Comment 43442

By realitycheck (anonymous) | Posted July 16, 2010 at 07:38:48

Kiely is correct to question the actual value that would be brought by this stadium building exercise. I too have read the 2003 report by Coates and Humphrey, and agree with much of Kiely's interpretation of it.

Kiely's articulate essay does the entire stadium debate justice by challenging the wrongly-held notion that a stadium could be leveraged to act as a catalyst for economic growth. The economic spinoff would be minimal no matter where it would be located.

While the notion of a temporary stadium at West Harbour would at first blush seem reasonable, this scenario is not likely to be applied given that the Pan Am organization committee is designing sites with the goal of providing long-lasting legacies of sporting facilities throughout southern Ontario.

West Harbour needs to be developed as it was originally intended in the Setting Sail secondary plan. It has laid fallow far too long while talk of the stadium has lingered over the past few years. Remove the stadium from the speculation and it will develop as it should.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds