Comment 69121

By mystoneycreek (registered) - website | Posted September 06, 2011 at 18:50:14 in reply to Comment 69119

Graham, what you've brought up makes me feel uncomfortable...and yet it's necessary to discuss it.

I appreciate the notion of 'multiple use' facilities. (Elsewhere on this site is a great comment addressing how this is accomplished at another facility.) But I have to say that sitting through the GIC meeting last week... Well, I was flinching.

No matter where this facility is built...Hamilton, Toronto, Oakville...this will be only the second UIC-standard indoor track in North America.

No matter if you respond with 'If it's such a grand idea, why hasn't someone else built it already?!?', the point is that this facility would be a world-class affair. A singular notion in Canada, and only the second in North America.

Its primary use is clear: top-level training and competition.

Surely there is room for other cycling considerations. For entry-level and everything between it and UIC Championships. But I do not support any effort that either diminishes or somehow compromises its primary function.

Which is why, given all the talk of 'public access' and 'multiple-use infield' at the GIC meeting, I was flinching.

This facility, unlike a football stadium, should be approached with a distinct degree of respect. Because for the foreseeable future, it will be unique in Canada. One-of-a-kind.

So I'd prefer to see it built a non-compromised fashion, with the proper support, packaged in an uncompromised way...or not see it built in Hamilton at all.

I love what a commenter said over at The Hamiltonian last week about Hamilton:

"When you have no target, everything looks like one."

Comment edited by mystoneycreek on 2011-09-06 19:32:27

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools