complexe sports & sciences de montreal

[pedepy]

why just soccer ? it could easily accomodate baseball & football events as well ..

[Maisonneuve]

why just soccer ? it could easily accomodate baseball & football events as well ..

 

Yes football would definitely work. The Alouettes or an NFL regular season game. Compared to most CFL stadiums, the Big O is great. Large than BC Place and the Rogers Centre - when filled to capacity it is unmatched by any sporting facility in Canada.

 

Baseball would not work. In the 7 years since the Expos have left, the quality of MLB stadiums has improved so much. Playing baseball at the Big O would be shameful now compared to other clubs. Most of the teams that had 1960/1970's type stadiums are now all in brand new ballparks -Astros, Phillies, Reds, Pirates, Mets, Giants and Padres. These are baseball specific parks; multi use parks for baseball are a thing of the past. Football and soccer can coexist in the same stadium, but not baseball and something else. The Rogers Centre is a baseball stadium, it looks horrible for football. For an MLB team to come back to Montreal and play in the Big O would be a massive step down and would signal to MLB that not much in Montreal has changed to support MLB. At least with a new baseball stadium, you could then make the argument that "yes, we can support MLB again". It's hard to make that argument, even with a renovated Big O.

[pedepy]

the skydome (the hell with Rogers ) isnt much prettier or 'baseballsy' than our own stadium.

 

i think the basic rule here is the less roof you have above your head, the more you feel like you're outside. and yes baseball is a sport best enjoyed outside. but i think that enabling alot more natural light to penetrate the stadium along with removing the roof could help create that effect as well.

 

the only thing that rogers center has that the big o doesn't is that because it's situation downtown, you can see skyscrapers in the distance and not just empty skies.

 

if the above level of our stadium could be removed, i would do it without hesitation. i considered it for my 'vision', but then i thought that if i proposed that off the bat you guys would think i'm nuts

 

i just hate to see this huge venue in total disuse ..

[pedepy]

umm .. les photos de la toiture du stade que j'avais "photoshoppees" pour tenter de voir l'allure qu'aurait le stade si les panneaux etaient remplaces par un materiaux qui laissait davantage passer la lumiere, sont disparues ...

 

mais bon, en fouillant sur google, j'ai trouver cette photo de la construction du stade, ou l'on peut voir ce que ca avait l'air avant qu'ils posent ces fameux panneaux opaques:

 

 

 

faute d'avoir un toit retractable, au minimum, si on pouvait remplacer ces panneaux pour y laisser passer un peu de lumiere du jour, ca serait deja bien. parce que, sincerement, etes-vous capable de dire, en regardant cette photo:

 

 

si dehors il fait clair, ou noir ? ... pas vraiment, hein ?

 

[steve_36]

 

Cette photo est superbe. Elle nous rappelle que le Stade Olympique est quand meme unique.

[pedepy]

elle nous rapelle aussi que le stade est completement renferme sur lui meme et qu'un toit retractable ne sert absolument a rien a moins d'absolument vouloir jetter un coup d'oeil sur les nuages du ciel.

 

plus j'y pense plus je me dis: soit on se paie un toit fixe qui laisse bien filtrer un maximum de lumiere naturelle a l'interieur du stade, soit on n'en met pas dutout. a mon avis, il y a trop peu de scenario durant lesquels un toit retractable trouverais son utilite; ouvrir ce dernier ne laissait entrevoir aucune une vue de la ville en particulier, et l'ouverture relativement petite de l'anneau central ne permet meme pas de se sentir "a l'exterieur", meme sans toit.

 

je vais essayer de photoshopper une idee de toit fixe qui reprendrait le look du toit du biodome.