The big disappointment of the stadium – Raise the Hammer


The big disappointment of the stadium

The new stadium is an uninspired, boring, half-silly waste of money.

By Adrian Duyzer
Posted on October 14, 2012

The design of the new Pan Am Stadium has been revealed and it’s worse than even the most cynical of us expected.

Let’s start with how it looks – it’s basically a carbon copy of the current Ivor Wynne Stadium. It’s like they’ve picked up Ivor Wynne, rotated him 90 degrees, and said, “Go crazy, we’re done here.” The reaction I’ve had from everyone I’ve spoken to about the new design is puzzled – they can’t tell the difference between the current stadium and the new one.

New” Ticates Design of the Pan-American Stadium.

The new design completely lacks any interesting or unique architectural features. For comparison, take a look at BBVA Compass Stadium, a football stadium built in Houston. It opened on May 12, 2012, can accommodate 22,039 seats and cost US $ 95 million, including US $ 15 million for the purchase of land, a cost that we did not have to bear for the site. by Ivor Wynne.





BBVA Compass stage. Images from Wikipedia.

Or take a look at the Rio Tinto Stadium, built in Sandy, Utah, for $ 115 million. It can accommodate 20,213 people. And he has a roof.



Rio Tinto Stadium.

Considering we’re spending $ 145 million on our new stadium, why doesn’t it have a unique design or some sort of architectural flair? Why doesn’t it have a partial roof to protect stadium spectators from the rain? Why is the underside of the seats exposed to the outside of the building – couldn’t they afford to put up walls? Why do the lights seem to recycle those of Ivor Wynne?

Of course, it’s not quite the same as Ivor Wynne. There are some differences:

  • It can accommodate 22,500 people, instead of the current 30,000.
  • It has 180 parking spaces, instead of the current 400. (What happened to the Ticates’ absolute insistence that only pitches with a lot of parking be suitable?)
  • It also has more toilets, bigger seats, and more TVs.
  • Did I mention that it faces north-south, instead of east-west? $ 145 million bought us a 90 degree rotation.

The whole thing is, in my opinion, a total debacle. And the way the Ticates slapped their mark all over the place is an absolute embarrassment. The video on the site on the new stadium, the images, the renderings with “Ticates” on the end zones, everything is just coated with black and yellow and the Ticates brand.

It’s their stadium, even though we paid for it.

We couldn’t see the designs in advance, but they did, even though we paid for them. The community was not allowed to participate in the design, and it’s the result of this lack of consultation and collaboration: an uninspired, boring, half-silly waste of money.

Matt Jelly put it succinctly, passionately and precisely in a Facebook comment:

I don’t understand why the success or failure of a private football franchise should be a municipal priority. I don’t understand why all three levels of government are investing millions and millions into a stadium and why the Ti-Cats have had so many comments about the location and construction, without contributing a single penny to the project. I don’t understand why we are paying to build a replica of Ivor Wynne, which could just as easily be improved for a lot less. I don’t understand why so many Hamiltonians are more concerned with pro football than inexplicable serial polluters, deep and severe poverty, school closures, draconian radial separation regulations and cleaning up the slow tar spill. in our port of Randle Reef. Three years ago, if you asked me my opinion on pro football, I would be totally indifferent on the subject. Three years have passed, our future fund has been plundered, our board has caved in to senseless threats, and we leave so many other priorities unanswered and unmitigated.

Councilor Lloyd Ferguson is right about part of the problem:

Just hours before plans for Ivor Wynne’s new stadium were unveiled, Councilor Lloyd Ferguson used three words to explain why it is not being built on Hamilton’s waterfront.

Scott Mitchell’s ego.

Ferguson says the Tiger-Cats chairman’s stubborn refusal to give up his opposition to the western port ultimately cost the city the best location.

“Ego got in the way of making the right decision,” Ferguson said. “This guy killed this thing.”

“A guy who won’t even be with the Tiger-Cats when this thing opens up.”

The other part of the problem, of course, is that the board got caught up in it, even though the community made it clear that we were against it. And now we have to face the consequences as the Ticates take victory laps.

What a desappointment.

Adrian Duyzer is an entrepreneur, business owner and associate editor of Raise the Hammer. He lives in downtown Hamilton with his family. On Twitter: adriandz

231 reviews

Read reviews













































































































Post a comment

you have to be logged in to comment.

Previous 3D public art in Google Earth
Next Kaman Museum an attraction for Japanese tourists

No Comment

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *