Special Report: Pan Am

Bob Young's Letter to Mayor Eisenberger on Aberdeen-Longwood Site

Text of Bob Young's letter to Mayor Eisenberger regarding a possible Pan Am stadium in the Aberdeen-Longwood area.

By RTH Staff
Published August 30, 2010

This is the text of Ticat owner Bob Young's letter to Mayor Fred Eisenberger today regarding a possible Pan Am stadium in the Aberdeen-Longwood area.

August 30, 2010

Mayor Fred Eisenberger,
Subject: Pan Am Stadium

Dear Mayor Eisenberger,

I understand City Council is conferring Tuesday, August 31 to consider (among other topics) a proposal to site the Pan Am Stadium at the Aberdeen/Longwood Road precinct.

While we have not conducted comprehensive due diligence at the "Longwood" site, it does present the essential sports stadium requirements of: highway exposure, access and egress for stadium visitors, public transit, and being situated in a commercial/industrial area conducive to hosting as many large audience events as possible without disruption to a neighbouring residential community.

Our goal for the new stadium will be to create the "sustainable legacy" facility, as required by the Government of Canada and the Province of Ontario, to promote the City of Hamilton across Canada and around the world long after the conclusion of the Pan Am Games. The stadium should bring as many events as possible to Hamilton.

These will include the Hamilton Tiger-Cats CFL Football team, a new franchise in the North American Soccer League, a high performance soccer academy, as well as a number of other event opportunities.

Through this letter, I want to assure you and members of Council, should it be the will of Council, the Hamilton Tiger-Cat organization will engage constructively and urgently with the City to conclude a definitive Pan Am Stadium agreement in a timely manner.

Sincerely,

Bob Young
Owner, Hamilton Tiger-Cats Football Club

66 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted August 30, 2010 at 12:57:16

He'll go back to intransigence when he finds out the city won't knock down Chedoke golf course or the Innovation Park to build him a parking lot.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Moz (anonymous) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 13:01:37

For the general Interest of the City of Hamilton, it's urgent to engage constructively for a agreement right now! History will be strict with all of you if Hamilton comes to miss this opportunity.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Greg (anonymous) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 13:08:45

Interesting to note that Ivor Wynne was built for the Common Wealth games in 1930. 20 years later in 1950 It became the home of the Tiger Cats. Now I'm not sure about how the Pan Am games stack up to the Common Wealth but it makes me think that we could do it again to create Another "sustainable legacy" facility.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By ANon (anonymous) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 13:14:12

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 jason (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 13:17:30

He is fixated on highways. City council are the ones who brought this possible compromise to the table, so let's not get carried away here.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 13:29:54

"You have to give Bob young credit. Unlike the city and many other, he is not fixated on one location. He is willing to work hard with the city on a compromise location (His preferred site is confederation park while the city want WH). Good job bob, you are a great Hamiltonian!"

Well said, Bob.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By ALB (anonymous) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 13:31:58

I can't wait to see the traffic tie ups with that location!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By TreyS (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 13:35:23

Better than West Harbour, but not as good as Confederation Park. Aberdeen and Longwood streets will be a disaster on game days. On the other hand Mac will make lots of money from it's parking lots on Innovation Park.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By renegauthier (registered) - website | Posted August 30, 2010 at 13:35:59

Jason, he is fixated on catering to his customers.

Some of his customers drive to the stadium because there is no service between Hamilton and Southwestern Ontario and Southern Niagara/Haldimand for that matter.

If they don't suffer the parking roulette that they experience at IWS, it improves the experience and they will come back.

Like I said before, a smaller stadium at WH in place of the ones that were taken away from Burlington, along with a larger retractable roof stadium, similar to the Whitestar model of buildings on each corner, plus an additional building where the press box sits would be a great model, because it gives everybody what they want. Let's pull for this initiative.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Creeker (anonymous) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 13:36:10

What astounds me is that nobody is asking the question, "Why build a stadium at all?" Doesn't the city have better things to do with it's money? If someone offered you 50 or 60% of the cost of a giant Christmas monument that you would use a few times a year, would you still consider building with your own money despite the fact that you don't need it?

I think the Tiger-Cats should continue to use Ivor Wynne. The taxpayers' dollars (whether they are federal, provincial, or municipal) should either stay in the taxpayers' pockets or be directed towards something that is actually useful for the majority of the population of Hamilton, not just those who choose to get drunk and take their shirts off 8 to 10 times a year.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Mando (anonymous) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 13:37:03

Really Now.... The man and his organization have held the city hostage and pulled at the heart strings of this city by threatening to move the oldest football team in Canada from it's one and only home ... Great Hamiltonian he is not!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By renegauthier (registered) - website | Posted August 30, 2010 at 13:40:36

Come on people. Let's be constructive here.

Let's get something that works for all of us.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By GO GO (anonymous) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 13:43:44

Just wondering.... how far is the go from there? Won't that be an issue with HOSTCO?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By renegauthier (registered) - website | Posted August 30, 2010 at 13:43:52

In the end, Ivor Wynne will be too expensive for anyone to maintain. The best solution at this point is to get a new stadium as that will reduce maintenance costs and its naming rights alone is gold, especially on the 403.

Let me put it to you this way. The Hershey Centre in Mississauga is off the 403/410 and you know what? I will not forget that at all because I've passed by it. If we have something like that off the 403, nobody forgets where it is and nobody forgets who sponsors it. That is money saved for maintenance and other activities.

It will bring in more money than Ivor Wynne could ever have done.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By GO GO (anonymous) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 13:46:26

Forgot to ask where would that leave the go slated near WH?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By renegauthier (registered) - website | Posted August 30, 2010 at 13:47:43

Saying that Bob Young held the city hostage is a little over the top.

You might as well tell him to bend over and take it like a man. Is that what you want him to do?

He is exercising his right as the team owner to do what is best for his business and if the city is not conduisive to or addressing any of his needs, he has no other alternative but to walk away.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By renegauthier (registered) - website | Posted August 30, 2010 at 13:48:55

GO GO,

The GO Station on Stuart is still being built for the Niagara service. Where that leaves that GO Centre is anybody's guess.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 13:52:50

Jason, he is fixated on catering to his customers.

His own ticket holder survey showed 50% want to leave the car at home and ride the GO Train.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By renegauthier (registered) - website | Posted August 30, 2010 at 13:58:52

Jason,

That's maybe because they can. Can't do it from London, Brantford, Cambridge, Kitchener-Waterloo or even Guelph. So that leaves at least another 10000 who are coming from out of the city. Are you saying that they don't matter to you?

Comment edited by renegauthier on 2010-08-30 12:59:16

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Brandon (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 13:59:56

Heh, living right around the corner from the Longwood proposed site, I can assure you that traffic will be an absolute nightmare.

You've got two, count them, TWO streets with a grand total of 8 lanes leading to it.

There is no significant parking beyond what will be on site and what will be at the MIP.

There is a rail yard nearby, but I have no idea what it links to.

Won't bother me as I can walk to the games from there, but really...

Comment edited by Brandon on 2010-08-30 13:01:04

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By renegauthier (registered) - website | Posted August 30, 2010 at 14:08:26

Have you guys been to Toronto when there's a Jays or Leafs game in town? The traffic is not the best, but they have plenty of time to figure out how they can overcome that obstacle. Let's just hope that everybody gets what they want out of this...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By F. Ward Cleat (anonymous) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 14:09:17

Hunter Street GO line presently heads east at Dundurn and Jackson about 2000 ft. from the proposed site. There is a spur line heading south-west that goes to the site.
LRT B-Line would pass Longwood at Main, about 1000 ft. from this site.
I think there would also be plenty of parking within the corridor of Main-Aberdeen, Dundurn-403, although most of it will is attached to existing/future businesses so BY may not get the revenue.
Naming rights should be maximized with this site.
Personally I still prefer the waterfront atmosphere of West Harbour

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 14:10:54

Have you guys been to Toronto when there's a Jays or Leafs game in town?

Bwahahahahaha, suddenly traffic isn't a problem anymore!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By F. Ward Cleat (anonymous) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 14:14:53

as a side note;
WH GO will provide an East and West service , whereas MIP only East.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 14:19:20

Are you saying that they don't matter to you?

Yes they matter and one thing that is no problem in Hamilton or southern Ontario is getting around by car. The fact is, those train riders should matter. Imagine half of Cats fans using trains to get to a game? Suddenly all our worries about congestion and traffic are minimized.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By renegauthier (registered) - website | Posted August 30, 2010 at 14:37:23

I think we'd all like to see the WH site, but if it's not feasible to the anchor tenant, it's not feasible for anyone as it would only perpetuate a problem. The Ti-Cats have always wanted to talk. They just want to ensure that wherever it goes, it works for them as much as it works for the city. Unfortunately, the city wasn't prepared to have a dialogue about other sites until now.

Traffic congestion was always going to be a problem wherever the stadium was going to be put, even EM. The issue with WH has always been visibility. Longwood addresses that weakness and it's a better position than EM for sure on that one.

As far as complementary transit for GO riders, they have lots of time to figure out how that will happen, but the GO Centre would be at the forefront on that. Just need to get the LRT going for that area. Perhaps a direct line could be set up to serve that area for stadium events.

I stand by the need for a retractable roof stadium with 5 buildings attached to it, the same model as Whitestar group's model, with parking underneath to serve MIP and stadium alike.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 14:45:53

"You have to give Bob young credit. Unlike the city and many other, he is not fixated on one location. He is willing to work hard with the city on a compromise location (His preferred site is confederation park while the city want WH). Good job bob, you are a great Hamiltonian!"

This isn't a compromise, it's a last minute exercise in saving face.

Bob Young's letter is a desparate attempt to try to make this site appear far superior to and substantively different from the West Harbour so as to justify his last minute doublecross to hold taxpayers to ransom.

In reality, there's scarcely any difference. Both sites have similar pedestrian and GO access and the potential for LRT. That can't be said for Young's and The Tiger-Cats' preferred East Mountain and Confederation Park sites. Vehicular access is a bit of a tossup with the Longwood site being about a mile and a half (yes, that's all)closer to the 403, with the inherent potential for backups, while the West Harbour has far superior access to more arterial roads.

In the end, if this goes through, Fred Eisenberger doesn't come out of this looking bad at all. By having the courage to take a position on the West Harbour and oppose the sprawl-inducing East Mountain site he's managed to squeeze a site out of the Tiger-Cats that will work for most of us not just some of us.

That was NEVER Bob Young's plan.

Oh, by the way, where exactly was it that the Tiger Cats were going anyway?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 14:49:36

Milton or Tillsonburg. LOL

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Pulsar (anonymous) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 14:52:33

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 30, 2010 at 14:56:43

There are some small improvements of the Longwood site over WH - better highway visibility and proximity to the ramps. That's it, though - the parking is going to be even more of a challenge, and it's a little isolated when it comes to developing the surrounding area - the Aberdeen steel transloading facility is on that site for good reason, and the MIP isn't really negotiable either. Access to public transit and GO is workable, though.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Capitalist (anonymous) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 15:04:29

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 Mobster (anonymous) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 15:08:25

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 F. Ward Cleat (anonymous) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 15:10:53

budda bing budda boomm...someone just offed the topic

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 15:24:39

On a positive note, this site provides an opportunity to better utilize the Hunter Street GO Station and Hamilton's existing rail infrastructure. As I've said in earlier posts on RTH, I believe that all GO and VIA trains should be routed through Hunter Street and then along the CP line (that crosses Main East at Gage) and then join at grade with the CN just west of Ottawa Street. (It currently goes under the CN) Why build a station on James Nortn when we already have one serving as a multi-modal terminal right downtown?

Clearly, the LRT should be developed with Hunter Street, a Stadium and MIP in mind.

As to street access, traffic should be discouraged, if not prohibited, at gametime on Aberdeen. Longwood should be made one-way southbound before games and northbound after.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Brandon (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 15:27:02

1) Was municipal money earmarked for downtown development used to build it?

2) Was federal/provincial money earmarked with specific guidelines used to build it?

Since neither of the above are likely true, your point is irrelevant.

Comment edited by Brandon on 2010-08-30 14:32:02

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By z jones (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 15:33:12

What makes you think Jason was closely involved in the locating of the church?

More to the point, last time I checked, Jason's church wasn't demanding that the city build them a new building with a big parking lot, either on the mountain or anywhere else.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By renegauthier (registered) - website | Posted August 30, 2010 at 15:40:09

...but the church can move and who will be vilified for it?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted August 30, 2010 at 15:42:18

As much as we all love to fantasize about an Aberdeen/Longwood GO platform, this location is already going to be a nightmare to build on thanks to parking concerns and MIP. There's no way they'll be putting a GO station any closer too.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By z jones (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 15:42:46

Unfortunately, the city wasn't prepared to have a dialogue about other sites until now.

Calling BS, that just isn't true. The site committee -- which included the Ticats right from the start -- compared lots of sites against their checklist of criteria. Including Aberdeen-Longwood. The ONLY site that got taken off the list was Confederation Park on request of Chad Collins. That's because Confederation Park is a PARK, people, and Collins was on Waterfront Trust plan to keep the east waterfront open and accessible.

So before you whine again about being downvoted, I downvoted you because your comment is factually false. And snide.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By renegauthier (registered) - website | Posted August 30, 2010 at 15:43:18

realfreeenterpriser,

The Beach Road CP/CN connection has been an ongoing debate because of CP's unwillingness to share that spur line with CN.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 15:46:58

"Why is it okay for your church to locate in a location that is not downtown, not accessable by Go transit, and has plenty of parking but it is not okay for Bob Young???"

Capitalist - I'm sure Jason can speak for himself but perhaps I can help soothe your apparent irritation at today's turn of events.

How about, because it's one of thousands of churches, scattered all over the city, built to benefit a relatively isolated, small group of people who can choose to go to other churches AND it's privately owned and paid for by its attendees.

A stadium in Hamilton, on the other hand, is a publicly-owned solitary venue, built by everyone, owned by everyone, to benefit everyone, NOT NEARLY paid for by its attendees and subsidized to the tune of millions of taxpayers' dollars every year.

The only similarity between a church and the stadium that Bob Young wanted was that neither of them pay property taxes.

Did this help?

Comment edited by realfreeenterpriser on 2010-08-30 14:56:11

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 15:50:46

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 F. Ward Cleat (anonymous) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 16:01:36

MIP could provide your nightmare scenario but parking and GO is a reach. Present Hunter St. GO trains pass undergrade at Main and Dundurn (Jackson to be accurate) a satelite view shows a railway spur line heading southwest literally to proposed site. Presently the commercial/industrial lands (about 200 acres) bounded by Aberdeen, Main, Hwy.403 and west of Dundurn probably provide enough existing parking. Any new construction would require a certain amount of parking by-law. Since most of this parking is used in a 9-5 business scenario an arrangement should be possible for evening and weekend use (sports and entertainment).

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By H+H (registered) - website | Posted August 30, 2010 at 16:07:13

"The only similarity between a church and the stadium that Bob Young wanted was that neither of them pay property taxes."

One other difference is at church you pray TO God and ask for enlightenment, whereas the Ti-Cats prey AS gods and ask for money.

I apologize in advance for the uncomfortable pun. I deserve to be voted down for it.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By slodrive (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 16:09:39

Personally, I think this site IS a compromise from all sides. And, i think it's workable. As I've mentioned many times here and on the ticat boards, I prefer a downtown/ core stadium. West Harbour is about as 'downtown/core' as this site (Edit -- sorry, my point here is that I don't feel the WH is 'downtown/core' either. Of course it's closer...). So, not my first choice, but I can live with it.

Its proximity to HSR lines will encourage public transit -- and really, a 2.5 km jont to Hess Villiage isn't all that bad. Likely unwalkable, but within striking distance.

To me, at least this is a site (like the West Harbour) that can become more reliant on public transportation -- where the East Mountain really couldn't. Technically, like other venues and events, shuttles could run service from each GO platform (LIUNA Station and Hunter) if need be. To me, GO having much of an impact (save for games against the Argos) is still well in the future.

I think this can be a nice showcase piece for our city -- and I think it can be reasonably successful for the Ticats. Thus, limiting subsidy.

It's not perfect by any stretch. But I think this is something that can fit within the city-building objectives and foster increased downtown activity.

Comment edited by slodrive on 2010-08-30 15:14:41

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mikeyj (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 16:09:55

Just got this Media Release:

August 30, 2010 - Bob Young letter welcome, timely, statesman-like: Eisenberger

HAMILTON – Mayor Fred Eisenberger says Bob Young, owner of the Hamilton Tiger-Cats Football Club, has made a welcome, timely and statesman-like gesture today by re-iterating his commitment to working on securing a Pan Am stadium for Hamilton.

In a letter dated today addressed to Mayor Eisenberger, Mr. Young reiterated his commitment to partner with the City of Hamilton and create a sustainable legacy in the form of a new stadium to be built in Hamilton.

Mayor Eisenberger immediately responded by thanking Mr. Young for reiterating his commitment to work with the City in a constructive and urgent manner to reach an agreement on the Pan Am stadium site.

“Bob, while the site of the future Pan Am stadium has been in doubt, our mutual commitment to Hamilton and this fantastic project has never been in doubt,” the letter from Mayor Eisenberger reads.

“Reiterating at this critical juncture your commitment to the Pan Am stadium and the important legacy it presents to our city is most welcome and timely. It is a statesman-like gesture that is most appreciated.”

Mayor Eisenberger in turn reiterated his commitment to work with Mr. Young on a solution to the stadium site issue.

“I look forward to working with you toward the conclusion of an agreement that is beneficial to the Hamilton Tiger-Cats and the people of Hamilton,” Mayor Eisenberger wrote.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Mrs C (anonymous) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 16:14:25

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 demosthenes (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 16:17:42

Stupid question - which exact parcel of land are we talking about? I'm assuming it is the parcel on the west side of longwood currently occupied by a SteelCare warehouse? If so, I had thought that the land was currently slated to be part of an automotive research centre/conversion of the warehouse in MIP. Who actually owns that land at the moment? If it's McMaster, somehow I'm not sure they'll like the idea of converting it to a stadium unless they're given a slice of the pie ...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Capitalist (anonymous) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 16:19:26

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 F. Ward Cleat (anonymous) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 16:19:46

This site has no chance without the full support from MIP.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By renegauthier (registered) - website | Posted August 30, 2010 at 16:20:33

z jones,

I don't need to whine about upvoting/downvoting. I made an observation about how the debate is maintained by the registered users. It tends to favour WH proponents. I guess that where the users of this site stands, but quashing dissenting voices do not change the fact that there's two sides to every story. You simply choose to listen to one side alone. That's ok... That's the world as we know it. But I expect to see a debate on facts, not reaction.

By the way, you might want to look up the word "snide" and take another look at what I said compared with what you said. I think you just bested me in that one, but that's my opinion. I could go further, but I don't need to stoop to your level. I prefer a clean debate with good factual points.

If I am wrong, by all means correct me, but based on what I've seen, there is plenty of truth to what I have said.

Thank you for proving my point.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mikeyj (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 16:21:08

Huh? All I did is post something relevant to this article that I received.

Please refrain from taking your old age and fear of basements out on me

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By demosthenes (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 16:24:57

Memo to everyone: please don't feed the trolls :-)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By renegauthier (registered) - website | Posted August 30, 2010 at 16:36:22

I hear ya, demosthenes

Should have know better...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By renegauthier (registered) - website | Posted August 30, 2010 at 16:40:43

F. Ward,

I think MIP would sign up if it meant that they'd get some buildings out of it. The Whitestar retractable roof model could put them on side.

It means that they become a development partner, reducing the burden of cost on the government level.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By adding up? (anonymous) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 17:14:21

Bravo to Mark Chamberlain--see the excellent next Raise the Hammer item.
If I multiply 5 and 1, I get 5--as requested by the blog host. But if I multiply Hamilton times the Tiger Cat football team, it doesn't add very much of anything to the actual, real arithmetic of Hamilton, nor would the team's absence subtract much compared to what's already missing in the city, but gradually getting better. The failing Spectator would have to find something else to cover and worry about.
The posting by Creeker (Posted August 30, 2010 12:36:10 in the Bob Young letter responses earlier today) asked a really important question that these blog comments clearly deem irrelevant. Fortunately some council members at the first vote in committee thought this question was the key question, Pan Am or no Pan Am.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By arienc (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 17:20:40

I still don't see that site as workable for GO. GO is designed as mass commuter transit. Any deviation, additional stops, or jogs in the rout will extend the timelines for service.

There is also the requirment to have enough straight track for a 12-car train.

The Lakeshore West line currently runs westbound from Union Station to the Hunter St. terminal. While a station could be built near the site just south of King Street (in the park behind the Fortinos plaza), it would require the addition of a new stop that's not in plan. This would mean slower service for downtown commuters if it is built. It would also require some connection for pedestrians to cross the busy Main St. to access Frid, pedestrian connections to Aberdeen, and would be about 1 km walk from the stadium.

Plus, I think with the development of service to Niagara, the trains will be primarily using the lines further to the north, and the Hunter St. station would only see limited use. The closest potential stop for the all-day trains would be so close to the James/Stuart location as to make it unnecessary. Which means anyone coming to the stadium from Toronto would have to transfer first to the (not yet existing) A line, then to the (not yet existing) B-line.

Comment edited by arienc on 2010-08-30 16:21:14

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By F. Ward Cleat (anonymous) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 17:20:46

renegauthier,
MIP will need to step forward with some sort of agreement in principal. Otherwise this site becomes another political landmine. It has to work for them or it's just plain stupidity to proceed.
Further to the development partner idea it seems to me that would sooth a few reservations we might have about the destructive potential this stadium could have on MIP.
Many development partners have poked their heads up in regards to the WH site and have been all but ignored. Whitestar Group, Molinaro Group, McMaster Group and Katz have all shown interest. So I think we're left to wonder what potential is left unexplored.
To my thinking MIP and WH are both on the fringe of Downtown. Both possess natural beauty and huge development potential. The difference being MIP will develope on its own WH I'm not so sure.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Bob the Builder (anonymous) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 17:36:02

MIP would be a disaster. It would essentially steal all of the available land from one of the greatest developments in this city and hand it over to a bunch of dumb ball chuckers. It's a great example of brownfield reuse that's actually happening now, and not just another political pipe dream/talking point.

Please don't eff this one up.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Compromise (anonymous) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 18:18:23

But what about incorporating a much needed modern west end community centre at MIP with the stadium. I'm sure it would also be possible to build the MAC auto research centre into the structure as well. It's just too bad MAC already built their expensive stadium. If one thinks more broadly that the building is more than a stadium then there is huge potential. A multi-purpose building. Any chance the CP railyard could be moved and put the stadium south of Aberdeen or ABOVE the rail yard. Think compromise.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Hammer Time (anonymous) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 19:27:00

Let's see. Bob Young one of the most successful technology Exec inthe history of this country wants to invest at the MIP and Chamberlain can not see any positives in this for his business. Wow ! Just Wow !

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Robbie K (anonymous) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 19:40:26

Actually, I think what you meant to say was "wants to LET US invest at the MIP". But a stadium is hardly what that area is meant for. Why not throw a Giant Tiger in there for good measure or maybe a strip club, after all, they are investments.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By z jones (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 19:47:20

Bob Young one of the most successful technology Exec in the history of this country [sic]

Bob Young on Bob Young's successful investments in this country:

Financially it has been one of the worst ideas I've ever had. No, scratch that - it has been easily the worst financial idea I've ever had. While we have trimmed the losses of the team every year we are still losing a huge number of dollars every year.

Being smart at running a tech company doesn't mean you're also smart at running a football team.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 20:49:26

I am not swayed at all. WH or a renovated IWS. Why would we blow growth in an established technology incubator for a freaking stadium? Wake up folks!

If the Ti-Cats leave so what, I prefer to keep the the lands open for innovation growth which will lead to jobs growth which will lead to prosperity. Prosperity and growth were the reasons WH has been chosen over and over, if Bob The Brain isn't interested in contributing to that let him go. I also think his unseen studies and claims of operating losses are complete bullshit, let us see the spreadsheets and do some forensic accounting.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Tiger-Cats (anonymous) | Posted August 31, 2010 at 00:17:01

It is all good Mr. We want the stadium located at Confederation Park so once McMaster and the likes of Chamberlain start to protest and put up road blocks, we will be able to accept our prefered site as a peace offfering.

Again, it is all good.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By kevin (registered) | Posted August 31, 2010 at 10:24:44

Capitalist:

I don't think it's fair to compare a few dozens parking spots around a church, which has been there for some time, with thousands around a new stadium. Since Ben Bull turned me onto RTH 5 years ago, James has been perfectly consistent in his message. I don't know him, but through his prolific, thoughtful contributions to this site, I'm confident he "walks the walks," as well.

There are plenty of real villians out there. He ain't one of them.

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