Why did Quebec exclude a cheaper stadium solution?
La Presse’s Vincent Brousseau-Pouliot writes that Quebec chose to exclude a solution for the Olympic stadium that would be far less expensive than the $870‑million contract that was signed recently for a new stadium roof.
The solution, proposed in 2012, would’ve removed the roof entirely and winterized the interior, although it would mean accepting that no events could be held in the stadium during the winter.
Nicholas 19:10 on 2024-03-20 Permalink
To be fair, it says the Olympic Park, in 2012, required a roof, but the government will not say if they considered this option. (Also, a mean culpa, it appears that due to using prestressed concrete it would cost a lot to demolish the bowl (leaving the tower), so this seems unlikely to happen.)
I do wonder how many events they expect. The article seems to say it’d be 2-4 concerts a year, and then some conventions and trade shows. Presumably some of those would not work if it rained, but other than the concerts, a lot of those can happen at the convention centre, and there are other places for smaller conventions. Also people like having conventions downtown, not near the end of a metro line. But it seems that the incremental number of events possible is very low, and this option should at least have been thoroughly considered.
Em 19:22 on 2024-03-20 Permalink
It’s not 100 per cent clear, but the article suggests this winterizing would mean that there wouldn’t be any activities held in the stadium bowl at all, not just in winter.
« L’hivernisation, ce n’est pas la fin du Stade. On fermerait seulement le bol. La Tour resterait opérationnelle à 100 %, ses locaux continueraient d’être loués (par exemple, par Desjardins), les touristes et les Montréalais pourront continuer à profiter de la vue au sommet. On a d’ailleurs investi 375 millions de fonds publics depuis une dizaine d’années dans la Tour. À l’extérieur, l’Esplanade du Parc serait aussi ouverte du printemps à l’automne.«
Kevin 01:51 on 2024-03-21 Permalink
Winterizing happened every year before the roof was installed, so it would allow events in warmer months.
The stadium will still need significant upgrades to attract any event even with a roof, no matter what the CAQ and the OIB are smoking.
And the only source for a demolition price tag is a study commissioned by the Olympic Board more than a decade ago that pegged it at roughly $400 million. The two billion figure floating around has no basis in reality.