Comment 57253

By mb (registered) | Posted January 20, 2011 at 20:33:22

Zephyr... how is building a 6000 seat stadium at WH, which most of you want, considered 'visionary'? It'll just be another 6000 seat stadium. One of 4 in the city. Yes, I agree the Rheem site needs remediation, but with another mid-sized stadium? Surely, something more suitable could go there.

Hamilton needs a 20-30,000 seat stadium. Not just for the Tiger-Cats, although it's an obvious benefit (even if most of you don't see it), but also for major concerts, professional soccer, and other things. Is downsizing our stadium size by 25,000 really seen as 'visionary'?

Likewise, is getting rid of a sports team loved by thousands considered 'visionary'? You may not see it, but sports teams are a source of pride for a city, much like art crawls. Some of my best memories of childhood surround the Tiger Cats. You might say 'well, the Ticats are a reminder of hamilton's steel days, and we're trying to get rid of that stigma, so they can just go'. But if the city's image can change, then why can't the Ticats image change, too? When is subtraction of a city asset (and they are an asset, although subsidized) seen as 'visionary'. To be fair, if anyone decided to get rid of the James North Art Crawl, because of a disagreement with the city, everyone would be up in arms wanting to save it, because art is considered culture, and football is wrongly, not.

I've always said, if the city doesn't want to subsidize the Ticats (and I can't blame them), then they should help set them up to be successful.

Comment edited by mb on 2011-01-20 20:34:37

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds