Quote:
Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker
I bet with modern controls and sensors the roof would have worked reliably. Are they going with a fixed replacement?
|
I'm not sure if it was an official recommendation of the Bissonette Report but I think they saw it the way you did. Modern technology could be used to make the original design work.
IIRC, I posted a copy of the report in one of the stadium threads, in French, I believe, as it seemed difficult to find. This is the precursor to the report,
Consultation on the Future of the Olympic Park
Facing the test of time: Retractable roof could give 'dreadful' Olympic Stadium a lively future in Montreal, committee says
The stadium needs to be recognized not as a money-draining blight, but as an important piece of Quebec’s cultural heritage, the report says
Graeme Hamilton The National Post December 13, 2012 (my God has it been 7 years since this report, time flies)
The committee that spent the past year studying the future of Montreal’s Olympic Stadium got an earful when it invited people to vent about the east-end landmark.
“Dreadful. Too expensive. Horrible. Useless. The roof,” were typical gut reactions from participants, Lise Bissonnette, head of the committee, recalled Thursday.
But when the same people were asked to imagine what could become of the Olympic Park site, which encompasses the stadium and neighbouring facilities, they did not dream of reducing it to rubble. Instead they saw a lively future, Ms. Bissonnette said. “People were very enthusiastic.”
The committee’s report, published Thursday, says the stadium and the surrounding installations need to be recognized not as a money-draining blight, but as an important piece of Quebec’s cultural heritage.
The committee proposes some significant changes, including a return to the retractable roof that was part of the stadium’s original design. The first roof tore frequently and was eventually replaced by a fixed roof, which also ripped in 1999 under the weight of snow. Since then, the stadium has been closed to events in the winter.
The committee speculates that technological advances since authorities opted for a fixed roof 20 years ago make it worth considering a removable roof in the next call for tenders. In the past the cost of a new roof has been estimated at $300-million.
It proposes an expanded mandate for the Olympic Installations Board, the government agency that manages the site, giving it a role in the promotion of amateur and school athletics.
And it suggests that the site, which is already home to several city-run museums, be made more attractive to tourists by adding restaurants and even a hotel.
“The Olympic Park can and must become a true park, in symbiosis with the neighbourhood that saw it being born,” the report states. It says the “magnificent work” of architect Roger Taillibert, fits the definition of a “cultural heritage landscape,” worthy of protection under Quebec law.
Beneath the lofty rhetoric is a recognition that the site is currently a mess. From a distance, the stadium may be seen as a defining postcard image of Montreal, but up close it is uninviting. The report details the site’s “almost total aridity,” the fading posters that are the only reminder of the 1976 Summer Games and the inadequate signage that makes it “a miracle” tourists are able to find their way around. If they manage to get to the funicular up the stadium’s tower, the only food on offer is from vending machines.
The stadium itself remains vacant most of the year. In 2011 it drew just 252,000 visitors, the equivalent of about four full houses. A neighbouring nature museum attracted more than three times as many people.
The committee was not asked to put a price tag on its proposals, but Ms. Bissonnette said she is optimistic that over a 15-year period the transformation can be made. “Status quo costs the same price,” she said. “The roof has to be replaced whether you do it with a vision or without.”
The report begins by listing the many reports and studies that have gone before, and Ms. Bissonnette realizes many previous proposals for the stadium ended up on the shelf.
But seeing the committee’s recommendations enacted is not her sole motivation, she said. The report is also an exercise in rehabilitating a site that she feels has unjustly become the butt of jokes.
“The idea is also to help change the perception of the Olympic Park, so people stop saying things that are unfair toward it and even toward its creator, Roger Taillibert,” she said. “We find he has been treated very unfairly.”
Prev
Hybrid Mode