ottawaguy2009 Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 GRASS AT BMO FOR 2010 or 2011? http://tsn.ca/soccer/story/?id=281575 I still feel that this is the wrong way to go about it. BMO Field should be left as is. It's a community facility. It's amateur. It's inadequate. No roof. They might as well leave it as is and start work on a new one for 2014 or something. Not sure where the money would come from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Jeffery, the VPL is there to serve the citizens of Vancouver both functionally and esthetically which it does admirably, it is not there to satisfy the professional egos of an architectural elite. Referring to it as a laughing stock says more about you and your attitude by far than it does about the library. I think the addition to the AGO in Toronto is a horrendous joke, I note you refrained from comment. And Subway sandwiches have their place too, just ask the many, many people who patronise Subway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottawaguy2009 Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S. 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. That's why I said we should model them after the better looking ones. The state of the art ones. Kashima Stadium (Japan), Fenerbahce Stadium (Turkey), etc. http://www.1resimler.com/data/media/1265/fenerbahce-stadyumu.jpg They hold 40,000+ people. They look great on the urban landscape. Canada has yet to build a proper, state-of-the-art soccer specific stadium to host international games, etc. It might as well go in Toronto as T. is the biggest city. And TFC might as well play there as well. I think even MORE fans would go to TFC mathces just for the experience: the atmosphere of 40,000 people chanting/cheering/singing in a semi-enclosed stadium would be incredible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john tv Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Nothing beats those mountains.So anything else won't look right no matter what. Living in Barca and relating this to V is not fair either.Nothing in N America looks like Europe and should not,after all that place is a little older. It is so funny and so extremelay amazing.I needed a new roof and thought why not a bright red one.Well they simpy do not exist and from what i gathered that Europen look is a no no.I settled for a dark red roof and driving by Loblaws,,shell stations,Home depot,Shoppers drug market and many others i feel robbed.Yes sometimes things make you wonder.What is going on.No bright red or even Orange roofs,yet they look so refreshing and beats that dark dull look hands down. Yes nothing beats 40.000 ppeople singing at a soccer match.The boys who now run soccer are not soccer fans,just money fans who I am sure are till gasers as well.That return on your investment is talk they understand and the principals of a direct free kick still very woozy. Ultimately that large soccer stadium will be build and the till gasers will be wringing their hands.It is all a matter of time,but in my life time,woops who knows.So you young bucks have fun realizing that you are rewriting history and soccer will rule in the summer time on scales never experienced in Canada.Have fun dreaming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Richard Jeffery, the VPL is there to serve the citizens of Vancouver both functionally and esthetically which it does admirably, it is not there to satisfy the professional egos of an architectural elite. Referring to it as a laughing stock says more about you and your attitude by far than it does about the library. I think the addition to the AGO in Toronto is a horrendous joke, I note you refrained from comment. And Subway sandwiches have their place too, just ask the many, many people who patronise Subway. Elites, Richard, are elites because their opinions have been tried in the midst of competition. This is what happens with winning soccer teams too, they are elites, and they prove themselves. Don't hide behind false populism or democracy, because it is a sure way to destroy the values of a culture. The VPL was not elitist, it was given up to amateurism, and the results are obvious. And obviously, as a member of an educated, practising, teaching and informed elite, I can make an opinion accordingly, it is my responsiblity in fact. Now if someone who is informed wants to argue the contrary, and many will, that is fine, I hash it out every day with peers who I think are nuts, but your arguments have no interest for me. It is like me telling you how to run a website, I don't because I have some respect for knowledge, for hard-won knowledge, and you should too. As for functionality, stick the library in any abandonned WalMart and you'd have functionality, but that is not the point. It is a total joke, but by defending it you effectively advance a society that builds terrible looking buildings in high profile public places and wastes public and private money by doing so, because such buildings add nothing to the symbolic value of the city they are found in. They may work, like most Canadian stadiums minimally work, but they are like poultry fed on soy, fish farmed on soy, beef beefed up with soy, veggie patties made with soy: you are eating soy protein every day and just because you don't actually die from it you call it good food. And it's not. BTW, I agree the AGO does not work, but I happen to know the process of what happened there from the very start, I spoke to Jim Fleck the AGO president years ago, when he was just dreaming of getting Gehry in. And it made sense, on paper, because it was right to try to get him back to Canada, and the Guggenheim experience was fresh. But the clients blew it by asking him to go all out like he did in Bilbao, and Gehry blew it by imitating himself. So Toronto does not get what they wanted. Mind you, can you point to quality architecture in Toronto? How frequent is it? How daring is their urban planning? The real problem is that the failure of Gehry is on top of that, of the generally poor built culture there. While the problem with the VPL is that letting the public vote was a false democratic decision that gave us a kitschy monument to public stupidity, however functional. Let's try not to do that with any new stadium that gets built in Vancouver and come up with something with architectural value. Which those awful renderings of the Waterfront Stadium are totally lacking in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 quote:Originally posted by ottawaguy2009 That's why I said we should model them after the better looking ones. The state of the art ones. Kashima Stadium (Japan), Fenerbahce Stadium (Turkey), etc. http://www.1resimler.com/data/media/1265/fenerbahce-stadyumu.jpg They hold 40,000+ people. They look great on the urban landscape. Canada has yet to build a proper, state-of-the-art soccer specific stadium to host international games, etc. It might as well go in Toronto as T. is the biggest city. And TFC might as well play there as well. I think even MORE fans would go to TFC mathces just for the experience: the atmosphere of 40,000 people chanting/cheering/singing in a semi-enclosed stadium would be incredible. I agree 100% that the place for a stadium like you are talking about is Toronto, a beautiful state-of-the-art building for 40 grand or more, in Toronto. A landmark, and put a good Canadian soccer museum in there and attract visitors even when games are not being played. With the money from the renovations at BC Place we could pay for it (the guys in Van are going to kill me for this, but I think it is a funny idea: can Whitecaps MLS and use the money for a national stadium in our most important city.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Jeffery, just because you consider yourself part of an informed elite does not automatically make your opinion universally correct, it is merely one man's view no matter what inflated opinion you may hold of yourself. The VPL is a beautiful and functional building which adds to the character of the city, can't say that of many of the other cookie cutter structures in downtown Vancouver designed by elitist architects. Then again that's merely my opinion and I don't denigrate others as ignorant and uninformed if they disagree with me. And you have no idea what my professional background is so be careful or you might make an ass of yourself, again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 "With the money from the renovations at BC Place we could pay for it (the guys in Van are going to kill me for this, but I think it is a funny idea: can Whitecaps MLS and use the money for a national stadium in our most important city.)" Except that money is coming from the sale of provincially owned land in Vancouver - on what grounds could you possibly attempt to justify spending it on a stadium in Toronto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john tv Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Come on guys I am happy you are ignoring me and that is fine or maybe rude,but here it is,Vancouver looks beatifull and no matter how that library looks it seems it was the will of the people.When I go shopping it is amazing how people pick cloths or cars.The fibric of choice is dictated by many variables.Even wines have different clients.the greatness of life.In my business our designs are in my opinion second to none and yet I wonder about the choices of our customers. We try to help.suggest show and rationalize but ultimately it is the customer choice.Weird sometimes but a real fact. Our kitchens are masterpieces but all are different. So boys relax there it is,that great choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 John, 'twas ever thus... the esthetes really do believe they always know better than the rest of us common, uninformed folk. I don't have a problem with Jeffery holding a different opinion from that which I hold, I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but I do take exception to the patronising, superior tone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyam Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 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. Have you ever been to Toronto? The Old AGO was ugly. Anything is an improvement from the previous out-of-date and cold building... For me, Toronto's Cultural Renaissance included 4 key pieces of architecture. The Four Seasons Centre of the Performing Arts, the Ontario College of Art and Design (the building that looks like it is on stilts), the AGO and the ROM. I considered all the buildings improvements from the their predecessors. The only building that was considered controversial by popular opinion would have been the ROM... certainly not the AGO. For people who still wished they were in the Stone Ages, the ROM Reno's changed a beautiful historical building for the worst (but for the new generation, its an improvement) I agree, the AGO's new Reno's are relatively plain. In fact, I was disappointed, but it certainly did not get worst! Personally, I don't find the VPL any more impressive. It is functional, but so is the Bennett Library at SFU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 "The Old AGO was ugly." You're welcome to your opinion, I just don't happen to agree with you and yes, I lived in Toronto for some years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Regs Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 quote:Jeffery, just because you consider yourself part of an informed elite does not automatically make your opinion universally correct, it is merely one man's view no matter what inflated opinion you may hold of yourself.Pot, meet kettle. LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brettinhalifax Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 A jewel? A landmark? State of the art? 40,000 plus? A roof? Sounds like you guys are talking about Skydome. As to BMO, why would MLSE buy the cow when they are getting the milk for free? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottawaguy2009 Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 quote:Originally posted by john tv Nothing beats those mountains.So anything else won't look right no matter what. Living in Barca and relating this to V is not fair either.Nothing in N America looks like Europe and should not,after all that place is a little older. It is so funny and so extremelay amazing.I needed a new roof and thought why not a bright red one.Well they simpy do not exist and from what i gathered that Europen look is a no no.I settled for a dark red roof and driving by Loblaws,,shell stations,Home depot,Shoppers drug market and many others i feel robbed.Yes sometimes things make you wonder.What is going on.No bright red or even Orange roofs,yet they look so refreshing and beats that dark dull look hands down. Yes nothing beats 40.000 ppeople singing at a soccer match.The boys who now run soccer are not soccer fans,just money fans who I am sure are till gasers as well.That return on your investment is talk they understand and the principals of a direct free kick still very woozy. Ultimately that large soccer stadium will be build and the till gasers will be wringing their hands.It is all a matter of time,but in my life time,woops who knows.So you young bucks have fun realizing that you are rewriting history and soccer will rule in the summer time on scales never experienced in Canada.Have fun dreaming. Whoa. One sec man. Money is waht makes the world go round unfortunately. How come English investors aren't stepping up to the plate to save their beloved clubs? Why are rich American tycoons, Russian billionaires and Icelandic banks doing the job? These people aren't always soccer fans. But they have money and they took Economics 101. Just because John Doe goes to every game, has the home and away kits, and has a miniature replica of Old Trafford in his backyard (complete with sponsor decals and all) doesn't mean he has the $$$ to support his team where it counts - financially. I want the game to grow in Canada. We'll take whoever we can get at this point to support the MLS/CSL/USL, etc. Without their money we might as well just play pick up soccer at the park for the rest of our lives... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Regs Pot, meet kettle. LOL! How do you do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trident Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 I don't mind Saputo looking like it does...pump up the Capacity to the 20k's, and it'll be good enough. Plenty of stadiums are ugly and have character. Maine Road had aluminium siding, blue and grey, all rusted in parts, but I think most city fans appreciate the look of that over the current one. I like SS...ten years of that terrace will lead to some good history, after the remodel it'll be good enough for the next 20-25 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earlimus Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 You guys should start a different thread for architecture I think, jajaja. Rrrreeellllaaaaxxxx. Ok. So I´ve read some great comments here (by all) concerning the possibilities of building a whole new stadium altogether. Is there any way that we could pool the resources of the Voyageurs and hold a vote to see if we want to move in the direction of petitioning MLSE for a whole new stadium in the future???? Some of you guys have a lot of great stats on all things Canadian soccer. Just how big is the waiting list for TFC? If the demand is really here to support a 30,000-40,000 seater then that should be enough to get the ball rolling, no? As Ottawaguy stated these things pay for themselves when you´re selling every seat for games. This is no doubt a thing for the future, but something that could truly solve all of our BMO problems while creating so much more. Like someone here said before, BMO was built the way it was (and rightly so) because of the conditions of soccer here in Toronto pre-TFC. Things have certainly changed, haven´t they? Now, does anyone here have any facts on what MLSE pocket in a financial year? I´ve no idea but I bet they could bankroll the whole thing, including buying the land. I figure that they owe Torontonians that after ass-raping us for the last 40 years. So... who´s with me? We haven´t got anything big done together since helping fire Mitchell and I´m itching for a little revolution. Thoughts??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Richard "With the money from the renovations at BC Place we could pay for it (the guys in Van are going to kill me for this, but I think it is a funny idea: can Whitecaps MLS and use the money for a national stadium in our most important city.)" Except that money is coming from the sale of provincially owned land in Vancouver - on what grounds could you possibly attempt to justify spending it on a stadium in Toronto. Boy are you ever reactionary at times Richard. And as for arrogance, insisting on the VPLs beauty: is your sister the director or something? I have no vested interest in giving my professional opinion, I have nothing against the architect either, like Gehry, Safdie is a Canadian architect who has done good things, and others things quite terribly. It is no shame to say so, and that is not elitist, it is simply a question of informing yourself, having some basis of comparison, acquiring literacy in the subject, and then expressing an opinion. Does anyone on this board think that someone who knows something should NOT give their opinion about it? If so, you are definitely in the wrong place. If you like that embarrassment you are perfectly free to do so, but as for arrogance, your insistence on how great it is is equally so, with one difference. You happen to be less literate in the subject than I am, that is all. You are dictating an opinion that is based on a lot less than I am, which is why you win. On the BC Place question: do you understand that when a person says they are joking it is actually a joke or are deliberately trying to prove you are also illiterate when it comes to the written language? This thread is about building a quality stadium in Canada that is not make-shift, underfunded, done on the cheap so the bolts fall out as soon as you occupy it, and undercapacity. And that is not ugly as sin or crappy looking from the start. It is about making it attractive as well, adding something extra to it, to make a city proud of it, to make it visitable even when there is no game on, to make fans feel proud about going there, a point of civic and sporting pride. Worth putting on a postcard if such things exist anymore. Very few of our stadiums have any of that, and if they did they have had trouble sustaining it. We are not talking about a white elephant at an exhorbitant cost. We are talking about spending a bit more to get a bit more, and that part of the cost has to go to getting a good architect to work with intelligent city planners and tenants to get the maximum out of the investment. In Canada we do not have single clear success story in this regard, and that is a mark against us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottawaguy2009 Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S. Boy are you ever reactionary at times Richard. And as for arrogance, insisting on the VPLs beauty: is your sister the director or something? I have no vested interest in giving my professional opinion, I have nothing against the architect either, like Gehry, Safdie is a Canadian architect who has done good things, and others things quite terribly. It is no shame to say so, and that is not elitist, it is simply a question of informing yourself, having some basis of comparison, acquiring literacy in the subject, and then expressing an opinion. Does anyone on this board think that someone who knows something should NOT give their opinion about it? If so, you are definitely in the wrong place. If you like that embarrassment you are perfectly free to do so, but as for arrogance, your insistence on how great it is is equally so, with one difference. You happen to be less literate in the subject than I am, that is all. You are dictating an opinion that is based on a lot less than I am, which is why you win. On the BC Place question: do you understand that when a person says they are joking it is actually a joke or are deliberately trying to prove you are also illiterate when it comes to the written language? This thread is about building a quality stadium in Canada that is not make-shift, underfunded, done on the cheap so the bolts fall out as soon as you occupy it, and undercapacity. And that is not ugly as sin or crappy looking from the start. It is about making it attractive as well, adding something extra to it, to make a city proud of it, to make it visitable even when there is no game on, to make fans feel proud about going there, a point of civic and sporting pride. Worth putting on a postcard if such things exist anymore. Very few of our stadiums have any of that, and if they did they have had trouble sustaining it. We are not talking about a white elephant at an exhorbitant cost. We are talking about spending a bit more to get a bit more, and that part of the cost has to go to getting a good architect to work with intelligent city planners and tenants to get the maximum out of the investment. In Canada we do not have single clear success story in this regard, and that is a mark against us. Not trying to pick an argument but I would consider the CN Tower to be one such success. Anyways, hopefully we can have a nice 40 K stadium to go with that in the coming years. When 40,000 fans attend a game the city KNOWS when it's game day. Right now there's still quite a few people that are unaware of soccer in Toronto and TFC. In major European cities people leave work early to avoid INSANE traffic on game days (granted the city streets in Paris, Rome, and Istanbul are narrower and more cramped). The entire city (whichever) is in a frenzy on game day. Every proud Roman/Parisian/Istanbulite etc. wears their team's jersey on game day. Cell phone ring tones are team chants. And so on. A bigger stadium would attract new followers and generate interest. It would be impossible to live in Toronto and not know about TFC if 40,000 red-clad fans packed _______ Stadium every home game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saviola7 Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 I think people need to remember the context behind getting BMO field built (drag up the thread in which we followed the live broadcast of the City council's vote). When the stadium was built, it was not clear that TFC was going to be a success. I'm sure the councillors had the concrete tomb that is the Roger's Centre at the forefront of their mind when discussing it. So while we can all complain that it is too small or that it doesn't have a natural playing surface, we have to remember that there was a reasonable chance that the MLS in Toronto was going to flop (esp. given the numbers the Lynx were drawing at the time). The city just wanted to cover their arses. I think even now some people may be wondering if TFC is here to stay or if the novelty will wear off at some point. edit: thread is http://www.canadian-soccer.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8115&whichpage=1. Featuring the classic post by DoyleG: quote:In Affectionate Remembrance of CANADIAN SOCCER, which died at Toronto City Hall on 27th OCTOBER, 2005, Deeply lamented by a large circle of sorrowing friends and acquaintances R.I.P. N.B. — The body will be cremated and the ashes scattered at sea." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earlimus Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 I hear your point ^^^, but I don't think anyone is arguing about how BMO should have been built. Given all the facts I think the stadium is great and realistic. I merely would love to see us start to formalize a plan to push for a new stadium sometime in the future. While I don't think that soccer will ever recline again in Toronto, I do think it prudent to take it slow. However, with TFC sucking ass as much as they do (I'm a fan btw) and with the season ticket demand constantly on the uprise, I don't see how starting to get the ball rolling on a newer and better stadium that MLSE could own could hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 quote:Originally posted by ottawaguy2009 Not trying to pick an argument but I would consider the CN Tower to be one such success. Anyways, hopefully we can have a nice 40 K stadium to go with that in the coming years. When 40,000 fans attend a game the city KNOWS when it's game day. Right now there's still quite a few people that are unaware of soccer in Toronto and TFC. In major European cities people leave work early to avoid INSANE traffic on game days (granted the city streets in Paris, Rome, and Istanbul are narrower and more cramped). The entire city (whichever) is in a frenzy on game day. Every proud Roman/Parisian/Istanbulite etc. wears their team's jersey on game day. Cell phone ring tones are team chants. And so on. A bigger stadium would attract new followers and generate interest. It would be impossible to live in Toronto and not know about TFC if 40,000 red-clad fans packed _______ Stadium every home game. Hi, I didn't make myself clear in the midst of my rant. I meant we don't have a successful soccer stadium in the country, and I would say we don't really have any highly successful stadiums in general, either. There are a few okay things out there. Our hockey arenas, even the modest ones for minor league play, are much better comparatively. Not surprising really. About size, well it is a risk. The problem with MLS is that no other teams are filling 40,000, so what are you supposed to do, be the only team doing it? Eventually you get the idea that your fans will lower themselves to the level of the others, everything will even out. You will end up being like them, because it is hard to be a permanent exception: TFC gets 32,000 out and the next best is 20 thousand? That would be hard to maintain, because you'd end up asking: what do we see that they don't? And if you are not a dominant winning team, the only answer would be "something in our bloody imagination". But okay, 20,000 is small, 40,000, if you can close off parts at times, upper decks or end zones, might be okay. In no case, however, will Canada ever have a soccer specific structure good enough to hold a men's world cup. Ever. So just don't get started on that anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 Didn't your mummy teach you never to say never! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earlimus Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 Here here! I'll never say never. I think that soccer will continue to grow. We're all a bunch of soccer-crazed dorks but the next generation is way more involved with every aspect of the sport then ours was or could be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.