The TFC experience as we have known it for the past 4 years or so have been extremely bad. Honestly, it's 30 people trying to get chants going, and because of the lack of roof the sound won't travel far enough to where we can spread the atmosphere. Add to that the tons of rain games where nobody showed up. There's nothing of value to hold onto from the days without a roof.Originally Posted by Parkdale
thats because your not forced to sit while its pouring in a non supporters group section.
outside of supporters groups, the atmosphere has still been shot dead by rules and security
True... but if it is raining you can certainly stand up and walk over to a supporter section and join in. Nobody forces people to sit during rain, it is a conscious decision to not move into a standing section.
anyway like i said i know i'm in the minority with that sentiment.
Might depend on the kind of roof. On TV I see stadiums with coverings that allow light to filter in so that you don't feel like you are sitting in a cave looking out the opening.
I am with Parkdale - I like it the way it is. plus, when we call for a roof, the result will be Argos sharing the field and the justification that it was the only way to give the supporters what they wanted most - a roof. In other words, don't support a roof if you don't want the Argos at BMO.
I would like a roof, but I will say this: the roof isn't being built for the supporters, the increased noise levels, or the people in the south stand. It's about creating a more controlled atmosphere that will help TFC cater to a wider audience, which includes the corporate crowd. Nothing wrong with that, and we stand to benefit from the project either way.
So you're saying that you'd rather have TFC play in the current set up than get a stadium renovation that will likley be on par with Sporting KC's if not better?
Some of the best stadiums in the world are using a hybrid turf and are considered to have the best field to play on, yet 10 CFL games are going to ruin it completely?
If TFC is fielding a winning team year in and out.. who cares if they are sharing a stadium, especially if they're playing in a place that is more than a high school footbal stadium in the states.
My point is: Let's wait and see what the design process will show. Why bother freaking out about something that you cannot control. They will involve the supporters in whatever decisions they will make. Leweike isn't dumb, he's been around for a while and he wants to create something exceptional here. Why would you try and stall that without having even seen what the proposal is?
Ruining the grass at all for a better shell makes no sense to me so yeah people are going to be mentioning it now before its gone.
Also, you mention high school football. Again with what it looks like being more important than whats played there?
FORMER FULL TIME KOOL-AID DRINKER
Although a roof may keep the sun off people's heads, it also has the potential to keep a lot of heat trapped in the stands and make it feel hotter than it is...
A roof really keeps the supporter sound echoeing around in a football stadium. Whenever I go back to watch Oxford, they may only ge 5k supporters, but they are LOUD whenever they sing and chant just because the sound bounces off the roof. At BMO all the noise vanishes.
I don't think you can compare a European football stadium with a North American Eggball, Baseball or other stadiums as they are massive arena's. a 20k stadium should be both intimate and also intimidating. I remember Oxford's old stadium, it was only 12k capacity, but a lot of opposition players said that playing there was the worst experience just because the crowd were so close and the noise was super loud! The supporters section is as close at BMO, but all the noise created by the south east corner is just lost without a roof.
We need a roof, we really do. I think the difference in sound and atmosphere would amaze people!
I dunno. As long as a breeze still finds it's way through the stadium it shouldn't be an issue.
proper ventialtion and gravity (heat rises) will take of that
You can't compare the Skydome with the BMO with a roof. That's like comparing the atmosphere at a concert at the Horseshoe compared to the Molson Amphetheatre! The Skydone IS a soulless place, but then again, so is the Amphetheatre. If you have to compare "BMO with a roof" to anywhere, you need to compare it to another soccer stadium of equivolent size with a roof.
Red Bull Arena has 25k and a roof - what is the atmosphere like there, for example? Is it louder and more intimate feeling that BMO?
It's a roof. I compare it. I don't care about the weather and intimacy is an excuse to change the stadium and share with the Argos. I don't need it.
If you want to talk about RBA I'll say I'll be jealous when they still have a proper grass pitch and we don't plus the Argos.
FORMER FULL TIME KOOL-AID DRINKER
Haha breeze? Down by the Lake? Yeah I think we're good...
FORMER FULL TIME KOOL-AID DRINKER
yeah, that was why I said it.
No lack of wind down there.
It's possible to have both a roof and not a roof.
PPL Park in Philly is a good example. Partial roof over what would be our East and West sides. North and South ends fend for themselves in the elements. It is a beautiful stadium.
I say build a roof and throw Parkdale on the roof!
Roof. Need it for the casual fans and so we can hear ourselves chant. Anything that is going to carry sound is better. It's the most vital part of atmosphere.
I find it interesting that Real Madrid's new stadium plans and now Barcelona's new stadium plans both have retractable roofs and they have nowhere near the severe weather we do.
http://www.goal.com/en-ca/news/4184/...u?ICID=HP_BN_3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8q30nseaJs
So from Parky's initial post - it sounds like the roof would be closed off - similar to a skydone/olympic stadium?
I thought it would be closer to European style where the stands are somewhat covered and the pitch is open to the elements....??
My answer Depends on the design: I want an imposing atmosphere built into the design. Flat Roof and Rectangular.... Tell the designers that we want a building that children are almost afraid of entering. Our stadium needs to be imposing and look like a dungeon that somebody ripped part of the the roof off because the smell of dead competition inside it was starting to distract our boys. If they want to put a couple fiery torches on the walls here and there I am cool with that too, but that's just for bonus points. No fancy curves or bubbly looking lines and don't make the roof white...anything but white .... If they make the roof of our football stadium look like a piece of white chewing gum blown into a bubble or some quilt my grandma made or some type of futuristic landgoing sailboatship, I be going cray cray.
Nothing anybody has indicated has said ANYTHING about it being a dome like thing.
Apart from the obvious grass growing issue, and the cost involved, TL was very clear in saying "a roof over the fans" when talking to the media of late.
Last edited by OgtheDim; 02-03-2014 at 03:36 PM. Reason: Stepping off the ledge
You really can't just compare "a roof". It's like saying ALL cars are the same, or all houses, or all anything really! You have to make a like-for-like comparison. I don't particularly like MacDonalds, that doesn't mean to say I think all burgers are horrible, or I don't like Hershey chocolate, but doesn't mean I hate all chocolate.
I'm watching the Man City Chelsea game and the noise in that HUGE stadium is fantastic! You can't compare that to the terrible atmosphere in almost any Skydome sports game.
How do you know that the grass will be ruined?
I give you Emirates Stadium in London. Considered to have the best surface to play on in the EPL.
- Composed of DessoGrass (Hybrid) - similar to what is being mentioned for TFC so far.
- 28 games played on the surface during the current 2013/14 season - 18 games for TFC, 10 games for Argos
Centurylink Field in Seattle
- 18 games by the Sounders plus 8 games by the Seahawks
- Best attendence in all of MLS.
- Passionate soccer-first support and yet they are ok with playing in Century Link field and splitting time with an NFL club.
What if both teams could play on the same surface and the experience wasn't destroyed for either. Say this was possible and say it would provide you with a updated stadium that would improve the gameday experience for all. My hyoptheical situation is just as plausible as your assumption that the grass would be ruined and the Argo's will completely kill TFC's experience. I say, let's wait to see what is proposed.
This. I hadn't thought of this before, but I completely agree. All we need to do is incorporate TFC's current colour scheme to the roof design, red, onyx.. and maybe a splash of white. Make it menacing.
Sorry, but i have to vehemently disagree with this.
First off, comparing 28 EPL games to 18 MLS + 10 Argos is nowhere near an accurate comparison.
American... sorry... Canadian Football is MUCH worse for a field than Soccer.
The play is all congregated in the middle between the hashes, and along each sidelines.
The repetitive nature of a bunch of behemoths trying to plow through eachother play after play in the same area of the field results in a torn up, destroyed pitch.
Second, I wouldn't trade BMO as it is now for Centruylink... it's not even a question.
Centurylink is field turf. That is a complete non-starter.
Guys like Henry refuse to play away games at Seattle because of it.
While it might be good that Seattle doesn't have to face guys like him at home, it also means there is ZERO chance of them ever signing a World Class player like that, so long as they play on that surface.
There is no way we would have landed Defoe if we still had turf, and very little chance Bradley would have come here either.
Last edited by gdg_9; 02-03-2014 at 04:31 PM.
Parkdale is talking about roofs not grass. Tim L is concockting a crazy strain of supergrass in his basement right now with his 3 d printer. Grass is not a worry. Get back on topic. Hey did anyone see the president of the SanJose Quakes sporting google glasses at the unveiling of the logo...its going to take me a long time to get used to people looking that f'ed up. Roof!
well that got Rob Ford's attention!
I guess the kind of roof would make such a big difference. The problem being that some of the 'light' roof designs that still allow natural light and wind wouldn't do anything to amplify the sound. A classic 'tin shed' roof with a cement back wall would really make things loud, but also shitty.
something like this would be the best for eveyone:
http://www.timbers.com/sites/portlan...es/stadium.jpg
///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\
If we want to be taken seriously we do need a roof. I will never forget those weather-impacted games like the one last season against Columbus. The team going as nuts as the fans in a torrential downpour after scoring the tying and go-ahead goals. A real "all for one" moment. I think rain is brilliant during a football match in the summer, but it's also ridiculous to see half of the stadium emptying to the concourse.
A roof is needed for sound quality as well as protection from the elements. Not to mention, we'll look like a bonafide professional team.
Last edited by Gazza; 02-03-2014 at 06:57 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote