This is a Single Point link, 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 November 17, 2010 10:51 PM by dbo.
At least the first option includes a full stadium. I see no problem with the city considering other proposals (late as it is), but why would they consider an option that eliminates half the stadium stands when there is a tenant waiting in the wings? Sure, there is the idea that a “development-tied stadium at the rapid transit hub at Bayview” could be developed if the half-stadium option was selected, but who would pay for a full stadium and when would it be complete? Certainly not in the incoming council’s term.
When cost of the project is a big issue I don’t see how spending $50 million on a half-stadium at Lansdowne and probably $200 million on another stadium with no provincial or federal help makes it better.