Sounds about right. From a stadium utilization perspective I think this makes sense.

As a soccer player / fan I share some of the concerns about pitch quality. I welcome the Argos in the stadium but it does seem a little like the tail wagging the dog. This stadium is not only used by Toronto FC, it is also used by Soccer Canada for both mens and womens soccer matches. If as advertised the Argos can use the field with minimal impact that is great but it seems strange that 10's of millions of dollars are being spent to shoe-horn the Argos in for 10 games a year, a team that was probably sold for a fraction of this price to Bell and Taunenbaum.
 
TrickyRicky said:
Sounds about right. From a stadium utilization perspective I think this makes sense.

As a soccer player / fan I share some of the concerns about pitch quality. I welcome the Argos in the stadium but it does seem a little like the tail wagging the dog. This stadium is not only used by Toronto FC, it is also used by Soccer Canada for both mens and womens soccer matches. If as advertised the Argos can use the field with minimal impact that is great but it seems strange that 10's of millions of dollars are being spent to shoe-horn the Argos in for 10 games a year, a team that was probably sold for a fraction of this price to Bell and Taunenbaum.
Click to expand...

If, and I guess it does, +/- 20 million qualifies as 10's of millions of dollars then I guess you are right.

The work for the Argos is a very small piece of the total project.....a portion of that is coming from the new Argo ownership (so whatever they paid for the team this has to be factored in)......and if makes the stadium more profitable then it sounds like a good idea.
 
TrickyRicky said:
Sounds about right. From a stadium utilization perspective I think this makes sense.

As a soccer player / fan I share some of the concerns about pitch quality. I welcome the Argos in the stadium but it does seem a little like the tail wagging the dog. This stadium is not only used by Toronto FC, it is also used by Soccer Canada for both mens and womens soccer matches. If as advertised the Argos can use the field with minimal impact that is great but it seems strange that 10's of millions of dollars are being spent to shoe-horn the Argos in for 10 games a year, a team that was probably sold for a fraction of this price to Bell and Taunenbaum.
Click to expand...

Personally I think the stadium expansion was driven by MLSE's desire to host outdoor NHL games.

TFC didn't need to expand its stadium. After this year's home opener you will see how empty this stadium will look now. Especially if the team goes into its standard mid-season collapse.

As for the Argos moving in, as a soccer fan, I'm highly skeptical they can make it work. Tim Liewicke is a bit of used-car salesman. I wouldn't trust any word that comes out of his mouth.

The big question will be this: will the soccer fans accept a poorer product. I'm not so sure about that. This market is too savy when it comes to soccer. If you take away some of the authenticity it will hurt the support. If the people running TFC really cared about the team they would have tried harder to keep the Argos out (of course that was never going to happen with Bell involved).
 
It really does look massive coming from the east.

Holds nothing on walking up to some of the bigger NCAA stadiums though (obviously):

stadium3.jpg
 

Attachments

  • stadium3.jpg
    stadium3.jpg
    31.1 KB · Views: 1,519
When the roof covering additions go up in 2016 has there been any thought/planning into how the type of roof will affect acoustics for music concerts, speakers, rally's etc?

I would hate to see all that money invested in a roof design (millions) without any thought into how the new roof will impact sound amplification. And you don't want potential revenue sources saying "avoid BMO the sound is terrible since they put up that new roof"

Any comments from those in the "know"?

Thanks
 
Edllguy said:
When the roof covering additions go up in 2016 has there been any thought/planning into how the type of roof will affect acoustics for music concerts, speakers, rally's etc?

I would hate to see all that money invested in a roof design (millions) without any thought into how the new roof will impact sound amplification. And you don't want potential revenue sources saying "avoid BMO the sound is terrible since they put up that new roof"

Any comments from those in the "know"?

Thanks
Click to expand...

There has apparently only ever been one cocnert at BMO Field, so I wouldn't be surprised if acoustics weren't a major consideration.
 
someMidTowner said:
There has apparently only ever been one cocnert at BMO Field, so I wouldn't be surprised if acoustics weren't a major consideration.
Click to expand...

I would argue that it should be a major consideration. With the Argos now coming to BMO Field they will have movable North side seating stands. For concerts and speaking events you could build a (temporary) proper stage against the North edge wall of the stadium. Currently you can't do that because those north seating stands are fixed unmovable structures.

Experimenting with certain sound dampening/absorbing materials that could be applied to the downward facing roofing materials during construction, may help with better acoustics implementation. Dealing with acoustics issues after the roof is up there permanently is both impractical and financially unrealistic.

If the vision is there, BMO owners could really make this stadium a truly multipurpose city venue.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top