Renditions of BMO Field expansion for the 2026 World Cup.

[Cblake]

Official renditions of BMO Field expansion for he 2026 World Cup have been released. In preparation they will add an additional 17,756 seats – bringing total capacity to 45,736 seats.

https://www.bmofield.com/events/fifa26?fbclid=IwAR0tdvDpVt-1ecQTZIqFm8MctRAdlvyB51PBRJwnH-_9b3wnAYN5BaLlz3U

Edited June 19, 2022 by Cblake

[smeghead]

that is Uuuuuugly. oh well

[Ally McCoist]

Is this going to be permanent?

[Shway]

And I thought St James Park looked weird. It’s a beauty compared to this.

[Approve My Account Pls]

Based off the renderings I'm going to assume most if not all of it is temporary

[Gian-Luca]

Could they not have done a rendering that at least showed the north end without a gigantic barrier from the south end obscuring the view? I'd like to see what the seating area at the lower level behind the goal would actually look like.

[toontownman]

Wait, what. So a whole portion of that end stand will have their view blocked (some completely) by that support beam? 

[Gian-Luca]

Just now, toontownman said:

Wait, what. So a whole portion of that end stand will have their view blocked (some completely) by that support beam? 

The south end's view of the field won't be blocked (their view of the north stands will be, but I trust they will be watching what is on the pitch than the opposite stands), what they drew looks very much like a souped-up version of the extra seats there in 2016 for the Grey Cup & MLS Cup final. It's just that they don't have a rendering of the north end of the stands from a proper angle that allows us to see exactly what's behind that goal which almost seems suspicious - why draw it from that vantage point which has a barrier blocking the view of the new seating/stands? It's the stands we want to see, as being the purpose of these renderings, we know what the pitch looks like already.

[Cblake]

1 hour ago, Gian-Luca said:

The south end's view of the field won't be blocked (their view of the north stands will be, but I trust they will be watching what is on the pitch than the opposite stands), what they drew looks very much like a souped-up version of the extra seats there in 2016 for the Grey Cup & MLS Cup final. It's just that they don't have a rendering of the north end of the stands from a proper angle that allows us to see exactly what's behind that goal which almost seems suspicious - why draw it from that vantage point which has a barrier blocking the view of the new seating/stands? It's the stands we want to see, as being the purpose of these renderings, we know what the pitch looks like already.

Plus looking at those renderings to me it looks like the current scoreboard at BMO Field would have to come down. It just two close to the field to allow for any significant expansion, temporary or otherwise to happen. I was in the temporary stand for the 2016 Grey Cup and in no way was my view of the field obstructed. This setup will not look the best by any means but it will serve its purpose. This is reality was the only way the World Cup was coming to Toronto for that matter. This country simply does not have the stadiums with all the hospitality amenities that the US has as a result of the NFL. There is reason why the 1994 World Cup is still the most attended all-time. 

Plus how can you not forget in Russia where there were stands that we completely outside of the stadium looking in. 

[frmr]

I know I'm going to offend a lot of Toronto-based members here who feel precious about BMO, but it's a tin can.

[TGAA_Star]

Looking at the designs they look good

[Greatest Cockney Rip Off]

Doesn’t look great but outside of knocking parts down and making permanent additions, it was always going to look a bit shit.

I know this is all in hindsight but when you think about all the money spent on the construction and upgrades of BMO over the years, imagine having that as a lump sum to build a really nice stadium at the start? Yes, it would been too big but it is fun to day dream. 

[ECW]

1 hour ago, Greatest Cockney Rip Off said:

Doesn’t look great but outside of knocking parts down and making permanent additions, it was always going to look a bit shit.

I know this is all in hindsight but when you think about all the money spent on the construction and upgrades of BMO over the years, imagine having that as a lump sum to build a really nice stadium at the start? Yes, it would been too big but it is fun to day dream. 

Yeah, the expansions have been large, expensive and, all the same, ugly and rudimentary… but it’s still great fun to attend a match. 
 

Helas, the Toronto buildings never built are often the best ones. My city specializes in tearing down good buildings, building ugly condos and botching major projects.

As Rick Salutin once put it, the Toronto temple of hockey, Maple Leaf Gardens, had “the aesthetics of a washroom”. 

[Unnamed Trialist]

Design in Canada is only mediocre, as is architecture. I am saying this as an art and design professional (I'm a historian and critic), one of my closest friends wrote a book on Canadian contemporary architecture. And we argued a lot about merits.

The standards are low and that includes user standards. If you don't have an overall demanding culture, users who expect some minimums, then those commissioning and paying also with some acumen, you are not going to get more from your design professionals. 

This affects public space, public buildings, and the ways space is designed to service them. 

Standards are much higher for private home interiors, no question. I find that domestic spaces are fairly good. Shops are improving significantly, after being terrible for decades (interior design of commerical outlets). Private standards are at one level, while public standards lag. 

We've seen renders for Saskatoon, relatively poor. Now BMO, not so good. The expectations out of Halifax are not overly optimistic. 

I appreciate that costs are very high in Canada, but we make design decisions that are not cheaper and then, the clients release renders like these without someone coming along and properly vetting.

Even most football fans have an intuitive sense of what looks good for a stadium. We may not have a benchmark for other things, but for a stadium, or a pitch, we do. Holes in the corners, or the inability to design a curved corner, these things make your hairs stand on end. Anything that is temporary that is not build solidly, built with structural integrity to last, will always look tinny. Even those dumbass tables in the concourses, right behind people's seats. 

[TOcanadafan]

6 hours ago, frmr said:

I know I'm going to offend a lot of Toronto-based members here who feel precious about BMO, but it's a tin can.

And that was the goal - to be built as cheaply as possible.  Fortunately it has an amazing pitch and some good sight lines.

The minute Canada won the bid, there should have been some plans for a ‘permanent’ larger National stadium in Toronto.  The game will continue to grow and at some point soon after the 2026 World Cup it’ll be warranted (for both TFC and the national team).

[Nello]

 

 

[SoccMan]

So no word if these renovations will be temporary or permanent. 

[Stoppage Time]

9 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Design in Canada is only mediocre, as is architecture. I am saying this as an art and design professional (I'm a historian and critic), one of my closest friends wrote a book on Canadian contemporary architecture. And we argued a lot about merits.

The standards are low and that includes user standards. If you don't have an overall demanding culture, users who expect some minimums, then those commissioning and paying also with some acumen, you are not going to get more from your design professionals. 

This affects public space, public buildings, and the ways space is designed to service them. 

Standards are much higher for private home interiors, no question. I find that domestic spaces are fairly good. Shops are improving significantly, after being terrible for decades (interior design of commerical outlets). Private standards are at one level, while public standards lag. 

We've seen renders for Saskatoon, relatively poor. Now BMO, not so good. The expectations out of Halifax are not overly optimistic. 

I appreciate that costs are very high in Canada, but we make design decisions that are not cheaper and then, the clients release renders like these without someone coming along and properly vetting.

Even most football fans have an intuitive sense of what looks good for a stadium. We may not have a benchmark for other things, but for a stadium, or a pitch, we do. Holes in the corners, or the inability to design a curved corner, these things make your hairs stand on end. Anything that is temporary that is not build solidly, built with structural integrity to last, will always look tinny. Even those dumbass tables in the concourses, right behind people's seats. 

What is your take on the Royal Museum BC replacement project in Victoria? In general?

 

[Cheeta]

^ ^ As long as the Argos are tenants at BMO it has to be temp.  Unless there are plans out there for a seperate venue for CFL, it's back to the old BMO after the Finals.

Honestly dont' know what could be done with that building to improve the look.  A think there are a lot of stadia out there with a certain charm to them, which were stitched together one stand a time (it feels like), BMO is not one of them.

[narduch]

1 hour ago, SoccMan said:

So no word if these renovations will be temporary or permanent. 

I read they haven't decided yet but are leaning to temporary.

Apparently it would only cost 2-3% more to make it permanent. 

Maybe they are waiting to see how successful the Insigne experiment is.

Or they want to find the Argos another home?

[Unnamed Trialist]

48 minutes ago, Cheeta said:

^ ^ As long as the Argos are tenants at BMO it has to be temp.  Unless there are plans out there for a seperate venue for CFL, it's back to the old BMO after the Finals.

Honestly dont' know what could be done with that building to improve the look.  A think there are a lot of stadia out there with a certain charm to them, which were stitched together one stand a time (it feels like), BMO is not one of them.

One end has fully curved corners, at least.

If they need to be able to have a longer setting for CFL, you adjust on one end only, not both. Does that decenter the centre seats (typical argument against having a temp stand only on one end)?

I guess it might. But it is not significant.

BMO also has a fake roof concept. It doesn't have a back so wind and rain can fly through, all sides.  It is more like a screen or weather blocker than a roof. So supposedly they think that curved wing effect is aesthetic, and that compensates its relatively poor utility. But poor utility and a design that does not communicate much even when they argue it does, that is a poorly projected idea.

Why can't you tie the entire building together with a continuous roof if you are not going to tie the stands together?

Edited June 19, 2022 by Unnamed Trialist

[Unnamed Trialist]

1 hour ago, Stoppage Time said:

What is your take on the Royal Museum BC replacement project in Victoria? In general?

Very long process from project to business plan to approval to projected completion in 2030. 

Extremely expensive, but costs in Canada are ridiculously high for major construction. I can accept a city like Victoria deserves to have some major facilities that do not correspond to the CP hotel era.

Closing for eight years and taking the collections on tour? Don't agree, they should set up a smaller provisional space to show singular and unique works and tell the basic story of BC, otherwise you are not fulfilling the public service properly. 

Still, the existing museum on the outside, since the additions to the early building, was a mess. The entrance looks a lot like a shopping mall, not helped by the cineplex-style signing. Neither monumental nor avant-garde. And so different from the Parliament, there is no dialogue IMO.

The access, with the irregular sets of stairs, not too inviting. I haven't been inside for a long time but I think visitors enjoyed the displays and were not put off by the museum galleries being outdated. People went, basically, regardless. Museum experiences often involve finding yourself in an outdated gallery, I think visitors understand this.

I can't speak to the technical need to redo the museum. Sounds like part of what is a real museum need is being used as the pretext to rewrite the narrative, which can be done without changing buildings at all. I agree the narrative, strongly colonial, should probably be rewritten. But that is the case for every museum in the world every 20-30 years, nothing is untouchable and the sacralization of anything in a museum usually means other objects and stories are being left out. Even a paleontology museum can be rewritten.

You often have to redo museums to get locals to go regularly, otherwise they are majority dependent on tourists, and then maybe school visits, and they become disengaged with the local community. Public programming can compensate only so much, but if the building is such that locals don't want to do a 2nd time, that is not good.

As for the architecture, the local partner Merrick has absolutely no identity at all, they do generic solutions for any kind of building, most of which looks like any other kind of building in Vancouver from the last 25 years or so.

The main architect John McAslan is good, they have done new museums and collections in Britain. They are also good combining an older structure with renewals. They are not gimmicky. Too bad there are no older industrial or heritage buildings in disuse in Victoria, or else not close enough to where they want the museum, near the Parliament Building. Some of the drawings suggesting the new space are handsome but you can't know until you see the detailed drawings, and I haven't. It looks like it has a strong use of light, combines very open spaces with more enclosed display areas, and is low on indigenous clichés which I am sick of (neo-longhouse style).

My personal view is that if you hire an architect with criteria you should let them decide the lines and look, and don't overargue that part. Canada sticks tons of consultants into the mix, there are dumb intermediate steps that end up killing off unique, character ideas, everything can get homogenised and you lose the point of hiring a leading architect in the first place. Then, inside, in terms of functionality, you can consult like hell, bug the architect about the heating system or the service area or storage, but leave them alone if they have a beautiful idea for the exterior.

If you build something new, hire someone good and go out on a limb. Hire someone from Indonesia or North Battleford, but hire well and to hell with jingoism. If you want to know what I mean, look at the Scottish Parliament, designed by Enric Miralles, who I knew fairly well (he died very young from a brain tumour). Now there is a building that has high character and a unique feel corresponding to its period (deconstructivist); some people may dislike it, but I think it is warm and ambitious-- but the real merit is that the client decided to accompany the architect in the adventure.

A risk with the museum in Victoria is that it will go through various provincial governments, and the bureaucrats and politicians will feel they have to get their noses into it, so it will only work if the architects stand their ground and tell the new dummies in office and their hacks to politely piss off.

Edited June 19, 2022 by Unnamed Trialist

[kacbru]

1 hour ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

BMO also has a fake roof concept.

This is really the most bizarre thing.  It is like they bought an off-the-shelf design for a shitty bus shelter and thought they could just scale it up for a stadium.  No protection from wind or rain, provides shade in bizarre places, and looks ugly.

[Free kick]

12 minutes ago, kacbru said:

This is really the most bizarre thing.  It is like they bought an off-the-shelf design for a shitty bus shelter and thought they could just scale it up for a stadium.  No protection from wind or rain, provides shade in bizarre places, and looks ugly.

Its not aesthetically good.  Moreso given that it covers three sides only.   That looks very strange in an aerial view.  Imaging someone from the other side of the world looking at this for the first time.  They're gonna think its an unfinished stadium

 

 

 

Edited June 20, 2022 by Free kick

[youllneverwalkalone]

I guess I count myself in the masses of mediocrity because I think it looks ok. I'm reminded of the words of the great Chicago architect Steve Albini who once said, "People say she's crazy, but I know a lot of people, and I think she's alright."