In neighbouring news: Recycle, reuse...?

I've made it a point to try to maintain this blog's focus on Stoney Creek. More accurately, what I refer to as 'authentic' Stoney Creek. But I guess I'm going to have to allow myself a little leeway occasionally, some wriggle-room, if the subject is appropriate. But I really don't want to reduce My Stoney Creek's agenda, which is to shine spotlights on issues that are Stoney Creek-specific.

Today's indulgence is the 2015 Pan Am Games Stadium.

There's a ton of articles out there. Stoney Creek News. The Hamiltonian. Raise the Hammer. And of course, The Spec.

Putting aside the reputation of 'Snatching defeat from the jaws of mehness' that Hamilton government seems to have made its default setting, even putting aside the issue of mixing public agenda with a business's priorities (and here of course, I'm talking about the Pan Am Games being commingled with the Hamilton Ti-Cats and their owner Bob Young's interests), for me the whole discussion begins with the question 'Should we have an urban or suburban stadium?'

I envision a flow-chart. At the top, this question. Leading off in two entirely different directions, the answers 'Yes' and 'No', as well as what needs to be asked next.

There are those who fervently believe that stadiums should be 'suburban'. Massive parking lot-encircled facilities. This lot holds firm to this belief for varying reasons. If they're urban residents whose neighbourhood is otherwise being considered, well, it's a case of NIMBY. 'Anywhere but here.' You know; the noise, the inconvenience, yadda, yadda, yadda. Another element of this group are the developers who stand to gain from the undeniable possibilities that result from breaking new ground. Oh, and there's the difference in cost to build, and the visibility-to-immense-volume-of-traffic-as-advertising aspect, and let's face it: getting things your way, wrapped in ribbon, to boot.

Then there are those adherents of the 'urban' stadium. Ryan McGreal at 'Raise the Hammer' covers the benefits of this side of the coin really well, so I'll leave it to you to take a look at what he's had to say in various posts this year alone. But simply put, people in this group believe don't see stadiums as something that should be 'apart' from where we live, they believe that just as the events they host are vital portions of our lives, these places should be embraced, incorporated into where we live, our communities, our neighbourhoods. They believe in the synergy that urban stadiums manifest, the associated local experience-enhancers such as restaurants, hotels, shops, the list goes on. Perhaps just as importantly as all of the above, they believe that public transit should be the main mover for fans attending events at these facilities, not the automobile.

So for me, the most striking aspect of this whole débacle isn't the faffing about. It isn't the -apparent- strategic posturing by Bob Young, the Ti-Cats owner. It's the fact that there was any forward movement at all without this basic decision having been made, first.

Which of course, leads to my take on it all, something I've only just registered my thoughts online about: why are we not taking the extant facility, Ivor Wynne Stadium, in combination with the long-dormant Scott Park Secondary School property, and continuing things there in a revitalized way?

Why, other than the notion that 'new development' means more pie for everyone, for developers and all the back-slapping and Brownie badges that goes along with 'virgin territory development'?

There's been a stadium there since 1930, when one was built for the British Empire Games. It's been the home of the Ti-Cats since 1950. It's entrenched in the neighbourhood. (I tend to laugh at those who have negative comments about the noise and inconvenience when CFL games are held; they remind me of people who move into developments surrounding airports...then complain about the noise. Say what?!?) And it's also positioned perfectly with whatever path the next phase in our public transit system adopts, hopefully LRT.

Take a look at that 'superproperty'. It's enormous. There's room there to have a wonderful stadium, some additional parking (I hate making that concession, but I feel it's both required and responsible-thinking), while providing the chance to enhance the community with some additions. (As I'm speculating wildly here, I can't comment as to what might be lost in the process. I won't claim to be all that familiar with the area, I'm no expert in its history, how the existing facilities are used, none of that. So if it turns out I'm wildly off-base...please forgive. I'm simply trying to think outside the box...while effectively 'recycling' what we've already assigned a use for, and have held to for the better part of a century.)

The cynic in me can't help but wonder if this whole decision-making process has been skewed from the start. If maybe there wasn't an actual agreement at the beginning as to what we should be shooting for, location-wise. Because really; how can you have three options on the table (west-harbour, east-mountain and an airport one) that seemingly hadn't even answered the primary location question I posed? Admittedly, I'm coming to the conversation a bit late, so maybe the Ti-Cats put the kybosh on what I've proposed at the outset, or maybe the councillors who kowtow to the developers (yeah, I know; that sounds conspiratorial, doesn't it...?) just focused on 'virgin territory' options.

Change is often good. But in every situation, someone needs to be guiding the process, someone's needs have to be paramount. Otherwise, you get more than one captain of the ship, and we all know how that ends.

Or, maybe it comes down to one of my standard questions when I'm discussing personal travails with friends and family:

'What do you want?'

Before you can get what you want, you have to know what you want.

Maybe that's the lesson to be learned in this Pan Am Stadium 'situation': knowing what we want.