Renditions of BMO Field expansion for the 2026 World Cup.

[Jedi Ram]

Can we all get along? 

[Free kick]

17 hours ago, Greatest Cockney Rip Off said:

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?

 

I have been many times when it rained.  Never an issue for me and this includes a few times when sitting in different areas of the stadium. 

There were 38K for that 2nd leg of that 2016 eastern final when we had a Fall season rain (ie.: very uncomfortable weather to be outdoors) throughout most of the match.  Don't recall seeing anyone leave their seats.  And in that weather,  you bet, ppl would have scrambled out if they were getting rained on. 

 

PS.: For that game, I was in the first 5-10 rows of the west stand and in the middle of the pitch area. never felt a drop.  

Edited June 23, 2022 by Free kick

[Free kick]

3 hours 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. 

But it does have great sightlines & you feel close to the action .  There is not a bad seat in the house.   I have been to games involving the CMNT at many different stadiums in Canada over the years and i have seen a couple that had less than ideal sightlines. 

Edited June 23, 2022 by Free kick

[RS]

2 hours ago, Free kick said:

But it does have great sightlines & you feel close to the action .  There is not a bad seat in the house.   I have been to games involving the CMNT at many different stadiums in Canada over the years and i have seen a couple that had less than ideal sightlines. 

Stop being a stooge (BMO lackey) with your actual in-stadium experiences.

[vancanman]

On 6/23/2022 at 4:40 AM, RS said:

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?)

About the south stand, if the non-roof couldn't be built at a normal height, why build it at all.

About the west stand, why was that one built so high?

Thank you

Edited June 25, 2022 by vancanman
because I was typing without my glasses

[Unnamed Trialist]

If you haven't been to the sacred grounds of BMO, you're a dunce. Comprendiamo. 

[Unnamed Trialist]

Curved corners better than straight. Full wraparound better than gaps. 

No track. Shorter distance to field from all front rows. 

Front rows not at field level, up a couple metres. 

Steeper stands better than flat.

No towers or verticals blocking views, except for classic old stadiums where you might get the charm. 

Roofs and covers depending on habitual weather. 

Amenities. Ie, enough toilets to not have to wait so long you miss the 2nd half. 

If somehow acoustics are good, much better. 

Little more. 

[RS]

Someone's feeling are hurt.

[RS]

8 hours ago, vancanman said:

About the south stand, if the non-roof couldn't be built at a normal height, why build it at all.

About the best stand, why was that one built so high?

Thank you

South stand: The canopy still gives protection from the elements (it's a lot bigger than it appears on TV). It would obviously do better if it were lower, but it's still better than not being there at all.

West stand: The canopy is actually built at the same height and dimensions as the east, but the seating on the east side is higher. Presumably the cost to demolish and rebuild the existing press box at the top of the west was seen as too high to make the stands equal height, but I think it should have at least been considered for the World Cup as the press facilities are woefully inadequate even for MLS games. This would allow more (permanent) seating at the top of the stand as well.

I also believe that the seating in the upper west stand is less steep than upper east, so that's why there's the illusion that one canopy is higher than the other.

[Nick P]

The north stand upper level looks like it could be permanent with the lower level just being those removable racing seats to make way for the CFL endzone

[PopePouri]

14 minutes ago, RS said:

South stand: The canopy still gives protection from the elements (it's a lot bigger than it appears on TV). It would obviously do better if it were lower, but it's still better than not being there at all.

West stand: The canopy is actually built at the same height and dimensions as the east, but the seating on the east side is higher. Presumably the cost to demolish and rebuild the existing press box at the top of the west was seen as too high to make the stands equal height, but I think it should have at least been considered for the World Cup as the press facilities are woefully inadequate even for MLS games. This would allow more (permanent) seating at the top of the stand as well.

I also believe that the seating in the upper west stand is less steep than upper east, so that's why there's the illusion that one canopy is higher than the other.

I assume they would have had to remove the roof for those renos, so yeah, the costs would have inflated. I think it could have been spun by adding more seats and suites. If there was a time to do it, this was it.

Edited June 23, 2022 by PopePouri

[Shway]

I'll just say as a past season seat holder for Toronto FC....you guys are exaggerating the canopy and roofs covering from the elements a tad bit. It is sometimes like "holding a dollar store umbrella up high"...you won't get soaked but you'll still get wet.

I literally can say I've sat everywhere in the stadium, from field seats, box seats, to high up in the 200's and the sight-lines are second to none. (field seats are by far worst)

[Joe MacCarthy]

Just to be off topic for a second, while the reviews for BMO are, well, not so good, the early reviews of Ottawa's new arena seem to be of great acceptance.

[vancanman]

10 hours ago, RS said:

South stand: The canopy still gives protection from the elements (it's a lot bigger than it appears on TV). It would obviously do better if it were lower, but it's still better than not being there at all.

West stand: The canopy is actually built at the same height and dimensions as the east, but the seating on the east side is higher. Presumably the cost to demolish and rebuild the existing press box at the top of the west was seen as too high to make the stands equal height, but I think it should have at least been considered for the World Cup as the press facilities are woefully inadequate even for MLS games. This would allow more (permanent) seating at the top of the stand as well.

I also believe that the seating in the upper west stand is less steep than upper east, so that's why there's the illusion that one canopy is higher than the other.

It's surprising to me that being so close to a gigantic lake, that rain always falls straight down in Toronto, instead of being blown northward from the lake.

To me, it doesn't look as if one 'canopy' is higher than the other.  It looks as if one stand has a ridiculously huge gap, and a roof over a roof.  My question was, or my intended question was, why not just build that roof lower.

[RS]

1 minute ago, vancanman said:

It's surprising to me that being so close to a gigantic lake, that rain always falls straight down in Toronto, instead of being blown northward from the lake.

To me, it doesn't look as if one 'canopy' is higher than the other.  It looks as if one stand has a ridiculously huge gap, and a roof over a roof.  My question was, or my intended question was, why not just build that roof lower.

Rain almost never gets blown northward from the lake. Most weather systems in Toronto come from the north and/or west.

Anyway, I'm assuming they built the two bigger canopies identically for symmetry's sake? Whether it's an aesthetic choice or because they don't want to have thousands of pounds of imbalance from one side to the other, that's really a question for the designers.

[Unnamed Trialist]

20 hours ago, RS said:

Someone's feeling are hurt.

You're the one like a racoon trapped amongst patio furniture ripping up the upholstery.

It will be the bar none worst stadium in 2026 and part of that is by choice. Live with it. 

[TOcanadafan]

I saw this video and just shook my head as to what Toronto will be presenting to the world.  

 

 

Edited June 24, 2022 by TOcanadafan

[vancanman]

23 hours ago, RS said:

Rain almost never gets blown northward from the lake. Most weather systems in Toronto come from the north and/or west.

Anyway, I'm assuming they built the two bigger canopies identically for symmetry's sake? Whether it's an aesthetic choice or because they don't want to have thousands of pounds of imbalance from one side to the other, that's really a question for the designers.

I guess they just know a lot more about stadium design than the people who design stadiums everywhere else in the world that isn't north of Mexico, since I can't think of a single stadium around the world that looks like that.

[vancanman]

1 hour ago, TOcanadafan said:

I saw this video and just shook my head as to what Toronto will be presenting to the world.  

https://youtu.be/feGOQU8_x9g

 

It's cool that after the world cup, the top tier of that stadium is going to be dismantled and donated to developing countries.  Let's keep an eye out for the crate marked "North End, BMO Field, Toronto."

[reggietfc]

4 hours ago, vancanman said:

It's cool that after the world cup, the top tier of that stadium is going to be dismantled and donated to developing countries.  Let's keep an eye out for the crate marked "North End, BMO Field, Toronto."

i wonder how many workers will die building the north end

[vancanman]

8 hours ago, reggietfc said:

i wonder how many workers will die building the north end

Dear [insert country name here],

Sorry about [insert number here] of your citizens dying while building our stadium.  We hope this container of plastic seats makes up for it.

Sincerely,

Qatari Government

[TOcanadafan]

I agree, there’s no way the World Cup should be in Qatar because of their human rights record, and this has been discussed in large detail, but I posted that video to see what is possible.  Surely Toronto could have built 1 nice new stadium (vs. 8).  Eventually Toronto will get an NFL franchise… this would have been a perfect opportunity to pair with a prospective NFL owner and get the stadium built.

[Colonel Green]

4 hours ago, TOcanadafan said:

I agree, there’s no way the World Cup should be in Qatar because of their human rights record, and this has been discussed in large detail, but I posted that video to see what is possible.  Surely Toronto could have built 1 nice new stadium (vs. 8).  Eventually Toronto will get an NFL franchise… this would have been a perfect opportunity to pair with a prospective NFL owner and get the stadium built.

Toronto's CFL team has the weakest attendance of any in the league, I wouldn't anticipate them getting an NFL franchise anytime soon. Though in any case, I can't imagine partnering to build a stadium on this scale just on the assumption that at some point they might be able to use it for an NFL team that they haven't been awarded the rights to.

[canadave]

Toronto would not be at (or arguably even near) the top of the NFL's list for expansion cities given the embarrassing failure of the Bills in Toronto series and the league's current overseas priorities. Regardless, the league has shown zero interest in expanding beyond the neat and tidy 32 teams, preferring a strategy of taking just a few games to other countries. To build an NFL-appropriate stadium in Toronto would cost at minimum $2 billion CAD. Not really something you do on the hopes of maybe one day getting an NFL team. 

[Joe MacCarthy]

Years ago some of the the beancounters at MLSE didn't think the ROI would be worth it, waiting 20 years to see anything worthwhile and that was 10? years ago. Looking at a 6? billion stadium and franchise fee now. Even then it has to be an individual owner.  Had to laugh when they tried to get the Bills partnered with Jon Bon Jovi.  David Braley, who the public regarded as a hick had a net worth three times what Bon Jovi was putting up.  NFL owners are a country club, Toronto adds absolutely nothing to them unlike the NBA who back in the day Commissioner Stern is on record saying they didn't want Toronto in the league but the owners got greedy for the expansion fee.