Stadiums and Arenas of Canada

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by elly63

Why would we need train service? This isn't little Europe.

Because it's not just "little Europe" that has vastly better train service than us. It's almost every country in the world, including ones that are more sparsely populated.

[mistercorporate]

Originally Posted by elly63

Self esteem and knowledge for starters but that comes from not hailing from a metropolis that doesn't subjugate itself to a place like Buffalo and has a hate-on for its own.

Ignorant rednecks who put down my city and its population and expect me to act agreeable are not my own...

[EpicPonyTime]

Originally Posted by FutureSmith

Apparently the Metro runs directly under the stadium as well, so any attempts to implode the Big O would also collapse the tunnel. So for the price it would take to demolish, it would still be worth the expense to refurbish.

While some Montrealers would obviously disagree, I think there is stock in the argument that the Olympic Stadium is a well known landmark in Montreal. Demolishing it and replacing it with a run-of-the-mill stadium might make some people happy, but I think Montreal would ultimately lose an important piece of history. For that price, I agree it'd be better to close it down and refurbish it. No more piecemeal patches here and there, but a full blown facelift; the roof, the seats, the scoreboard, the outside, Olympic Park...

[thurmas]

One of the biggest problems with the Big Owe is how cavernous and uninviting it seems when not sold out or a big crowd in attendance. If you were to remodel the stadium to be practical I would propose keeping the Olympic tower, remove the Teflon or whatever fabric it is roof and remove the steel partial roof that encircles the top of the stadium. This would not make it feel so much like an enclosed spaceship when watching the Alouettes play. Second improvement I would make is removing the seating at the endzone where the old baseball dugouts were making the stadium smaller and more intimate this would be like what the Cincinnati Reds did in their last 2 years at Riverfront stadium where they removed the whole end of the stadium this really opened the stadium up and made it feel much more intimate and inviting. Other improvements needed if it were to be a long term home for soccer and the Alouettes is: new scoreboard, all seats removed and replaced, private suites and press boxes renovated.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by mistercorporate

That dream certainly isn't dead. Look, Toronto is manoeuvring toward an Olympic bid for 2024 and we've already hosted several Buffalo home games. NFL teams don't take sharing home games lightly, in a few years that team will be sold and Toronto is by far the most likely candidate (there are several teams that may be candidates to transfer to LA before then so that factor is unlikely to be an issue). The main problem according to the MLSE President was the cost of building a stadium and a successful Olympic or FIFA bid could make that practical.

Australia successfully supports both their domestic rugby and ozzy-rules leagues while being part of 2 international rugby leagues. There's no reason why Toronto can't be both a CFL and NFL town simultaneously. If anything, the NFL exposure will get more people into football in general, paying dividends towards the local CFL franchise. I think the Argos are a pretty decent team and probably just lack a marketing edge. The double blue and "Argos" logos look dated and have no relevance to the city, I appreciate that it's a historic name but why not keep the historic franchise with a newer more marketable name and logo, many people can't relate to the Greek name and outdated logo in this city. The Raptors had a similar issue, hence their rebrand.

I'm from Toronto and I'd love to have an NFL team in Toronto.

But that said, if I were running the NFL, I would avoid Toronto. There are plenty of markets in the US that want an NFL team, each of which care far more about football than people in Toronto do.

I know there is solid support for football in Toronto. But football is to America what hockey is to Canada -- the overwhelming support for the sport is difficult to convey. Smaller sized cities in the US would do better.

Canadian teams do not draw well in terms of TV ratings or attendance in the US. Americans are a lot more proud of their country and their sports.

In Canada, I feel like having a US team come and play is almost considered a prestige thing. People in Toronto seem to care more when the Boston Bruins are in town than when the Winnipeg Jets are in town.

In the US, it's a lot different. People would care a lot more about Kansas City than Toronto. It's just a different mentality, and it has been demonstrated already in hockey, basketball, and baseball.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by elly63

Sorry, my Yankee friend, every CFL stadium passes the criteria in the document above and we most certainly do have the external infrastructure to handle it.

Tell me, if we're such a backwater, how did we win three Olympic bids? That is a pretty exclusive club of countries to have cities hosting three Olympics.

Well, lets not forget that two of them were Winter Olympics.

Only a few countries can really host Winter Olympics, and considering how Canada is one of the world's coldest countries, I'd expect a few Winter Olympics.

Also, lets not forget what the Olympics did for Montreal... that's an expenditure they still haven't recovered from, and the O is a disaster with its stupid roof.

Lets tone down the nationalism here. Canada has poor sports infrastructure in place right now. Small towns in the US, like Ann Arbor, have stadiums that are twice as large as anything Canada can put together.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by elly63

What always kills me are the "naysayers" who say we can't restore a nearly 40 year old Montreal Olympic Stadium (should we choose to go that route) They conveniently forget about the Olympiastadion in Berlin opened in 1936 or Luzhniki Stadium opened in 1956.

We have everything to host big events. That's what we do best. It saddens me to see "defeatists" in Canada (for lack of a better word) who seem to be too young to have experienced the time when we sought out big projects and succeeded (save the 2010 Olympics being recent)

I don't think that's the right way to characterize it.

I just think that if we're going to spend $4 billion on a 'big project,' I'd rather that we have a maglev train connecting Toronto - Ottawa - Montreal.

It'd be a waste of money considering our low population, but still more useful than an 80,000 capacity field in Toronto built as a cathedral to a sport that has, at best, lukewarm popularity in Canada.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by EpicPonyTime

While some Montrealers would obviously disagree, I think there is stock in the argument that the Olympic Stadium is a well known landmark in Montreal. Demolishing it and replacing it with a run-of-the-mill stadium might make some people happy, but I think Montreal would ultimately lose an important piece of history. For that price, I agree it'd be better to close it down and refurbish it. No more piecemeal patches here and there, but a full blown facelift; the roof, the seats, the scoreboard, the outside, Olympic Park...

I think there would be a lot of skittishness about a project like that... the Olympic Stadium campus (the stadium, the pool, the velodrome, the tower) is arguably the most expensive sports stadium complex ever built, but it never functioned well... as an athletics facility it was used for one major event, and it led to the demise of its two major pro sports tenants.

I guess it has an illustrious history of hosting car shows, rock concerts and the occasional papal visit, but that isn't saying much. The roof was delayed by a decade and it never worked properly. Even the replacement is besieged by problems such that this domed stadium generally cannot be used in the winter for fear that snow will come crashing down on the spectators and performers below. And while the pool is still going, the velodrome barely lasted a decade before being decommissioned.

The worst part is that all of those headaches associated with an extravagant facility that never worked properly cost over a billion dollars. That same money could have built nine BC Places... one in every CFL city. It's great that Jean Drapeau was thinking big, but it's painful that so much money was dumped into something that was all form, no function. I'm sure a fix wouldn't be cheap... a decade ago, the OIB estimated that a new roof alone would cost $300 million. Who doubts that it would cost north of half a billion now?

Is there really any kind of political appetite to dump another billion dollars into this money pit?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by FutureSmith

Glad this is not lost on others. The Big O's capacity was much greater for the 76 Olympics, but was reduced to accommodate baseball. There is an entire end blocked off by the jumbotron (which sorely needs replacing). It's entirely possible to remove the antiquated screen, and install temporary seating to bring capacity up to 80,000. After the Cup finals, the seats can be removed, and a new screen installed.

Capacity for the Olympics was about 75,000 and there will still a bit of room to spare in the structure. Just think of the space taken up by the athletics track.

80,000 people in there for soccer is not a problem if you really want to do it.

[elly63]

Plans to replace Big O roof expected by end of 2013
CBC News Apr 13, 2013

As Montreal's Olympic Stadium roof continues to deteriorate, Quebec’s tourism minister says he hopes to present a plan for its replacement in the next few weeks.

According to the Olympic Installations Board's 2012 annual report, the stadium’s roof ripped a total of 1,240 times last year and repairs to the roof cost the board $316,000.

Minister of Tourism, Pascal Bérubé, said he expects the government will finalize its plans for a new roof by the end of 2013, but it could take several more years for the project to be completed.

The stadium’s roof has been plagued with problems ever since it was first constructed.

The current membrane roof was installed by Birdair in 1998 at a cost of $37 million, but ongoing problems mean the stadium can’t be used during the winter because of safety concerns.

Montreal Gazette columnist Bill Brownstein said he thinks it’s time to tear down the stadium.

“Enough is enough, I mean blow up the sucker. You can’t even use it in the winter, parking is a problem, inside structurally there are problems galore,” he said.

“The joke is on us after awhile. How long do we have to continue paying for all of this?”

But the minister said maintaining the historic building is important.

“It’s like an icon for Montreal,” Bérubé said.

The Quebec government is currently consulting with stakeholders on a number of factors regarding the new roof, including cost, utility and architecture.

But while the Big O may be a beloved part of Montreal’s skyline, Brownstein said it would be better for the city to cut its losses and move on.

“Sentiment can get in the way of pragmatism and I think at a certain point we just have to say this ain’t working.”

Olympic Stadium key facts:
- Opened without a roof in 1976 to host Olympic Games.
- Retractable roof system was added in later years, but its completion was delayed because of design problems.
- In 1987, an orange and silver Kevlar fabric covering held in place by steel cables was added, but it never retracted properly and cost up to $700,000 to maintain.
- A large chunk of the roof fell down in 1991 when support beams gave in. No one was injured.
- The current membrane roof was installed by Birdair in 1998 at a cost of $37 million.
- In 1999, a section of the new roof collapsed as workers were preparing for an auto show at the stadium. No one was hurt.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by elly63

Minister of Tourism, Pascal Bérubé, said he expects the government will finalize its plans for a new roof by the end of 2013, but it could take several more years for the project to be completed.

The OIB has been kicking this idea around for over a decade... I wouldn't hold my breath.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by EpicPonyTime

While some Montrealers would obviously disagree, I think there is stock in the argument that the Olympic Stadium is a well known landmark in Montreal. Demolishing it and replacing it with a run-of-the-mill stadium might make some people happy, but I think Montreal would ultimately lose an important piece of history. For that price, I agree it'd be better to close it down and refurbish it. No more piecemeal patches here and there, but a full blown facelift; the roof, the seats, the scoreboard, the outside, Olympic Park...

Yup

[elly63]

Originally Posted by esquire

The OIB has been kicking this idea around for over a decade... I wouldn't hold my breath.

I wouldn't expect that they generated the Bisonnette report for nothing. If anything it was to gauge public reaction and their conclusions were that it is positive.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

Canada has poor sports infrastructure in place right now. Small towns in the US, like Ann Arbor, have stadiums that are twice as large as anything Canada can put together.

Sorry, I don't buy that. Ann Arbor of course is not a fair example as we know it is the home of the University of Michigan, one of the larger universities in the US. Also just because it has a large capacity does that make it better? Could anyone on this forum sit here with a straight face and say they would accept a new stadium in Canada constructed of bench seating.

Iconic yes, better?

[elly63]

Originally Posted by osmo

The Big O is simply a mess and it's either used as is or blown up, no renovations aside from modest ones will ever take place there.

Pull-up retractable roof recommended for Big O
CTV Montreal Dec. 13, 2012

A special committee on the future of Montreal’s Olympic Park has opened the door to the installation of a retractable roof on the stadium not unlike that originally designed for the facility.

The suggestion was one of 22 recommendations that resulted from a year-long consultation with 4,000 people.

The roof, as originally designed by French architect Roger Taillebert, was meant to be pulled up and down by metal cables from the angled tower above.

A permanent roof was eventually installed but it collapsed under the weight of snow, leading to the permanent closure of the facility during the winter season due to concerns of another collapse.

Committee Chair Lise Bissonette said that advances in technology might make the original concept more workable.

“We’ve been told by many people that, given the fact that we’re in 2012 and not1976, that maybe we should look again at the original proposal for a retractable roof and see if it’s possible with the progress of science and technology,” said Bissonnette.

The roof would have to be “consistent with the original design of the building,” according to the report.

The other 21 recommendations included one that would make the facility a centre for amateur sport.

The report also recommends more autonomy for the Olympic Installations Board and initiatives to increase tourism to the site.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by osmo

It would be cheaper to blow the thing up and build it again then "renovating" it.

The Olympic Stadium: Fact and Fiction

Demolishing the stadium is not an option: given its unique post-tension, pre-stressed concrete structure and proximity to the Metro and residential areas, the stadium cannot be demolished using dynamite. Like a giant Meccano toy set, the stadium would have to be taken apart piece by piece. This would take several years, cost some $700 million and require the disposal of tons of concrete...but most importantly it would deprive us of the largest stadium in the province.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

I don't think that's the right way to characterize it.

I just think that if we're going to spend $4 billion on a 'big project,' I'd rather that we have a maglev train connecting Toronto - Ottawa - Montreal.

It'd be a waste of money considering our low population, but still more useful than an 80,000 capacity field in Toronto built as a cathedral to a sport that has, at best, lukewarm popularity in Canada.

I don't have an issue with anyone saying it would be a waste of money or the political or public will isn't there to do it. But it really pisses me off when we have some here who say we can't do it. Totally negative and ill informed.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by Mister F

Because it's not just "little Europe" that has vastly better train service than us. It's almost every country in the world, including ones that are more sparsely populated.

And we need superlative train service for a World Cup, why?

[elly63]

Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2

Canada is completely non existent on the minds that matter about football.

And speaking of minds that matter about football, funny how our new NT coach was a coach and later director of football for Real Madrid and helped contribute to the Spanish coaching school of tactics that seems to be somewhat successful. Don't know how he got Canada on the mind when we are non existent.

And how bout those South African and Qatar NTs! Now they're existent!

[saffronleaf]

Well, considering Qatar is hosting it, there's no doubt in my mind that Canada *can* host it, even if our sports infrastructure is inferior to the US (in terms of number of suitable stadia).

But should we?

What are the benefits? Could the money be better spent?

Two long-term benefits I could see:
- More stadia for CFL expansion
- Increased popularity of soccer

But with respect to the popularity of soccer, while it is low relative to other sports, the Canadian MLS franchises have done rather well. But as long as Canada is merely a part of the MLS, it will be very difficult for Canada to get more cities involved. Especially when there are large parts of the US that still don't have a team (I don't think even Florida has a team).

This is about as off-topic as it can get, but Canada should have its own national soccer league. Even with our current population, we could have 9 to 12 teams, and there are quite a few cities that, in a few decades, will likely pass the threshold for being able to support a professional sports franchise.