Stadiums and Arenas of Canada part 2 - Page 197

SkydivePilot · #**3921** Posted **Dec 5, 2015, 6:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by osmo

So for Moasic the roof is more for sun than anything else it is looking like. A lot of seats will be exposed.

I would bet that sun-exposed seats would be so for a relatively short time daily. We'll see.

Riise · #**3922** Posted **Dec 5, 2015, 10:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka

BMO starting to look like a proper footy stadium finally.

Wouldn't it now be considered a multi-use stadium? An improvement nonetheless.

elly63 · #**3923** Posted **Dec 6, 2015, 3:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riise

Wouldn't it now be considered a multi-use stadium? An improvement nonetheless.

They played lacrosse and rugby (plus the public rentals) there before now, thus making it always multi-use which it was supposed to be in the first place.

FrankieFlowerpot · #**3924** Posted **Dec 6, 2015, 10:11 PM**

https://twitter.com/Qman604/status/673239168110059520

caltrane74 · #**3925** Posted **Dec 6, 2015, 10:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riise

Wouldn't it now be considered a multi-use stadium? An improvement nonetheless.

Honestly, this makes me wanna barf.

mistercorporate · #**3926** Posted **Dec 6, 2015, 10:20 PM**

BMO is very much a soccer stadium design that will be used for other sports. CFL stadiums are used for other sports (such as soccer during the WWC) as well but one wouldn't call them multi-use.

Oilkountry · #**3927** Posted **Dec 6, 2015, 11:40 PM**

Mosaic is gonna be beautiful but I'm gonna continue to stand my ground when saying its on par with IGF not necessarily better. Both have strong points, both are what CFL stadiums should be modelled after. but to compare them is 6 of one half dozen of the other. I love the quirky seating of mosiac more than I like the symmetrical bowl type seating of IGF. I love the huge dramatic canopy over the mosiacs attached canopy( functionality and aesthetics) however to add to that the translucent panels will be spectacular. I prefer the open concourses over the closed in but also to add to that in -35 im sure regina will be happy to have it that way. I would rather see 1 huge scoreboard then 2 small ones (although if the bombers used them correctly that may change as well. I also like the location of Mosaic over IGF. Both stadiums have strong points but really to say one is better than the other is a matter of ones perspective and prefrence

Andy6 · #**3928** Posted **Dec 7, 2015, 2:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by caltrane74

Honestly, this makes me wanna barf.

I can hardly wait for the Argos to get the lines painted and the turf broken in!

HomerSPC · #**3929** Posted **Dec 7, 2015, 5:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oilkountry

I would rather see 1 huge scoreboard then 2 small ones

New Mosaic will have one gigantic one on the south end, and one smaller one in the north-(east?) end. That's pretty good, I'd say.

SHOFEAR · #**3930** Posted **Dec 7, 2015, 2:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy6

I can hardly wait for the Argos to get the lines painted and the turf broken in!

I can't wait for all the retired numbers and Grey Cup banners to go up!

Riise · #**3931** Posted **Dec 7, 2015, 4:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mistercorporate

BMO is very much a soccer stadium design that will be used for other sports. CFL stadiums are used for other sports (such as soccer during the WWC) as well but one wouldn't call them multi-use.

A stadium that is used primarily for association football is different from a stadium solely used for association football. The final design for the current improvements and expansion includes features that accommodate the CFL and probably wouldn't have been included if the Argos were not moving in. As these changes allow BMO to be used for a use other than association football, it would be accurate to say that BMO will be a multi-use stadium no?

esquire · #**3932** Posted **Dec 7, 2015, 4:20 PM**

^ I guess it's a matter of opinion but I always thought of soccer and football uses being more or less interchangeable given the similar dimensions of the respective fields... having a gridiron in Wembley or a soccer pitch in CenturyLink Field is not really what I'd think of as "multipurpose"... to me, that term evokes baseball at the Metrodome or football in Fulton County Stadium.

Although that said, given the difference in size between a soccer pitch and a CFL field, I guess there is a bit more of an argument to be made that a Canadian stadium built to accommodate both uses (as BMO will be, with seats that retract to accommodate the CFL surface) has a claim to the title of "multi purpose".

Oilkountry · #**3933** Posted **Dec 7, 2015, 5:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

^ I guess it's a matter of opinion but I always thought of soccer and football uses being more or less interchangeable given the similar dimensions of the respective fields... having a gridiron in Wembley or a soccer pitch in CenturyLink Field is not really what I'd think of as "multipurpose"... to me, that term evokes baseball at the Metrodome or football in Fulton County Stadium.

Although that said, given the difference in size between a soccer pitch and a CFL field, I guess there is a bit more of an argument to be made that a Canadian stadium built to accommodate both uses (as BMO will be, with seats that retract to accommodate the CFL surface) has a claim to the title of "multi purpose".

fact is MLSE could have kept the integrity of BMO as a soccer specific building. Ill never understand for a second why they wouldn't add the extra 5 yards to the pitch at BMO to match the 110 yard CFL playing field. that way you could have 2 full turf endzones. I also think they could have figured out a way to roll some stands back and forth for soccer to keep the intimacy for TFC games instead of plopping down some tables in the CFL endzone. TFC fans are whining little girls no doubt about it, however I don't think it's right that the CFL comes and kills the atmosphere they have built over the past 10 years. It's not ideal for MLS but it's reality however MLSE should do everything they can to make it a CFL building when the argos are playing and an MLS building when TFC is playing. Instead of the lazy half assed approach they take with the leafs and raps at ACC. I get that extra 5 yards changes the game slightly but they wouldn't be the only soccer team playing on a 110 yard pitch

Acajack · #**3934** Posted **Dec 7, 2015, 5:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by caltrane74

Honestly, this makes me wanna barf.

I don't honestly see what the problem would be from a TFC standpoint. They basically got a free stadium paid for primarily with taxpayer money.

The Argos had a stadium built for them (and the Blue Jays) also with taxpayer money, but then that stadium was basically given to the Jays for free and the Argos were squeezed out.

I don't see at all how TFC are really hard-done-by in this scenario.

osmo · #**3935** Posted **Dec 7, 2015, 6:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oilkountry

fact is MLSE could have kept the integrity of BMO as a soccer specific building. Ill never understand for a second why they wouldn't add the extra 5 yards to the pitch at BMO to match the 110 yard CFL playing field. that way you could have 2 full turf endzones. I also think they could have figured out a way to roll some stands back and forth for soccer to keep the intimacy for TFC games instead of plopping down some tables in the CFL endzone. TFC fans are whining little girls no doubt about it, however I don't think it's right that the CFL comes and kills the atmosphere they have built over the past 10 years. It's not ideal for MLS but it's reality however MLSE should do everything they can to make it a CFL building when the argos are playing and an MLS building when TFC is playing. Instead of the lazy half assed approach they take with the leafs and raps at ACC. I get that extra 5 yards changes the game slightly but they wouldn't be the only soccer team playing on a 110 yard pitch

There isn't the space to add on those 5 yards, if MLSE could fit a whole regulation filed in the area they would have.

The original plan was to blow up the south stands and move them back more into the parking lot which would of put in more then enough room for both uses, but that ship has sailed.

Because of inept planning both teams will suffer from this.

I don't think MLSE knows what it wants to do with the north end. It may get something built eventually but you have to be cautious how you plan. Call TFC fans whiny but they make MLSE lots of money and the Argos won't make them much so planning will always get differed to their preference (Does Bell cut a management deal with MLSE for no rent? Who gets beer and food money.. MLSE. Call Rogers a villain but from a business standpoint they make money off the Argos from operations and get none of the risk which is on Bell/Larry T.'s books, not MLSE).

Right now all MLSE cares about is getting the construction done on time, getting both teams playing, and then planning that Winter Classic. After that all happens a plan will come about on how to fix both situations.

esquire · #**3936** Posted **Dec 7, 2015, 6:28 PM**

With the NHL currently discussing expansion, here are a couple more looks at the gorgeous Centre Videotron:

Source: sportsnet.ca

Source: solotech.com

Riise · #**3937** Posted **Dec 7, 2015, 7:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

^ I guess it's a matter of opinion but I always thought of soccer and football uses being more or less interchangeable given the similar dimensions of the respective fields...

The best footy grounds are intimate and put the fans next to and on top of the game. While the CFL doesn't require the extra width and length that a track does, it pushes supporters back a distance that has a measurable impact. If this is negated with movable stands, the stadium will have multiple configurations and is technically multi-use.

SkydivePilot · #**3938** Posted **Dec 7, 2015, 7:12 PM**

Wow, that Centre Vidéotron is really something! I can't see Quebec City building such a beast for no [hockey-based] reason. It will be a hell of a sales pitch!

Berklon · #**3939** Posted **Dec 7, 2015, 7:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkydivePilot

Wow, that Centre Vidéotron is really something! I can't see Quebec City building such a beast for no [hockey-based] reason. It will be a hell of a sales pitch!

Yea, many thought the same thing with Hamilton 30 years ago.

esquire · #**3940** Posted **Dec 7, 2015, 7:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riise

The best footy grounds are intimate and put the fans next to and on top of the game. While the CFL doesn't require the extra width and length that a track does, it pushes supporters back a distance that has a measurable impact. If this is negated with movable stands, the stadium will have multiple configurations and is technically multi-use.

Yeah, fair enough. That's reasonable. Once you have moving seats to accommodate different fields (even if they are generally quite similar), you can probably start describing it as multi-use.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkydivePilot

Wow, that Centre Vidéotron is really something! I can't see Quebec City building such a beast for no [hockey-based] reason. It will be a hell of a sales pitch!

Yeah, what a beautiful arena. That has to be the best rink in Canada and among the best in the world as of now.