Comment 69011

By RenaissanceWatcher (registered)
Posted September 03, 2011 at 08:49:59

A “thank you” to Councillor Clark for introducing some clarity on the west harbour mediation categories, comparative figures and municipal responsibilities in his recent post on RTH.

Using baseball vernacular in the environmental context, the construction of the stadium and velodrome at the west harbour site would be a “home run” because it would remediate 20 acres of brownfield lands to an acceptable standard for the use contemplated and the stadium and velodrome would be a walkable distance from the major public transportation hubs, Copps Coliseum and other downtown points of interest. The west harbour site carries the smallest possible carbon footprint of any of the other stadium and velodrome sites and would probably lead to some national and international environmental acclaim for Hamilton.

A new stadium at the Ivor Wynne Stadium site and the velodrome at Mohawk College would be a “bloop single”. It is a single because of the reuse of the Ivor Wynne Stadium site. The “bloop” results from the failure to remediate 20 acres of west harbour brownfield lands, the larger carbon footprint in spreading out the stadium and velodrome to two locations several kilometres apart, and the replacement of the amateur soccer pitch at Brian Timmis Field with a parking lot.

A stadium at the east mountain site (60 acre parking lot on or near Eramosa Karst) or at Confederation Park (destruction of dozens of acres of green space) would have been an environmental “strikeout”.

City council is urged to consider the environmental consequences when it makes it final decision on the Pan Am facilities on September 13, 2011.

Comment edited by RenaissanceWatcher on 2011-09-03 09:45:46

Reply | Permalink | Context