Jump to content

Toronto?


LuigiVercotti
 Share

Recommended Posts

The situation isn't comparable to Oakland or Miami (or any of the other stadia that have hosted both NFL and MLB. Those are not domes. What is being planned for the Blue Jays precludes that from happening in season. Hence why the Argos are being told to find somewhere else to play. Just because other stadiums can do something does not mean that provision can easily be built into an existing stadium.

Neither is the Rogers Centre. The Rogers Centre is NOT a Dome. It is a retractable roof stadium like the Millenium and the LTU. As the capacity for the CFL team is much reduced over the MLB capacity (31,300 v 49,000 seats)

And it only takes 30 hours to switch from the Baseball configuration to the Football configuration.

http://www.rogerscentre.com/about/faq.jsp

A successful Argonauts team that can draw close to the required capacity is something the owners would not turn their nose up at

There has been much speculation about what the switch to grass IF it happens will mean for the Argonauts, but little in the way of hard facts.

And as the Lions proved with the BC Stadium renovation (as well as Christchurch with their new Rugby stadium) a temporary fix for a few seasons is not out of the question

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example.

The Blue Jays played at home on 5th July and then not again until 13th July = 8 days

On the 15th July at home and then not again until 24th July = 8 days

On the 29th July but then not until 10th August = 11 days

On the 19th August and then not until 30th August = 10 days

etc etc

Are we supposed to believe that the Welsh and Germans can reconfigure a grass surface in a retractable roof stadium in 48hours but the equally adaptable Canadians can't?

The CFL could easily adjust the schedules ..... and I'm sure the Argonauts would be content to remain tenants whilst a new shiny Olympic stadium was built to be adapted and used by them post games down in the Port Lands

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it only takes 30 hours to switch from the Baseball configuration to the Football configuration.

http://www.rogerscentre.com/about/faq.jsp

A successful Argonauts team that can draw close to the required capacity is something the owners would not turn their nose up at

There has been much speculation about what the switch to grass IF it happens will mean for the Argonauts, but little in the way of hard facts.

And as the Lions proved with the BC Stadium renovation (as well as Christchurch with their new Rugby stadium) a temporary fix for a few seasons is not out of the question

And I guess we're having this discussion again. Why does it seem like I've gone over this before..

You're right.. we don't know what's going to happen with Rogers Centre in terms of installing a new surface. But keep in mind that Rogers owns the stadium and the Blue Jays. They don't own the Argonauts. So if kicking them out helps their cause for the Blue Jays, nothing is stopping them from pulling the trigger. This isn't about what is technologically possible. It's about what the owners of the stadium and the team want to do. And eventually they're going to want to play on natural grass, there's not a doubt in my mind of that. If that requires the Argos to leave Rogers Centre, they're as good as gone.

So, what of you other examples? Well, as I understand it, Millenium Stadium and LTU were designed to be converted in the way you described. Oakland Coliseum and Joe Robbie Pro Player Dolphins Dolphin Land Shark Sun Life Stupid Flanders Stadium were both initially designed to handle their original surface for both sports without a pallet design or anything of the like (as opposed to U of Phoenix Stadium which was designed like that). I did a little research and apparently it costs $250,000 to convert Oakland between baseball and football (I'm sure Mount Davis is a big reason for that price tag). Not sure what the number is for Sun Life.

The whole point of this now grass installation is that it's going to be designed for baseball only. Could they make it work for both sports? Maybe, but I'm not sure that's an ideal solution for everyone involved. Again, this isn't about what CAN be done. It's about what the people who own and operate the stadium will want to do. Just because others ARE ABLE to do what you're suggesting does not mean Toronto WILL WANT to do what they can do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I guess we're having this discussion again. Why does it seem like I've gone over this before..

You're right.. we don't know what's going to happen with Rogers Centre in terms of installing a new surface. But keep in mind that Rogers owns the stadium and the Blue Jays. They don't own the Argonauts. So if kicking them out helps their cause for the Blue Jays, nothing is stopping them from pulling the trigger. This isn't about what is technologically possible. It's about what the owners of the stadium and the team want to do. And eventually they're going to want to play on natural grass, there's not a doubt in my mind of that. If that requires the Argos to leave Rogers Centre, they're as good as gone.

So, what of you other examples? Well, as I understand it, Millenium Stadium and LTU were designed to be converted in the way you described. Oakland Coliseum and Joe Robbie Pro Player Dolphins Dolphin Land Shark Sun Life Stupid Flanders Stadium were both initially designed to handle their original surface for both sports without a pallet design or anything of the like (as opposed to U of Phoenix Stadium which was designed like that). I did a little research and apparently it costs $250,000 to convert Oakland between baseball and football (I'm sure Mount Davis is a big reason for that price tag). Not sure what the number is for Sun Life.

The whole point of this now grass installation is that it's going to be designed for baseball only. Could they make it work for both sports? Maybe, but I'm not sure that's an ideal solution for everyone involved. Again, this isn't about what CAN be done. It's about what the people who own and operate the stadium will want to do. Just because others ARE ABLE to do what you're suggesting does not mean Toronto WILL WANT to do what they can do.

An interesting take but there's the old adage that nothing of nothing is in fact nothing.

The most difficult part of adjusting the stadium is the stand configuration .... the surface by comparison is easy. A central permanent grass field with additional pallets to create a football field is comparatively simple to undertake. After all the Rogers find it easy to convert from one configuration to another including line markings so there would be a similar system in place already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting take but there's the old adage that nothing of nothing is in fact nothing.

The most difficult part of adjusting the stadium is the stand configuration .... the surface by comparison is easy. A central permanent grass field with additional pallets to create a football field is comparatively simple to undertake. After all the Rogers find it easy to convert from one configuration to another including line markings so there would be a similar system in place already.

And you're accusing me of nothing. At least I'm dealing in reality here rather than fantasy.

I'll been to Rogers Centre before. I took the tour there once (this was a few years back, but I'm sure the principles are still the same), so they talked about how they switch out the surfaces. It used to be (I don't know if this is still true since 2010 when they switched to a new version of Astroturf) that baseball and football had completely separate surfaces, 1 for baseball and 1 for football. I think part of that was that the baseball players didn't like playing on the football turf and vice versa.

Here's the thing though you need to keep in mind and that folks here tend to forget. The Rogers Centre is owned by the Rogers corporation. It is their stadium and they choose what gets done with it. If they don't see a benefit to doing what you're offering (and I don't see it either), it's not going to happen. To install a natural grass surface and then to make it work for both baseball and football is feasible, but it's not practical. As I understand the configuration of Millenium Stadium, they don't change over the surface multiple times during the season, so that's a false equivalency to compare them to SkyDome/Rogers Centre which was designed to remain closed when it's not in use. They never built the stadium to deal with the elements, so that's an issue when you're trying to maintain a healthy field, let alone when it gets later in the year and they get this thing in Toronto called snow.

Beyond all that though, I found this article on Millenium Stadium.. The man who makes the Millennium Stadium work An interesting line from the article.. Its removability was at first said to one of its advantages, but it soon became clear that the pallet system – where large squares of turf were lorry- loaded into the centre of the capital for sports matches – was not practical.

If that's what you're trying to sell Rogers Centre on doing, I'm going to continue to ask why. Why does it make sense to make the grass surface modular just to keep the Argos there for a handful of games a year? In contrast to the 81 games the Blue Jays will host and who knows that they won't start filling the place again if the team starts playing better.

So again.. if you want to deal in fantasy, that's fine. But the reality is that Rogers would kick the Argos out tomorrow if they were ready to install grass there, and as soon as they make that decision, I would be shocked if the Argos are still playing their regular season games at Rogers Centre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I still stand my ground and say 2024 will be between Toronto, the USA chosen city, Paris and another major world city from Europe. Durban is ridiculously over rated. Just being brutally honest!

Except it has the weight of history behind it, and sentimentality. This is something that Toronto, despite all its graces, scores zero in. That "bored" feeling some people talk about in relation to Tokyo 2020 is the same feeling I'd have towards Toronto 2024. Even though Toronto has not hosted itself, there is just such a sense of "been there/done that" for me. Like Tokyo, this is not a direct jab at the city itself (which IMO is one of North America's best), but where I see it fitting in within the narrative I see for the Olympic movements first half of the 21st century. I'd like to see a big American city be the next NA host, followed by South Africa, Paris and Tokyo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the Durban/South African critics here seem to always be from the Toronto sphere. While Durban by itself may not be as "exciting" a city as a Paris, New York or Tokyo, a vote for it would largely be a continental one, much like Rio. Or like PyeongChang, where it was seen as a new expansion for the WInter Olympics.

I'm sure the first African Olympics would be voted on the premise of capability, sustainability & finally bringing the Olympics to the African continent, rather than about over-extendedness & glamor of such big Olympic parties that we've recently seen with some past hosts. Blalantly dismissing Durban is what is "ridiculous". Even the French NOC recognizes that would be a mistake.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except it has the weight of history behind it, and sentimentality. This is something that Toronto, despite all its graces, scores zero in. That "bored" feeling some people talk about in relation to Tokyo 2020 is the same feeling I'd have towards Toronto 2024. Even though Toronto has not hosted itself, there is just such a sense of "been there/done that" for me. Like Tokyo, this is not a direct jab at the city itself (which IMO is one of North America's best), but where I see it fitting in within the narrative I see for the Olympic movements first half of the 21st century. I'd like to see a big American city be the next NA host, followed by South Africa, Paris and Tokyo.

Yes but I don't see Durban winning on its first try. Granted they have a very compelling story. I think they should bid regardless until they win.

Almost all cities that win go through two, three bids before winning. I don't think you can say been there/done that for Toronto as opposed to Tokyo who has hosted before. Like all Olympic bids Toronto's has a weakness of not having a great narrative. However if they can push the redevelopment of the Portlands which has been empty for the last few decades like London did with its Olympic Park I think it could be enough coupled with the most compact venue plan in history.

Edited by intoronto1125
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except it has the weight of history behind it, and sentimentality. This is something that Toronto, despite all its graces, scores zero in. That "bored" feeling some people talk about in relation to Tokyo 2020 is the same feeling I'd have towards Toronto 2024. Even though Toronto has not hosted itself, there is just such a sense of "been there/done that" for me. Like Tokyo, this is not a direct jab at the city itself (which IMO is one of North America's best), but where I see it fitting in within the narrative I see for the Olympic movements first half of the 21st century. I'd like to see a big American city be the next NA host, followed by South Africa, Paris and Tokyo.

I'd disagree with you labeling Toronto as "boring". I feel as if some people's mentalities are stuck back in 2000. Lot's has changed and more will change in the near future. The city is quite vibrant and has an ever growing arts and cultural scene. The growth within its downtown Metropolis has been undeniably outstanding, a massive amount of new developments are under construction and are in the planning stages, various areas such as the redevelopment of the waterfront, brand new tourist attractions, hotels, condominiums, art gallery, sporting facilities, high end retail, and run down industrial areas being transformed into new sophisticated communities. Toronto would offer a unique waterfront based plan just like its 2008 bid, probably more compact this time around. Public Infrastructure has been improved since its last bid in 2001. Transportation links have been created between potential venue cluster sites, although there will be more transportation links to be constructed to better the ever growing population of Toronto's downtown core. There are more sporting venues that will be constructed and already in place for the bid thanks to its hosting of the 2015 PAG plus the hosting experience, planning, logistics,etc. There are way more positives than negatives this time around for the potential of Toronto's bid.

And addressing your Durban comment, what history? Are you referring to Apartheid for the country as a whole?

Yes but I don't see Durban winning on its first try. Granted they have a very compelling story. I think they should bid regardless until they win.

Almost all cities that win go through two, three bids before winning. I don't think you can say been there/done that for Toronto as opposed to Tokyo who has hosted before. Like all Olympic bids Toronto's has a weakness of not having a great narrative. However if they can push the redevelopment of the Portlands which has been empty for the last few decades like London did with its Olympic Park I think it could be enough coupled with the most compact venue plan in history.

You also forgot another weakness with its past bids. It's international relations with influential figures in the sporting worlds and IOC weren't that great. The city made sure this time around that it has built those relationships and continues to grow on them before they could realistically see themselves getting those extra votes that they normally would not have gotten in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the Durban/South African critics here seem to always be from the Toronto sphere. While Durban by itself may not be as "exciting" a city as a Paris, New York or Tokyo, a vote for it would largely be a continental one, much like Rio. Or like PyeongChang, where it was seen as a new expansion for the WInter Olympics.

I'm sure the first African Olympics would be voted on the premise of capability, sustainability & finally bringing the Olympics to the African continent, rather than about over-extendedness & glamor of such big Olympic parties that we've recently seen with some past hosts. Blalantly dismissing Durban is what is "ridiculous". Even the French NOC recognizes that would be a mistake.

My question is why Durban? What world significance does this city have besides being a tourist spot for the beach? I already know people will say, it's because they have a brand new stadium in place. Shouldn't South Africa choose one its more well recognized cities (Johannesburg/Cape Town) to host Africa's first Olympics? Just sayin'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is why Durban? What world significance does this city have besides being a tourist spot for the beach? I already know people will say, it's because they have a brand new stadium in place. Shouldn't South Africa choose one its more well recognized cities (Johannesburg/Cape Town) to host Africa's first Olympics? Just sayin'

Personally, apart from the fact they have the most high profile of facilities in place and did give the Moses Madhiba the capability to host athletics in future (something CT failed to plan for when they built their WC stadium, and which I think is important when considering how responsible it is for SA to spend money to host the games when they have LOTS of other social challenges), to me (and I admit this is VERY subjective), it just seems more African to me. Cape Town to me is almost too white-bread. And Jo-burg, part from the fact it's not very picturesque, has the altitude problem to contend with (otherwise it probably would have been the most responsible choice as their largest city).

Then IOC has made it pretty clear they are gagging for the chance to go to Africa, so to me it's likely a matter of when, not whether. While I don't think them winning 2024 is anywhere near set in stone, I really believe if Toronto went up against South Africa (be it Durban, CT or Jo-burg), I think sentiment would by far favour the South Africans.

Edited by Sir Rols
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is why Durban?

Aside from other obvious reasons already outlined, of RSA's 3 major cities, Durban has the mildest. most appropriate climate in the desired July-August window that the IOC wants. Jo'burg and CT do not offer that. It was cold, wet, rainy and windy during those World Cup months. Furthermore, the Durban fathers planned long-term by having a lot of empty land around the Moses Stadium open for what could accommodate the desired Olympic Park setting.

Also, remember Munich was Germany's #3 city in the 70s; so it doesn't have to be the TOP 2 cities. LA was #3 in the 80s; and Atlanta was like city #12 in 1990 when it was picked.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is why Durban? What world significance does this city have besides being a tourist spot for the beach? I already know people will say, it's because they have a brand new stadium in place. Shouldn't South Africa choose one its more well recognized cities (Johannesburg/Cape Town) to host Africa's first Olympics? Just sayin'

It's more than just the stadium. They also have a sports precinct that houses other venues. The weather is more friendly within the Olympic time-frame window. And the IOC has also had first-hand experience with what Durban has to offer (other than being a "tourist spot for the beach", which some could argue isn't that what Rio is, too) with them having their IOC session there in 2011 where PyeongChang was elected as 2018 host.

And while Johannesburg is larger, what more "appealing" about them, other than being South Africa's largest city? I see them being to South Africa what Sao Paulo is to Brazil, largest city & financial capital but not that much else. And what of Cape Town? Other than a picturesque mountain, what more is there.

And while some cities have won with multple bids, there have also been some that have won on a single attempt, like Atlanta, Nagano, Sydney, Turin & London 2012.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Durban is the most appropriate city in SA (Cape Town isn't bad though) the climate, the landscape is good, exotic city, pontential 80,000 stadium... but I habe a feeling they might win in the 3rd try ala Pyeongchang, their first bid might have the "new horizon advantage" but weak technically.... Also I hope sharks won't be a risk in their bid :lol:

Toronto's treats might be Paris and it depends on which city the USOC wants to bid!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...