This is a Single Point link, or quick commentary on the article or page linked above. (Follow the title link above to the source for full background on the commentary below).

Published on July 17, 2010 12:47 PM by dbo.

The debate is growing in Hamilton with passionate views on the benefits of West Harbour. These arguments are valid, but nothing changes the studies the Ti-Cats have showing they can’t become a regional team in a waterfront stadium with no access. Using the Tiger-Cats home opener crowd of 25,000 as proof that big crowds will come to the waterfront is a bit of a strawman argument, especially since last night’s game attracted 21,408.

West Harbour supporters should be putting pressure on the city to expand the scope of the West Harbour plan with more property (it is too small - hence no parking) and expanded rail and road access plans that are not 10 years down the road. With no concrete models of what the site could be (addressing the concerns of detractors) you cannot convince anyone. The biggest failure in this process is the city has not produced any detail of the stadium site at West Harbour (which any other stadium project [see Ottawa] spends millions on) or budged on rethinking access or parking in the area. The West Harbour Waterfront Recreation Plan deals only with the immediate waterfront, not the stadium area and the Setting Sail initiative focuses on high-level zoning changes.

Conversation

Comments are closed. Continue the conversation on Twitter.

Meta

Arguing For West Harbour was published on July 17, 2010 12:47 PM by dbo.

This link is tagged with hamilton and pan-am-stadium.

One Response to “Arguing For West Harbour”

  1. Future Fund monies may not be available for a non-downtown location.

    Different viewpoints from citizens show this is an issue Hamiltonians are not apathetic about.

    By dbo on July 17, 2010 7:14 AM