HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada

Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #9981  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2017, 10:31 PM
elly63 elly63 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 4,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
Does FIFA require the stands to be mostly covered at WC stadiums or did I dream that up?
I believe that was one of their "rules" at one time (likely still)
     
     
  #9982  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2017, 10:33 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
Monsieur Sainte-Nitouche
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 34,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper View Post
Apparently that's all that matters.

BC Place looks great with the roof renos. Olympic Stadium is the peak of 1960s futurism. They're still more retro than flashy and new. It's unlikely they will be remember by global audiences in comparison to the post post modern cathedrals to football to the south of us. I don't get the hang up on how BMO place looks or may look in 2026.
If the stands were fairly equal on all four sides BMO might look like a mini Old Trafford!
__________________
Vous n'êtes pas écoeurés de mourir, bande de caves?
     
     
  #9983  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2017, 10:36 PM
elly63 elly63 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 4,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHikka View Post
Hasn't Rogers Centre been reconfigured so that a non-baseball setup is essentially impossible? Something about making seats permanently fixed, anyway.
Plans for spring facility, Rogers Centre renovations in progress
Shi Davidi sportsnet.ca February 21, 2017

DUNEDIN, Fla. – By the end of the 2017 season, Toronto Blue Jays president and CEO Mark Shapiro expects to have plans in place for both a new spring training facility and a Rogers Centre renovation that will run into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

The two projects remain in the planning stages, with a funding proposal for a revamped stadium and training site in Dunedin, Fla., currently under examination by officials at the Pinellas County level, and themes for what might be done at the dome emerging.

In that vein, the installation of natural grass at Rogers Centre remains a consideration although it may very well be an unlikely one with money instead being focused on a reworking of the seating bowl, expanded concourses and the creation of distinctive areas for different game-watching experiences.

“No. 1,” Shapiro continued, “would be to turn the stadium into a ballpark. Very simply that would be a top priority for us, which means (providing) a modern ballpark experience for our fans. What I would hope is that by mid-summer we have those concepts fully flushed out, a potential set of loose designs, not plans but loose designs along with some costs so I can begin to have those conversations with ownership.
     
     
  #9984  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2017, 10:38 PM
JHikka's Avatar
JHikka JHikka is offline
Haru Urara
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 5,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
Does FIFA require the stands to be mostly covered at WC stadiums or did I dream that up?
This sort of rule would eliminate the majority of the US bid stadiums I would think (Rose Bowl, LA Coliseum, etc.). South Africa 2010 had a number of stadiums with completely uncovered stadiums. Don't think i've ever heard of it being an official rule or unofficial guideline.
     
     
  #9985  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2017, 10:40 PM
elly63 elly63 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 4,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHikka View Post
Commonwealth has more seats than BMO so clearly it should host matches instead
Or maybe Edmonton might put in a better bid, not feeling entitled and all
     
     
  #9986  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2017, 11:01 PM
elly63 elly63 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 4,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
Does FIFA require the stands to be mostly covered at WC stadiums or did I dream that up?
That used to come up as what I call one of FIFA's "guidelines" and I am looking, but haven't found any confirmation yet.

I think I have confirmed the actual guideline about temporary stands. It basically says they should be avoided but will be considered if other options are not available and if they have been inspected locally (and by FIFA if requested) and a safety certificate issued.
     
     
  #9987  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2017, 2:30 AM
king10 king10 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 2,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by elly63 View Post
That used to come up as what I call one of FIFA's "guidelines" and I am looking, but haven't found any confirmation yet.

I think I have confirmed the actual guideline about temporary stands. It basically says they should be avoided but will be considered if other options are not available and if they have been inspected locally (and by FIFA if requested) and a safety certificate issued.
South africa and brazil both used temporary stands, even in their knockout round stadiums.
     
     
  #9988  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2017, 4:59 AM
Chopper's Avatar
Chopper Chopper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 33
For me, BC Place(Vancouver) and the Big O(Montreal) are the only cities/stadiums that can host the World Cup for Canada. These two cities won olympic bids, their stadiums can qualify(with small reno tweaks), transportation is not a problem, and both are major sport cities. The east and west of Canada are well represented.

Toronto's BMO renovation/total reconstruction will not be a good bid piece since FIFA is having a reputation cleansing right now. Edmonton's problem is public transportation and infrastructure(roads). Correct me if I'm wrong, I thought only 12 stadiums for the whole north America are going to host FIFA. So 2 for both Canada and Mexico then the rest will be for the US.
__________________
Chopper
     
     
  #9989  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2017, 7:22 AM
osmo osmo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by elly63 View Post
Plans for spring facility, Rogers Centre renovations in progress
Shi Davidi sportsnet.ca February 21, 2017

DUNEDIN, Fla. – By the end of the 2017 season, Toronto Blue Jays president and CEO Mark Shapiro expects to have plans in place for both a new spring training facility and a Rogers Centre renovation that will run into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

The two projects remain in the planning stages, with a funding proposal for a revamped stadium and training site in Dunedin, Fla., currently under examination by officials at the Pinellas County level, and themes for what might be done at the dome emerging.

In that vein, the installation of natural grass at Rogers Centre remains a consideration although it may very well be an unlikely one with money instead being focused on a reworking of the seating bowl, expanded concourses and the creation of distinctive areas for different game-watching experiences.

“No. 1,” Shapiro continued, “would be to turn the stadium into a ballpark. Very simply that would be a top priority for us, which means (providing) a modern ballpark experience for our fans. What I would hope is that by mid-summer we have those concepts fully flushed out, a potential set of loose designs, not plans but loose designs along with some costs so I can begin to have those conversations with ownership.
You really enjoy the misquoting, eh? Clearly Shipario states that "turning Rogers Centre into a ballpark" is his top priority. Rogers Centre won't house anything aside from baseball and concerts soon enough after the renovations. For the pennies Rogers paid for it they will turn it into a TV facility and ATM where every inch can generate revenues.
     
     
  #9990  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2017, 3:24 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by elly63 View Post
Is there some common ground here? I can fight all day if people want but maybe it might be more constructive to find a few points of agreement.

In my opinion, five games for two cities is too much and doesn't shine the light on more of the country. I was going to post in favour of three cities but now I'm arguing with myself about why not four. Two cities host three games and two cities host two.

I don't think anyone agrees with me about my previous post that wouldn't it be a great opportunity for Calgary to get a new stadium as part of this and an Olympic bid (and possibly a U of C involvement) but I would love to see it happen.
Yeah, who wants a big new stadium? The university might play in one if there is no other option, but really, all the university needs is one similar to UBC's, maybe a bit larger to fit an entire entering class on the berm.
     
     
  #9991  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2017, 3:41 PM
Franco401's Avatar
Franco401 Franco401 is offline
Kneel before Irving
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southside Fredericton, NB
Posts: 744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chopper View Post
For me, BC Place(Vancouver) and the Big O(Montreal) are the only cities/stadiums that can host the World Cup for Canada. These two cities won olympic bids, their stadiums can qualify(with small reno tweaks), transportation is not a problem, and both are major sport cities. The east and west of Canada are well represented.

Toronto's BMO renovation/total reconstruction will not be a good bid piece since FIFA is having a reputation cleansing right now. Edmonton's problem is public transportation and infrastructure(roads). Correct me if I'm wrong, I thought only 12 stadiums for the whole north America are going to host FIFA. So 2 for both Canada and Mexico then the rest will be for the US.
There will be 20-25 stadiums due to the expanded, 48-team format.

http://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2017...al-host-cities
     
     
  #9992  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2017, 3:51 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
Monsieur Sainte-Nitouche
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 34,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco401 View Post
There will be 20-25 stadiums due to the expanded, 48-team format.

http://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2017...al-host-cities
It says 20-25 cities in the bid, with 12 of those cities chosen to host. I can't see Canada and Mexico getting more than three each. Maybe even 2.
__________________
Vous n'êtes pas écoeurés de mourir, bande de caves?
     
     
  #9993  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2017, 3:58 PM
osmo osmo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,589
This is all silly then, why even include Mexico or Canada at all? I'd rather Canada do this WC on its own, versus be the rump for the USA bid.
     
     
  #9994  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2017, 4:04 PM
wave46 wave46 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by osmo View Post
This is all silly then, why even include Mexico or Canada at all? I'd rather Canada do this WC on its own, versus be the rump for the USA bid.
Relative to hosting our own WC, this will cost us pennies on the dollar. Canada on its own would be a pretty marginal contender for the World Cup - relatively few facilities, lots of travel and relatively low public support (as compared to a sport like hockey).
     
     
  #9995  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2017, 4:05 PM
Franco401's Avatar
Franco401 Franco401 is offline
Kneel before Irving
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southside Fredericton, NB
Posts: 744
Quote:
Originally Posted by wave46 View Post
Relative to hosting our own WC, this will cost us pennies on the dollar. Canada on its own would be a pretty marginal contender for the World Cup - relatively few facilities, lots of travel and relatively low public support (as compared to a sport like hockey).
...and the USA would also likely bid.
     
     
  #9996  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2017, 4:06 PM
wave46 wave46 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco401 View Post
...and the USA would also likely bid.
Yeah, that too.
     
     
  #9997  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2017, 4:11 PM
Franco401's Avatar
Franco401 Franco401 is offline
Kneel before Irving
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southside Fredericton, NB
Posts: 744
I don't understand why people get angry just at the thought of sharing a WC. I've seen people, even those who love soccer, get incensed that we can't have it all, or that we're playing second fiddle to the USA. I think this thread is evidence enough that I was wrong in my old belief that Canada could conceivably do it all alone, because we can't even agree on what we want to do with the 2-4 sites we get.
     
     
  #9998  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2017, 6:23 PM
osmo osmo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,589
Canada co-hosting means that we don't get the side benefits of a full bid, which is largely infrastructure improvements. A full Canada bid would require Edmonton to build a rail link to the airport, a transformation of the Big O. A full bid would force Toronto to look at the opportunity to do something with the Gardiner. Plus lately, many smaller soccer facilities to be constructed as base camps would spring up all over the country to help in incubating Canadian soccer. We won't get any of this stuff now as this is just a side piece to the USA monster bid. Yes, Canada would have to wait a while for the rotation with a single USA bid would kick Canada out of the running for quite some time, but we almost cancel ourselves out from the next rotation now as we have already technically had just "hosted".

CSA was slowly building up towards a WC bid with all the steps prior, new facilities (that would be good enough for a full Canada wide bid) were coming on line, a Canadian soccer league is being planted an started up, all points were going towards a shot at a successful bid but now this won't be a reality for quite some time.

It is just annoying that Canada could not go at this alone as it was intended. FIFA and its follies are to blame, and they should have just moved to the USA alone if FIFA wanted some place "Safe". Only FIFA is to blame with the silly expansion in teams that even the USA got cold feet.

So then the question that must be asked then is what does FIFA do going forward? How many countries can host the WC at that scale? Not every region can do co-hosting. FIFA seems to be setting up a big trap here for the long term viability of the WC tournament.
     
     
  #9999  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2017, 6:31 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
Monsieur Sainte-Nitouche
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 34,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by osmo View Post
Canada co-hosting means that we don't get the side benefits of a full bid, which is largely infrastructure improvements. A full Canada bid would require Edmonton to build a rail link to the airport, a transformation of the Big O. A full bid would force Toronto to look at the opportunity to do something with the Gardiner. Plus lately, many smaller soccer facilities to be constructed as base camps would spring up all over the country to help in incubating Canadian soccer. We won't get any of this stuff now as this is just a side piece to the USA monster bid. Yes, Canada would have to wait a while for the rotation with a single USA bid would kick Canada out of the running for quite some time, but we almost cancel ourselves out from the next rotation now as we have already technically had just "hosted".

CSA was slowly building up towards a WC bid with all the steps prior, new facilities (that would be good enough for a full Canada wide bid) were coming on line, a Canadian soccer league is being planted an started up, all points were going towards a shot at a successful bid but now this won't be a reality for quite some time.

It is just annoying that Canada could not go at this alone as it was intended. FIFA and its follies are to blame, and they should have just moved to the USA alone if FIFA wanted some place "Safe". Only FIFA is to blame with the silly expansion in teams that even the USA got cold feet.

So then the question that must be asked then is what does FIFA do going forward? How many countries can host the WC at that scale? Not every region can do co-hosting. FIFA seems to be setting up a big trap here for the long term viability of the WC tournament.
These are all good points but I am not sure what choice Canada had.

Let the US and Mexico co-host without us?
__________________
Vous n'êtes pas écoeurés de mourir, bande de caves?
     
     
  #10000  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2017, 9:39 PM
Franco401's Avatar
Franco401 Franco401 is offline
Kneel before Irving
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southside Fredericton, NB
Posts: 744
Quote:
Originally Posted by osmo View Post
Canada co-hosting means that we don't get the side benefits of a full bid, which is largely infrastructure improvements. A full Canada bid would require Edmonton to build a rail link to the airport, a transformation of the Big O. A full bid would force Toronto to look at the opportunity to do something with the Gardiner. Plus lately, many smaller soccer facilities to be constructed as base camps would spring up all over the country to help in incubating Canadian soccer. We won't get any of this stuff now as this is just a side piece to the USA monster bid. Yes, Canada would have to wait a while for the rotation with a single USA bid would kick Canada out of the running for quite some time, but we almost cancel ourselves out from the next rotation now as we have already technically had just "hosted".

CSA was slowly building up towards a WC bid with all the steps prior, new facilities (that would be good enough for a full Canada wide bid) were coming on line, a Canadian soccer league is being planted an started up, all points were going towards a shot at a successful bid but now this won't be a reality for quite some time.

It is just annoying that Canada could not go at this alone as it was intended. FIFA and its follies are to blame, and they should have just moved to the USA alone if FIFA wanted some place "Safe". Only FIFA is to blame with the silly expansion in teams that even the USA got cold feet.

So then the question that must be asked then is what does FIFA do going forward? How many countries can host the WC at that scale? Not every region can do co-hosting. FIFA seems to be setting up a big trap here for the long term viability of the WC tournament.
Co-hosting is not going to be the standard going forward. The USA is able to do it alone, as are many other large countries. The expanded tournament will help to deter the Qatars of the world from hosting going forward, as you basically need a large, first-world country to have the infrastructure.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:29 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.