An Inexpensive Looking Roof Solution
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:
Maybe something TFC can think of in the future
Keep Dreaming.
Pretty cool looking.
Though I wonder how it would handle a heavy Toronto snowfall.
I have the same dream though... one day perhaps.
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!Originally Posted by Don Julio
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!
We are the Angry Mob, we read the papers every day
We like who we like, we hate who we hate
But we're also easily swayed
How is this inexpensive? do you know what the costs are???
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.
Last edited by rocker; 01-22-2010 at 09:05 PM.
+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.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!
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!
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!
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.
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.
Looking...inexpensive looking.
Reading.
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.
Last edited by rocker; 01-23-2010 at 12:37 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...
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.
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.
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)
-
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.
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- it would provide shade to those in club seats on the east side. MLSE could charge extra for shade
heres an idea.. how about a retractable roof!!! i've heard good things!!
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.
Last edited by Super; 01-26-2010 at 06:56 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
^ 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.
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.
Last edited by toronto red; 01-26-2010 at 03:21 PM.
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
Last edited by JuliquE; 01-26-2010 at 03:57 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
