Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarley
Also, the mayor's half baked plan involves a lipstick on a pig reno of McMahon that maybe buys 15 years of additional useful life - the eventual replacement of it still needs to be dealt with. I know most politicians are short term thinkers focused on their next election, Nenshi included, but this "plan B" option can't be looked at in isolation. It simply makes sense to capitalize on the economies of scale from a combined facility when both are coming up for replacement at the same time.
|
It's not the mayor's plan, and there is no onus on him to resolve the McMahon situation. It is an alternative idea put forth by administration, as they were instructed to. IMO Nenshi has simply acknowledged it as one alternative (among many) to CNext plan. He probably believes it's a silly idea too, but that's not the smartest stance to take in the 'negotation'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Are you sure that these are facts, or your opinions? Football has done quite well in the States, and most cities other than Toronto.
I know for myself and many people I know the biggest reason not to go to Stamps games is the stadium. Parking is brutal, the C-Train access creates a massive line up to go home, and if you have a 2nd beer you had better have a bladder buddy because bathrooms are tough.
Having said that I don't think you build a new stadium unless you can partner up and find other uses for it than football. And I'm fine with that.
|
New arenas and stadiums will only have incremental improvements in terms of access and egress. There has been no epiphany in the last 30 years about how to magically move 20000+ people at the same time. As always, it's a matter of tradeoffs (they could move cars extremely efficiently in Balzac at the expense of no public transit, 2 train lines in EV vs. 1 train and possibly better road set up in WV...although having less parking paradoxically improves vehicle egress too (though not sure about people), etc.).
The same applies for 20000 people trying to take a leak at the same time. It can be improved a little, but it's not like each stall is going to have a personal bathroom attendant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
The thing that strikes me is that pretty much all the opposition is in relation to funding. Some posters dress it up with arguments about design or planning or usage, but their bottom line really is that no design or planning or usage will satisfy them as long as a single tax dollar is used. It's fine to have that position, but there should be no pretense that there is some sort of dialogue to be had.
Whereas those who support a sports/entertainment district are willing to lok at whatever funding models are there but don't insist on tax money being spent (though its hard to see it happening otherwise).
|
=
"My side is thoughtful and able to consider the complexity of the issue, my opponents are stubborn ideologues."
There is no benefit to ridiculous characterizations like this. I'm very similar to Frequitudes position. There are simpletons on both sides of the issue, just as there are thoughtful/sensible people. If you think all of your opponents are simpletons, then you might be one too...