Yes... They will finanlly get it
No.... They will screw this up royally
hmmm... not sure? how much money will they make from this?
Thanks for all your info jabbronies, you're the first source of real facts about all this.
Clearly they have to build around what is already there, which limits design significantly. We're just not going to be able to have a stadium on the level of RBA, which is fine if they can still make some much needed improvements. Wasn't the party line a few years ago that a roof was impossible because of high winds or something? At least we've made some progress at this point.
One of the things the developer said was because of the winds, they had to keep much of the stadium open. They tried to think of wind breaking? solutions, but it was very difficult.Originally Posted by mowe
We are getting a roof, and updated concessions, but the wind will still be able to flow through the stadium. You can see the renderings have openings all over the place.
TBH - this is a cheap makeshift solution to get the winter classic and the CFL into that stadium before 2017.
Within 5-10 years we'll be looking at this stadium again and trying to patch other holes in the construction/design.
If there's public money available as part of a World Cup bid....you can bet on it.
For his accent alone...I understood all that. Me dat wu be prowd tu hav chet wit thet lad.
100% agreed.
Agreed. I couldn't stop looking at it, meself; just 12 or so minutes, anyway.
Oh shit I didn't even think about that.
As mentioned before, they are not spending cash on the roof. They are not permanent structures (concrete).
Agreed.
Are you assuming that MLSE is going to replace or paint the existing West and East stands just to piss us off?I would bet on Grey. Not support it , but I'd just bet on it.
Yeah, it certainly looks like the design mandate was to build the cheapest roofed-over, DISMANTLE-ABLE, stadium. I see nothing within this design or the concept to groundshare that's worth hanging my heart on.
Slapdash Central.
Last edited by Ageroo; 03-06-2014 at 11:09 AM. Reason: formatting
Definitely a good idea but it would have to be MLSE paying for it. The TTC as it currently is run is not going to pay for this.
Costing it out, the TTC would probably lose app. 30K*2 trips*$3.00= $180K a TFC game at the absolute highest everybody takes TTC and pays a full fare figure. More likely about $80K given all of us who have passes already and kids and seniors and those who take GO and those who will drive no matter what. Argos, probably around $60K. So, giving people a free ride there and back on game day would mean a subsidy of about $2.25 million a year.
Not sure MLSE will go for that. Would probably be cheaper to run shuttle buses from Sherway Gardens, Dundas West, somewhere in Riverdale, Downsview, Finch station, and STC (I'm just throwing out ideas - lets not do crayons on a map about a shuttle bus service - we might end up with buses all starting at Bessarion station)
To put that figure into perspective on the TTC side, a $5 million cut in the city subsidy usually means a 5 cent increase.
I would suggest a fare free zone on Go trains between Union and the Ex on game days, if you have a ticket, is a doable subsidy that MLSE could work out with Metrolinx.
Looking more closely at this, I can see why they wouldn't blow that picture up, it looks rather ugly. It becomes clear it's just a extended roof built over a cheap set.
At Sunderland, there is a park and ride scheme for fans at an industrial park. Basically, fans park at the industrial park then take tons of buses to the stadium that are put on by the club. After the game, they line up and take the buses back. Seems to work fairly well - would work even better if they had right of way for a period after the game. Might be worth looking into.
Blammo...
You still need a 70,000+ seat stadium for the World Cup.
Which tenant is moving in? Will the public money be used to build a stadium for a NFL team? Likely not. But are you going to build a 70,000+ seat stadium with no potential new tenant?
Chicken and the egg.
"CSA?" *taps microphone* "Hello?"
"How is this World Cup bid going to work?" "Are you partnering with a NFL team?"
"Hello?"
"Hello, CSA?"
... "Hello?"
^Olympics bid
philadelphia has the same sort of thing with buses running to and from the stadium to the public transit station in Chester...but I think it is more to do with the stadium being in Chester and not wanting people wandering around especially at night
And much like in London... who is going to be the tenant of this new 70,000+ seat stadium?
So the CSA is going to partner with the COC on an Olympic bid?
Is a NFL team going to want to move into a stadium with a track around it? Giving up good seating to do so?
What reason would he have for lying?
With the recent losing bids by New York City and Chicago I hope Toronto never spends any money on an Olympic bid - until they find out exactly who to bribe and exactly how much they need to pay them...
Don't think he's lying at all. It just throws a spanner into the "Football ruins pitches" narrative that I've seen on this board.
The Olympic Stadium in London is being retro-fitted with retractable seating to accomodate West Ham as permanent tennant.
The 2017 World Athletics championships will be there and it is a host venue for the 2015 Rugby World Cup.
The made a mess of the legacy planning but they are getting there.
like Etihad Stadium
Build into the plans that after the games the stadium can be modified to easily remove the track and add seats in it's place.
NFL team gets a stadium at a fraction of the cost.
That was exactly the plan for Olympic stadium in Montreal. Such big plans. Ensco is right, that's the kind of talk we need to avoid in this city, there's just no history of that kind of thing working out. And the city and province are too divided politically for that kind of development.
These plans show us the level of commitment MLSE have - and it's nowhere near enough for the NFL. This kind of thing is exactly why the NFL doesn't allow corporate owners. They really need Jerry Jones-style ego-driven individuals, not compromising, "this is good enough," accountants.
At least now we know what the next 15-20 years will look like and it isn't too bad.
Everyone should scan all the posts in this thread going back to the beginning.
The idea of a temp(ish) stadium has always been around.
If MLSE want to build a structure that can be demolished in case a) NFL does come b) Argos leave c)ROI since it seems they are paying for it
then has been the basis of the idea for a long time.
Last edited by billyfly; 03-06-2014 at 11:48 AM.
CFL season is 18 games long, thus 9 home games. You also suggested +2 home games if they make it all the way, current CFL playoff format makes it impossible to host more than one playoff game.
9 or 10 if Toronto finishes 1st or 2nd.
last night the main point made by the discussion panel was that they are looking for input from the community.
They are early enough in the process that anything and everything should be considered.
Already cleared up this point earlier in the thread.
Point is there's about 10 games to accommodate for.
Agreed. GO transit is really stepping up with their service since last year.
BMO field isn't good enough for World Cup. We need more than 40K stadium to host World Cup (especially final game) outside of group stage games. Rogers Centre or new stadium in GTA is going to be built if we want all big world cup games in Toronto.
Posting Permissions
