build it. the area is better served by building condos? sounds like a greedy developer to me! While I have nothing against developers, lets try and read through the misinformation.

Atleast, all will have the ability to enjoy this new and beautiful stadium. We will also attract some major competetions and may find a new home for the Lions.

The real winner his is the Kerfoot fellow. This Woodwards project is going to re-vitalize the area and he is going to be sitting on a gold-mine.

This will merely act as a parking lot for the next 20 years. Then - bam! - the land will be worth a fortune.

This guys is great!

I think this is going to be a mistake, they only just fill the stadium in Burnaby and their fan base is from all over, so parking is an issue. If it is downtown parking and security becomes a real major problem and this will discourage people from coming. I doubt that people will want to use public transit at night. I prefer the current location.

Are you kidding? Have you ever been to a Whitcaps game?

BC Place is just too big. It is not fun paying in front of thousands of empty seats in a giant cavern. This makes the team less competitive and makes the experience as a fan miserable which reduces attendance which reduces revenues for the club which means less to spend on players which means a less competitve team...

And speaking of revenues, every successful sports team controls the ancillary revenue in THIER OWN STADIUM. Are you gonna turn BC Place over to the Whitecaps?

I would complain about the old-fashioned artificial turf which destroys players joints and shortens their careers but theoretically that could be replaced by a next generation turf. At least the new stadium will have the potential of natural turf which is best of all for playing on.

What I find insane is that this guy is gonna build something where only rail tracks are currently. He will do it with his money. It will bring more business to the area during non-business hours and people are objecting?

From what I have seen at friendsofsoccer.org/ the "opposition" to this stadium is being driven by corporations who want to control what gets built for THIER profit.

a splendid idea that will be thwarted by the moronic cope crew and the professional nimby crowd. too many lefties in vancouver to build something this inspiring.

tedward -

that is exactly what is happening here. the developers are licking their chops, and this land could house a number of swanky condos in the next 10 years.

it is either them or the poor, who don't really want anything.

special interest groups (not surprisingly) are all over this one. it sounds like people are supporting it, and it will likely go ahead.

however, vancouver is controlled by the developers and may be bullied here. Vancouver is a great place, but better be careful. I read a report in the Sun Business section that KalTire is preferring to open new stores in the valley given the high costs of land and doing business.

we can't just have condos in our town. we need to ensure that we have industrial land (including stadiums) to diversify our economic interests.

any economic downturn here, and we are going to be in a lot of trouble. idiots in this town live paycheck to paycheck, and live expensive lifestyles.

i am patiently waiting for some weakness and I am going to buy up some property!

Exactly. This is a chance for Vancouver to get a free, thoughtfully designed stadium with no cost to taxpayers, located right in the heart of the tourist district that they can use for zillions of other events. One of many reasons I would never live in Vancouver is the lunatic city council and the NIMBY idiots who control it.

Actually, BC Place bought newer FIFA approved turf last year for the 2007 FIFA World Youth Soccer Championship.

We already have two stadiums downtown, Let's retrofit BC Place for scalability so it can accomodate smaller crowds. It needs an upgrade for 2010 anyway.

Rhea sez:

Three quick questions:
1) Grdadolnik makes the point that the public really has no idea what the final design of the stadium will actually be, hence, we take your claim of 'thoughtful design' on trust; and
2) Do you really think the stadium will be 'free' to taxpayers? Even free things have enormous tax costs, not to consider accounting for the opportunity cost of other possible options; and
3) Could you please specify a few of the 'zillions' of other events that a 'purpose-built' natural turf soccer pitch will be put to - we already have a huge pillow on False Creek sitting empty for months on end each year; still
4)The author's suggestion of a design study and the submission of a range of proposals for the whole waterfront area contiguous with the railyards and Gastown seems sensible. If the proposal ended up incorporating a decent pitch for Soccer, I'd say well done.

Blame the lefties for everything Elliot.This has become the lame brain excuse for any exploitation, any frustration which a middle aged, usually white male uses to explain away his shortcomings in humanity, environmental practices, or threats to his privilege in doing whatever he wants to do, whenever it pleases him. Yeah, it is the fault of those lefties.

Should be 3 quick questions and a suggestion.
Sorry.

Why is there such an outcry for public consultation. The guy bought a bunch of abandoned land and wishes to finance this stadium with his own money.

All this has to do with is special interest groups, who would like to use the land in other ways.

The druggies are worried about being pushed out of their Main/Hastings quarter, and the developers want their piece.

If the Stadium is not built, we will only see another Coal Harbour. While, this is GREAT for the developers and people that live there, it is irrelevant to anybody else. When was the last time you hung out down in Coal Harbour.

I think this stadium has vision and will be successful. It will have significant usage in rugby, soccer and football tournaments, outdoor concerts, the Lions and the Whitecaps - let alone other trade shows and private use.

Best - this is being financed by an individual.

If this isn't approved, I would support building the Condos - but I would prefer the soccer stadium given the intangible benefits it will provide.

The stadium is not going ahead. Just read the conclusions of the technical team hired by the city to review the project:

"The Stadium proposal, as sited on a specific portion of the rail yard, has fundamental flaws that make the proposal inappropriate and unworkable. There are significant problems in terms of urban design, impact on adjacent heritage buildings, impact on the future development of the Port lands (particularly the large residential component), Stadium functionality, access, the treatment of the edge of the deck along Waterfront Road, and the failure to use the deck as an opportunity to create links between the Central Waterfront and Downtown. These cannot be resolved if the building must remain on the specific proposed 6 acre portion of the rail yard and if the concept is not re-visited in some fundamental ways."

The only way to expand the footprint would be to knock down heritage buildings to the south or buy land from the port to the North. Since neither are likely to happen, it seems that all this discussion is taking palce for no reason.

One just has to be amused by all blame postings if people don't support (yet) another variant of a bowery (a dog pit) for a bored mob with aggression to vent.

Life is far more than hollering "fetch the ball (or puck) fido - fetch.."
Hope you answered "life is more" regardless of whatever side you've labelled yourself.

Helena Grdadolnik speaks for the handful of ivory tower elites who want to forcefeed Vancouverites with their own vision of urbanity.

The LAST thing we need on the downtown waterfront is another Arthur Erickson Special -- that is, another wasteland of concrete with no commerce, no entertainment, no sport, and no fun. And no people.

If Helena Grdadolnik, Erikcon, and Bing Thom get their way, we'll have another SFU campus on Burrad Inlet: A hodge-podge vision of bleak concrete, art, and stark modernity.

Conversely, if the density gestapo gets its way, we'll have another forest of dull highrises, offering great views for those residents, and huge profits for developers, but NOTHING of value to anyone else in the GVRD.

To hell with that. GIVE THE PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT. And what they want is outdoor entertainment venues where they can take their children and grandparents and friends and wind down and drink beer and eat popcorn and watch a soccer game or a rock concert.

Downtown Vancouver is emerging as one o f the stalest urban environments on the continent thanks to these anti-stadium NIMBIES. Personally, I find myself having fewer reasons to go downtown besides the handful of decent Japanese restaurants on Alberni Street.

Finally, Greg Kerfoot comes along as a visionary and attempts to build this much needed civic amenity, and the NIMBIES want to quash it?

That a collection of special interest groups are trying to kill this inspired project really bothers me. Especially since many of the leaders of this anti-stadium movement are motivated by greed (ie, they want to develop the land for themselves) or views (their vantage of Burrard Inlet will be disrupted by the spectre of a soccer stadium playing host to the unwashed masses).

It's ironic: The PNE, Robson Street, Number 3 Road, Metrotown, Nat Bailey Stadium. These are the places that architects despise, and yet this is where the ordinary people flock to. They do not flock to Coal Harbour or Yaletown.

At this rate, there will be nothing to do in downtown Vancouver but walk around in a numb state around the seawall and watch a seagull relieve itself into False Creek.

PS. My apologies for lumping Helena Grdadolnik in with the anti-stadium movement. On second glance, her report is more nuanced and balanced than I thought.

Jane Jacobs would be spinning in her grave at this drivel. The author certainly makes a lot of assumptions here, but comes off sounding like a hungry architect rather than a worthy city planner. Stadiums are a neighbourhood-killer -- just look at how artificial the land use is around the current two downtown stadiums and then envision that smack dab in the middle of Gastown, which itself is trying to become a respectable neighbourhood. Do we really need another downtown stadium? Could the area handle the additional load in terms of parking and rowdy sports fans? I'm not advocating more apartment buildings, but I think a huge stadium is a crackpot notion.

Sfaulk: Have you even been to that neighbourhood? I have news for you. There is nothing there, except for a heliport, a parking lot for cruise ship travellers' cars, and the railyards. The stadium makes use of land (and air) that otherwise has no usage.

It is not in the centre of Gastown. Au contraire, it's on the periphery, in an area that's blighted with garbage.

I'd beg to differ with your Jane Jacobs comment. I think Jacobs would be a huge booster of an entertainment/sports venue that makes full use of public transportation infrastructure, including Seabus, Skytrain, West Coast Express, bus, trolley, and even air connections.

I'm sure the stadium would look fantastic. However, we're talking about SOCCER, people! Who the hell watches soccer, especially the North American version of it? Nobody, that's who (of course there are some, but the numbers are so low as to be insignificant). I can't believe they're even talking about building a stadium for the thousand or so people who might be interested.

TheObserver: The stadium will have limited usage though. Jacobs advocated multiuse facilities and scale, and moreso for something so monstorous. Putting such a stadium in that neighbourhood would create a "dead zone." It's great that it would be near all of the transit, but for its proposed size, it would be far too much out of scale.

Why not something like the Pike Place market in Seattle? That would be the perfect location for such a thing and if you've ever been to Pike Place, it's constantly full of people, and nicely located right on the waterfront.

There is already a distinct lack of public spaces in Vancouver, and this would be a perfect opportunity for another one.

The focus on a stadium in this area is an artificial means of developing an area with one huge item, which if it failed (and the Whitecaps can't claim the following that the Canucks or even Lions do) then we'd have a huge chunk of wasted land.

It's a brilliant use of space. And as gas prices hit $1.25 per litre, the fact that it is the most accessible place in Vancouver (Seabus, Skytrain, Nanaimo catamaran, Harbour Air), it should be welcomed by the city for promoting public transit use. Look at GM place after a hockey game, and the majority of the peoplke there have taken transit to the game. The other brilliant part of this stadium is that is can be used for so much more than just soccer. Already when the proposal was brought forward, there was talk of using it as a classy place for Olympic medal presentations, to have outdoor concerts, to host a Tennis tournament, Rugby, AS WELL AS Soccer. And the merchants and businesses in Gastown should welcome this, because that area cannot survive on postcard and plastic totem pole sales alone.

And in response to all the talk of putting it in BC Place - ontop of the fact that that that big white elephant is coming down after the last person leaves the closing ceremonies of the olympics - it's not real grass in indoors in one of the few places in Canada where sporting events could be outdoors for 12 months of the year.

If multi use stadiums are such a brilliant idea, Why is BC Place sitting empty so much ot the time?

I think this proposal is for a soccer pitch only. Rugby would also be possible. Ceremonial functions - ok, but isn't that already true of BC Place? It, BC Place, looks like a white elephant now - 8 - 12 football games a few conventions and shows and the monster truck thingy - what else?

Build a new soccer stadium and make BC Place even more of a joke.

Ok with me - as long as the taxpayer isn't going to suffer - but that's why you need to look long and hard at the opportunity costs of doing other things on the site, in my opinion.

Cities like vancouver really should make better use of its waterfront. The proposed stadium is, IMO, a great use of "land". It is not taking anything away from the gastown neighbourhood by building overtop of a railroad terminus. Do the detractors not think that it would improve on this small part of the downtown peninsula? That is, a soccer stadium instead of railway tracks. And sfaulk - we already have our pike place market on granville island. Finally, perhaps someone could confirm - I'm low on time - but is it not planned that the cavernous bc place is coming down post-olympics?

Some Jerk wrote:

You are a MORON. Down "there" lies one of the loveliest of parks - Crab Park. No wonder it's often referred to as one of Vancouvers best kept secrets. In a way, I'm thankful we don't have to suffer ignorant inbreds like you at that most pleasant of locations. Maybe you need to get your well larded ass out of your car for once.
You, whoever you are, are a brainless ditz who hasn't a clue about the neighbourhood. I say lets build a welcoming place for brain dead sports fans next to where you apparently live - in a van, down by the river.

ubiquitous: If we can have 2 stadiums (and debate a 3rd), we can definitely afford 2 Granville Islands. they don't have to be exactly the same, either. I was using the example as a more worthwhile use of the space than a paperweight stadium.

Also, here's Portside/Crab Park:
http://brainbits.ca/index.php?a=Portside+Park

"I'm sure the stadium would look fantastic. However, we're talking about SOCCER, people! Who the hell watches soccer, especially the North American version of it?"

I guess that's why it's on the cover of National Geographic this month to coincide with the World Cup. I guess we should ignore the fact that Vancouver is a city of immigrants. I guess the Whitecaps relatively good attendance figures put the lie to your statement.

I'm not a develop-at-any-cost kind of guy, but this idea deserves more than a knee-jerk condemnation. Football (soccer to us) is a low-cost sport that both sexes and almost any age can play. It will only grow in popularity.

Debating soccer is a bit of a red herring - the debate is the use of the last bit of Vancouver's northside waterfront.

As has been pointed out, the stadium is an architectural opportunity. The notion that the entire city must ultimately fall in line with the False Creek/Yaletown/West Coal Harbour condominium concept is false. Dynamic cities require a diversity of structure, and I'm not the only one that thinks we have hit the wall when it comes to concrete and green glass postage stamp aparments. Moreover, it is fantasy to believe that any larger 'plan' for Coal Harbour revolve around the desire for developers to turn an industrial space into a residential one. The Port of Vancouver will see to that as it remains a lynch-pin in this economy and its role will only become more crucial in the futre.

In Seattle, Chicago, Baltimore, and the entire continent of Europe, stadia are built in 'heritage' areas, (truly a dubious appelation for Gastown and its kitsch). Some incredible design has come from these buildings.

With the adjacent Convention Centre, and upcoming cultural precinct proposal, the area will become a public gathering place. All the more given the stadium proposal's unrivalled access to transit. Tourists will also be in a position to access the stadium, and as mentioned, outdoor concert series are planned. Perhaps then Gastown will mix it up a bit and cease to be the place to go for fake totem poles and tawdry souveniers. Perhaps the stadium and other structures coming online will help the area become one that not only tourists, but locals appreciate. Ask yourself when was the last time you went to Gastown for anything? That Vancouverites would turn their noses up at a FREE outdoor grass stadium to be designed essentially in accordance with the desires of the citizenry, is simply sad. This is a real opportunity not only for design, but for civic improvement.

A bronze penis is also an architectural opportunity, that's not the point. No one's saying to build more apartments, but an outdoor stadium in a city that rains 60-80% of the time is a joke.

"but an outdoor stadium in a city that rains 60-80% of the time is a joke."

Good thing they don't play the sport in England.

BTW, if you look at the picture at the top of the article, you can see the spectator areas have roofs overtop.

There's been a few questions about the stadium, the state of soccer, and the proposed stadium site here in the comments section. I'm Bill Currie and I'm the founder of the Friends of Soccer campaign (friendsofsoccer.org). I'd like to take a moment to answer a few of these.

Is the debate about soccer? No. It's about whether we allow someone to use their own money to create a gathering place for ALL of the Citizens of Vancouver, or if we decide to make this land the playground for condo developers who want to create yet another exclusive enclave. It's about whether the downtown core is open for ALL citizens of Vancouver, or just those who can afford to own there. It's about whether CITIZENS run Vancouver, or just a few select developers. I don't know about you, but I know which side I'm on.

Why do the Whitecaps need a new stadium?

Swangard Stadium in Burnaby has been a good home for soccer since the mid-1980s, when the future of the game was uncertain. However, Swangard is a government-run facility that was never built with the intention of playing host to a successful pro soccer team. As the Whitecaps became more popular with fans over the last six years, Swangard began to show its limitations as a sports venue. The scarce parking and transit options in the Burnaby Central Park area force the Whitecaps to limit their capacity to just over 5700 fans. Many Whitecaps games have sold out over the last three seasons, and Swangard bursts at the seams when they're allowed to expand capacity for special events such as the recent game between Canada and Brazil. The stadium is difficult to reach by public transit, as Skytrain users must walk down a dark, unlit path through Burnaby Central Park to reach the stadium from Patterson Station. Facilities within Swangard have also reached their limits, with long lineups at the handful of concession stands and portable outhouses. The Whitecaps and their fans have outgrown Swangard, and a new stadium is needed to keep pace of with the growing popularity of the sport.

Why can't the Whitecaps use BC Place?

While the game of soccer has grown in popularity, its fan base could never support moving into a domed 60,000 seat stadium. The artificial turf that is installed barely meets the minimum requirements set out by FIFA for international matches, and the vast majority of world class teams and players would refuse to play on any surface that isn't natural grass. The fans would also reject the move. Part of the magic of soccer for fans is the intimacy of the game; something that cavernous BC Place cannot provide in any configuration. Currently, there is not a single world-class soccer team on the planet that would ever play on artifical turf in a permanent-dome stadium. The Whitecaps Waterfront Stadium is the best solution.

Won't the Stadium destroy Gastown's Heritage?

No. Not one heritage building will be destroyed to make way for the stadium.

Will people lose their homes?

No. Not one condo, apartment, or Single Room Occupancy unit will be lost to the stadium.

I encourage everyone to contact City Council and tell your politicians to show real leadership on this issue. We don't stifle ideas in this city, and the Whitecaps should be allowed, like any other private developer, to submit a formal design that addresses people's concerns. Please visit friendsofsoccer.org to see how you can help.

Cheers,
Bill Currie
Friends of Soccer

I say build it only in the following two cases:

1. That it be built with nothing short of a spectacular architectural design, with a spectacular view for concert/public events. The area is so special, that the building must live up to that aspect of the site. Concerts there could become world reknown for their beauty, not unlike the Gorge in Washington state. If it can't meet that standard, then don't build it. And make it compact, with no parking. Transit and walking are natural for that area.

2. Find out the plans for buddy's property that stretches to Main. Obtain the legal restrictions on those properties necessary, so that the eventual development fits within the larger context of a coherent urban plan.

And solve the affordable housing problem for Vancouver's neediest in the area!

Bill Currie: Why are a stadium or condos the only options?

What are the other options?

hmm last i looked soccer is the most played sport in Canada and the world. Male and female, rich and poor, it is the sport of the people. You will see how many people love soccer in this town shortly during the wc 2006.

Why not something like the Pike Place market in Seattle? That would be the perfect location for such a thing and if you've ever been to Pike Place, it's constantly full of people, and nicely located right on the waterfront.

actually pike place market is well off the waterfront. You would have to climb down a cliff, cross hwy 99 (good luck), cross a couple more streets, and then you might get to the waterfront. The market is just where pike street ends in seattle.

When i lived in gastown a years ago on Alexander i went down to Crab Park a few times with my nephew. The first time it was a open air shooting gallery with needles everywhere. The second time was the day after a john was torturing hookers for money. Closed because it was a crime scene. This is why i moved out of gastown. It seriously needs cleaning up. Last i looked it hasnt!

They only just fill Swangard because no one likes it. Standing in line for 30 minutes for a beer (sunderland game last year) is not my thought of fun. The consession is run by the city of Burnaby with little choice or none at all. Of yes by the way there is one set of bathrooms each for 6000 to 7000 people!

"Bill Currie: Why are a stadium or condos the only options?"

I understand your point, but I think many of the posters here are simply being realistic. What seems to be lost in the debate is that what we're discussing is private land. It wasn't owned by the City or the Port of Vancouver. It was owned by Fairmont, who sold it to the Whitecaps. It seems unlikely the City will try to acquire the land either.

Re-zoning and public process are important when considering a development like this. But, in the end, private land owners should have the right to propose a usage for their land, and to demonstrate, through a proper design, how it can work. The Whitecaps haven't been allowed by the City to present a proper design yet. They weren't even allowed to show the walkway they envision which will link Gastown to the Waterfront for the first time in a century. I believe that any property owner, not just the Whitecaps, should be given the chance to present their vision in detail. That hasn't happened here.

As for condos? Well, we all know what the recent history of Vancouver has been, for better or worse. The development market calls for condos...not stadiums or parks or other uses of private land that are inclusive for all citizens. If a Waterfront Hub study happens, not only will there be no stadium at all, but the end result will almost certainly be yet another row of skyscrapers with yet another seawall and token patches of green space. It makes money...other uses don't. It's a sad reality.

I believe there should be affordable housing throughout the city. I believe that every neighbourhood of Vancouver should be diverse, and lively with people of all cultures and incomes living, working and playing there. But the stadium issue has nothing to do with this. And a waterfront hub study will only accomplish the exact opposite of what the vast majority of Citizens want.

Cheers,
Bill Currie
friendsofsoccer.org

I realize the Swanguard stadium is less than perfect, but I fear that this move would eventually be the death knell of the team. I used to park down near that area and had two windows smashed in a month during the day, the local security issues will be a major reason that people won’t be comfortable going there. I wonder if there is enough room out at the Terminal Ave area?

"... the local security issues will be a major reason that people won’t be comfortable going there. I wonder if there is enough room out at the Terminal Ave area?"

Tens of thousands of people already go through the area everyday. It's the City's major transportation hub! Also, even the consultant's report says that very few people would choose to park in Gastown. They would mostly park in commercial lots downtown and to the west of the stadium.

The Terminal Avenue idea died nearly 2 years ago because the City of Vancouver needs the land and would not sell. That is still the case today and for the forseeable future.

Besides, with every transit line terminating at the stadium, any other site would guarantee that there'll be thousands of more cars on the road. Any site other than this one simply means fewer transit options.

Cheers,
Bill Currie
friendsofsoccer.org

sfaulk:

stadium or condos are the only options - why? nobody else has the money to develop those wastelands. It is disgusting down there. We could turn it into a park, however that would require significant environmental remediation and not economically viable.

this guy bought this land and is developing this with his own money! there is no reason why this shouldn't go forward.

Plus - watch Vancouver get an MLS franchise. They will fill the 15,000 seats without a problem.

Bill Currie is correct in most of his points. I do disagree with one point though - and thankfully.

This stadium, along with the Woodwards project will flush out the trash and SROs in East Hastings. That Cess-pool will be surrounded by Science World, Cinatown, Gastown, a new stadium, GM place, and Tinseltown. This will become a relatively trendy area and the drugs will be pushed up Hastings possibly finding a temporary home on Commercial.

We need a comprehensive plan for low income housing. By this, I do not mean social housing. We should build a giant housing project somewhere between Burnaby and Downtown.

I know this isn't going to assimilate these people. However, it will give them all beds and warm places to sleep. It will also help confine the problem.

PS - I am in full support of social housing for single mothers and families who qualify. I do not mean drug users or dealers.

Each new Condo development should have around 10% assigned for social housing, where qualified families can rent for a below-market price.

This should be administered by a NPO, not the government.

Bill Currie: The Whitecaps are getting their due process on June 15th in City Council. Your reference to the condos are baseless claims, however. The land will not get sucked into a black hole if it's not used for a soccer stadium or Condos.

Bill, do you live in the area?

That it be built with nothing short of a spectacular architectural design, with a spectacular view for concert/public events. The area is so special, that the building must live up to that aspect of the site. Concerts there could become world reknown for their beauty, not unlike the Gorge in Washington state. If it can't meet that standard, then don't build it. And make it compact, with no parking. Transit and walking are natural for that area.

If it's going to be built, this would be the way to go.

Also, on the mention of the fact that the land is owned privately, it is in everyone's best interest to ensure that the land is used well so that both the city and private landholder benefit. Seems like common sense, but worth mentioning..

Bill
The VPD has just posted figures that show an large increase in assaults in the downtown area, theft was so bad at our parking lot that we organized on own patrols to supplement the few security guards, every day we had around 5+ cars broken into between 8-4 in the daytime, the same people doing this will be there at night. My dad goes to watch the games, but I know he is keen about going downtown at night and won’t take transit either. I suspect that you will lose quite a few people by this move. I do want to see the team and the women’s soccer league do well and admire how hard they work to make the teams a success. I just don’t think this will be a wise move.

What a great idea capitalism. And when these "housing projects" you advocate for are built, I suggest a moat. And around this moat, we should have sharks with laser beams to keep the rif raff in. Man! Why hasn't anybody thought of this before?

And you're on to something else too. Everyone with prviately owned land should be able to do whatever the hell they want with it. My god! That should be in the constitution!

ubiquitous -

my housing project idea is not for low income people per say, but homeless. I do not support housing projects.

A guarded housing project is much better than them sprawled out all over the streets. It will help confine the problem.

Ideologically it may not be great, but practicically it solves a problem.

I don't believe that private land owners should be able to do everything. However, you lefties are finding any excuse to hold an entrepreneur back.

Capitalism, you stated:

My apologies for thinking that you believe that a private land owner should not face zoning restrictions and building codes.

Not really. I consider myself a "lefty" yet I like the idea of the soccer stadium - I also would like to see the area become a public space. I'd also like some time to review a comprehensive plan before I would make some claim like

To me this sounds, at first, like a situation where a P3 would acually be beneficial.

"Bill Currie: The Whitecaps are getting their due process on June 15th in City Council. Your reference to the condos are baseless claims, however. The land will not get sucked into a black hole if it's not used for a soccer stadium or Condos."

I think we disagree as to whether the Whitecaps are getting a proper due process leading up to the June 15 vote. The six month high level review has certainly been an unusual process in the history of development in this city. I think it's been useful in demonstrating the broad popular support the stadium enjoys both throughout the City and within Gastown itself. I think it's also been effective in pointing out concerns as well. But I believe that a proper due process is only served if the Whitecaps are allowed to submit a formal design that takes all of these concerns into account. That's why taking the issue to re-zoning is the right thing to do. Let's see the complete vision, warts and all! Let's see how the Whitecaps respond to the technical concerns cited. That's what an overwhelming majority of Vancouver Citizens told the City during the Open Houses...which were all held in the neighbourhood, by the way.

"Bill, do you live in the area?"
I live in the West End...a nearby area that has no public parking and very little transit, yet hosts several times the number of people and cars the stadium will bring to Gastown almost every sunny day. We're used to tens of thousands of visitors clogging up Denman and Davie Street, and hundreds of thousands for the fireworks. Our streets are closed off several days every year for marathons, fun runs, parades and festivals. Do we complain? For the most part no. We chose to live in an area with urban life. There are occassional inconveniences, but we find that having all of these events in our neighbourhood makes living here lively and very enjoyable.

I also work downtown, along the Waterfront next to two major construction sites. We'll probably lose our view of the water to one of them soon. But, that seems to be a rule of real estate; if there's land in front of you, someone's going to build on it someday.

Cheers,
Bill Currie
friendsofsoccer.org

"Ideologically it may not be great, but practicically it solves a problem.

I don't believe that private land owners should be able to do everything. However, you lefties are finding any excuse to hold an entrepreneur back."

Statement One - valid
Statement Two - valid
Statement Three - Ideologically-based nonsense

Two out of three ain't bad C. Since I'm one of those nasty lefties you dislike... and this project has my guarded support, I guess that's the proof you'll need to re-assess your p.o.v. on the matter?

A few comments:

-- This seems to involve a concerted effort to recreate the open-air ambience of Empire Stadium, including mountain views, the sun, rain, etc. Fair enough...aside from the issue of real vs artificial turf, BC Place has all the ambience of the average parking lot.

-- I think the proposed connection to Waterfront station would go a long way towards mitigating transportation and parking issues, especially if gas prices are where most expect them to be by the time the stadium is built.

-- Most discussions I've heard suggest that the primary tenant will be the Whitecaps, with additional bookings for other soccer teams, rugby and other sports. I think it would be a shame not to include world-class track and field facilities in the mix. Swangaard is no longer used for the Harry Jerome Classic, which has been relocated to Town-Centre Stadium in Coquitlam. Maybe they should just pull the statue from Stanley Park and move it to Coquitlam as well....

-- All of this presupposes that issues with the local neighborhoods are sorted out. The Downtown Eastside should not be ignored or go unconsulted yet again. There are legitimate security concerns that should be addressed up front.

godsChild, you are the moron in this example.
I have been to Crab Park hundreds of times, ironically enough, biking through. It is not at the site of the stadium... it would be adjacent to the stadium.

And it's not a secret. It's just an unpleasant place. Nobody goes there, and nobody wants to go there.

I'm not sure why you love the park. It's been the site for some high profile murders and sexual assaults in the city. At night it's a no-go zone for women. The police are there for bust-ups all the time. There are needles and other troubling items on the beach. I would never let my kids swim in those waters.

Get a grip, godsChild.

A gigantic building sitting empty most of the time will not rejuvinate any neigbourhood. It is people living in the area that will improve it.

Ubiquitous -

I understand your reservations. A P3 would work, but remember that GM place is also 100% privately owned. The big difference here is that GM places was crammed between two connectors and the soccer field will be situation on waterfront land - that right now is waste, but could be a good city resource.

You are a little guarded in that you would like to see this area preserved for future generations.

A great idea would be to sign a 20 year agreement, whereby Mr. Kerfoot can build his stadium. However, at the end of 20 years - by referendum, if Vancouver residents believe the land can be used more appropriately - would have the right to buy the land and building for fair market value.

This would ensure that Mr. Kerfoot's risks are rewarded, and the city's best interests maintained.

20 years is a pretty good timeline. Look how long it took for development to build up towards BC Place.

We are a good 10 years (minimum) away from the industrial oceanfront being fully marketable.

Obviously this is a very complicated suggestion, especially when dealing with the public - who often lack business understanding.

It would never work, but would be interesting.

Disclosure: I live in Gastown in the same block as the proposed Stadium and I am the founder of Stadium NOW! - http://www.stadiumnow.org

The question before the city is wether the Whitecaps after this initial high level review can proceed to make a regular development application.

This will now come before Vancouver city council on June 27th, and the 29th if required.

I encourage people to read the reference material and draw their own conclusions.

Ours is clear - we think that on its merits the proposal should be allowed to move to the next phase.

The city laid out the procedure and the Whitecaps are following it (and paying for it).

The stadium proposal and public consultation are not two opposing forces, nor does the proposal moving forward stop the public consultation process on other areas north of Gastown.

Stump wrote:

* Yes, so every four years the world gets excited about the international version of soccer. Do you see the USL (or whatever their league is called) on the cover of anything except their own program? Didn't think so.

* The soccer-loving immigrants here for the most part love the superior brand of football played in their home countries.

* The Whitecaps relatively (key word) good attendance figures are but a drop in the bucket compared to the Canucks, Lions or even Giants, let alone the Grizzlies, which people say we didn't support. How is getting a few hundred to a couple thousand fans out for a relatively few games a year going to improve anything?

* Yes, tons of people play soccer. That doesn't translate to tons of people watching soccer. Basketball is a hugely popular sport at the grassroots level, yet the ratings for the NBA continue to be low here. How many people participate in the Sun Run compared to how many of them who watch track and field on TV or at a meet here?

A blockhead spelled:

Liar.
Where were you biking "to"? Anyone who's been there knows there's nowhere to bike "through to"... Crab Park is a "destination" you liar, it's not a "bike through" park at all. Any of the dozens of pet owners using it daily know this.
What you're describing is either your ability to become lost or you're simply lying.

You mean like your heliport? Or the seabus terminal?

You just described STANLEY PARK.

And you'd know since you've undoubtedly been ticketed as a mentally handicapped, helmetless bike rider lost on your way "somewhere".

Who hasnt heard/said this at English Bay?
So you were only "cycling through" on the nice sandy beach then? Uh huh.

P.S. Thanks for not letting whatever contagions your rug rats may have loose onto the water. Together we can stop pollution.

Godschild, you said:

"Liar. Where were you biking "to"? Anyone who's been there knows there's nowhere to bike "through to"... Crab Park is a "destination" you liar, it's not a "bike through" park at all."

How about Coal Harbour? Or the Seabus Terminal en route to the North Shore? People pass through Crab Park and the service road that runs along it all the time. Been there much?

"You mean like your heliport? Or the seabus terminal?"

Haven't you checked the drawings of the stadium? The Seabus terminal is actually connected to the stadium.

Crab Park is owned by the Port of Vancouver, as a nicety to Vancouverites. That's right: it's an extension of THE PORT. You should kiss the Port's royal behind every time you troll for romance when you're down there with your dog. They are thinking of turning it into an expanded port facility, you know. Or don't you?

And you said: "since you've undoubtedly been ticketed as a mentally handicapped, helmetless bike rider lost on your way "somewhere". P.S. Thanks for not letting whatever contagions your rug rats may have loose onto the water. Together we can stop pollution."

Way to go, godsChild. You've single-handedly taken swipes at the mentally handicapped and children. You're a real tribute to the anti-stadium contingent! If you are representative of the kind of people that hate the stadium -- people that also hate children and people with disabilities -- then it only strengthens my belief that Vancouver needs this stadium IN SPITE of your arrogance and disrespect, and those of your ilk.

Sorry godsChild. It looks like your convenient doggie toilet at Crab Park will be under a little more scrutiny with the Whitecaps rolling into the neighbourhood. You'd better take your crackpipe back up to Main Street and fine your dates online instead of in the park.

GRW:

I think we can assume Vancouver and soccer will both continue to grow in popularity.

Like BC Place, the stadium could be used for other events, like concerts, other sports events, and such.

Since we can spend billions of public money on the Olympics (a once every four years event), letting someone else spend millions to build a stadium doesn't seem like a terrible idea to me.

I`m trying to form a reasoned opinion on this waterfront stadium issue but just can`t seem to come up with much to add to the discussion...the illustration accompanying the article makes the stadium appear much like a smaller version of old Empire Stadium...I watched the old NASL Whitecaps there and really enjoyed it.
It seems a waste of precious waterfront space to situate a sports stadium there..but..if you build it they will come..I guess.

I still don't see why there's a perception that this would be a waste of waterfront property. I think the stadium would allow more Vancouverites to participate in the waterfront experience than say, more Yaletown clone towers, or an extension of the shooting gallery/doggie toilet park next door, or another Granville Island type market.
(on the latter point, we already have three public markets at Granville Isle, Londale Quay, and New West Quay).

It would also provide the otherwise dreary Gastown area with a much-needed shot in the arm. Between Woodwards/SFU and Whitecaps Stadium, as well as improvements to Chinatown, we could be on the cusp of a major renaissance in that part of the downtown core.

This stadium will happen. I don't think Sam Sullivan wants a "No Fun City" fiasco happening on his watch. My impression is that the City wants the architects to better articulate the design, and perhaps soften the side of the stadium that faces Gastown. Let's face it: There IS no better use for that part of the downtown waterfront. As a previous poster mentioned, the addition of the new convention centre, the coming of RAV, and improvements to Skytrain and RAV, mean that the area around Waterfront Station is becoming a civic focal point for the city.

TurdLover groaned

...and yet you're the same blockhead that just a few posts back was shovelling BS that there was nothing down there at all! Now you've gone and added a Park and a Seabus Terminal. You're so full of crap.

and as far as "fineing" {you can't spell) dates, I'll stick to men, since I'm a woman. You know the gender, we're the ones you borrow clothing from,when you're not wandering through Crab park on a bike looking to score whatever it is you're looking for.

YOU said:

and then you say... that you've cycled down ("hundreds of times") to a place of repeated "high profile murders and sexual assaults".
What breadth of stupidity!
Idiot. Moron. Biumpkin. Liar.

Get your crap a little tighter and you might yet wiggle off your hook.

Observer

I`m not against a soccer pitch..I guess I see maybe a theatre (live) or theatres..but the stadium if done right could provide that as well..What about a Las Vegas casino/entertainment
type structure.. big with lots of bizazz.. fireworks shows.. like at English Bay..with an accompanying marina..Cruise ship berth/Casino complex..

About Crab Park...It just got a fantastic new playground for children. The gardens are tended every morning, and the lawns mown. It teams with people jogging, walking their dogs, doing tai chi. Sometimes people are down there fishing, or having a picnic. All ages, and all genders go there at all times of the day, and I have never considered it unsafe.

I don't think people should pass negative judgements about Gastown if they don't live here, or know people who live here. We are a growing eclectic community of diverse people. New businesses are popping up along-side businesses that have been here for 30+ years...Inform, Richard Kidd, Live Stock, Bruce Eyewear, Urbanity, Six Acres, Hunt& Gather, Modern Kid...to name a few. Gastown is being discovered as an exciting place to shop.

We don't NEED a stadium to make us interesting or special, because we already are.

And for those of you who speak about wanting a stadium with real grass....read the reports that have been submitted. It says there that grass will not be able to grow in the stadium as proposed. In fact, if people read the reports and made themselves more informed, they would see that a stadium in that particular spot is not viable. It simply does not fit into the space.

Stump wrote:

Why can we assume that? I was at the Whitecaps game versus the New York Cosmos at GM Place years ago. There were 60,000 in attendance, but the NASL had real stars in it. The trend, it would seem, is the other way around.

Ouch! That's the best you got?! So we can expect car shows and garden shows? Pinch me!

Well, you're right, it's not a terrible idea. But it's not a great one, either. Let him spend (and lose) his millions. I just think it's pretty short-sighted.

Ask 100 people on the street to name one person on the Whitecaps to guage how popular soccer is in Vancouver. Ask those same 100 to name a Canuck or a Lion or a Giant and I think you'll see a huge difference.

Doesn`t Steve Nash have a brother on the Whitecaps?

I was at that game too..I`d hoped to see Beckenbauer but he was injured...the Whitecaps played a local First Nations kid at striker..can`t remember his name...the place was rockin`.. it was a lot of fun..there wasn`t much lead up to the NASL folding ..it was very sudden.
The present soccer scene seems a little cliquey.

at a game in empire stadium (what a setting!) i saw beckenbauer make a pass that i'll never forget. 40 yards in the air and curled precisely on to a streaking forwards foot. talk about a sweet spot. what a wonderful sport.

Ah, yes, you're right! And the fact you don't know his name is telling. It's Martin Nash, who, no matter how big you say soccer is in Vancouver, will always be "Steve Nash's brother". Martin, by the way, played basketball for a bit at Brandon University.

I'm looking forward to going to this stadium. I enjoy open-air concerts and games. I am not a Whitecaps fan, but that is mostly because I'm not interested in the hassle that comes with seeing games at Swangard. This could be a cool place to go, and should bring additional foot traffic to restaurants and other businesses. In other words, I think that this could help expand the audience for soccer.

On the other hand, it will define the area and its usage for years to come. Was there going to be a condo project or port expansion or anything else down there?

The proposed Stadium would not preclude other developments on the port lands, or expansion of the port.

The Whitecaps own the railway lands, and CP is opposed to residential development over the railway - which is not going anywhere.

I support Grdadolnik's call for more variation along the waterfront.

How about something totally original, at least for the City of Vancouver? Alongside the stadium, let's construct ... ... affordable family housing! How novel! How unusual!

Then perhaps working class and middle class parents, and not just singletons and couples, could walk to work.[I]

Between Soccer, Concerts and Trade shows, how many days a year would this stadium be used.

Other cities have tried to reguvenate areas with stadiums and failed. People breeze in and breeze out.

Sports franchise owners are famous for asking and getting government dollars.

Once again, it is people living in an area that makes a neighbourhood.

Why can't they put this in less prime land?

Why can't they use BC Place?

If a sports facilty is what people think is necessary to rejeuvenate Gastown, then we should be rejeuvenated already (BC Place, GM Place, Dragon boats, beach volley...all lie a few blocks from Gastown).

Rejeuvenation is taking place because of incentives to repair and upgrade heritage buildings and an interest in the character of the old town that is attracting new exciting businesses.

If the Whitecaps build a stadium next to all of these transit options I will become a season ticket holder. Swangard has its merits but access and amenities are pitiable, and that huge dutch cap they call BC Place should be levelled.

I attended Arsenal's final game at Highbury Park last month — it's being redeveloped after almost 100 years' service to become housing and Arsenal has a beautiful new Emirates stadium to move into next season. The same could happen to the Whitecaps stadium once it's no longer serviceable.

I agree with Kurt,
BC place is and has always been a big white albatross. A perfect example of poor design... anybody who has spent any time next to the "grand" entrance arch can attest to that... connection to the surrounding environment was an afterthought.

This is probably a large part of the reason there is resistance to the Whitcaps Stadium.
But I tend to agree with Mrs. Grdadolnik that design has the potential to mitigate many problems.
BC place won't live past 2010 anyway, but if it did it would loose all its bookings to the outdoor stadium.

I am curious about something that maybe somebody here can answer. Those wanting to build the stadium say it will be used for many other events, including symphony concerts, but will a symphony orchestra sit and play in the rain? The home show, the gift show, to name just two of many events that presently are held in BC Place...would they be interested displaying in an open air stadium? I know soccer is played in any weather, while the fans are under cover, but an open air stadium in a city where it rains so much, does not seem practical for purposes other than soccer.

For clarity's sake open air concerts always have superior sound and ambience, and the stage is usually sheltered to protect both musicians and instruments from the elements, electrocution etc. That's what they do at the Folk Fest and Malkin Bowl. Wembley open-air stadium in London has hosted numerous (even historic) concerts and sporting events, and has been redeveloped recently with an adjoining covered venue for the trade show type events, but Vancouver already has venues like GM Place and the Coliseum for that.

I've seen a few concerts in BC Place and all were miserable experiences mostly because of the echo and delay (I think the Neil Young/ Pearl Jam concert was the worst) and I haven't gone back there for more than a decade now. It's a visual blight, too, both inside and out. I don't know what the BC Lions will do once it's gone; perhaps they'll move into the 'caps stadium?

I think I read that the idea is to have the stadium expandable to 30,000.

One answer to the question "why have it there" is the illustration. It would be more pleasant and interesting to see an event in that backdrop, simple as that. It would become a destination.

How would they protect their grass if they had concerts in there?

The stadium will have natural grass mounted on removable sections of pallets. It's quite common for overseas stadia.

Concrete or some other type of flooring will be installed underneath.

Enough is enough. We have too many sport stadiums in Vancouver already. Noise, traffic jams and pollution is choking the city. Futhermore we have policing problem, firefighting problem, water supply and waste disposal problem while City taxes, vehicle parking and etc. are keep going up to finance the demand of public utilities and services. Who is paying for all these?
It is time to freeze the grow of the city. It is time for any crowd gathering facilities to be located away from Vancouver to other municipals.

Stovell:

Grdadolnik:

Geez, where do people get ideas (Grdadolnik's) like this from? Not from studying the city's history, that's for sure....

The Gastown waterfront - and let's call it that, even though the waterfront is now a couple of hundred yards further north than Gastown - is easily the MOST HISTORIC stretch of waterfront in the city, not just the last important bit of it.

Why? Well, y'see, Water Street has its name for a reason - it ''was'' the waterfront when the city was founded. And along its waterfront until the building of the North Shore bridges were all the water ferries serving the North Shore, Indian Arm, Howe Sound and the nearby parts of the Sunshine Coast, with busy ferry terminals and water-taxi docks accessed from Water Street either over or under the CPR tracks, which were originally built on pilings behind the buildings on the north side of Water. This area was, as some of us know, filled in with ballast from the blasting of the Fraser Canyon and Rogers Pass (as was False Creek east of Main), with the result that Gastown is no longer a waterfront "town" as it once was.

THAT is the crux of the issue for me. I worked for the Gastown BIA as a heritage researcher back in '89 and have had a bit of a love affair with the history of the place since. Seeing a monument to "Lucklucky" (the English transliteration of the Squamish/Halqemeylem original placename meaning "little grove of maples") placed between Crab Park and the Seabus terminal claiming that IT is on the site where Vancouver began was just a bit much of rewritten history to stomach; seeing Jack Christie repeat that error in the Straight brought home exactly how far this city has lost awareness of its own origins.

Grdadolnik's comment takes this a step further. Let me repeat the quote again so that it stands in sharp contrast to the history I just cited:

Yikes! How's that again? I imagine she means the big north-side warehouses like the Malkin Bldg, The Landing, and the old HBC "Fur and Liquor Warehouse", but those were all built to face onto the CPR waterfront tracks and their warehousing end DID still face the harbour/railhead, importantly and strategically so. As to "never [providing] a connection to the waterfront, Ms. Grdadolnik should go read some of the early history of the settlement before saying something so utterly silly ever again.

Gastown was a rowdy mariners' and loggers' drinking village attached to a marine-oriented sawmill. The Bodega Club on Carrall, the premier gentleman's club, was frequented by the ship captains who docked at the Hastings Mill, adjacent to Gastown, and also by those whose ships were docked in dry-as-a-bone Moodyville on the north side of the inlet.

Gastown residents commuted by water to the bars and homes of Brockton Point, and likewise its schoolchildren were ferried across the inlet from docks across the street from home. The first building on the north side of Water, the Sunnyside Hotel (where Brother Jon's is now) was built on stilts over the water and had a deck facing the water.

I rest my case about Grdadolnik's error, and I suggest she recant and reconsider her position based on what I've put here.

(cont.)

My own strong feeling about the area between Gastown and where the water is now is that it should be developed as a faux-heritage extension of Gastown, with an effort to preserve the sightlines off the north ends of Cambie, Abbott, Carrall and Columbia by extending those streets to the water, with a "New Water Street" built along the actual waterfront, perhaps even modelled on the original pictures of Gastown so familiar to those of us who bother to look at pictures of Vancouver's past. Other than the sightlines, decorative efforts could be made on the new buildings to emulate the late Victorian and small-scale feeling of Gastown's heritage core (i.e. the 1880s-1890s buildings, not the warehousing buildings of the 1920s). This could be a vibrant residential area complementing the new Woodward's-based revival of Hastings and Cordova which will be upon us anytime now.

I love the Whitecaps, but I think it's the wrong place for their stadium just as it was for the convention centre. The drawings are atrociously bad modern architecture; sure, the seating will have a great view, but do we need another bigbox spaceframe building that doesn't look any more tasteful than BC Place/Plaza of Nations already isn't?

Expand and celebrate Gastown and restore it to its rightful place on the waterfront. Just to dig it in, the longtime proposal to build a canal through Columbia Street to connect False Creek and the harbour could have a side-water into Maple Tree Square and Water Street (once Powell Street's use as an offramp for the 2nd Narrows can be diverted somewhere else); forcing an Amsterdam-like pedestrianization of the entire Gastown-waterfront zone.

Yeah, but how do you make money off heritage expansions? Do it well, that's how, and make an effort to make it a liveable, attractive area. Instead of something in the shadow of a massive sports stadium that will block the old part of the city off from its century-and-a-half old view of the mountains forever.

Gastown SHOULD be on the waterfront, and can be again. My two bits....

The first thing I do when some stranger on the street offers me a free lunch is to ask - what is the catch?
We should start by asking is this stadium a free lunch? The whitecaps have said that they are now seeking public funding for the stadium – so much for their continuous mantra of “Free stadium, Free stadium”. The free lunch is looking less free. In addition, the Whitcaps' economic plan for the stadium (available on the City of Vancouver website) accounts for the largest and smallest of expenses with one very noticeable exception – property tax! Are the Whitcaps looking for a tax holiday? If so this represents a multimillion-dollar tax break. The City cannot afford to give a tax break since the residents of Vancouver will be shelling out millions on the extra policing costs associated with the stadium.

What does Greg Kerfoot and the Whitecaps stand to gain from this development? Two things: a shopping mall with a soccer pitch on top of it and the chance to develop 100’s of millions of dollar of condos over the rest of the rail yard.
Given that this development is more a shopping mall (100,000 square feet) than a soccer stadium we should consider changing the name from Whitecaps stadium to “Kerfoot Mall” – downtown’s very own Walmart with a playing field.

And on a side note: the spectacular view of the mountains from this stadium will not exist in a few years. Don’t believe me? Have a look at the City’s report. The view will be blocked by condos on the ports land.

If this is turned down by city council, the Whitecaps will have no one to blame but themselves.

They submitted a sub-standard design where fundamental aspects of the stadium had not been thoroughly thought through yet. The site is so inadequate that the technical report called it inappropriate and unworkable.

The Whitecaps have exposed themselves to be complete amateurs. They couldn't get a permit for a back patio.

lets put barb wire fences around the city and not let anymore people or development in. Sound stupid....yes just like the one above.

if they turn this down it will be political suicide. This will be Sullivan's only term.

Last i looked soccer is played in England where it rains all the time , and as per Thunderbird stadium with concerts they go rain or shine

hey Mel from Calgary... stay there!

Herodotus:

Never have I seen someone so misinformed or determined to frighten people as you.

1. Public funding - the Caps have said at all times that this project does not require public funding, but they wouldn't turn it down if it was made available to them. No news there.

And name me one major development that does not sought federal or provincial funding? Hell, even the heritage incentives given to Gastown developments are tax dollars. Why is this any different?

2. No property taxes? You must be smoking the same stuff as Jonb Stovell, because that's what he said too. I refer you to the City of Vancouver report, page 30:

"(Staff note: As with GM Place, property taxes would be levied on the stadium)."

3. Your whole shopping mall conspiracy theory is ridiculous. Both the Caps and the City have been clear that this "100,000 sq. ft." number that's been bandied about is small kiosk retail similar to what's in GM Place and BC Place - that means hot dogs, T-shirts and ice cream.

Furthermore, that space is spread over multiple levels in two separate grandstands, and is generally accessible only when the stadium is open.

Give your head a shake - your scare tactics are pathetic at best.

Can't wait to obstruct your view!

dear Jonny Monster.

Did you attend the Hertiage vancouver meeting? At this meeting whitecaps themselves described the shopping mall and how it will be open all the time - this is part of selling the stadium as a community asset. As for the public money. Please refer to the Vancouver sun. John Rocha states that they are looking for public funding in the range of 10's millions of dollars. Yes, the staff city staff are pushing for taxing the stadium where as the whitecaps are pushing for a tax holiday. John why dont you sing us some of the poor bashing songs that you so proudly posted on the white caps southsiders website.

So, chantingc, it would seem you are substatiating my belief that the use of this stadium would be limited to soccer games and the occasional rock concert. The rest of the time it would stand there, huge and empty. Well except for the covered shopping area, of course. How else would it sustain itself, if it was not for a shopping mall. And this is considered to be an asset to our neighbourhood??

last i looked it would host 65 to 80 major events per year. Whitecaps men play about 14 matches per year at swangard and the women half that number. So soccer is that much. The rest would be Jazz Festival, VSO, rugby, tennis, beach volleyball, enthnic festivals, possible x games, movie under the stars, 2009 npolice and fire games and parties, etc.......

i just named a few off the top....

and oh yeah a community daycare also

now thats clarity!

Why this location for the stadium is dead. Very few people are against soccer but rather the location. All one has to do is to refer to both the independent technical report and the city’s planning report. Whether folks like it or not this location is too big of a liability. At best only three sides of the stadium can offer exits. Two are currently planned and to gain the extra entrance will cost 40-50 million dollars to build a ramp up from waterfront road. This ramp would then act as an additional barrier between Gastown and the waterfront. If the whitecaps must spend this type of money then their economic feasibility study does not work. The city would then be very concerned that they may be stuck with a defunct stadium in the future.
As pointed out in the various reports the rail yard is one of the most active in Canada with many types of hazardous cargo routinely stored in the yard. Many of these hazardous materials would be directly located under the open-air stadium. This issue is so important that the City planners have stated that until the issue is resolved and someone accepts the liability the application for the stadium should not even be considered. Currently the Whitecaps say the City should accept the liability, the City says it is up to the fed, the feds will say “as soon as you approve covering the tracks with a stadium it is the City’s liability, And all levels of government will say that Greg Kerfoot and the whitecaps are liable since it is their land. This issue will go around and around. Soccer moms and soccer dads must know there is no risk to them or their children.
On a side note – no company will provide insurance if the liability is not clearly assigned This issue will not be resolved in the near future and any council that goes against its own professional staff on issues of safety walks on thin ice. This location is unworkable –those are the words of the technical review. It is time to find a new location for the stadium

Aaaaaah Herodotus. Your ignorance knows no bounds, and "fear" is your middle name.

As for the bogus warnings about dangerous goods, I'll bring to your attention the following:

FACT: Less than 1% of rail cars entering downtown Vancouver possess hazardous materials. According to Transport Canada, it's closer to 0.4%.

FACT: Not all materials classified as "hazardous" on the rail system pose human health risks.

FACT: Many of the materials classified as "hazardous" are only dangerous when reacting with other chemicals...which, thanks to Transport Canada, are not allowed in the same vicinity.

FACT: Those rail cars have been moving the same "dangerous" goods in and out of downtown for several decades.... so why is it suddenly such a huge public safety issue now?

It's not... it's a convenient argument for wanks like you with little else in the way of a decent argument.

Still scared? I'm not surprised. You're probably just as apt to run for the hills the moment a WalMart flyer hits your doorstep lest your neighbours mistake you for anything but a communist.

last i looked Safeco field in Seattle was built over train tracks and they have had no problems in the last 7 years....hmmm

I do not ask anyone to take my word for it. Just refer to the report or are all the planners, the city's hazmat crews and the fire department in on this scare mongering?

as for safeco.. the trains pass under one corner of the roof. These are mainly passanger trains passing by. The main fright yard - known as the SIG - is a few blocks away. Harardous material is not stored on the tracts under safeco - apples and oranges

yeah we dont want harardous material on the tracts....lol

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20060418/450stadiumXX_ManOnTracks.jpg

gee that looks like a freight train doesnt it?

once again.. look at the design of the SIG yard and where material is stored

harardous material?

http://img311.imageshack.us/img311/2444/picture5700pd.jpg

From the City of Vancouver Planning report.
"Fundamental issues are:

- Inadequate street frontage and road infrastructure with implications for access, emergency exiting and crowd marshalling.

- issues of liability and risk due to the presence of dangerous goods in the rail yard below the proposed stadium

Resolving these issues will require very large financial investments, additional site area, and cooperation or partnership with key landowners."
.............................................................
This location is as good as dead. At least 50 million to gain the extra exit and the Ports are not going to just hand over the extra land. This more than doubles the cost of the stadium. Hard to make up that money selling 3,000 soccer tickets 16 times a year and a few rock concerts. This stadium will not be used from late Sept to May. Who will use it in feb? No music promoter will book an act in the winter when they have a number of other locations to pick from. No one is against soccer but time to face it ---- this location just does not work. Let us review who says this: the City of Vancouver, the independent technical report, two of Canada's top architects, the group that advises the City on historical issues etc.......
Time to find a new home for the stadium!

"Let us review who says this: the City of Vancouver, the independent technical report...."
________________________________________________
Sorry..This post is long. I had to cut it into 2 parts:

Let us review exactly what the reports say:

From the Consultant's Technical report:

"The problems we have identified can probably be addressed if the proponent is willing to re-visit key aspects of the program of uses and the design and if the Stadium is included as a use in a comprehensive plan for the entire area that includes the full rail yard, the Port’s Central Waterfront lands, Waterfront Road, and
adjacent streets and properties. In fact, not only can the problems be addressed, but
a comprehensive approach would likely result in a better stadium (in functional and
operational terms) and would take advantage of an extraordinary opportunity in the
Gastown/Central Waterfront area that will otherwise be lost. A comprehensive planning approach to the area does not have to mean that the development potential of the Port lands will be reduced, but it does mean that the Port must be willing to engage in a process that will probably change its urban development plans in some ways (e.g. siting, massing, access). The opportunity to improve the connection between the Port lands and Gastown/Downtown provides an incentive to engage in this process."

"Even if the facility design is modified and if the siting is re-visited as part of an areawide
plan, there will still be some negative impacts of a facility of this size, but in our view these can be minimized and mitigated in ways that would make this project an exciting and beneficial addition to Downtown."
---------------------------------------------
Re-visiting the proposal (which hasn't actually been designed yet) is exactly what the Whitecaps are doing now. Working with other stakeholders is exactly what the Whitecaps are doing now.

---------------------------------------------
From the City of Vancouver Report:

"In terms of positive implications of the proposed stadium, there are some expected economic benefits due to increased local spending and jobs. There are also sustainability objectives met by having a large stadium in close proximity to a major local and regional transportation hub.In addition, this stadium provides an opportunity to provide public benefits in the form of community access days, a venue for local festivals and ethnic celebrations, and access for community-based sport."

"There are also a number of issues related to the proposed stadium that the Initial Review
reveals to be neutral, or slightly positive or negative. With regard to the proposed use and
alternative uses for the site, if the stadium could be better integrated into the surrounding
area and bridge Gastown to the waterfront, it could be as appropriate as other potential land
uses. While some social impact is expected, the experience with GM Place suggests that
mitigation may be possible by working with owners to address community concerns and
complaints. Finally, the stadium is not expected to have a significant impact on gentrification or residential rental rates."

"The Initial Review also recognizes that there are five fundamental issues that need to be
resolved before the stadium could proceed to rezoning."

These fundamental issues are:
• Inadequate street frontage and road infrastructure with implications for access,
emergency exiting and crowd marshalling;
• issues of liability and risk due to the presence of dangerous goods in the rail yards
below the proposed stadium;
• an unsatisfactory urban design relationship and “fit” with the surrounding urban
fabric, including the Gastown heritage area;
• impacts on the livability of existing housing and future residential development opportunities in the areas south of the rail yards; and
• impacts on the future developability of the Central Waterfront Port Lands.

"Resolving these issues will require very large financial investments, additional site area, and cooperation or partnerships with key landowners."
---------------------------------------------
The Whitecaps said very clearly in The Westender newspaper today that they can afford to build the road network. They also hold the lease for CP Rail to use the railway tracks, so they have the ability to solve the safety issues. That leaves the Port lands and the the neighbourhood to consult with.

So let's be very clear. The proposed site is workable if these conditions are met. In fact, even the head of the Gastown Neighbourhood Coalition said on May 21:

"If they could find a way to get the stadium farther away and less bulky...I believe a stadium could be quite nicely incorporated into the Waterfront...But they're going to have to get together with other property owners and get a larger footprint."

So, you see, this site is very much alive and in play. That's not just my opinion. It's the opinion of everyone that's been involved in the formal study of the stadium proposal.

I know I've commented on this before, but while compiling photos of Gastown for Wikipedia I came across an image that perfectly illustrates why Grdadolnik is bluntly wrong here.

http://www.bcarchives.gov.bc.ca/cgi-bin/www2i/.visual/img_med/dir_100/a_01009.gif

Gastown could not have come into existence WITHOUT the waterfront. The water was, of course, how Gassy Jack got here from New Westminster in the first place, and it was because the forests that were being logged were right on the water that ships could call at the mill, and the mill could supply itself with logs than by other means than skid roads.

The picture in the links is from 1884, prior or just after the announcement of the choice of Granville/Gastown as the terminus for the CPR. The CPR, from the start, was determined to rid its new city of the rough-and-rowdy rabble and the questionably un-establishment businesses of Gastown, and the choice of a terminus not at Gastown, but just past it, was partly to hurt the prosperity of the little settlement so it would fade away. Implicitly the tracks cut Gastown off from the open water; but Gastown rebounded and a series of underpasses and overpasses were built to the many water ferry docks I spoke of in my previous post.

Fudging of Vancouver history to suit their own agendas and pet developments (or pet ethnic-politics agendas) is a common vice of planners and politicians in Vancouver, but this one to me is a bit outrageous. Gastown having no connection to the waterfront is like saying British Columbia has no connection to mountains.

According to Maj. Matthews and others, the CPR was ruthless in its determination to squelch Gastown once and for all. Conspiracy theorists point to the fact that the land-clearing gang which set the fallen trees of the CPR townsite on fire, as slash burns, were the only ones in Gastown prepped with wet blankets and buckets of water to save their domicile, the Regina Hotel at the corner of Water & Cambie (where the Water Street Cafe is now).

The smoke from the fire had been stifling Gastown all that spring; while officially there is no doubt the slash burn got out of control all on its own, the reality is that the CPR foremen and crews knew perfectly well what the dangers were and their managers as well, therefore, would have been told. But no one told the rest of Gastown, which CPR management wanted to wipe off the map. So sentiment at the time was that the CPR had wanted to destroy the town, just as it had by running its trestles just offshore. Gastown rebuilt itself in three weeks and remained the core of the city's retail district until the later part of the 1900-decade, when the opening of the 2nd Hotel Vancouver and its attendant opera house (the long-gone Egyptian-deco Lyric, originally called the Orpheum) kicked off retail development uptown, and encouraged the Bay to relocate there (it was originally on Cordova Street, but was only a minor retailer there). The logistics were similar to the closure of Eaton's killing West Hastings and Woodwards as core shopping areas in more recent times.

Not that that has to do with Gastown and the waterfront, except by way of corporate attempts to kill small business and independently-developed communities. I don't think the Whitecaps are thinking in those terms, but the effect is the same.

The more I look at the stadium design the more I'm reminded of the steam plant on Beatty. Are we really so addicted to bland big-box futurism that we can't come up with anything better. Somewhere the term "bland" is used for the waterfront; but it applies equally to the stadium design.