Comment 55141

By Mark-Alan Whittle (anonymous) | Posted January 07, 2011 at 19:36:15

Bob Bratina

Registered User Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 23

Stadium Site

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Spectator reporter asked me if I would oppose the Barton/Tiffany site and I said no, which wasn't used in the story. The fact is there are 2 "approved" sites, waterfront and the airport. Both sites are to be assessed concurrently so as not to lose time should either be unacceptable for whatever reason. There are four concerns about the waterfront site; the cost of land assembly, the unknown cost of remediation, the bearing capacity of the subsoil, and the relatively poor transit and transportation connections.

Old maps predating the industrial era show the area as swampland. It's likely that the stadium and other structures would have to be built on pilings, so there is a possibility the site preparation costs would be in the tens of millions of dollars even before the start of construction, not to mention road and transit infrastructure costs. All this has to be factored into the final recommendation to Council.

There is no reason for runaway costs for the Pan Am games if we do our planning intelligently. The University of Akron just opened their new 30,000 seat stadium in September, built at a cost of $61 million dollars. I would be doing all residents of the City, not just those in Ward 2, if I did not demand the highest level of scrutiny in developing our Pan Am Games plan.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds