Flooding in Red Hill Valley......new stadium could help

I read somewhere last week where opponents to the East Mountain stadium said it will make the flooding worse up there.

So, I took it upon myself to do a little unofficial research by asking some experts in the field who know about these things.......local farmers. (since the proposed East Mountain site is currently a farm field)

Here is what they generally said:

Most farm crops such as corn, soy beans actually have a way to keep the soil as wet as possible through shade. And what has been happening the past few years is that because of the constant downpours, the soil is already saturated most times and is not absorbing rain water like people think it is. Adding to the problem is the fact that most areas on the East Mountain and Upper Stoney Creek have a clay base which is not very absorbant at the best of times as, let's say, a sandy soil would be. So what happens is that torrential rain just flows off it as fast as it comes down.

What was mentioned to me is that a stadium would actually help this problem as the turf itself would pretty much absorb any short bursts of rain as happens now at Ivor Wynne (and drained off gradually). Now, as far as the rest of the stadium property, such as the stands, concrete areas and parking lots, drainage systems would be constructed into the design so that any storm water would not be even entering the Red Hill Creek/Valley as it does now........proper storm water catchment systems would divert it into a holding pond in the area, or slowly releases it into storm sewers.

It is apparantly a myth that all farmland/greenspace absorbs torrential rain............it can actually do the opposite because most crops have a way of retaining their own water needs, while repelling excess water.......especially in heavy clay.

So, in conclusion from my "research", a stadium on the east mountain should help the flooding problem and not add to it....

Hamilton's historical neglect of it's own storm sewer system is another matter....and that needs to be corrected anyhow as development is always going to happen......

The person floating that red-herring was a professor at McMaster University on the Bill Kelly show. He also said citizens should get a rain barrell. LOL. My huge lawns and three mature trees absorb gallons and gallons of water. And the city is already putting in a big pipe for Canada Bread. An extension to the East mountain stadium would not be hard.

What about that idiot from the City Engineering, that claimed on CH News that the drainage system was built to accept "the storm of the Century" in spite of the Red Hill flooding three times inside of two weeks...

Don't kid yourself.More concrete parking lots and catch basins on the east mountain will mean more flooding in the east end.PERIOD.Newsflash,the %#@&%$# pipes just aren't big enough.Storm drains,either go into the valley,or go through pipes down to the lake.With all the building that is going on ,on the east mountain,they need to upgrade their old ,existing storm drains,in the east end.

Now, as far as the rest of the stadium property, such as the stands, concrete areas and parking lots, drainage systems would be constructed into the design so that any storm water would not be even entering the Red Hill Creek/Valley as it does now........proper storm water catchment systems would divert it into a holding pond in the area, or slowly releases it into storm sewers.
So who's going to pay for all the extra infrastructure?

The parking lot was already going to cost $10-15 million, the land won't be free, and the hydro corridor won't move itself. It's already been identified that the roads will cost $8 million to widen and the on/off ramp will cost $4 million.

What makes anyone think the East Mountain site is even possible when it's going to cost tens of millions more than the West Harbour site.

I don't care if the TiCats come up with even another $35 million, that will leave the city and/or province on the hook for millions more.

I invite you to have a little read:

[url=http://raisethehammer.org/blog/1813/can_rhvplinc_handle_ticat_traffic]http://raisethehammer.org/blog/1813/can ... at_traffic[/url]

Before a shovel is put in the ground It is already $350 million cheaper than the WH site, no environmental cleanup needed.

I have to think this makes sense. Yet another example of the complete lack of planning and thought that goes into the major projects around here. I have serious concerns that the drainage problem will only get worse unless there is a major fix.

The problem, he said, is extreme storm surges plug the big "outfall" drains with debris and cause stormwater ponds to overflow or Red Hill Creek to burst its banks and flood the highway.


Where do you get $350m?

Mayor Fred said the environemtnal clean up should cost about $3.5m.

Regardless, spending money on environmental clean up is a good thing, not something that should be avoided.

They took all the trees and put them in a tree museum.
And they charged all the people
A dollar and a half just to see 'em.
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got till it's gone?
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.

Paving over nature is never a good thing. We're paying the price now for the convenience of getting downtown a couple minutes faster.... enjoy

Not just paving, modern agriculture has also contributed to water runoff.

Earl you are right, but there was no problem with flooding that I know of before they cut down all the trees and paved paradise for the Red Hill expressway.... If I was one of the people getting flooded out, my lawyer, if I had one lol, would be busy.

Yeah, in this case the paving is the culprit no question. Now, how much can be proved in a court of law? Don't know.

I see a class action suit coming. It's why the city is doing everything it can to deflect responsibility. But in the meantime, a stadium on top of the hill still looks to be a viable option to one at the waterfront. Both have their pros and cons. I like the waterfront stadium for what it could do for the core but I'm not convinced it's best for the Ticats. The land might also be put to better and more appropriate use than a stadium. I'd like to see high-end shopping and restaurants there that do not take away from the view and bring people down there year round...

Actually I like the idea of a new development on the mountain that uses modern technology to retain and reuse rainwater for irrigation of living parking lots that are designed to be solid enough not to create mudbowls while being predominately grass and trees as opposed to asphalt and concrete. These lots could easily be soccer and baseball facilities used for parking on major event days only. It was a suggestion I made for the only sensible site (Confederation Park) and I feel it still applies to any site


This East Mountain area is a bad idea. Here is proof, I ran into Bomber fans on the HIADA that came from Winnipeg to see the game and they loved the harbor front and they were blown away that the new stadium is going to be in the area and thought that the harbor front was bright spot in the city. I than told them it's looking like the stadium is going to be up the mountain miles away from the area, the fans said why on earth would they do something so stupid. These guys come to Hamilton once a year to see their bombers and I told them they're going to have to take 2 or 3 buses to get to the new stadium they were not impressed. They asked, ( no kidding ) what's up there? I said nothing but a Home Depot and corn fields. They then said, sounds like Calgary's stadium area which plain right out Sucks...

Like the other thread my bet is they don't have the $50M to pay for their preference. Besides you flat out lied to them about what will be there

I think you're off by a couple of decimal points. Remediation for a commercial site isn't all that costly.

Great idea, any idea how much a 'green' parking lot would cost? I do really like that idea, but the problem is most of these creative and innovative solutions requires millions of dollars of extra funding. If it's cheaper to build, that's great, because nobody seems to be able to come up with enough money to cover a conventional parking lot. 6000 spaces is expensive.