Renditions of BMO Field expansion for the 2026 World Cup.

[RS]

Lots being said about the canopy at BMO Field here.

It's a completely separate entity from the stadium itself, as it was the last thing built and needed to be done over the course of a single MLS off-season. Hence the separate support beams (which are the least "weird" thing about them, IMO).

The reason the south end canopy is so high is to allow temporary seating to be put in for bigger events without obstructing the view of the field. If it was lower, the World Cup likely skips Toronto altogether.

BMO is what it is — a small, pre-fab stadium built in 9 months' time ahead of the U-20 WC 15 years ago that has since grown into the footprint that it's allowed to. It's strange looking and still very sparse in certain areas but the sightlines are superb, which matters most once you're inside.

[Free kick]

1 hour ago, costarg said:

Stade Saputo wasn't the designers fault, they had to leave that gap to respect zoning and viewing angles for the Olympic tower and the village. 

Saputo's biggest mistake and surely regret was spending that money on land that isn't his and being handcuffed by incompetent governments.  He had faith that the government would come around and see the benefit, instead they've done the opposite, and refuse to help in any way.  He's paying millions in property tax for land he doesn't own and a stadium that will be very difficult to renovate and/or expand.

Also,  When they were in the USL/A-league they had maybe the best attendance in the league.  That was achieved while playing out of Centre Claude Robillard.  They were drawing numbers that the Lynx could only envy.   That was located in a neighborhood that I felt was more in tune with the game.  That area where the Olympic stadium is located seems to struggle to attract fans.  

Edited June 21, 2022 by Free kick

[ECW]

1 hour ago, RS said:

Lots being said about the canopy at BMO Field here.

It's a completely separate entity from the stadium itself, as it was the last thing built and needed to be done over the course of a single MLS off-season. Hence the separate support beams (which are the least "weird" thing about them, IMO).

The reason the south end canopy is so high is to allow temporary seating to be put in for bigger events without obstructing the view of the field. If it was lower, the World Cup likely skips Toronto altogether.

BMO is what it is — a small, pre-fab stadium built in 9 months' time ahead of the U-20 WC 15 years ago that has since grown into the footprint that it's allowed to. It's strange looking and still very sparse in certain areas but the sightlines are superb, which matters most once you're inside.

True about all of this and I agree about the sight lines. The proximity of the lake is lovely too. 

On the previously spoken about mediocrity/lack of interest/will of Canadian architecture and design: English Canada doesn’t really do much traditionally “high” Euro culture well nor teach it nor know about it.

Those that practice it (the artists) certainly have had their moments but it’s an uphill slog especially when the projects are big and need general, cultural will and acknowledgement.

The occasional building, the National Ballet in the 1970’s, moments of the TSO under the rare ambitious conductor, yes but not in a sustained way.

We do (versions of) interesting pop music, comedy, movies (but unfortunately only a briefly strong National scene c. ‘80s and ‘90s), some TV. And books/writing too. That might be the exception (if one thinks of a novel as high culture). I don’t think there is an architecture, design, visual art, classical music or jazz version of what happens with Canada Reads, for example (itself a populist thing). 

That the private sector is more successful sometimes than the public and MLSE mega wealthy ownership suggests a more impressive stadium… but football is not a strong part of the culture either. 

 

Edited June 21, 2022 by ECW

[vancanman]

15 hours ago, costarg said:

This is all so accurate that I can't tell if you studied BMO field for years with a team of experts and just released the findings or if the issues are just that blatantly obvious it took you 3 minutes to put together.  Either way, great work. 

Thank you.  It was the latter, unfortunately.  

[vancanman]

11 hours ago, Free kick said:

I dont't know.  You mean like Ikea?   Unscrew a few bolts and out pops the roof.   I am no engineer either, so you might be right but i would think you have to tear down the roof and build the grandstands, then add a new roof. 

Careful with such practical ideas.  Someone might accidentally design a roof that covers more than 27 people.  As it is, that "roof" covers only about the last three rows.

[vancanman]

13 hours ago, RS said:

Lots being said about the canopy at BMO Field here.

It's a completely separate entity from the stadium itself, as it was the last thing built and needed to be done over the course of a single MLS off-season. Hence the separate support beams (which are the least "weird" thing about them, IMO).

The reason the south end canopy is so high is to allow temporary seating to be put in for bigger events without obstructing the view of the field. If it was lower, the World Cup likely skips Toronto altogether.

BMO is what it is — a small, pre-fab stadium built in 9 months' time ahead of the U-20 WC 15 years ago that has since grown into the footprint that it's allowed to. It's strange looking and still very sparse in certain areas but the sightlines are superb, which matters most once you're inside.

You didn't respond to my post, nor did you quote me directly, but you seem to be replying to me indirectly, so...

"the separate support beams (which are the least "weird" thing about them)"  Them?  Which "them" are you talking about?

"Lots being said about the canopy at BMO Field here." [sic]  You've hit the nail on the head.  One roof, two canopies and one end with nothing to put a roof on.  A canopy may work, or a camping rain shield or a yurt perhaps.

OK, so the thing over the south stand was built too high to function because there might be a temporary tier behind it someday.  In that case, why go to the expense of building it at all?  It's three floors above the stand that it covers.  It's like walking in the rain holding a dollar store umbrella up as high as you can.

Yes, it's strange-looking, mostly because it's missing a stand, and two of the roofs seem to serve no purpose.  

Edited June 22, 2022 by vancanman

[Greatest Cockney Rip Off]

I never understood why they added the three roofs/canopies. It seems like a very very expensive box ticking exercise. They don’t offer any protection from the elements or seem to serve any other function than just being there. What am I missing?

As an aside, I do miss the old north stand. There was a point when outside of the south end, they were the cheapest tickets at BMO, so I relocated there. Then it might have been the following season or the season after they went up massively in price so I switched back to the east side. 

[Unnamed Trialist]

Folks arguing "good sight lines" in a stadium with straight stands down to deep in each corner? 

Let me tell you something: if you're sitting in the corner and your seat is facing towards the centre of the field, meaning you are not craning your neck to watch midfield play, you are in a stadium with good sight lines. 

[gigi riva]

BMO is not perfect. It is the only Soccer specific staduim  of all the chosen venues  with the exception  of the Mexican  venues. It has some decent public transportation  (Mind you they better build another tunnel at the Exibition Go Stop ) some of the American ones like Sofi in LA and AT&T IN Arlington have none . will be interesting to see what they do come expansion time

[RS]

6 hours ago, vancanman said:

You didn't respond to my post, nor did you quote me directly, but you seem to be replying to me indirectly, so...

"the separate support beams (which are the least "weird" thing about them)"  Them?  Which "them" are you talking about?

"Lots being said about the canopy at BMO Field here." [sic]  You've hit the nail on the head.  One roof, two canopies and one end with nothing to put a roof on.  A canopy may work, or a camping rain shield or a yurt perhaps.

OK, so the thing over the south stand was built too high to function because there might be a temporary tier behind it someday.  In that case, why go to the expense of building it at all?  It's three floors above the stand that it covers.  It's like walking in the rain holding a dollar store umbrella up as high as you can.

Yes, it's strange-looking, mostly because it's missing a stand, and two of the roofs seem to serve no purpose.  

I didn't quote you directly because you're not the only one in this thread to mention the canopy/ies. You were one of a few people I was replying to.

I used the word canopy because that's the exact term used by the stadium owners and stadium management to describe it/them.

As for sightlines, unless you've actually been inside the stadium you can't really have an informed opinion of it. "Not having to ever turn your head to watch a match involving 22 players running around in all directions" isn't really a proper criterion for judgement.

[RS]

5 hours ago, Greatest Cockney Rip Off said:

They don’t offer any protection from the elements or seem to serve any other function than just being there.

This is patently false.

I can't believe I'm defending the robo-stadium build, but they do offer a lot of protection on the west and east sides, south less so.

[Greatest Cockney Rip Off]

12 minutes ago, RS said:

This is patently false.

I can't believe I'm defending the robo-stadium build, but they do offer a lot of protection on the west and east sides, south less so.

I’ve sat in the west stand and was rained on. 

[king1010]

12 minutes ago, Greatest Cockney Rip Off said:

I’ve sat in the west stand and was rained on. 

first or second level? 

[narduch]

They have more info about the expansion here:

https://www.bmofield.com/events/fifa26

Looks like they will solve the video board problem with little video boards at the corners:

[narduch]

They have some blueprints too:

[Greatest Cockney Rip Off]

2 hours ago, king1010 said:

first or second level? 

First 

[CCrTFC]

Well, that's disappointing. Looks like the 17,000+ seats are going to be entirely temporary. Lame.

This company does seem to know what they're doing at least https://arenagroup.com/

[Obinna]

1 hour ago, CCrTFC said:

Well, that's disappointing. Looks like the 17,000+ seats are going to be entirely temporary. Lame.

This company does seem to know what they're doing at least https://arenagroup.com/

That is lame. I was hoping at least a fraction of that would be permanent. It would be cool for BMO to be at least 40k. However, the current capacity is just about right for the crowds Toronto FC get, but from the national team perspective I would like us playing in a bigger stadium, and I would like that stadium to ideally not have turf.....

[Obinna]

No mention of it being permanent or temporary, but they do mention construction will start in 2024. Seems like a long lead up time for a temporary structure, no? Could TFC possibly play in an expanded BMO in 2025 or 2026? That would be kind of fun to see.

[vancanman]

6 hours ago, RS said:

1.  I didn't quote you directly because you're not the only one in this thread to mention the canopy/ies. You were one of a few people I was replying to.

2.  I used the word canopy because that's the exact term used by the stadium owners and stadium management to describe it/them.

3.  As for sightlines, unless you've actually been inside the stadium you can't really have an informed opinion of it. "Not having to ever turn your head to watch a match involving 22 players running around in all directions" isn't really a proper criterion for judgement.

1.  Most of your comment that I replied to was talking about things that I had mentioned earlier, and most of the things I had mentioned, you replied to.

2.  At least they're being honest not calling them roofs.

3.  I think your paragraph about sight lines was intended for someone else.

I don't want to get into an internet argument with someone I've never met.  If you'd like to just answer the questions I raised about the west stand and the south stand, that would be great.  Otherwise, let's just agree to disagree.

Thank you

EDIT:  At least BMO looks like a football stadium (unless you happen to catch a glimpse of the north end) and it has grass.  I can't wait until there's a thread about how they plan to put grass in BC Place.  

Edited June 22, 2022 by vancanman

[RS]

33 minutes ago, vancanman said:

1.  Most of your comment that I replied to was talking about things that I had mentioned earlier, and most of the things I had mentioned, you replied to.

2.  At least they're being honest not calling them roofs.

3.  I think your paragraph about sight lines was intended for someone else.

I don't want to get into an internet argument with someone I've never met.  If you'd like to just answer the questions I raised about the west stand and the south stand, that would be great.  Otherwise, let's just agree to disagree.

Thank you

EDIT:  At least BMO looks like a football stadium (unless you happen to catch a glimpse of the north end) and it has grass.  I can't wait until there's a thread about how they plan to put grass in BC Place.  

I used your post as a jumping off point, but as you noticed it wasn't only your post I was responding to.

Not looking for an argument either, just a discussion. No biggie. (What did you ask about the west and south stands?)

[Joe MacCarthy]

41 minutes ago, vancanman said:

 I can't wait until there's a thread about how they plan to put grass in BC Place.  

Yeah, that is going to be real interesting.  I hope they've been on the phone to Guelph, Michigan State and some groundskeepers in Germany to start figuring it out because there are a lot of issues there.

[Unnamed Trialist]

9 hours ago, RS said:

I didn't quote you directly because you're not the only one in this thread to mention the canopy/ies. You were one of a few people I was replying to.

I used the word canopy because that's the exact term used by the stadium owners and stadium management to describe it/them.

As for sightlines, unless you've actually been inside the stadium you can't really have an informed opinion of it. "Not having to ever turn your head to watch a match involving 22 players running around in all directions" isn't really a proper criterion for judgement.

You're being a stooge (BMO lackey?) and treating us like idiots. 

And yes, the comment about good sight lines was eminently foolish. 

Edited June 22, 2022 by Unnamed Trialist

[Unnamed Trialist]

1 hour ago, Joe MacCarthy said:

Yeah, that is going to be real interesting.  I hope they've been on the phone to Guelph, Michigan State and some groundskeepers in Germany to start figuring it out because there are a lot of issues there.

They'll just do a general consultation between FIFA, the WC technical committee and the stadiums that need grass. 

[RS]

13 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

You're being a stooge (BMO lackey?) and treating us like idiots. 

And yes, the comment about good sight lines was eminently foolish. 

Whatever you say.