Jump to content

Saputo Stadium construction pictures


Daniel

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 585
  • Created
  • Last Reply
quote:Originally posted by Daniel

Glad the opinion is at least based on facts and on-site observations, as opposed to pictures.

How did you get in to the stadium?

We just walked in. :D There are actually construction fences around but in many areas they are crotch high with a bit barb wire and easy to hop over. The only risk is that the snow to get there off the street is about 1-2 feet high and there is quite a bit of ice on the ground once your inside.

I sense that they invested the bulk of the money in things that REAL fans don't care about. Looks like there are nice offices and there are seats in every section rather than benches throughout as is the case in Columbus. I am sure that the soccer moms and families probably wont or know the difference and, because of spaciousness, the politicians will probably love its multi-use capabilities

But if you are going to cut corners on costs, I ( as a soccer fan)would rather that it be done on the seats and offices rather than the sight lines and aesthetics of the facility. I have a very funny feeling that the honeymoon wont be long for this facility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well... nobody ever said it was at the same level of some of the facilities in the MLS.

It costed 15 million dollars as opposed to ten times that for some other projects, if not more.

Frankly, what did you expect?!?

It's gonna be a great place to attend a game, regardless.

I'm pretty sure our friends in Vancouver would trade their current situation for our "C-Level facility" anytime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Mpenza

Well... nobody ever said it was at the same level of some of the facilities in the MLS.

It costed 15 million dollars as opposed to ten times that for some other projects, if not more.

Frankly, what did you expect?!?

It's gonna be a great place to attend a game, regardless.

I'm pretty sure our friends in Vancouver would trade their current situation for our "C-Level facility" anytime.

Perhaps. But read my observations again and you will notice that a lot of what i don't like has little to do with cost but rather planning. I was wishing, maybe dreaming, that I would see a stadium. But what I really saw is a field with three slabs of stands along with some offices.

Because its so vast, spread out and not enclosed you will never be able to create a nice soccer atmosphere. It wont sound and look nice on TV either and thats a setback marketing wise. Its not so much the $15Mill that bugs me. Its the areas that it seemingly was spent on.

Why on earth couldn't they enclose it a little more and make it more compact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Free kick

Because its so vast, spread out and not enclosed you will never be able to create a nice soccer atmosphere. It wont sound and look nice on TV either and thats a setback marketing wise.

Wow. Maybe we should just bulldoze everything and go back to Claude-Robillard then.

There are a number of things you're obviously not considering when you're saying it is too spread out or whatever.

1) The pitch is 110 m x 70 m. It's big. Stands are about 5 meters away from the sidelines and end lines. We couldn't really put them any closer. 2) There is a sightline between the olympic tower and the olympic village (up the hill) that has to be preserved, hence why the stands cannot be pulled closer to the main stand/office building. This space needs to remain unobstructed.

And of course, do not forget that the stadium can and will be expanded. And when you'll (hopefully) see a horseshoe-shaped stand facing the main stand (the one next to the office building), it'll be a completely different stadium.

And you know... even without the expansion, it'll always be better than that joke the KC Wizards are pulling right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Free kick

1) I noticed when I was climbing the stairs in the main stands that They are not steep enough and the result is that if you are in the back row, you are still quite far from the action and your sight line is poor.

20070820_0549_NORM.jpg

Aerial_1215.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Mpenza

20070820_0549_NORM.jpg

Aerial_1215.jpg

Believe what you want. But those pictures do not do justice to the comparison or the debate and it tells me that aerial shots can really be deceiving. Earlier, I was going to post one of Gaetan Cormier's pictures of the main stand in comparison to the ones i took at BMO field that I have in www.webshots.com in order to actually prove my point. It clearly shows less of an incline and far better vantage point. But I didn't want to get into that kind of pissing match.

Hey, I'd be happy to be wrong. But I would suggest that you see for yourself and compare. As for me, I reserve the right to change my mind when I actually see a game in Saputo Stadium

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Mpenza

Wow. Maybe we should just bulldoze everything and go back to Claude-Robillard then.

There are a number of things you're obviously not considering when you're saying it is too spread out or whatever.

1) The pitch is 110 m x 70 m. It's big. Stands are about 5 meters away from the sidelines and end lines. We couldn't really put them any closer. 2) There is a sightline between the olympic tower and the olympic village (up the hill) that has to be preserved, hence why the stands cannot be pulled closer to the main stand/office building. This space needs to remain unobstructed.

And of course, do not forget that the stadium can and will be expanded. And when you'll (hopefully) see a horseshoe-shaped stand facing the main stand (the one next to the office building), it'll be a completely different stadium.

And you know... even without the expansion, it'll always be better than that joke the KC Wizards are pulling right now.

Better than San Jose's as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is no pissing contest, I'm just showing that the stand with the Maple Leaf and the one with the Impact logo pretty much are at the same angle. And they're pretty much built the same, except you guys have hidden the metal posts behind brick.

http://image22.webshots.com/23/7/58/6/2443758060059262121dKrypF_fs.jpg

http://www.boutiquemeteo.com/saputo/semaine33/semaine33_4.jpg

But sure, if you compare with the second tier on the other side, it's different. But then, you know, apples and oranges... Of course the sightlines are better, you're higher up...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BMO isn't perfect either. The sightlines in the main stand and south end supporters section are quite good. However, I have my issues with the east stand. The stand is set WELL back from the pitch which I can't really understand why. There's so much room that they're filling the sidelines with those pub chairs and field side seats. Additionally, the slope of the stand is way too flat. I've sat near the back of this stand and the sightlines aren't the greatest. I'm sure they've done this to make it easier to add a second deck and preserve the camera shot of downtown T.O. but in my mind it's just a whole lot of poor planning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by ag futbol

The days of RSL's nightmare are almost over. Their stad is due to open later this year.

By all accounts it looks pretty nice.

From the photos, it's a stadium that will rival Whitecaps' Waterfront (when the f***ing thing is finally built) for visual beauty, inside and out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...