Raise the Hammer

BroBrad:
I see your remark has been strongly downvoted, but I have to believe it was offered ironically.
Good one! I wonder if MayorBob would get it if he read RTH anymore?

I hope that we bring some creativity to the design of a flexible, permanent velodrome.

How that's achieved is up to the designers and architects. Designing single purpose anything is much easier than imagining what else is possible within the same space. If cycling can honestly represent 100% of the available usage that's Ok with me, but even IWS is going to be designed to host soccer and football on a permanent basis.

I've never seen a velodrome, so I really don't have a clear sense for its scale, outside or in. If there are others who can help bring it to life for the rest of us, please do so.

I found these while toodling around the 'net a couple months ago:

http://www.hopkins.co.uk/projects/_3,131/ http://www.urbanrealm.co.uk/news/1668/Ve...

http://www.recsport.sa.gov.au/whats-on-where/adelaide-super-drome.html http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympic...

http://www.p-t-group.com/project_detail....

http://www.belgiancycling.be/EKPisteGent...

http://www.chicagovelocampus.com/10-2/16...

Some seem to be purely cycling venues, while others (particularly the Chicago venue and the Ghent venue) host numerous amenities.

The Ghent example with the badminton courts in the middle would be put to good use I'm sure. If you've ever played badminton you'll know that next to squash is the best raquet sport for cardio!

Comment edited by JonD on 2011-02-01 14:28:03

If you go to http://www.velodromes.com/ which is the site of a firm of architects that specializes in designing them you can get a good idea

If a permanent Valodrome was always in the cards, then why is the funding short-fall to build one?

Unless I'm misinterpreting your question, the approved Pan Am expenditure was $60-million, so if 44% of IWS comes in even near the $45-million that Council wanted to cap off at, there should be a reasonable amount of money left for the velodrome.

Because we spent the extra money to build the Tigercats a new stadium.

@Zot

Thanks for the link. That's very helpful. Again, I'm not sure if the cycling community (locally, regionally, nationally, internationally?) would keep the place fully booked, but if not, I'd love to think about a flexible building.

For example:

1. Can one "invent" a seating system that slides out on steel rails over the track if you want to do concerts-in-the-round, thereby protecting the wooden surface of the track, but accommodating a lot of people?

2. Can even a small portion of the roof open easily and cost-effectively without being an expensive dome system?

3. If built in the WH, could the north wall slide open leaving a 75% open wall overlooking the harbour?

And other ideas?

I'm not naive enough not to realize ideas like these, even if they are possible, are pricier than fixed, single purpose everything. I'm just trying to stimulate the discussion before we have only 48 hours left to make a multi-generation financial and social decision.

Personally I'd like the velodrome to be well-integrated into the neighbourhood, wherever that is, with features such as an attractive streetscape, integrated mixed use retail (Heck, maybe even have a gym as one of your retail establishments.), cheap office/meeting space for use by community recreation organizations, and additional complimentary recreational land uses nearby (maybe a skate park, connection to cycling/hiking trails, etc.), soccer fields, lawn bowling, etc.

Ideally it would be not just a centre for cycling, but the start of a cross-recreational precinct, where you can try your hand at just about any sport to encourage activity in everyone from youth to seniors. Something with such a broad appeal should be able to get a variety of stakeholders on board.

Regional indoor track and field, assuming the center in large enough.

Perhaps a suspended running track above the cycling track?

Comment edited by GrapeApe on 2011-02-01 13:36:37

Question: do readers scan up and down the comments looking for additional threads? Just wondering...if not, I'm re-posting a comment from a "reply" to a thread above...sorry if I'm just being a pain...

I found these while toodling around the 'net a couple months ago:

http://www.hopkins.co.uk/projects/_3,131/ http://www.urbanrealm.co.uk/news/1668/Ve...

http://www.recsport.sa.gov.au/whats-on-where/adelaide-super-drome.html http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympic...

http://www.p-t-group.com/project_detail....

http://www.belgiancycling.be/EKPisteGent...

http://www.chicagovelocampus.com/10-2/16...

Some seem to be purely cycling venues, while others (particularly the Chicago venue and the Ghent venue) host numerous amenities.

@H+H, amazing input.

The possibilities for this kind of venue are amazing. Imagine Hamilton as a permanent Olympic training facility. The cross-over with high-level coaching, sports medicine, mountain biking, triathlon. Thanks for the links.

@goin'downtown

Funny you should repost. I just happened to see your earlier post moments ago as I was scrolling, but not because I was expecting to see it. I've checked each of the links. Thanks very much for this.

Maybe we need to start a master file of velodrome links on RTH? Ryan, is this something you would consider?

Just imagine the shitshow if HostCo rejects the plan...

Saw Mayor Bob talking up the stadium deal at the opening of SoupFest this afternoon, saying what a great moment it is for Hamilton. I booed into my soup.

And I too extend thanks and acknowledge the communities of Oshawa, Markham, Brampton and Mississauga for their consideration of our soccer stadium contingency plan.

@RobertD

Like your thinking. Let's be as expansive in our thinking as we can be. Our ideas can contribute to the master plan and our budget can determine the phases.

I plan on making this the last time I say this, :) but the mediocre decision to rebuild half a stadium with all of the money should not cause us to allow mediocrity to be the gold standard for the velodrome.

As Brian McHattie said so wisely in his email to his constituents that was posted by one of them on RTH yesterday, "Onward we go."

@BeulahAve

Now that's funny!!!

I really hope the Board of Directors approves it.

I am impressed to see so much excitement around the velodrome, and the feeling of moving on. I think that is wise, especially the notion of posting ideas for the velodrome in a central location that could be accessed by city staff who may be playing catch up for quite awhile due to stadium debate.

However, I am treating this as a day of mourning. Back to Soupfest, I ran into someone who teaches people basic life skills so that they can move forward and eventually get off OW and ODSP. This program has great outcomes! With some of the money the city is spending on the stadium, it could literally fund intensive supports such as these for EVERY person on social assistance in this city. Yet this organization faces the likely prospect that this program will not be funded again next year. Ok, it would be provincial funding, not city, but the point still stands.

I suspect investments of the Pan Am sort, though, are to increase outside investment (profits) in Hamilton, thereby increasing the availability of funding for other municipal needs at a later date. I don't think Council ignores social issues/projects that need municipal funding; I just think that they are torn by other issues/projects requiring funding as well (e.g. infrastructure) and try to balance those needs with ways to make money to pay for all of them.

I reiterate my belief that the velodrome will be bigger than the stadium for sport legacy. This facility will be the only one of it's kind in all of Canada and the eastern US. It will be awfly hard to screw this one up.

@Brianvelo. Dont test them!

Im wondering if the spot for the veldrome will be at Sir John A school like the mayor wanted and rebuild the school down at WH?

I think the core is littered with parking lots that could provide the required space for a velodrome. How about the old bus terminal lot at John and Wilson.

I think that was another site Bratina was thinking about. It seems once something is a parkinglot it never goes into any other use.

Actually he wanted to put it where Sir John A MacDonald School is.

Velo said that "I reiterate my belief that the velodrome will be bigger than the stadium for sport legacy. This facility will be the only one of it's kind in all of Canada and the eastern US. It will be awfly hard to screw this one up."

Where is Hazel McCallion when you need her. She is quoted as saying that Mississauga doesn't build white elephants. Hamilton apparently does. The velodrome will be as successful here as Montreal's was there....remember they had one built for the olympics....we have wasted too much money already. Drop the velodrome or as Mr. Brattina would say, "Velodrome/Shmelodrome"

I'm actually a little confused by McCallion's remarks, as well as the other two municipalities (Markham and Oshawa) withdrawing their interest - on the cusp of Hamilton finalizing ours. If the three municipalities weren't interested, why were they short-listed as competition? Sounds like a bit of sour grapes to me, from little ol' Hamilton winning a high-profile role in the Pan Am Games, instead of one of three Toronto bedroom communities. Perhaps if McCallion had any chance at all of landing a national sports team, she would feel differently - but her (and Markham's...and Oshawa's...) proximity to Toronto, I would think, ensures that that will never happen.

A park is proposed for the site bounded by King William, John, Catherine, and Rebecca. Not sure if it extends to Wilson.

Having said that, the Gore Master Plan has been shelved, as has the trial run of pedestrianizing the south leg of King this summer. Apparently there isn't enough money. Too bad the Ti-Cats don't play football in Gore Park. They have already added parking meters where the buses used to stop. Progress?

A park is not a terrible thing in of itself I guess, but don't we already have Beasly serving that area? Wouldn't some infill housing better suit it instead? An no low density, but high density mixed use?

Comment edited by hammy on 2011-02-02 12:58:09

H+H Is that true? Not the park bit, but the Gore Master Plan is shelved? I thought Bratina was a huge advocate for that when he was Ward 2 councillor? That is possibly the biggest need that the city has is the repair and rebuild of Gore park area. I thought (with no evidence at all really) that it was connected to the McNab terminal movement.

A city needs connected, active areas that serve a multitude of uses. Like Gore park with connected business and public uses.

Yes it's true. Kathy Drewitt, the Executive Director of the downtown BIA is not happy about it. Apparently, she had already done a lot of work around programming for the trial run. Shelved doesn't mean cancelled, od course, but if we can't even afford to do a trial, it doesn't look hopeful for anything meaningful in the near term.

BTW, I sat on the Citizen's Advisory Committee for the Gore Master Plan, and I think the group did a good job with their input. Staff did a very good job designing and conducting the public input process. Implementation is up to Council, however.

they shelved the program in order to pave a few potholes. typical hamilton priorities.

Way to go Hamilton. We'll show Wales how to build new stadia

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_o7AswFY1L0I/TT...

hmmm, no we won't

Oh that stings. You can't even see the steel mills!

A park is proposed for the site bounded by King William, John, Catherine, and Rebecca. Not sure if it extends to Wilson

Is this the same land the Hamilton Mosque wanted to purchase for their housing project but were veto'd by the police wanting it for a warehouse??

I don't think so, the proposed park is a parking lot and Rebecca is the Northern boundry. I thought the land the Mosque wanted to purchase was directly adjacent to their property and bound by Catherine, Mary & Rebecca (but I could be wrong). Either way, the park lot is one block south.

In the 1960s' people could see that parks in cities were dangerous places that only had single uses for minimal parts of the day. The resons being that they are regulated to not allow people to use them for anything, but very specific use.

Look at successful parks in Hamilton: Confederation and Pier 4. These have a diversity of uses and ammenities to support people being there. Obviously both are in need of much, much more to really master their potential.

That said, other parks with some playground structures, but forbidden to play sports in them, are another waste of space that creates dark voids in cities.

I'm not advocating for concrete jungles and 60 storey condos, but some denser living is needed. A park vs a parklinglot doesn't improve very much.