A city of many communities, was proposed as the slogan for the New City of Hamilton.

The mantra was supposed to make people feel warm and fuzzy all over; like they belonged to something special and unique.

The ‘experts’ sold the amalgamation bill of goods on the premise that it would lower taxes, create better services, streamline bureaucracy and generate more accountability. It never happened.

The victorious amalgamation generals seized dowries from their bastard cousins.

A city of many communities. It sounded good at the time. Today, A city of many suburbs might be more appropriate.

As the rhetoric goes back and forth in the great debate over the location of a proposed stadium in Hamilton, there seems to be a lot of anger at the possibility this asset might be located in“the suburbs” of Stoney Creek/Hamilton mountain.

With the coveted west harbour site on the ropes, the foot soldiers of another downtown revitalization house of cards are coming out in full force to prop up a losing proposal.

Architects, young entrepreneurs, downtown social activists are teaming up together to slay the east mountain stadium dragon.

Their disdain for the “suburbs” is clear. Their messages are filled with loathing toward any other part of the city that might become home for this asset. To hear them talk, you’d almost expect to find “suburbs” in the dictionary of bad words.

Actually, if you dissect the word “suburb” it means sub (under) urbs (the city). In old England, those living outside the city were once considered lesser in status. The serfs if you will.

In a recent press release issued by a collection of Hamilton (I assume none of them have offices in the suburbs) architects, David Premi made the following statement on the alternate east mountain location recommended by facilitator Michael Fenn a few weeks ago.

“I don't see how the case for it can be substantive. Suburban stadiums don't work.”

Do I need to ask why they don’t work, or should I just take his word? I wonder if he’s ever operated a sports franchise?

Let’s look at some of the biggest, most profitable stadiums in North America.

The Staples Centre in Los Angeles has 13 highways leading to the complex, and 3,300 parking spaces. Forbes lists it as the most profitable stadium in North America.

The new Dallas Cowboys stadium is located well outside downtown Dallas, and actually in the neighbouring community of Arlington. There is no public transit in Arlington, so the only way to get to the stadium is walk or drive. There are 12,000 parking spaces. Cowboy Stadium is also considered one of the top-10 most profitable sports complexes in North America.

The owner of the Tampa Bay Rays baseball team says his team needs a new ballpark to succeed. A coalition of community members has recommended three new locations for a proposed stadium. Two of the three options are not in the City of St. Petersburg, where the team is currently located in the downtown area.

“We need to be in a location that is convenient for our fans to reach. And we need to be in a place that makes us attractive to the region’s businesses and community.”

Sounds a lot like the refrain of Tiger-Cats owner Bob Young, who has stressed that as the legacy tenant for the stadium, location is crucial and the west harbour doesn’t meet his criteria for operating a successful CFL franchise.

In major cities where downtown stadiums have been built, highway infrastructure and transit were already in place. That is not the case with the west harbour location. This is, in my opinion, the main reason why the west harbour is the wrong location for a stadium. But I’m no expert.

I’ve always believed the east mountain, taking advantage of the growing middle class residential community, existing highway infrastructure, and available space was the best location for the stadium.

But hey, when you’re just a serf, no one takes your ideas seriously. In Hamilton, us suburbanites are just pieces of meat for the ravenous lords of downtown.

A city of many communities -yeah, right.