Comment 55953

By realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 11:22:27

As an urbanist, why is this a bad thing?

1) it restricts the benefit of the entire future fund and the Pan-Am funding to virtually one private business/multi-millionaire which/who appears to be investing nothing or, at the very least, a disproportionate amount. It's all for some rather than some for all.

2) it leaves the WH lands, which were purchased for this purpose, in limbo.

3) it rewards an individual/organization for being disingenuous and outrightly lying about what they needed for a stadium as a means of attempting to blackmail our city at the last minute when it was most vulnerable. Clearly, all of the reasons that Young/Mitchell said WH wouldn't work, exist in spades at Ivor Wynne. The difference is the Tiger-Cats would have to contribute at WH but not at IWS.

4) While it is, at least below the mountain, it draws more people away from the City's core. Remember when many of the WH opponents said a stadium wouldn't help the core citing Copps etc.? Well now, all of a sudden, this development is going to transform Barton Street, a place even more deserted than our downtown.

5) It does nothing for the Waterfront, the key to urban revitalization in cities across North America such as Pittsburgh and Portland Maine.

Perhaps the question shouldn't be "why is this a bad thing?" but rather "why don't we embrace a better thing?"

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds