[ImmenselyMental]

I think the minimum for NFL is 60-65k and 75k if you want a Super Bowl.

The Titans' new stadium in Nashville will have a seating capacity of "only" 60,000 but is slated to host the Super Bowl in 2030.

Either way, my idea for renovating BMO Field post-World Cup does involve expanding capacity and allowing for concerts to be held at the venue. I would say that in addition to permanent versions of the temporary grandstands on the north and south ends, my idea of a full-scale renovation would involve upgrading the west grandstands for a more complete feel.

 

[Civdis]

The Titans' new stadium in Nashville will have a seating capacity of "only" 60,000 but is slated to host the Super Bowl in 2030.

Either way, my idea for renovating BMO Field post-World Cup does involve expanding capacity and allowing for concerts to be held at the venue. I would say that in addition to permanent versions of the temporary grandstands on the north and south ends, my idea of a full-scale renovation would involve upgrading the west grandstands for a more complete feel.

That is interesting, the NFL is definitely relaxing their capacity requirements for Super Bowls. When the league awarded Super Bowls through a bidding process, bid documents often included capacity expectations. A frequently referenced guideline was that stadiums should be expandable to 70,000 seats for the game.

 

[Civdis]

Sorry, getting back on topic.......

Go Canada Go!!!!! Good luck today boyz!

 

[ash_iwn95]

EARLY pics of the stadium! Amazing views of the lake, in too central to see the CN tower to the west and extremely close to the pitch.

More to come in a couple hours of the opening ceremony and the game

 

[nightstreak]

I actually think the stadium looks not bad. Kinda of a gritty, utilitarian feel, but I am ok with that. I do still think Toronto is missing a large multipurpose football stadium, but alas, we need a tenant to get that one.

It sort of came together with the World Cup branding and looked fine full of fans on a beautiful sunny day, but listening to the Spanish feed of the Canada - Bosnia game I had my first second hand embarrassment moment: they called it "a temporary stadium in a country that doesn't play football." as if we just threw together a bouncy castle in a parking lot to host an event. I mean, are they wrong?

 

[Civdis]

Looked pretty good on TV. They used a lot of lipstick, but the pig cleaned up pretty good.

 

[White Pine]

It sort of came together with the World Cup branding and looked fine full of fans on a beautiful sunny day, but listening to the Spanish feed of the Canada - Bosnia game I had my first second hand embarrassment moment: they called it "a temporary stadium in a country that doesn't play football." as if we just threw together a bouncy castle in a parking lot to host an event. I mean, are they wrong?

View attachment 744014

Eh, who cares

 

[White Pine]

BTW how did things go with crowd handling, transportation and so on?

 

[nightstreak]

Eh, who cares

When very little of the hundreds of millions spent to host the World Cup in Toronto are going to remain in legacy infrastructure, then the return on investment hinges on PR. When this is all done, did Toronto come out looking better than when we went in? Do people want to visit and spend money here? Or do we come out looking like a second rate city?

After the '76 Olympics, Montreal was viewed by international media as a broken city, and it carried the weight of that failure for decades. Vancouver on the other hand leveraged their 2010 Olympics into a surge of tourism and business interest. Don't care about the embarrassment? Sure, but you can't waive away the economic risk. Are we going to be Montreal or are we going to be Vancouver?

One comment isn't the end of it but beyond the cringe of embarrassment, it wasn't a good signal how the international media are speaking about Toronto. I hope that those visiting will come away with a good impression of the city, meeting its people and spending time here.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

When very little of the hundreds of millions spent to host the World Cup in Toronto are going to remain in legacy infrastructure, then the return on investment hinges on PR. When this is all done, did Toronto come out looking better than when we went in? Do people want to visit and spend money here? Or do we come out looking like a second rate city?

After the '76 Olympics, Montreal was viewed by international media as a broken city, and it carried the weight of that failure for decades. Vancouver on the other hand leveraged their 2010 Olympics into a surge of tourism and business interest. Don't care about the embarrassment? Sure, but you can't waive away the economic risk. Are we going to be Montreal or are we going to be Vancouver?

One comment isn't the end of it but beyond the cringe of embarrassment, it wasn't a good signal how the international media are speaking about Toronto. I hope that those visiting will come away with a good impression of the city, meeting its people and spending time here.

Toronto has appeared as a "prize" on the American "The Price Is Right". Rarely see Los Angeles as a "prize".

 

[GabrielHurl]

It sort of came together with the World Cup branding and looked fine full of fans on a beautiful sunny day, but listening to the Spanish feed of the Canada - Bosnia game I had my first second hand embarrassment moment: they called it "a temporary stadium in a country that doesn't play football." as if we just threw together a bouncy castle in a parking lot to host an event. I mean, are they wrong?

View attachment 744014

Oh no - how *will* you get over the second hand embarrassment.

 

[PL1]

It sort of came together with the World Cup branding and looked fine full of fans on a beautiful sunny day, but listening to the Spanish feed of the Canada - Bosnia game I had my first second hand embarrassment moment: they called it "a temporary stadium in a country that doesn't play football." as if we just threw together a bouncy castle in a parking lot to host an event. I mean, are they wrong?

Yeah, they're wrong. It's 15k of temporary seating in a permanent stadium in a country where football/soccer is the number 1 played amateur sport. That's an ill-informed take.

 

[MisterF]

Yeah, they're wrong. It's 15k of temporary seating in a permanent stadium in a country where football/soccer is the number 1 played amateur sport. That's an ill-informed take.

This has been an often repeated fact for decades. But it's not all that relevant when people are much more passionate about several other team sports. Sure a lot of us play soccer recreationally when we're kids but that doesn't necessarily translate to high level competition or popularity.

 

[nightstreak]

Yeah, they're wrong. It's 15k of temporary seating in a permanent stadium in a country where football/soccer is the number 1 played amateur sport. That's an ill-informed take.

It doesn’t matter that they’re wrong. It matters what perception they take away and pass onto an international audience.

Given what little will be left to show for what we spent hosting the Cup, hoping for a net positive reputational lift is the whole ballgame.

 

[nightstreak]

I mean if you didn’t know any better, yes it looks like the entire venue might’ve been propped up in a parking lot.

Meanwhile, Vancouver:

We're not just competing with other countries for tourism and investment interest, we're competing with other cities within Canada.