Quote:
Originally Posted by elly63
Why do you keep coming up with this white elephant thing. If you keep talking about money then you know there is no way an 80k stadium would be built in Toronto. A smaller stadium that could be temporarily expandable maybe, but even then there is really no use for a 40k stadium either so it likely ain't gonna happen unless they partner with a university or another entity (not NFL)
A new Toronto stadium is only the idea of some Toronto posters who seem to think that they have a divine right to host the final and that a hillbilly outpost like Edmonton couldn't or shouldn't. Personally, Montreal or Vancouver would be the cities I'd like to be showcased to the rest of the world.
We learned our lesson in 1976, we're not going to be outrageous like other countries, we don't need to be. Were we outrageous with Van 2010, were there any garish white elephants built, none that I can recall. We'll just bide our time and FIFA will eventually come to our way of thinking when no one else will want to host for the price FIFA would be asking.
|
Other factors matter simply versus a stadium..
Why not bring up the fact that Edmonton's airport is the farthest airport away from its core in Canada. FIFA, just like the Olympics, demands some type of linkage to the airport, and demands the airport to be able to handle a said amount of air traffic. Edmonton airport is a B-airport and would need expansion versus airports in Vancouver, Montreal, and Toronto that could host that traffic tomorrow.
Edmonton would also, have to build out LRT or heavy rail more than 30 Km out to the middle of no place. Every city finds value in this but Edmonton has rarely tried to look under that rock due to the costs. So Edmonton could host the final for sure but there are reasons that Montreal and Toronto would be ahead of it and it is tied to logistics more than anything else.
Vancouver can't host the final because of security reasons with BC Place, has the airport/logistics ready to go though.
Edmonton does not have the airport/logistics, but has the stadium.
Montreal has each thing but the stadium needs a major renovation (still would be cheaper than a $1 billion LRT in Edmonton to the airport).
Toronto has each thing but needs a stadium.
Every city has the weak points but you clearly see that Montreal is ahead even with it's more glaring flaw.
This is the reason FIFA loves America and the USA is the default "Plan B" if a WC bid flops out. USA has 20 stadiums good to host in metros with over built infrastructure and airports that could handle the influx for the tournament.
Some examples. You go to a city like Dallas and you have four venues in the Metro; two airports; plus LRT to it's major airport. You could host a whole group stage and final in Dallas and it wouldn't flinch. How about Washington DC. In the radius of how far Edmonton's airport is to downtown you have in metro DC two airports and three stadiums (Baltimore is 35 mins away by train).This is the type of capacity Canada lacks.
This is just to hammer in it isn't about just stadiums (or feelings). You have to give a plan to FIFA that you can bring in 200,000 people, house them, move them around, and ensure security; plus host some soccer games. In America places like Dallas can make a honest case for the final. They have the same logistics capacity as New York, it isn't the overwhelming difference of say London to Manchester aside from their populations.
This is no knock on Edmonton but you can't tell me a LRT and airport expansion would not cost more than Big O renovation or a temporary stadium in Toronto. That would be a $2 billion project for Edmonton which makes the other options look cheap.