How I see the 'Pan Am Stadium Debacle'

I think that, if nothing else, the Pan Am Stadium situation reveals just how 'fascinating' human nature can be. How the good, the not-so-good, the muddled aspects manifest themselves. How disparate our motivations can be when we're seemingly involved in the same effort, how discussions, conversations, negotiations can have multiple tracks, apparently parallel purposes...and yet be heading in entirely different directions, have destinations in mind that are not-at-all copacetic.

Though I've avoided quoting him here, Shakespeare comes to mind, presenting to the audience the intriguing -and often worrisome- complexities of being us. And I say 'us' because there is no real differentiation between 'them', meaning those who are actively engaged on the stage, the players, and 'us', those who are engaged in the audience...even though the tale presented both involves and is being financed by us.

I don't claim to understand all the ins-and-outs about the selection process for the Pan Am Stadium. But then, I've not been convinced that there's anyone anywhere who has a complete understanding, who has all the pieces of the puzzle we've collectively been building, who possesses a fully-informed overview. And judging from what's been published, the various pieces of 'information-taken-as-truth' bandied about, I'm guessing that the average person (not the average poster on 'RTH' or 'The Hamiltonian') has only the most refracted, out-of-focus part of the picture...and frankly, the context and perspective sucks.

And not being in possession of all the plot-points, the timeline, a full understanding of the steps taken along the way, I can't really offer up any observations as to what's been done wrong so far, how all of this 'mess' (I'm describing it this way because there's a pile of people out there who are fed up, even disgusted at how it all looks) could have been prevented, or an 'ideal' solution, given the contrasting and conflicting priorities. I'll leave such efforts to those far better equipped than I am to deliver such wisdom.

What I am interested in doing here is offering my 2¢'s worth on three of the primary issues involved.

3) Suburban stadiums and car-culture. We live in a changing world. Without getting into it to any great degree, we're faced with the prospect of our long run with sprawl (or 'progress-inspired expansion') finally ending. Meaning a return of focus on higher-density living. Meaning actual neighbourhoods, communities...cities. Not subdivisions and malls and character- and personality-devoid macadamland.

Along with this, the 'driveway-to-driveway' experience. In truth, there's nothing 'there', there. It's gone, it's retreating into the past, it's joining the pantheon of memorabilia that includes 8-track tapes and smoking and unprotected sex.

Now, while I don't happen to align myself with those who believe that cars (Personal Transport Vehicles) will simply go the way of the dodo bird once the Peak Oil effect has informed our world to its anticipated fullness, I do believe that a profound shift in the way we move around is coming. Slooooowly. So the notion of building a suburban stadium...in the middle of nowhere...a fixture that's not actually part of a community, a part of peoples' lives...is absurd. (I should note that I have long seen the initial question to ask at the start of the discussion 'Where do we want the stadium?' as being 'Urban or suburban?')

2) Downtown revitalization. For more than two decades, Hamilton's downtown has been left to suffer. Downtown, the north end...let's just say 'areas not on the peripheries of the Mountain, below the Escarpment, north of Main,' but especially Downtown. I'm sure that other observers have their opinions as to 'Why?', and maybe they have the cred and the cachet to gain more approval than little-old-me, but I'll still state my case: neglect.

When you turn away from something, unless you've got Divine Providence at play, things deteriorate. Yes, the economy was faltering post-1990. Yes, the landscape was being ravaged by various levels of questionable governance. But it's not that difficult a mystery to solve: You concentrate your efforts, your support, your focus on other parts of the city, where there's more chance for a reputation to be built, where everything is shiny and new, and invariably, the core -you know, where your City Hall is, where everything about the place originated, because cities grow outward, they don't grow inward- falters. It flounders. Until invariably, it looks like Hamilton's does these days.

There's no salient argument against downtown revitalization. (Unless you don't like downtowns, unless you've got some deep-rooted issues going on, core-enmity or somesuch affliction...in which case I'll pull my standard poopy-face...and wish you 'Good luck with that!') It needs to be done in order for this city to actually get back on its feet, it's actually as vital a development as any job-creation initiative. (And yes, projects like LRT do go hand-in-hand with infusing the Downtown with new businesses and residences.)

1) Stadium location. Last month I finally broke my silence and posted my thoughts on the issue here. Though I love the two plans I've seen for a West Harbour stadium (the 'official one and the White Star Group's), I do not understand, other than the obvious, why there has not been any real effort to utilize what's been extant for eighty years. (The whole negative argument against a do-over, whining about what it's like living there vis a vis game-days, besides being specious, is moot. It reminds me of people who move into a subdivision next to an airport...and then complain about the noise. Hellooooooooo?!?)

The problem as I see it is, ironically, very much akin to what I've suggested as contributing to the downtown's demise: people are seeing a far 'sexier' opportunity in remediating and reinventing the West Harbour area, rather than taking a pragmatic look at Ivor Wynne Stadium. No question that the West Harbour neighbourhood deserves focus and development. But is putting a stadium there the right way to address its needs? I don't think so. While I do believe that features should be part of what unfolds there, I'm not convinced that a stadium...when all things are taken into consideration...is the ideal choice.

I believe that as I proposed in my editorial, the IWS/Scott Park 'superproperty' should be used, that Hamilton's heritage be properly respected and propped-up, that we should be taking a better look at what Hamilton The City needs, for all the right reasons. (Clearly, 'desperation' isn't one of those.) And for the record, short of the IWS/Scott Park location, I'd much prefer to see an actual downtown location ahead of a West Harbour one.

To sum up: 'No' to the East Mountain (or any patch of suburbia, including Confederation Park or the airport) location, 'No' to the West Harbour location, 'Yes' to West Harbour initiatives (residential, 'features', retail and restaurants, etc), and a big 'Yes' to the Ivor Wynne/Scott Park superproperty being where we build the Pan Am Games/Hamilton Ti-Cats Stadium.