PDA

View Full Version : An Inexpensive Looking Roof Solution



Daveisonfire
01-22-2010, 10:31 AM
A off-season thread for the dreamers, yes, but I figured I'd share this inexpensive (relatively) looking roof set up being built for Bulgarian club Cherno More by GMP.

Now I don't claim to be an architect or engineer, and I'm not sure how it could be incorporated with the West stand...but it looks as though it could be easily modified to fit BMO's set up:

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/6798/k1ri45.jpg
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/3648/2mx496x.jpg
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/518/4v48is.jpg

Maybe something TFC can think of in the future

Marco2K
01-22-2010, 11:10 AM
Keep Dreaming.

flatpicker
01-22-2010, 11:17 AM
Pretty cool looking.
Though I wonder how it would handle a heavy Toronto snowfall.

I have the same dream though... one day perhaps.

Don Julio
01-22-2010, 11:25 AM
The fact that all our stands are different shapes and sizes is a big issue when it comes to roof design.

Hitcho
01-22-2010, 12:16 PM
The fact that all our stands are different shapes and sizes is a big issue when it comes to roof design.

Hahaha! Oh man I love BMO Field, even if that sentence makes it sound like a ramshackle mess cobbled together from bits of old bleachers they found as they went along! :D:D:D

I love the idea of a roof, but at the same time we (usually) get kick ass summers and I'm not sure I want to be sat under a bit of tin stifling in the heat when I could have the sun on my back (or left shoulder) instead. rainy, windy night games in spring and fall however, that's a different matter. Plus there's the noise aspect I guess. But still, I come from england and you simply cannot have abeer in the stands with the sun on your back there. not sure I am ready to give that up yet! :D

RedsYNWA
01-22-2010, 08:38 PM
How is this inexpensive? do you know what the costs are???

rocker
01-22-2010, 08:58 PM
Considering the new north stand is costing $2 million to build, and it's a simple metal stand, and it doesn't even go across the whole north end, I would think roofs would be considerably more expensive than that for each stand.

The design costs to ensure safety in all kinds of weather would be expensive (the engineering of simple stands is probably not as complicated and thus cheaper). As well, each stand would demand its own unique roof design, which would increase costs. The West Stand would be particularly complicated since you'd probably have to integrate the roof into the current little roof, and have very tall poles to reach that height. Not to mention you'd have to completely reconsider lighting for the stadium, since the roofs may block some of the lighting from the light standards that are set back from the field, casting unusual shadows.

So letsay it costs $3 million per roof (conservative estimate). And letsay they only do west-east-south since a north roof would block the scoreboard --- that's $9 million for something that makes no money.

And BMO Field could be expanded at a later date. If they did it now, they'd have to tear down $6 million in roofs perhaps to add second levels on the east and south side. So whenever they feel they've completed expansion of the stadium for good, they could consider roofs, not now.

These are just educated guesses on my part.

TFCtoMUFC
01-22-2010, 09:05 PM
Hahaha! Oh man I love BMO Field, even if that sentence makes it sound like a ramshackle mess cobbled together from bits of old bleachers they found as they went along! :D:D:D

I love the idea of a roof, but at the same time we (usually) get kick ass summers and I'm not sure I want to be sat under a bit of tin stifling in the heat when I could have the sun on my back (or left shoulder) instead. rainy, windy night games in spring and fall however, that's a different matter. Plus there's the noise aspect I guess. But still, I come from england and you simply cannot have abeer in the stands with the sun on your back there. not sure I am ready to give that up yet! :D

+1 about how bad we make BMO sound. For MLS standards I love BMO. I think a roof would ruin one of the best things about BMO which is the open feeling and how present the landmarks of Toronto are from the stadium. Whether its the lake and Ontario Place behind the South End or the skyline behind the East. It has a great open feel. I wouldn't change that.

Canary Canuck
01-22-2010, 09:25 PM
I echo this. I'm torn on the roof issue. It's great for noise and shelter but there's just nothing quite like a sun drenched saturday afternoon with the sun in the sky, the views of the city, and a beer in your hand!

Super
01-22-2010, 09:30 PM
All we need for starter is a roof on top of the south end. We're the ones who jump and bounce all over the place during the game to create the notorious atmosphere that has now become famous throughout the city. The sound will be many times louder with a roof, and that should create a much more hostile and incredible atmosphere at BMO. That translates into dollars, because let's face it, many people go to BMO for the atmosphere as well as the football. Also, it will help to spur on our players even more, and that might add a few extra points over a season.

It's quite simply a win-win investment for the club. And considering the fact that even 5th division teams in Denmark have roofs on their stadiums SURELY an MLS club can afford putting a roof on part of its stadium, too.

Super
01-22-2010, 09:39 PM
Maybe we should approach BMO with this - all the SG's united. Surely the cost can't be anywhere near as high as we think it is (if we're talking a cheap roof on top of the south end). As a person who grew up at a stadium with around 3-400 supporters under roof one year, and then removed to a part of the stadium without a roof the following year, I can honestly say that the difference is incredible. Roof made us feel like we were 10,000 strong! Without the roof people just stopped chanting, much like at BMO when it's windy - people just stop, coz no one can hear us anyway. A roof not only adds a LOT of volume, but it's also much easier to carry tunes and spread them throughout a stadium.

As supporters this should be our number one priority. Seriously! I know we've been over this before, and I know that the club seemingly does not want to address this request - but why does this stop us? Let's get organized. Let's talk to sponsors. This is the sort of issue that is MADE for supporters to work on during pre-season.

Daveisonfire
01-23-2010, 12:35 AM
How is this inexpensive? do you know what the costs are???

Looking...inexpensive looking.


Reading.

rocker
01-23-2010, 12:33 PM
Surely the cost can't be anywhere near as high as we think it is (if we're talking a cheap roof on top of the south end). .

A cheap roof has still gotta be in the millions. I was shocked when the new simple north stand came out at $2 million. That's a little half-stand, the smallest, cheapest one could build and yet it still cost $2 million.

You gotta build something solid so it doesn't blow away/fall down under the weight of snow etc. It's dangerous to be cheap on this kind of structure.

Plus, I wonder if people's experience with roofs has been with metal roofs. Most "cheap" roofs in MLS have been new-age cloth or canvas. Does that material project sound as well as metal roofs in England? Who knows.

Also, what about expansion of the south end? They gotta wait for that before building a roof.

I just don't see a business case for it. TFC fans have chanted extremely loudly without a roof. If I'm the business guy, I'm not spending millions on a roof at this point given expansion possibilities in the future and the fact TFC fans are already probably the loudest in MLS already.

It's a luxury.

Shway
01-23-2010, 12:57 PM
rocker is always making sense of things^^

personally i would rather expansion to be done first, then think about a roof....so maybe in 2020 well see a roof.

If we become a solid MLS team always in the playoff, or even have one a cup, we can look to expand, but for now...

UltraSuperMegaMo
01-23-2010, 03:07 PM
A cheap roof has still gotta be in the millions. I was shocked when the new simple north stand came out at $2 million. That's a little half-stand, the smallest, cheapest one could build and yet it still cost $2 million.

You gotta build something solid so it doesn't blow away/fall down under the weight of snow etc. It's dangerous to be cheap on this kind of structure.

Plus, I wonder if people's experience with roofs has been with metal roofs. Most "cheap" roofs in MLS have been new-age cloth or canvas. Does that material project sound as well as metal roofs in England? Who knows.

Also, what about expansion of the south end? They gotta wait for that before building a roof.

I just don't see a business case for it. TFC fans have chanted extremely loudly without a roof. If I'm the business guy, I'm not spending millions on a roof at this point given expansion possibilities in the future and the fact TFC fans are already probably the loudest in MLS already.

It's a luxury.

This is a good a point. Grass can be argued to make good business sense, better players which increase the team's popularity, bigger teams coming in for friendlies, as can expanding the stadium, more people more money. I don't think there's an economic argument to be made for a roof.

TFC FORZA RPB
01-23-2010, 03:11 PM
Although i think a roof would be a nice addition, I do not think it is in the works for BMO Field, at least not until a complete stadium expansion, East and South sides.

Give it some time, as the 2015 Pan Am games, nears closer, the possibility of greater expansion, will be looked at.

Pookie
01-23-2010, 03:15 PM
Yes, sadly, rocker makes sense.

But in search for a justification for MLSE to shell out $$$ on a roof expenditure (because I want one), how about these:

- it would provide shade to those in club seats on the east side. MLSE could charge extra for shade ;)

- it would prevent anyone in a yet to be built condo in the area from getting a free view of the game so they would have to buy a ticket

- the advertising rights to the roof top could be sold (on both top AND bottom sides)

- with a roof, more fans would come on rainy days and would boost concession sales as a result

- MLSE could bottle the open air that used to take up the space where the roof would be constructed and sell it in a commemorative glass box (Sample shown below)

http://www.stablewoods.f9.co.uk/images/glass%20box%20angle.JPG

-

james
01-24-2010, 11:09 PM
I echo this. I'm torn on the roof issue. It's great for noise and shelter but there's just nothing quite like a sun drenched saturday afternoon with the sun in the sky, the views of the city, and a beer in your hand!

im the same way, it is so nice in the sun. But then the atmosphere would be twice as loud with a roof....and the last 2 summers did rain alot. 2007 tho, man was sunny and hot every game, was great. However i sure hate those windy days comming from the lake, a roof sure would help stop that.

rocker
01-24-2010, 11:18 PM
- it would provide shade to those in club seats on the east side. MLSE could charge extra for shade ;)


hehehe.. good idea, but the thing is though, the club seats are in shade already! i've sat there a few times and by 3:30 the upper deck west side casts a shadow over most of the rows... by 4pm there's shade all the way down to row 1 :)

DichioTFC
01-26-2010, 05:03 AM
heres an idea.. how about a retractable roof!!! i've heard good things!!

Super
01-26-2010, 06:32 AM
No roof for 10 years? Seriously? First of all, if a roof is around 3-4 million bucks, I bet you that building it now and enjoying 10 years of it before an expansion of the sound end happens makes TONS of financial sense for TFC. Trust me, the atmosphere would be absolutely incredible with a roof. Right now we can't coordinate, and this unfortunately is a problem that will continue without a roof. So fine, if supporters want to play politics and be fine with no roof - then also accept the fact that we'll never be able to have a unified south-end. Period! And who says you can't take a roof, move it, and expand on that too if the south end expands? Of course you can!

And just remember, since we have a salary cap MLSE is pocketing MILLIONS of YOUR dollars every single year - money that will never go back into the club. Also, let me remind all of you that 3rd division stadiums in Norway will sport a roof - whereas we're going to sit on our hands and talk about this as a bad investment for MLSE, and actually agree with it? Because, what, we're here to deny ideas that would improve the overall experience at BMO because MLSE (who are already cashing in BIG TIME on TFC) would pocket a few less millions - that would just get written off over a long-term period anyway. I mean, seriously.

Where are your priorities, supporters? Saying no to boosting the atmosphere 4-fold is just plain odd to me.

And yes, I agree - MLSE wouldn't support this idea initially. But if we get organized and push this forward MAYBE we can make it happen. Unless we're going to play suits and MLSE-supporters, rather than TFC supporters.

Without a roof we will NEVER be able to coordinate chants like this in the south-end. NEVER! Why? Because mostly 115 and beyond can't hear what 112 is doing. With a roof they would. Also, each individual voice would be 3-4 times louder under a roof. And trust me, signing under a roof is a HELL of a lot of fun.

IuMbrQ5oxJ8

Daveisonfire
01-26-2010, 11:34 AM
^exactly

Though I don't think we should start pushing a roof just yet....I mean we did just get a state of the art grass pitch after all

Super
01-26-2010, 11:50 AM
^exactly

Though I don't think we should start pushing a roof just yet....I mean we did just get a state of the art grass pitch after all

I personally think we're looking at this all wrong. MLSE is a business and they're not "giving us" a state of the art grass pitch because they think we're a nice group of people who deserve proper football. They only spend because they have to - or are forced to. The roof will be no different. First we have to convince all supporters that a better atmosphere is actually in our best interest - which is such a DUHHHH thing to me. Once everyone is on board we tell the club: we want a roof. Don't want to give us one? Then our message is, fine, but then don't say you value supporters. Because quite frankly, if you value atmosphere then you'll want to invest in it - and make it better. A roof is the only way to do it. 3-4 million bucks to GREATLY improve the atmosphere should be worth it. After all - what is it about BMO that brings more people than the quality of play on the pitch? The atmosphere! The ONLY reason it has never been a topic up for discussion is because supporters are not united around the issue. I hear some people talk about wanting the view of the CN Tower, or they like the sun on their faces whilst drinking their beer. These may seem like good reasons, but are they more important than the atmosphere? I leave my voice at BMO every game, and I'd love to increase the volume with a roof - and also get more people involved because the sound would carry infinitely better as well. Also, I'd love to not get completely overheated in the summer-time while we're bouncing back and forth, and spending all our energy creating atmosphere.

Yes, I'm absolutely DELIGHTED with the grass. But please understand thata the grass was never about pleasing supporters or improving quality of play. It was about one thing and one thing only: pleasing the players. Without the grass they would have had to install a new fake turf anyway because the old one was used up. And even then they'd still have trouble bringing in new players, or risk losing current ones. Bad publicity all around. So they invested in the grass.

Again, a grass pitch should not be considered a luxury. It's elementary for any proper club. Same applies for a roof. Let's not be TOO thankful for the little things - especially from a club as rich as ours (and that we're making rich every single day). Remember, they only spend a fraction of their income on the players. Heck, MLSE didn't even spend all that much on the stadium. The rest is pure profit! So I say, if most of other MLS clubs enjoy roofs, and if freakin' 3rd division clubs in Finland and Albania enjoy roofs over their stadium, surely, SURELY we can put a roof over a small part of our stadium: the south-end. Now THAT would be a way for MLSE to thank its supporters for creating an atmosphere that gave birth to the TFC-craze in town.

Roogsy
01-26-2010, 12:04 PM
Yes, I'm absolutely DELIGHTED with the grass. But please understand thata the grass was never about pleasing supporters or improving quality of play. It was about one thing and one thing only: pleasing the players. Without the grass they would have had to install a new fake turf anyway because the old one was used up. And even then they'd still have trouble bringing in new players, or risk losing current ones. Bad publicity all around. So they invested in the grass.

QFT.

We have to lose this mindset that MLSE brought in grass for us. That's deluded. We should be happy about it yes, but not for a second believe they did it out of the kindness of their hearts.

JuliquE
01-26-2010, 12:16 PM
Whilst I'm not far from agreeing with Super on his points about MLSE's profits verses expenditure on the team and all things that matter surrounding it, I still quite hate the look of an unenclosed stadium - can't stand it.

It's what we have, and I've accepted that - oddly enough, I love BMO.. but I make a conscious effort to ignore all it's imperfections, and the fact that it's not enclosed around the corners and such stands out the most for me.

I would be more enthused about, first, seeing this properly addressed before we even look at a roof.. then again, I don't see too much harm in a mini-version to be built for the South end in the interim.

Tschuess

flatpicker
01-26-2010, 12:47 PM
I like what you are saying Super!

I've always been one of the pro-roof supporters.

I want it to happen soooo badly!

The game day experience would be far superior to what it is today.

rocker
01-26-2010, 02:01 PM
Whilst I'm not far from agreeing with Super on his points about MLSE's profits verses expenditure on the team and all things that matter surrounding it, I still quite hate the look of an unenclosed stadium - can't stand it.

It's what we have, and I've accepted that - oddly enough, I love BMO.. but I make a conscious effort to ignore all it's imperfections, and the fact that it's not enclosed around the corners and such stands out the most for me.

I would be more enthused about, first, seeing this properly addressed before we even look at a roof.. then again, I don't see too much harm in a mini-version to be built for the South end in the interim.

Tschuess

What's the big problem with an unenclosed stadium?

I hear this complaint once in awhile on this board and I never understood why this is so problematic. In England I see a lot of stadiums that aren't closed around, just like BMO. And BMO is closed on 2 of its four corners (north west + south west corners). I just don't see why this is such a point of contention for people. I understand the roof thing and the field turf thing... but not this. Adding some seats in the corners doesn't seem like something to concern myself with.

flatpicker
01-26-2010, 02:15 PM
^ I agree about it not being a big deal. Having open corners is fine with me (with a roof too, of course!)
But I don't know what you mean about BMO being closed on 2 of it's four corners.

toronto red
01-26-2010, 03:15 PM
Hey, I just wanted to clear something up about roofs and sound. There been a huge debate about this on everyone's favourite soccer site Big Soccer. I'm not trying to argue this to the nth degree but its kinda relevant.

In principle the sound should get reflected by a roof at a rate dependent on the distance, angle and relative absorption of the roof materials. The sound does not get and cannot practically be amplified and therefore it will not get louder under a roof. It will be better "experientially" under the stand from echo effects though and should in theory (backed by my own experience, similar to that Tottenham video) make it sound "better" and help with coordination of chants. Kinda like in the GO train tunnel!:)

There are some on BS that would argue that a roof of a certain type such as those at the HDC and Bridgeview, RSL and Colorado would give very little benefit from an atmosphere perpective. The new RBA with its enclosed effect will be much better but not as good as if the stadium had a metal roof and blah blah.

That said, I would like to see covered stand at BMO. It would improve the atmosphere greatly IMO. A lot of our sound gets lost in the wind. Having the new stand at the other end will improve atmosphere no doubt.

Hope that helps to put some perspective to the loudness issue.

JuliquE
01-26-2010, 03:52 PM
What's the big problem with an unenclosed stadium?

I hear this complaint once in awhile on this board and I never understood why this is so problematic. In England I see a lot of stadiums that aren't closed around, just like BMO. And BMO is closed on 2 of its four corners (north west + south west corners). I just don't see why this is such a point of contention for people. I understand the roof thing and the field turf thing... but not this. Adding some seats in the corners doesn't seem like something to concern myself with.
It's not a big problem. Rather, it's down to taste.

I know there are a fair many such stadia, around the world.. but I've never quite appreciated them over the likes of those which are enclosed; again, just my personal preference.

Combined with the uneven stands, BMO barely passes for a stadium of any respectability (not speaking on the supporters, of whom more than make up for much of BMO's shortcomings).

Heck - I still love the thing, like a mother to an ugly baby (a bit harsh; I do like a lot about it's design, actually).. but this is where I'd cast my vote for improving things with infrastructure, and I should hope there might be some that would rally for the same (if only for the sake of rallying; I'll buy the beers, for this cause).

Tschuess

Super
01-26-2010, 04:32 PM
That said, I would like to see covered stand at BMO. It would improve the atmosphere greatly IMO. A lot of our sound gets lost in the wind. Having the new stand at the other end will improve atmosphere no doubt.

Yes, that is no doubt true. I remember the Puerto Rico game we had and the atmosphere was great. We could feel that there was less sound-waste, and that encouraged more people to either join in - or to stay longer with a chant. When people feel that the sound does not carry they just stop - and that means the rest of us have to be even louder (hence why I have no voice for 2 days following a game).

fetajr
01-27-2010, 10:54 AM
Yes, sadly, rocker makes sense.

But in search for a justification for MLSE to shell out $$$ on a roof expenditure (because I want one), how about these:

- it would provide shade to those in club seats on the east side. MLSE could charge extra for shade ;)

- it would prevent anyone in a yet to be built condo in the area from getting a free view of the game so they would have to buy a ticket

- the advertising rights to the roof top could be sold (on both top AND bottom sides)

- with a roof, more fans would come on rainy days and would boost concession sales as a result

- MLSE could bottle the open air that used to take up the space where the roof would be constructed and sell it in a commemorative glass box (Sample shown below)

-

they could also make the glass on the roof so that they are like magnifying glasses, making the sun much more intense for our skin, which would make us hit the concessions to buy:
- 100ml bottles of sunsreen at $10 each
- hats with neck protection
- more beer b/c heat = thirst

http://www.coastlineadventures.com/images/P/Tilley-LTM6-Tuckaway-Neck-Protector-Insect-Shield-Men-P.jpg

greatwhitenorf
01-27-2010, 12:06 PM
The MLS weather is hardly Manchester in December. Most supporters enjoy the summer sun on their bones. The south-end sounds are quite clearly heard around the ground as things stand.

I'd rather see the club invest money like they're doing now - better playing surface, better coaching and training resources. Better players, too, someday, when league finance rules loosen up.

Cheaper solutions exist.

Just get rid of the now quite pointless Tribal Rythym Nation. They regularly drown out the sound from the other side of the south end and demotivate the fans standing around them. Or fully integrate them into the chants and songs.

Bring the all-singing, all-dancing Sec. 112-13 zealots out of their comfort zone. Walk over to 116-17-18 for parts of the games and do a little evangelical missionary work. Share your fervour, spread the word. It'll get the west side much more engaged.

Cost: Zero dollars.

Results: South end doing a proper job being heard and seen, easier to get whole stadium involved.

Likelihood of this happening: Zilch.

Why?: Doubt that the club is willing to admit an error in giving TRN their zone. Doubt that either TRN or the more conventional SSGs are interested in integrating their efforts. We'd have seen that by now, surely? It's a proper Two Solitudes, isn't it?

And if the SSGs wanted to bring the entire south-end into their songs and chants, wouldn't the best place to locate be the middle of the south end so that songs and chants could be picked up easier by neighbouring fans?

Daveisonfire
01-27-2010, 12:23 PM
The MLS weather is hardly Manchester in December. Most supporters enjoy the summer sun on their bones. The south-end sounds are quite clearly heard around the ground as things stand.

I'd rather see the club invest money like they're doing now - better playing surface, better coaching and training resources. Better players, too, someday, when league finance rules loosen up.

Cheaper solutions exist.

Just get rid of the now quite pointless Tribal Rythym Nation. They regularly drown out the sound from the other side of the south end and demotivate the fans standing around them. Or fully integrate them into the chants and songs.

Bring the all-singing, all-dancing Sec. 112-13 zealots out of their comfort zone. Walk over to 116-17-18 for parts of the games and do a little evangelical missionary work. Share your fervour, spread the word. It'll get the west side much more engaged.

Cost: Zero dollars.

Results: South end doing a proper job being heard and seen, easier to get whole stadium involved.

Likelihood of this happening: Zilch.

Why?: Doubt that the club is willing to admit an error in giving TRN their zone. Doubt that either TRN or the more conventional SSGs are interested in integrating their efforts. We'd have seen that by now, surely? It's a proper Two Solitudes, isn't it?

And if the SSGs wanted to bring the entire south-end into their songs and chants, wouldn't the best place to locate be the middle of the south end so that songs and chants could be picked up easier by neighbouring fans?

That wouldn't work to unify the South end, when 115 can't even hear what 112 are doing, they can't join in

greatwhitenorf
01-27-2010, 01:52 PM
http://www.rip2itviralspiral.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/article-1166678-04380eb4000005dc-851_468x424.jpg

Perhaps the situation calls for an Airborne Angel of Harmony.

Daveisonfire
01-27-2010, 02:00 PM
http://www.rip2itviralspiral.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/article-1166678-04380eb4000005dc-851_468x424.jpg

Perhaps the situation calls for an Airborne Angel of Harmony.

She'll need a roof to hang from though :p

Technorgasm
01-27-2010, 05:57 PM
MLSE and MLS SURELY will only look at stadium improvements . . as in

1. MORE SEATS

2. MORE REVENUE STREAMS

and not making the atmosphere or fans experience better.

however, if we could tie it in to somehow protect that fancy, and expensive grass surface, maybe there would be a legitimate cost/benefit analysis in favour of a roof.

ie - Keep dreaming. lol\

EAT IT

Super
01-27-2010, 06:07 PM
MLSE and MLS SURELY will only look at stadium improvements . . as in

1. MORE SEATS

2. MORE REVENUE STREAMS

and not making the atmosphere or fans experience better.

however, if we could tie it in to somehow protect that fancy, and expensive grass surface, maybe there would be a legitimate cost/benefit analysis in favour of a roof.

ie - Keep dreaming. lol\

EAT IT

Do you think that a greatly improved atmosphere would be worth something to the club in terms of dollars and cents? I submit that it would. TV experience would be better - so more viewers, and more ad dollars. TFC would continue to be the new darling of Toronto, and will be famed for its atmosphere that not only is second to none in the city, but in North America. Atmosphere will also bring more people into their seats - and that means less empty seats as we saw towards the end of last season.

But above all, it makes BEING AT BMO an absolutely amazing experience - regardless of the quality of play or weather. Everyone will always leave satisfied that at least they got to be at the place with the best atmosphere in North America.

THAT is how you sell it, because yes, the above will definitely translate into dollars. Far more than the grass ever will.

rocker
01-27-2010, 09:19 PM
Do you think that a greatly improved atmosphere would be worth something to the club in terms of dollars and cents? .

I take issue with this point -- that a roof would create a greatly improved atmosphere. The atmosphere is already great. If anyone attended the allstar game or the first Montreal game they'd remember how massive the atmosphere already is. Winning would help make it better I think ;)

Secondly, people have come to BMO for the experience already, so it's not like a roof would make them come for the experience.

Macksam
01-27-2010, 09:42 PM
Without a roof we will NEVER be able to coordinate chants like this in the south-end. NEVER! Why? Because mostly 115 and beyond can't hear what 112 is doing. With a roof they would. Also, each individual voice would be 3-4 times louder under a roof. And trust me, signing under a roof is a HELL of a lot of fun.

IuMbrQ5oxJ8
We can still coordinate chants like this one:
1CAZJbix09w
That stadium doesn't have a roof, but the steep stands and wierd architecture probably make up for that.

Super
01-27-2010, 09:45 PM
I take issue with this point -- that a roof would create a greatly improved atmosphere. The atmosphere is already great. If anyone attended the allstar game or the first Montreal game they'd remember how massive the atmosphere already is. Winning would help make it better I think ;)

Secondly, people have come to BMO for the experience already, so it's not like a roof would make them come for the experience.

Alright, fair enough. But trust me - we can get much better, and much, much louder. That would only add to the overall experience. Obviously I am not saying that we have poor atmosphere at BMO - not at all. But there are days where it's so windy that it's next to impossible to get any atmosphere going. Also, because of the layout of the stadium, location, whatever, the sound doesn't carry from one end of the south-end to the other - and as a result 118 won't know what 112 is doing. A roof would solve this problem. Most of the singing comes from just 111, 112 and 113. Imagine 3 times that PLUS a roof. It would be INSANELY loud!

Super
01-27-2010, 09:46 PM
That stadium doesn't have a roof, but the steep stands and wierd architecture probably make up for that.

Yes, architecture is different. Unfortunately we're at a great disadvantage with how BMO is built - and the wind factor, and so much more. However, the good news is that the north-end stand will DEFINITELY improve the volume. Definitely! And that's a really great thing for us supporters!

Macksam
01-27-2010, 09:57 PM
Yes, architecture is different. Unfortunately we're at a great disadvantage with how BMO is built - and the wind factor, and so much more. However, the good news is that the north-end stand will DEFINITELY improve the volume. Definitely! And that's a really great thing for us supporters!
Yeah, I'd like to see a roof as well for the reasons you highlited, but won't hold my breath until after further stadium expansion.

Super
01-27-2010, 10:02 PM
Yeah, I'd like to see a roof as well for the reasons you highlited, but won't hold my breath until after further stadium expansion.

It's a long process, no doubt.

drewski
01-28-2010, 09:14 AM
How is this inexpensive? do you know what the costs are???


cause its Bulgarian. It'll be made with substandard materials using substandard work.

If it were to be done in Canada, AT LEAST double whatever the cost to the Bulgarians is.


EDIT: though I wouldn't call €80 million "inexpensive"

http://bulgarianproperties.info/varna-new-stadium-and-sport-complex/

rocker
01-28-2010, 10:14 AM
roofs cost a decent amount of money. I mean, remember that Philly's original stadium concept included a full roof

http://chesterstadium.com/ChesterStadium1.jpg

but with budget problems they went with this...

http://www.oleole.com/media/main/images/member_photos/group2/subgrp139/mlsphiladelphiaunion_292388.jpg

So obviously there was quite an expense for those south and north roofs, otherwise they wouldn't have chopped it from the budget to save a buck.