagazine.com

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By NortheastWind (registered) | Posted September 04, 2013 at 13:45:18

About 12 years ago I was in Dallas Texas for a conference. I decided to take a walk to the Hard Rock Cafe from my hotel. As I walked under an elevated highway and out to the other side, it was like a different world, with charming new buildings, both residential and commercial. After a beer I decided to walk further and suddenly the urban renewal ended, with block after block of streets and curbs, but no structures. Everything had been torn down, but was slowly being redeveloped. So I decided to go to Google maps and see progress that has been made. This section of Dallas has mostly been redeveloped with higher density residential buildings and ground level commercial, with really nice architecture.

People have been saying for years to tear down much of the Barton Street area and rebuild. Why couldn't it work here?

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