All sorts of ways to go to the stadium! Oh, and the last last one you might consider is a car.
Echoing Policy Frog, I thought that Bartley Kives demolished the stadium cum development notion. We need people to live in the city, not commute here 9 times a year for a football game. But, I thought that the better comment came from Gordon Sinclair:
“The answer is I’m on the side of the place and the people who live and do business there. I’m also in favour of developing it for the common good of the place and the people.
And, yes, the rest of the city.
I don’t consider erecting an elephantine, once-in-a-while football stadium to be compatible or even good for a historic area that has enormous potential as a vital and fascinating post-industrial neighbourhood.”
You should read the article in full. I think that it highlights the dangers of laws of expropriation. My little bro is now a lawyer and is all for them, but to my mind this will be a disaster for the people who’s homes will be taken.
2 responses so far ↓
“Bizarre” Stadium plan doesn’t have “any redeeming features” « Don Street Blog // July 20, 2008 at 7:34 pm |
[...] of good things to say about our downtown re-development. It’s good to hear that they also agree with Don Street on the [...]
Always Leave Em Wanting More « Don Street Blog // December 31, 2008 at 2:23 pm |
[...] density, the need for downtown housing, better transportation, and other downtown issues - see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. I’ve [...]