Stadiums and Arenas of Canada

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by FutureSmith

Strange. 40,000-seat setup includes the retractable end zone seating. Wonder how they plan to fit the Grey Cup in there?

It's BS. MLSE is using the Argos and the Grey Cup to get as much out of the city for the stadium as possible. Notice how the talk has gone from "MLSE is paying for almost all of it" to "the city is going to be compensated at a later date."

[bt04ku]

Originally Posted by Stainless

I really, really doubt that the BMO crew is going to put that much energy into the field. CFL stadiums tend to treat the field quality as more of a nuisance than a priority.

The BMO crew has different bosses than other CFL stadiums with the people they need to please having higher standards at least. Plus unlike Wembley and big European soccer stadiums and NFL stadiums, the bulk of games are played during optimal growing times (high temperatures combined the ability for part of the field to actually receive some direct sunlight). This is a big advantage to maintain a quality playing surface with a significantly smaller budget.

[eemy]

Pardon my ignorance, but why do the end-zones have to be so large? It seems to me that if they were a bit smaller, they wouldn't need retractable seating. If the end-zone does have to be so large, it would seem Grey Cup capacity would be 35k instead of 40k since presumably they would have to leave the lower bowl seats retracted.

The covered stadium does seem to have a very European feel to it, I have to admit.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by bt04ku

The BMO crew has different bosses than other CFL stadiums with the people they need to please having higher standards at least. Plus unlike Wembley and big European soccer stadiums and NFL stadiums, the bulk of games are played during optimal growing times (high temperatures combined the ability for part of the field to actually receive some direct sunlight). This is a big advantage to maintain a quality playing surface with a significantly smaller budget.

Amen!

[elly63]

[esquire]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

Pardon my ignorance, but why do the end-zones have to be so large? It seems to me that if they were a bit smaller, they wouldn't need retractable seating. If the end-zone does have to be so large, it would seem Grey Cup capacity would be 35k instead of 40k since presumably they would have to leave the lower bowl seats retracted.

The covered stadium does seem to have a very European feel to it, I have to admit.

End zones in Canadian football are 20 yards long per the official rules of the game. There is no practical way around this issue.

Grey Cup capacity is moot since the Grey Cup will continue to be played at Skydome whenever it comes to Toronto... 52,000 seats vs. 35,000 (plus the controlled climate) makes it a no-brainer when the cheapest seat is $200 a pop. This is similar to what Montreal does when it hosts the Grey Cup.

[bt04ku]

Originally Posted by esquire

End zones in Canadian football are 20 yards long per the official rules of the game. There is no practical way around this issue.

It'd be nice if the CFL could just go with the 'range' instead of a specific number. For example rugby end zones must be 10-22m large. Some stadiums can have large ones

i.e. Croke Park because a GAA pitch is so large they have more grass than they know what to do with when it was used for rugby pushes 20m. While an old club rugby stadium like the Recreation Grounds in Bath barely has enough room to run the line-painter for the dead-ball line in their 10m end zones



Like baseball, it can really change how a game is played and can develop depending on the stadium you are in. Football seems less open to such differences.

Grey Cup capacity is moot since the Grey Cup will continue to be played at Skydome whenever it comes to Toronto... 52,000 seats vs. 35,000 (plus the controlled climate) makes it a no-brainer when the cheapest seat is $200 a pop. This is similar to what Montreal does when it hosts the Grey Cup.

Pretty much. A potential Grey Cup is just a way to make it easier to sell when milking public money.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by bt04ku

It'd be nice if the CFL could just go with the 'range' instead of a specific number. For example rugby end zones must be 10-22m large. Some stadiums can have large ones

A respectable idea in theory, but I think the reality is that introducing a range would mean that teams would build any new stadiums to the smallest acceptable size since it's cheaper that way.

The CFL field actually shrank from 25 yard end zones to 20 in the early 80s. I heard it said that it was because the then-new BC Place could only accommodate 20 yard end zones, but I'm not sure how factually accurate that is. I suppose it could shrink again but I fail to see how that would improve the game.

[Dalreg]

Originally Posted by bt04ku

It'd be nice if the CFL could just go with the 'range' instead of a specific number. For example rugby end zones must be 10-22m large. Some stadiums can have large ones

i.e. Croke Park because a GAA pitch is so large they have more grass than they know what to do with when it was used for rugby pushes 20m. While an old club rugby stadium like the Recreation Grounds in Bath barely has enough room to run the line-painter for the dead-ball line in their 10m end zones



Like baseball, it can really change how a game is played and can develop depending on the stadium you are in. Football seems less open to such differences.




Pretty much. A potential Grey Cup is just a way to make it easier to sell when milking public money.

Well the Soccer field could always be lengthened to say 150 yards as another solution? No reason why that couldn't happen now is there?

[bt04ku]

Originally Posted by esquire

A respectable idea in theory, but I think the reality is that introducing a range would mean that teams would build any new stadiums to the smallest acceptable size since it's cheaper that way.



*snip* I suppose it could shrink again but I fail to see how that would improve the game.

I just hate the size of CFL end zones, needlessly vast. There is a happy middle ground between the acreages that count as end zones up here and the test strips they have south of the border. More just a personal preference thing, I suppose in my dream setting you'd actually have teams set their field dimensions based on their team's strengths and weaknesses. But I'm a bit of a dreamer that way.

Plus with all the stadiums being replaced or renovated only Calgary is really in a position to take advantage of building to the smallest possible size.

Originally Posted by Dalreg

Well the Soccer field could always be lengthened to say 150 yards as another solution? No reason why that couldn't happen now is there?

Not if it wants to stay regulation (150 is too long), and increasing the size of the field to have less seats just doesn't seem like a good business move.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I don't mean to be an — but I actually laughed out loud at that

I understand the joke, but I don't think 25,000 is big enough. Attendance is sure to get a significant bounce moving from that shopping centre called Skydome into a proper football stadium.

I'm glad the Argonauts are moving to BMO, but the plans I see thus far are quite a bit less than I was expecting. MLSE said major investment, but it doesn't look like one. $250 million would be a major investment considering Vancouver spent double that on refurbishing BC Place. I don't think a football stadium as good as the one in Winnipeg is too much to expect for Toronto. Looks like we'll get nothing close to that.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by bt04ku

I just hate the size of CFL end zones, needlessly vast. There is a happy middle ground between the acreages that count as end zones up here and the test strips they have south of the border. More just a personal preference thing, I suppose in my dream setting you'd actually have teams set their field dimensions based on their team's strengths and weaknesses. But I'm a bit of a dreamer that way.

Plus with all the stadiums being replaced or renovated only Calgary is really in a position to take advantage of building to the smallest possible size.




Not if it wants to stay regulation (150 is too long), and increasing the size of the field to have less seats just doesn't seem like a good business move.

Are you not seeing your contradiction here?

Originally Posted by isaidso

I understand the joke, but I don't think 25,000 is big enough. Attendance is sure to get a significant bounce moving from that shopping centre called Skydome into a proper football stadium.

I'm glad the Argonauts are moving to BMO, but the plans I see thus far are quite a bit less than I was expecting. MLSE said major investment, but it doesn't look like one. $250 million would be a major investment considering Vancouver spent double that on refurbishing BC Place. I don't think a football stadium as good as the one in Winnipeg is too much to expect for Toronto. Looks like we'll get nothing close to that.

Yeah, it is kind of a let down. To me it's just sad that a city of Toronto's grandeur has to compromise on sports facilities. There is no reason FC and the Argonauts can't both have their own tailor-made stadiums.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by FrankieFlowerpot

Here's the full presentation for the BMO Expansion

http://www.explace.on.ca/database/rte/fi...20Field%20-%20Public%20Meeting_FINAL.pdf

I really like the new design. The current BMO Field is a fun place to see an event (I was there to see a Toronto FC game). Personally, I like places like Camden Yards (in Baltimore) and BMO Field, where there is lots of fresh air, versus closed-in stadiums such as Rogers Centre and Olympic Stadium (in Montreal).

I like the roof that covers all the seats, although it may seem like a contradiction to what I said above, the concourses will still be open-air and the roof will provide shade from the sun and rain. I even like the 25,000 seat capacity for the CFL since it will be an intimate and often sold-out event (I liked the original covered Exhibition Stadium stands and I see this as being a more open version of the old Exhibition Stadium - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...ralModelOfExhibitionStadium_Aug25-05.jpg).

A lot can be said for fiscal responsibility, especially with Detroit being bankrupt and Chicago's credit rating being reduced to near junk status.

[Dalreg]

Originally Posted by bt04ku

I just hate the size of CFL end zones, needlessly vast. There is a happy middle ground between the acreages that count as end zones up here and the test strips they have south of the border. More just a personal preference thing, I suppose in my dream setting you'd actually have teams set their field dimensions based on their team's strengths and weaknesses. But I'm a bit of a dreamer that way.

Plus with all the stadiums being replaced or renovated only Calgary is really in a position to take advantage of building to the smallest possible size.




Not if it wants to stay regulation (150 is too long), and increasing the size of the field to have less seats just doesn't seem like a good business move.

So you want the CFL to change it's field and the whole structure of the game, but soccer can't do the same thing?


Sorry but —

[esquire]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Yeah, it is kind of a let down. To me it's just sad that a city of Toronto's grandeur has to compromise on sports facilities. There is no reason FC and the Argonauts can't both have their own tailor-made stadiums.

I think it's best if BMO is treated by the Argos as a short-term solution. Not in the sense of 1 or 2 years, but maybe 10 or 15 years. As I've said before, they really need to start planning a proper football stadium the moment the deal is done on this one.

And yes, it is somewhat surprising that a city like Toronto couldn't do better than this adequate but wholly unimpressive compromise of a facility. No one is saying that the Argos/TFC need a billion dollar NFL-style palace, but this BMO overhaul looks like something you'd expect from a much smaller city like K-W or Halifax. I'm pretty confident that if Saskatoon got a CFL expansion franchise they'd manage to build something better than this.

[bt04ku]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Are you not seeing your contradiction here?

I want CFL endzones to be flexible. They aren't. Soccer fields are (100-130 yards long). Sure I guess it's a contradiction, but I don't really care. CFL endzones are just too big.

Secondly, you don't need to make a soccer field bigger to make this work so I'm not really sure why it was brought up. Soccer isn't what is the problem at BMO when it comes to seating because being able to have more seats is a good thing. The problem is that the size of a CFL field means they need to take seats away to have it, so why would a solution be to make a soccer field bigger? That just reduces the potential seating capacity for all events.

[FrankieFlowerpot]

I will certainly enjoy watching TFC and Argos games in "this adequate but wholly unimpressive facility that wouldn't look out of place in K-W or Halifax."

[FrankieFlowerpot]

THF Update thanks to RawMeat1000 at Ticats.ca forums

[Coldrsx]

Lots of utility removal and site prep at the new downtown Oilers rink right now.

[P Unit]

I don't understand how people have any opinion on the BMO expansion other than happy it's happening or angry that the Argos are moving in. It's like judging a building on massing studies.