Raise the Hammer

I'm not going to wade into the debate about what Young and the Ticats did. I do have a personal view, but I also see the point of moving on and trying to create the most positive outcome we can, regardless of whether each of us felt the decision was wrong or right or of little consequence. And I apologize in advance if this comes off as a rant - it's not intended that way, just my perspective to add to the dialogue about something that holds personal importance for me.

I'd like to comment on the issue of "city building" and "benefits."

I think too much has been made of those things with respect to this particular piece of infrastructure. And to me, that's really what the new stadium is: infrastructure... cultural infrastructure. Its core purpose is to supply a demand, in this case to provide a venue for spectator field sports. That demand will vary from larger events such as CFL or Pan-Am soccer games (and possibly professional soccer, if the idea of a Hamilton team comes to fruition), medium-sized events such as the Vanier Cup or amateur championships, and smaller events such as high-school football and soccer, youth sports, or other community uses that may not fill the majority of seats.

Expecting that piece of infrastructure to be the catalyst for more is asking a lot. Particularly when the large events that draw the biggest demand are sparsely scheduled throughout the year, meaning opportunities are quite limited for spin-off businesses that would rely on masses of stadium users.

Consider that if the current stadium has not in that way fully benefited the neighbourhood that surrounds it, why would the new one do so in a different, albeit sexier location?

Or is there an expectation that the government investment alone would generate "me too" investments from the private sector? But what would the private sector stand to benefit from doing so? Would a new office building or condo complex be more feasible locating next to a large structure like this? Would a new restaurant or retail outlet generate more business next to a building that is not used to capacity more than a handful of times a year? The case for those investments is based more on other site-related merits, none of which depend on co-location of a stadium.

It becomes a dangerous game when debate is driven by conjecture about potential secondary benefits; impacts we cannot predict with much certainty. I see this play out with regard to other developments too - our road and transit investments are one example, and the location of public facilities and services is another. Some of those things are more likely to spur secondary benefits and development, but the main reason we should be building them is to serve the core demand (both current and projected) and improve the overall level or quality of service, so long as there's a positive economic or social benefit to doing so.

Short of drawing massive crowds several days a week, there are not many businesses that will have a better economic case for locating near the new stadium, no matter where it is built. So the new stadium's role as a catalyst may be more restricted to attracting a greater number of sporting events (most of them smaller scaled) and community-related uses because the facilities may be appropriately suitable to their needs as well as those of the primary tenants; the current stadium is clearly lacking in that respect, mainly due to age and outdated design.

I think we can all have hopes for more, but the social/cultural benefit of the stadium itself should be the key focus here, and not the potential for "city building."