Site of Pan Am Games


Confederation Park is the ideal location! :thup:

I agree, tc23 I was timed out saying that in my original post.

Here it is.

I am strongly leaning toward the Confederation Park location

Putting the stadium there would showcase Hutch's Fish @ Chips, Baranga's restaurant,
outdoor patio, with live entertainment, and beach volleyball in the summertime

It would showcase the beachfront boardwalk that goes through conservation area
past the Snack Bar and picnic area wonderfully shared by many different ethnic groups,

and also the Wave Pool, with it's Lazy River, water slides and children's pool area.

* Confederation Park

Though it has been voted off, it might return due to advantages of

public land, highway access, waterfront esthetics,
ongoing revenue prospects, symbolic and image value.

Disadvantages are odours and dust from industrial areas[?]
and the expense of extending water and sewer service.

It may be smelly at times in the residential area
on the beachstrip near Stelco and the bay,

but not on the conservation lands well to the east.

The article the other day said the stadium
would take >10% of the conservation lands.

8 hectares out of 83.5 hectares.[?]

Put it on the land between Baranga's and the picnic area
up on the terrace heading east towards the Wave Pool.

That would be the best location for it.

I visit this area several times a week in the summer.

I see people on the beach, the shore line, the boardwalk
and all the revenue-generating locations I mentioned above.

I see empty parking spots on the land away from the beach
and I seldom see any people utilizing that land in any way.

For all the reasons ronfromtigertown lists in support of the Confederation patk site, you could also apply them to the West Harbourfront site ( Including "showcasing" Hutch's, which I persoanlly think is a ridiciulous one with virtually no significance).

I say NO to taking greenspace from Confederation Park. Enough with the "it's only 10% of the land" 10% is significant!

The waterfront site by Barton, Queen and Tiffnay streets redevelops brown space and further ADDS to Hamilton's waterfront which is a jewel that keeps getting better and better.

Don't forget the metrolinx plan that includes light rail rapid transit to the waterfront.

City council is often accused of being short sighted, well here is an oppurtunity for some long term planning that involves the mega investment of metrolinx, a new stadium, further development of the waterfront (and reclamation of brown space) and eventual connection and development to a renewed downtown, and espcecially so if Balsillie eventually get his NHL team for his revamped Copps Coliseum.

This is an enormous oppurtunity for the downtown Hamilton that must not be squandered.

John Kernighan has assembled an excellent summary of the official short listed sites and secondary sites for a new stadium to host the 2015 Pam Am Games track and field events and to become the new home of the Tiger-Cats afterwards. Thanks for posting his summary, ronfromtigertown.

The three sites on the short list right now are the West Harbourfront, vacant or underdeveloped lands in Downtown Hamilton near York Boulevard and Bay Streets or Rebecca and John Streets, or lands north of Hamilton International Airport.

Kernighan has provided a brief but good analysis for and against each of these sites in addressing the needs or goals relating to sports, the Games itself, the City and the long term.

In a portion of his related article titled “Plan ahead to make stadium a people place? in the Hamilton Spectator, he points to the success of the $125 million, 25,000 seat Letzigrund Stadium in Zurich built in a working class area of the city. That stadium fulfills several public functions which helps pay the bills:

-hosts pro soccer;
-hosts track and field events;
-hosts concerts;
-has indoor track facilities;
-home to a gymnastics club;
-has a health club;
-has a public restaurant and two dining and bar areas for football supporters.

A new stadium in Hamilton will have to help pay for itself over the long term. Of particular note is that the stadium in Zurich hosts concerts, which probably generates the most revenue other than soccer, even though it was built in a working class area of the city. Ivor Wynne Stadium is also situated in the middle of a working class neighbourhood but the Pink Floyd concert held there over 30 years ago proved that the site was not conducive to that function on a regular basis. A new Hamilton stadium must be available for outdoor concerts. Therefore, before making a final decision on a site, a City of Hamilton official should ask the stadium operators in Zurich how they have succeeded in hosting stadium concerts in a working class neighbourhood and determine whether the same approach is feasible in Hamilton. If it is feasible, then the stadium may be able to co-exist with the residents in the neighbourhoods near the West Harbourfront or the Downtown Hamilton sites. If it is not feasible, then the city could encounter the same problem it has at Ivor Wynne Stadium. Potential concert revenue needs to be factored into any final site decision made by the City of Hamilton.

I think the concept of "green space" needs to be fully thought through. Consider a golf course for example, this is green space. However how useable is such a green space, particularly if private? So a stadium at Confederation Park would be taking up some "green space". Ok. But consider this, people who go to the stadium for a game that otherwise just sit around the house and do nothing to move their bodies. They never say use Confederation park for a walk or bike ride. Now a stadium is there, they go to a TiCats game, soccer game whatever. They see this waterfront walkway and they say "wow, nice down here, good place for a stroll or bike ride." So the stadium, even though taking up some green space, has converted some couch potatoes into moving and getting out, maybe being a bit healthier in the long run, this type of thing. A little loss of something and a gain resulted in something else. This all needs to be factored into any loss of "green space".

My point is just that there is more to what is called "green space" than just what it is at face value. Also, a stadium combined with an area that has a trail and that is an interesting combination as opposed to one that is out in a field by the airport say. Not saying the airport shouldn't be considered, I even said earlier it could be a great area for a stadium, just other factors to consider.

Good article here:

Downtown stadiums score big/ Four cities see revitalization

The Colorado Springs Sky Sox open the 2003 minor league baseball season in three months - their 15th since leaving Memorial Park downtown for Sky Sox Stadium on the city's northeast outskirts.

Some hope it will be their last playing in the 9,000-seat facility that sits with its back to Pikes Peak, plagued by cold, stiff winds and surrounded by the suburban homes of the Stetson Hills and Springs Ranch subdivisions along the booming Powers Boulevard corridor.

Classic Homes developer Jeff Smith wanted to buy the Sky Sox, a Pacific Coast League AAA baseball franchise, and move the team downtown to a new $35 million stadium surrounded by new offices, shops, restaurants, apartments, condos and loft homes.

Although he is reconsidering the idea, Smith says baseball belongs downtown, and a stadium remains part of a redevelopment plan for the warehouse and industrial neighborhood of south downtown.

Other pieces of the long-debated plan for downtown include Confluence Park along Monument Creek, a major hotel and a convention center.

Downtown boosters suggested a proposal Tuesday for financing the project: an increase in the city's 3 percent hotel and rental-car tax.

Many people question the wisdom of putting a minor league baseball stadium downtown, with all its traffic, parking problems and access issues.

Can a new stadium succeed downtown? Will enough people turn out to justify the expense, whether funded privately or by tax dollars?

Are there really any spinoff economic benefits to a downtown stadium?

Talk to civic leaders in other league cities that have built downtown stadiums in recent years - Memphis, Tenn., Fresno and Sacramento, Calif., Oklahoma City - and the answers are unanimous:


Oh, yes.

Absolutely, yes.

"What has our ballpark meant to downtown?" said Jeff Sanford, president of the Memphis Center City Commission, a redevelopment agency that helped relocate the Memphis Redbirds to an $80 million downtown stadium.

"People who hadn't been downtown in years were attracted by the ballpark, and they left converts not only to Redbird baseball but to all of downtown," Sanford said.

"I would estimate that as a direct result of the decision to locate the ballpark in the heart of downtown, we got an additional $75 to $100 million worth of development."

Going downtown

Smith's idea of moving the Sky Sox downtown is not revolutionary.

During the past 10 years or so, many major and minor league baseball teams rejected suburban settings in favor of urban stadiums.

Colorado fans saw the trend at Coors Field in Denver.

The list includes Baltimore's Camden Yards and Cleveland's Jacobs Field, as well as Houston, Milwaukee, Phoenix, Detroit, San Francisco and next year in San Diego.

In that time, nine of the PCL's 16 stadiums were replaced at costs ranging from $20 million to $80 million apiece.

Tens of millions more went to rehabilitate two older stadiums in Portland, Ore., and Albuquerque, N.M.

Economists have debated for years the value of sports franchises and venues to cities.

Some criticize civic leaders for portraying sports teams and venues as economic development tools.

Moving a stadium simply drains money from one area of a city and moves it to another, writes Andrew Zimbalist, a Smith College economist.

Stadiums don't create jobs, except for short-term construction work, other experts say.

Zimbalist and others voice another common criticism: Tax money spent on fancy new stadiums never can be recouped.

Instead, the stadiums create other public expenses such as security and sanitation.

One of the primary backers of downtown venues to defend the trend is Larry Houstoun, in an August article for the Urban Land Institute.

"Professional baseball is at least as important in smaller cities ... as it is in major league towns like Chicago, and perhaps more," said Houstoun, who heads the Atlantic Group, a consulting firm that helps cities with redevelopment issues.

"Many minor league ballparks have come into being in recent years, making minor league teams a new force in the revitalization of small cities."

Houstoun cites several reasons downtown stadiums are preferable to suburban locations, including the commonly touted benefit stadiums give cities a tool to redevelop vacant or run-down urban property and take advantage of assets such as parking garages and retail shops that might otherwise go unused after dark.

"The ability of residents and downtown workers to walk to and from games - this access actually builds attendance," he said.

His research traced additional wages, profits and tax revenues to pedestrian access to stadiums and nearby commerce.

The pedestrians, Houstoun concludes, offset the drain on public services, at least in part, by generating revenue and taxes collected on tickets sold, parking fees and the food and retail goods fans buy.

Benefits are greater if the money is being spent by fans who live outside the city limits or tourists attracted downtown to a game on a summer night.

Then there's the image issue and the desire of cities for a vibrant downtown - one with shops, restaurants, bars, theaters and other entertainment options.

Not every new stadium is a winner.

Tucson is not exactly packing them in at its stadium, built in 1998 as a spring training facility for the Arizona Diamondbacks and regular-season home of the Sidewinders.

Its 2002 attendance of 3,896 per game was second-worst in the PCL, just behind the Sky Sox and ahead of only Calgary, Alberta, which lost its franchise to Albuquerque, where the team will play in 2003 as the Isotopes in a refurbished stadium.

Tale of four cities

Houstoun's findings suggest Colorado Springs has much to gain from a downtown stadium.

That idea seems to be supported by the experiences of the four PCL cities, especially Sacramento and its River Cats team, the top farm team of the Oakland Athletics.

"Without a doubt, a sports arena located in the central city provides quantifiable economic benefits that can't be matched," said Michael Ault, executive director of the Downtown Sacramento Partnership.

Teams draw people downtown who might not be there otherwise. They spend money at restaurants and shops before and after games.

Most importantly, they come back downtown, after the season, to explore and spend more.

"Downtown restaurants and bars report their business is up 17 to 20 percent on River Cats game nights," Ault said. "Some restaurants are able to add another day of business on game nights."

The River Cats are so successful at the $40 million Raley's Field - built across the Sacramento River in West Sacramento - that Ault's group is finding it much easier to sell the idea of building an indoor arena in an abandoned downtown rail yard. The group hopes to relocate the NBA's Sacramento Kings basketball team downtown from suburban ARCO Arena.

Consider Memphis and AutoZone Park, the $80 million home of the Redbirds, which opened in 2000.

"The ballpark, by anybody's measure, was one of the cornerstones of our recent revitalization efforts here," said Sanford, the Memphis Center City Commission president.

AutoZone Park prompted renovation of an office building that had been vacant for 20 years, new apartments, condos and lofts, the first new elementary school in downtown Memphis in 100 years and new retail shops and restaurants, Sanford said.

People like it so much they agreed downtown was the only place for a new $250 million arena for the NBA Memphis Grizzlies. It is being built a few blocks from the stadium.

"The ballpark was catalytic," Sanford said. "Ours was a typical deteriorating urban center. It had been allowed to deteriorate for decades. Now we have more people living in downtown than Denver does - 10,000 people today compared to just 500 in 1985.

"We not only got a new ballpark, we got a new neighborhood."

Oklahoma City achieved similar results from its $34 million Southwestern Bell Bricktown Ballpark, part of a taxpayer-financed and approved $700 million downtown overhaul.

"The old ballpark was located north of the fairgrounds, eight miles west of town," said Sean Simpson, vice president of the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce.

"In 1990, there was just one restaurant in downtown, and the rest was empty warehouses," he said. "Now we have the Bricktown, a canal, restaurants, nightclubs, retail, commercial offices, two new hotels.

"The ballpark brings everyone down. They are rediscovering downtown Oklahoma City and finding it's the place to be."

Fresno finds its new $27 million Grizzlies Stadium generating a rebirth of its downtown, which has a reputation as a high crime area with little night life.

"The downtown stadium has been a boon to development in our downtown area," said Stebbins Dean of the Greater Fresno Area Chamber of Commerce.

"We had been trying to figure out how to bring business back downtown. We need retail back. There's not very much retail left in downtown at all because of a perception that crime is a serious problem downtown."

All that began to change after the stadium opened last summer and Fresno residents attended games and got a glimpse of downtown, he said.

"The stadium has changed the whole complexion of downtown Fresno," Dean said.

"Turnover has occurred in real estate, and we're seeing businesses crop up in our downtown, including small restaurants."

[url=] ... _n10013847[/url]

I agree with Earl and CaptainKirk that the proposed stadium would provide the most benefit to the city by being located downtown or the Barton - Queen area. Future rapid transit and Go Train improvements will encourage us to leave our cars at home.Brownfield development just makes more sense to me. :thup:
Pat Lynch(the old guy in section 7)

Your couch potato argument (which in my opinion has no basis for determining the site) applies equally to the West Harbourfront, except that it uses brown space instead of green space.

Your reasoning for site location is actually better suited for West harbourfront rather than Confederation Park.

Future planning entails less reliance on cars.

This is huge and I'm with pat 100% of the way on this.

Let's not be short sighted. Let's plan ahead, and plan big. This is something that has been sorely missed in Hamilton.

Metrolix [b]is[/b] coming.

Completely agree Captain as you say about West Harbourfront and my "couch potato" line of reasoning. All things being equal, West Harbourfront wins out for no other reason than it is closer to downtown and anything to help the downtown in whatever way is good for me. Although converting brownfields is an excellent factor, no question.

Also agree the couch potato argument is a nothing factor in determining the site, but, you have to like my off-centre line of thought, even if it's basically irrelevant. 8)
Good on ya for calling me on this though have to admit :thup: But, at the end of it all, maybe the butterfly effect takes hold, they factor in all the big factors into the site and at the end of it all, what tips the scale? Some little factor that few people thought of to turn the scales. Hey, they say that's how the weather works in some cases, honestly, google it. :wink:

Don't get me wrong. i like that reasoning and your way of thinking. it's just that my opinion is that that sort of thinking is not used by the planners. I'm no planner and for all I know I could be wrong and you could be right.

And, as I said, I like the reasoning. I too love to use the paths at both Confederation park and Bayfront Park and along the west harbourfront and would love for people to be exposed to it that otherwise would not be.

No, you're probably right on that 100 percent about the planners and what they look at. I'd would be interesting to see the final report on how this is decided if in fact Canada is awarded these games and Hamilton is the stadium site.

For those that missed this in the Spec on Jan 15th.

Dave Braley, who is on the Pan Am Games committee
is in favour of locating the Games Confederation Park.

Council Fumbling Pan Am bid

A mistake to drop Confederation Park option, he says

Rob Faulkner and John Kernaghan

The Hamilton Spectator


The auto-parts magnate was shocked that council
Monday deleted Confederation Park from consideration.

He said that east-end gateway location presents the best chance
to generate long-term revenue to cover operating costs of a $150-million facility.

...Braley, meantime, laid out the business plan for the Confederation site.

He stressed public ownership of the land,
a mere eight-hectare dent in an 83-hectare site,

and the possibility of private partners bringing
more attractions to a site that already has a water park.

Braley said parking at the site and stadium naming rights
would be lucrative long-term revenue streams.

The proximity to the QEW would elevate the value
of naming rights and enhance Hamilton's image.

Obviously, since I live in Cambridge, the best place for a new stadium is at the airport. Heck... even better is in Brantford or Lynden.

Actually, what I'm trying to get at is that we are all influenced by where WE live, by what WE like, and by what WE believe. None of these may line up with an eventual 'best choice' because there is no defined list of criteria.... though there ARE lots of possible items of importance.

Brownspace or Greenspace
Ease by Car or by Transit
Will placement on one side or other of the city affect out-of-town traffic (and is it big enough to matter)
Economic spinoffs to a designated area
Noise/traffic/other environmental factors

Let's see if we can make a complete list for our political masters.

True enough Mark. Funny, there are days here in Hamilton when I say ah, it's too far to go to Locke Street from the Mountain to check out this shop or that shop or whatever, or go down to the market. A 15-20 minute drive. And then, in another realm, you might say I'm going to spend 6 hours travelling to Niagara Falls, NY to do some shopping. It's weird, totally weird how us humans behave at times. I'm still trying to figure us out. :?

If you build it they will come.
In fact, a new stadium will revitalize the neighborhood, the city and region. It will create a rebirth and folks without offending some fine citizens of the Hammer, there are parts of the city just like any city(fill in the blank) that are dilapidated to be kind, just like IWS.
It will create jobs in construction and spin off industry.
The citizens will feel proud and it will be a buzz, the Cats will benefit just like all levels of government.
It's what we call return on investment. Big time.
So what the heck are you guys waiting for?

Canada, the province will smile proudly in the glow
of hosting successful Games if the bid is accepted

but all the cities involved will have to pay the operating costs
to maintain the facilities built for the Games after they are over.

There has to be a constant stream of revenue generation
from the stadium, velodrome and the swimming pool.

TCTD hinted that outdoor concerts might be banned
in the residential areas of the other sites looked at.

Another advantage of the Confederation Park lands

is that they are already city-owned, so using them
should wipe out hundreds of thousands of dollars

from the portion of the costs that the city has to pay.


Mark, once you are on the highways it's all smooth sailing

The Lincoln Expressway links right up with the new Red Hill Expressway
and before you know it you will be at at Confederation Park off the QEW.


Everything you ever wanted to know about the new Hamilton Stadium site dilemma:

New Ivor Wynne 2015 finalist

John Kernaghan
The Hamilton Spectator
(Jan 17, 2009)

[i]Hamilton is poised to cash in on gilt-edged Pan American Games opportunities led by a 27,000-seat stadium to replace decaying Ivor Wynne Stadium.

The new sporting jewel would stage track and field for the 2015 showcase, then deliver a legacy as home of the Tiger-Cats and elite and recreational athletes.

Despite city-hall squabbles, Hamilton is identified as a prime location for a stadium.

Toronto 2015, as the Golden Horseshoe-wide bid is called, has a mandate to engage municipalities from Oshawa to St. Catharines, points out bid president Jagoda Pike.

And bid chair David Peterson is clear that Hamilton is a vital part of the bid.

That could mean the stadium, and a 50-metre pool and velodrome valued at $220 million.

In terms of the $150-million, 27,000-seat stadium, Hamilton would have to step up with $66 million to make it happen, while the bid company would cover the remainder plus operating expenses during the Pan Am Games.

Hamilton will submit a preferred site to Toronto 2015 in early March after city council receives a detailed analysis of three short-listed sites.

It will consider financial, social and environmental aspects of the sites.

But it is paramount that the preferred site satisfy international standards and the comfort and convenience of athletes attending the Games.


These sites remain on the city's list of sites still under consideration.

* West Harbourfront

Industrial lands at the west end of Barton Street between North Queen Street and Tiffany Street.


For: Dramatic setting for sport spectacle with bay backdrop.

Against: Difficult vehicular access for 27,000 fans.


For: Satisfies need for track and field centre for Golden Horseshoe, fulfills transformation mandate in Games mission.

Against: Distance and accessibility from Toronto, where athletes village will likely be based.


For: Chance to transform a neighbourhood and provide a link from waterfront to downtown.

Against: Expensive to service in terms of roads or new transit and upgrading of water mains and sanitary sewers.

Long term:

For: Can invigorate an area of the city and increase recreational sport capacity as a multi-purpose facility.

Against: Could be expensive to operate if not enough revenue streams are developed.

* Downtown Hamilton

Vacant or under-developed lands in vicinity of intersections of York Boulevard and Bay Street or Rebecca and John streets.


For: Central location as a gathering spot for athletes and fans.

Against: Little novelty value in location to pull in fans.


For: Fulfills elite and recreational sport legacy mandate.

Against: Distance for athletes to travel from athletes village.


For: Provides economic stimulation, sparks redevelopment.

Against: Could take up space more appropriate for other development.

Long term

For: Becomes home to pro, amateur athletes and recreational athletes for several generations.

Against: Might be seen as intrusive after glow of Games, pricey to maintain without multi-use and revenue from parking.

* Airport lands

Undeveloped lands north of John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport.


For: Access to airport, access for fans from several directions.

Against: Distance from amateur, recreational users.


For: Less complicated development than other sites.

Against: Distance from athletes village.


For: Would spark infrastructure development to benefit local businesses and airport.

Against: Little symbolic or image factor, would limit other commercial development in area.

Long term

For: Supporting revenue from parking to cover operating costs.

Against: Little value in naming rights, limited recreational use.


These sites have been considered and assessed, but are not on the current preferred short list. Some might make it back into the process as Games staff have suggested they will bring a longer list back to council to look at.

* Pier 8

The site at the foot of James Street is limited by poor traffic access, and the expense of water and sewer connections, while enjoying waterfront location with high symbolic value.

Bayfront precinct - the area north of Barton Street between Wellington Street and Sherman Avenue - has good road access and water service.

But it would be hurt by the industrial contamination to be cleaned up, and would be a limiting factor in taking up key land for industrial redevelopment.

* Confederation Park

Though it has been voted off, it might return due to advantages of public land, highway access, waterfront esthetics, ongoing revenue prospects, symbolic and image value. Disadvantages are odours and dust from industrial areas and the expense of extending water and sewer service.

* West End gateway

The area around Chedoke Civic Golf Club enjoys a substantial amount of publically owned land. It would require much of the golf course to develop and would fly in the face of economic development projects in adjoining lands like the Innovation Park.

* Greenfield precincts

These include eastern Stoney Creek near Fifty Road and the QEW, the Nash neighbourhood north of Green Mountain Road and west of Centennial Parkway, Mud Street and Paramount Drive, Glanbrook Industrial Park and Clappison's Corners industrial park in Flamborough.

Various commercial, residential and park development pretty much rules out stadium development that would have little symbolic impact anyway.

* Ivor Wynne Stadium

The existing home of the Tiger-Cats, along with adjoining Brian Timmis Stadium. It covers only 5.45 hectares (13.5 acres), shy of the eight hectares (20 acres) needed for a stadium with 400-metre track and football field and adjoining 400-metre training track. The site will have greater value to the city if sold as commercial or residential real estate.

David Adames, the Tourism Hamilton executive director who is riding herd on Hamilton's Pan Am components, says the key is delivering a site that helps win the bid.

He must supply general information about the site - location, seating and transportation links etc. - with an eye to pleasing officials of the Pan American Sports Organization.

Assuming the board of Toronto 2015, which is not yet struck, approved the Steeltown location for a bid book due to PASO April 30, evaluation teams would visit Hamilton and require more detail in May or June.

It is unclear yet when Hamilton will have to make a financial commitment to its 44 per cent share.

A location for the Hammer listed in the bid book is no guarantee that site would be written in stone. It's common in the bid process for venues to change location later in the process.

The only immediate reservation Hamilton might raise is the distance from a Toronto athletes village to Hamilton.

PASO delegate Steve Stoute of Barbados, who is familiar with southern Ontario, said the drive might cause some pause, but noted venues at Rio 2007 were as much as two hours away.[/i]

Transportation seems to me to be perhaps the thorniest issue.

Airport has the advantage that it would be easier to manage car access to the facility for visitors from various locations and provide parking at the site.

If you look at transit access, there's the potential advantage that any transit improvements in the area could provide dual benefit servicing both the new stadium and the airport.

A potential benefit is that if the vision for the stadium includes some kind of indoor multipurpose facility, proximity to the airport could make it attractive for conventions, trade shows, etc. This could work against it politically, as it could be seen as undermining existing convention facilities in the city.

One downside is reduced ease of community access for recreational use by people who don't drive.

Regarding West Harbourfront: I think it has the most aesthetic/iconic appeal, but I think the logistics of access to the site for big events like Ticat games would be a nightmare.