CBC piece on BMO Field turf

[jpg75]

^ Wouldn't most of the leftover Mo Edu transfer money finance the grass?

[Richard]

Money is not the problem.

[Cheeta]

No mention of any plans for a replacement all-season football facility though they must have some plans in the work. Not one blade of grass goes down at BMO Field until the doors open on a year-round soccer facility for public use. You can bank on that. (Wonder if they're thinking of moving the existing FieldTurf into the required soccer facility or if that's even practical?)

Firm news MLSE is commited to financing pitch replacement AND Ali G signing next week. All in all a very positive article for the TFC crowd.

[kyam]

quote:Originally posted by Richard

Money is not the problem.

Yes, spending money is never the issue for MLSE...lol (especially given the Leafs failed attempts to 'buy' the Stanley Cup pre-lockout)

However, TFC & MLSE has been promising a DP for how long?

[RS]

quote:Originally posted by kyam

However, TFC & MLSE has been promising a DP for how long?

I hope we never get one, at least until the DP rule is rejigged so that it doesn't completely cripple a team's spending options.

[jpg75]

quote:Originally posted by Richard

Money is not the problem.

That wasn't my point. Anselmi said "we'll write the $3 million-plus cheque for (conversion)". He makes it sound like they're spending their own money when really the leftovers of the Edu transfer which cannot be spent on anything other than "Soccer development" (whatever that means) will cover it. $3.33M - 500K (Allocation) = $2.83M, so unless they spent alot of that money on the Academy - some of it could be a possibilty - then they should haven't to dig too deep into their pockets to pay for the grass and substitute fields at Lakeshore Arena.

[Richard]

quote:Originally posted by kyam

Yes, spending money is never the issue for MLSE...lol (especially given the Leafs failed attempts to 'buy' the Stanley Cup pre-lockout)

However, TFC & MLSE has been promising a DP for how long?

My point is, if MLSE was free to make the pitch surface switch with no conditions they would do it in a heartbeat, but that's not what's causing the delay. They need the stadium owner's consent (City of Toronto) to do it and that consent is contingent upon MLSE providing an alternative year-round community facility. Finding and securing the available, affordable, acceptable space to do it is what's holding up everything.

[RS]

From Paul Beirne, posted on the U-Sector board:

quote:We have told the league we want to earmark the Edu funds for a practice facility. For a good portion of the last year our intention was to build the new ground, move the community use obligations there and then put in grass. So the edu $ was tied to grass. It has since been rejected (never got to city council) because it was made clear to us that our proposal was going to be turned down. We've had to go back to the drawing board and separate the grass project from the practice facility.

Long answer to describe why the edu $ is not going towards grass.

We haven't asked the league on the assumption that improvements to facilities that don't belong to the team won't qualify.

[jpg75]

^ So MLS will not allow MLSE to use the transfer monies to improve a facility that the club does not own? What's the deal with the Lakeshore project then, are the Leafs refurbing city property?

So does MLSE need to find some land (preferably nearer to downtown T.O. to appease City council) and build a facility that they'll "own" to get the transfer money?

[Trillium]

quote:Originally posted by jpg75

^ So MLS will not allow MLSE to use the transfer monies to improve a facility that the club does not own? What's the deal with the Lakeshore project then, are the Leafs refurbing city property?

So does MLSE need to find some land (preferably nearer to downtown T.O. to appease City council) and build a facility that they'll "own" to get the transfer money?

MLSE needs to Pony up and buy the stadium from Toronto .. at Market value and pay the CNE a lease agreement for the land ( assuming the CNE actually owns the lands ).

With the millions for the stadium, Toronto Council can build twenty or thirty artifcial fields in Torontos less affluent boroughs.

Thats the win win.. in all this if the folks at MLSE want to do a real deal.

[jimmynow]

it's not clear whether TFC could buy BMO Field. The land it's on is part of the Exhibition Grounds, which is run by a board of directors that's appointed. From what i've read of their constitution, they can't go and sell off property to private interests. The Ex was bequeathed to the control of the city by the provincial government, with conditions that remain in law.

TFC will never own the stadium, and they probably don't want to, since it would add municipal taxes to their expenses if they did.

[earlimus]

quote:Originally posted by Trillium

MLSE needs to Pony up and buy the stadium from Toronto .. at Market value and pay the CNE a lease agreement for the land ( assuming the CNE actually owns the lands ).

With the millions for the stadium, Toronto Council can build twenty or thirty artifcial fields in Torontos less affluent boroughs.

Thats the win win.. in all this if the folks at MLSE want to do a real deal.

That sounds like a fantastic idea. I don´t really know how the mls/mlse works, but couldn´t Maple Leaf Entertainment buy the grounds from the city? The thought of Toronto using the money to build artificial turfs all over the city (for YEAR ROUND use) makes my mouth water. What a great opportunity for Canadian soccer that would be...

Anyone with more knowledge or facts on the details able to back up this idea?

[jpg75]

quote:Originally posted by Trillium

MLSE needs to Pony up and buy the stadium from Toronto .. at Market value and pay the CNE a lease agreement for the land ( assuming the CNE actually owns the lands ).

With the millions for the stadium, Toronto Council can build twenty or thirty artifcial fields in Torontos less affluent boroughs.

Thats the win win.. in all this if the folks at MLSE want to do a real deal.

From an MLSE standpoint that sounds like an extremely expensive solution to the problem, one that might run them into the 10's of millions of dollars. The far cheaper solution is to procure the land (in this case, not downtown it would be too expensive) for a practice facility and use league money to build it. Then use your own money to lay grass at BMO.

[RS]

TFC/MLSE CANNOT BUY BMO FIELD.

[john tv]

Hey did I not call this Turf war some years ago.Also backed it up with my anticipations etc.Now this,back to square one.Bad,good deal.Good for soccer bad for players and yes the comprimise is ,buy the joint and stick it to these anti soccer guys.What's the slogan " THIS IS MY LAND"...... WELL NOT YET.SO MLSE FIND A WAY TO BUY AS YOU DID WITH EVERYTHING ELSE AND YES SOCCER IN MANY MANY EYES IS HOLIER THAN...They simply have no schoice and besides it is a fantastic investment ,or cash cow.Bite that bullet and get this thing behind you and please all of us.

On the balance sheet it will appear as a master investment and hey that credit rating will be many many A's and thanks to soccer.

[RS]

Maybe I didn't make the text big enough, but here it is again:

TFC/MLSE CANNOT BUY BMO FIELD

No part of the buildings or land at Exhibition Place can be sold to private interest. This is written into the Ex Place constitution

If the City could have sold off any of that land, there would have been a wall of condo towers there ages ago.

[CoachRich]

quote:Originally posted by Richard

My point is, if MLSE was free to make the pitch surface switch with no conditions they would do it in a heartbeat, but that's not what's causing the delay. They need the stadium owner's consent (City of Toronto) to do it and that consent is contingent upon MLSE providing an alternative year-round community facility. Finding and securing the available, affordable, acceptable space to do it is what's holding up everything.

Very true as we are not only talking about giving the kids their AT somewhere else but most footy pitches usually need some sort of backup grass pitch for practices or AT. Hence that's more $ & space needed.

Once they have space if they are smart they will get enough space for complex. 2 AT's one in a building & the other bubble equipped. 2 other fields are grass. The complex is needed for the kids instead of BMO & like I said above TFC will probably need a practice grass field & maybe spare sod for their main field. Grass is expensive in both lay up & to be maintained.

If they get a good AT contractor they can have a AT down in 6 months. Building might take a bit longer.

How many times has Wembley been replaced? Don't they have 2 back sod fields?

Btw on the existing AT if they got the standard warranty they could be up for a replacement AT.

[john tv]

Rudi I am not blind and don't need that crap.capice.We live in a society that may have rules and regulations but they are and will be subject to change.If the MLSE guys put a proposal together that makes sense it will be discussed and ultimately will end up in Toronto City Hall.Votes have power and so do the fans.We get organized and the power of the people is the will of the people.So them against us and we have the numbers Rudi,you will be the leader in that fight,since I just appointed you.

[ottawaguy2009]

I almost wonder if it isn't better to just to build a whole new stadium all together. Watching "Goal" last night (yes it's a little corny but a good movie nonetheless) I gained a new appreciation for European stadiums.

Stadiums (as in Newcastle for example) are literally the centre pieces of major European cities' landscapes. They are the "jewel in the crown" for a city and its people.

Bernabeu, Stadio Olimpico, etc. are MASSIVE icons of architecture, sport, and culture.

BMO Field is a "starter" field. A parternship with the city, FieldTurf, only 20,000 seats, no proper roof, lack of acoustics (due to lack of roof), etc.

It's great for a club in it's third season. But come year 10 I would hope to see TFC in a 40,000 - 60,000 seater. Toronto needs a "jewel" like in Madrid or Rome or London. A massive, modern, 60,000 seat stadium that takes up 15 city blocks. A proper, state of the art facility modelled after the best stadiums in Germany, Japan, etc.

Hot water pipes underground, can keep the grass somewhat healthy during our winter season. Come May it would be full, green, and ready to go. The field would be reserved for TFC, our MNT, and perhaps a USL-1 team (it is likely Toronto would have one by 2017).

BMO Field is a starter field. Leave it for the city, for the CSL teams, for a future USL-1 squad, for the youth leagues. Let's build something that will last, that will make us proud, and that will look and sound like Madrid's Bernabeau on a Saturday night.

[john tv]

Great idea since we proved we have the fans and a huge waiting list for season ticket holders.Our potential will be at least a quaranteed 45000 seat stadium sold out for each game.A tremendous cash cow and if I had to do a cash flow forecast for the next twenty five years,the results will be mindboggling.The stdiuum will be paid for and more.Back to Downsview?

[Guest Jeffery S.]

quote:Originally posted by ottawaguy2009

I almost wonder if it isn't better to just to build a whole new stadium all together. Watching "Goal" last night (yes it's a little corny but a good movie nonetheless) I gained a new appreciation for European stadiums.

Stadiums (as in Newcastle for example) are literally the centre pieces of major European cities' landscapes. They are the "jewel in the crown" for a city and its people.

Bernabeu, Stadio Olimpico, etc. are MASSIVE icons of architecture, sport, and culture.

BMO Field is a "starter" field. A parternship with the city, FieldTurf, only 20,000 seats, no proper roof, lack of acoustics (due to lack of roof), etc.

It's great for a club in it's third season. But come year 10 I would hope to see TFC in a 40,000 - 60,000 seater. Toronto needs a "jewel" like in Madrid or Rome or London. A massive, modern, 60,000 seat stadium that takes up 15 city blocks. A proper, state of the art facility modelled after the best stadiums in Germany, Japan, etc.

Hot water pipes underground, can keep the grass somewhat healthy during our winter season. Come May it would be full, green, and ready to go. The field would be reserved for TFC, our MNT, and perhaps a USL-1 team (it is likely Toronto would have one by 2017).

BMO Field is a starter field. Leave it for the city, for the CSL teams, for a future USL-1 squad, for the youth leagues. Let's build something that will last, that will make us proud, and that will look and sound like Madrid's Bernabeau on a Saturday night.

I think you are right in saying they missed the point, and that if you don't go for symbolic power and iconic effect these days you are missing the boat on what the building can mean for a city. But you are also confusing a few things, partially on the basis of misinformation about iconic stadiums, and possibly because you are just not expressing the urban questions with accuracy.

First, a lot of world stadiums in important places are symbolic, have a place in the landscape, are "jewels" in urban terms. Many more are not. In fact many mythical stadiums are terrible from the outside and do not at all reflect their grandeur in football terms on their façades or their urban placement. Anfield is a classic example, so is San Mamés in Bilbao, known as the Cathedral in Spain, but not because of what you see on the outside. It is all within, and in the imagination, because these are not attractive buildings. Properly speaking they should be torn down (and there are plans for both in fact) not because of the football experience inside, but because of capacity and of the need to create other urban values with them.

Second, many of the stadiums with symbolic power in the urban landscape are not in the city centre, and are thus not properly integrated in the urban flow. Almost better, as a major stadium taking up a huge chunk of land can also kill off the immediate area when not in use, and put stress on it when in use. All the classic Olympic stadiums (Rome, Barcelona, Berlin) and the national stadiums (Wembley, Saint Denis) are out of town. If they have public transport, parking, are not too far out, have some relation to some urban space, then all the better.

BC Place is in fact quite exceptional in this regard.

But it actually does not make sense to use expensive urban land for a stadium unless you are reconverting large industrial tracts and have enough to spare, because urban land's real value is in creating housing and, secondarily, office and commercial space.

BMO is downtown, which is great. The view from it is better than the view of it. It does not impress as a piece of architecture. It is within reasonable budget limits, and only with maybe double or triple the budget more could it have been a 30,000 seater with an impressive architecture, like what you saw in Korea-Japan, recently in Germany.

In Canada in general, we are not focussed on such questions, we do not calculate in these factors, or at least we have problems doing so because of populist politics, puritanical reductionism and lack of creative culture in the public sphere. Which is why, when we finally do decide to build a structure for public use, a museum or stadium or public service like a library, we end up screwing up over and over again, coming up with ugly functionality (Saputo, BMO) or kitschy expressionism (the Vancouver Public Library), none of which add symbolic value to or could much less mean a tourist attraction for the cities in question.

[john tv]

I guess we could put a fan suggestion list together which will incorperate all the whishes including architectual, historical content and world appeal.A roof is certainly a big must.There are presently quite a few shortcomings in this stadium aside from the field and lack of roof.Anyway I am getting way ahead of myself.

[Richard]

I agree with much of what you say about stadiums Jeffery S. but I take exception to your remark about the Vancouver Public Library which is a beautiful and extremely functional building. Now the latest addition to the AGO would be a far better example of kitschy expressionism, talk about wrecking the beauty of a classic piece of existing architecture.

Part of the problem that resulted in the kind of facility BMO Field is, is that the money was grudgingly provided by governments who understandably believed they were taking a huge risk - who knew MLS would be as popular and profitable in Canada as it is turning out to be? There certainly were no private investors anxious to pony up the money at that point. Saputo Stadium was built on the 'cheap' for a USL team. We can look forward to a new Whitecaps stadium finally beginning to be what we are all hoping for, eventually.

[Guest Jeffery S.]

quote:Originally posted by Richard

I agree with much of what you say about stadiums Jeffery S. but I take exception to your remark about the Vancouver Public Library which is a beautiful and extremely functional building. Now the latest addition to the AGO would be a far better example of kitschy expressionism, talk about wrecking the beauty of a classic piece of existing architecture.

Part of the problem that resulted in the kind of facility BMO Field is, is that the money was grudgingly provided by governments who understandably believed they were taking a huge risk - who knew MLS would be as popular and profitable in Canada as it is turning out to be? There certainly were no private investors anxious to pony up the money at that point. Saputo Stadium was built on the 'cheap' for a USL team. We can look forward to a new Whitecaps stadium finally beginning to be what we are all hoping for, eventually.

Richard, take my word: the VPL is an international architectural joke, it is pathetic. A fake Roman ruin, the absolutely worst example of postmodern referencing of historical motifs. Pure kitsch, but unfortunately not presented as such, not meant as a joke (which would have redeemed it, at least conceptually). This was defended seriously for its symbolic meaning.

And of course the public voted for it, logical. Ask Vancouverites to vote about green space, beaches, school facilities, but don't ask them to choose a design for a piece of architecture as the general public everywhere has no idea, and in Vancouver they made themselves a laughingstock.

If you like it you are free to have your opinion of course. You are free to tell us that Subway make the best sandwiches too, or that BC wine is as good as French. Or that American cars are the most reliable. Or that Harper has a good barber.

The really nice building was the old public library, that was a higher quality piece of architecture for all its functional limitations. But you are free to disagree, don't let professional opinions get in your way, that is what is so great about contemporary society.

[john tv]

Just copy the Arena in Amsterdam,but ensure that the field will be ok.I suspect they have that problem under control.