kotsy said:
Agreed. I went to Progressive Field about 5 years ago and the difference between that & the dome was huge.
Click to expand...

My folks were there last year and even they admitted the experience cannot compare. At Progressive field they have fireworks shows tied in with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, interactive contests and the like. The Fan Experience is much better.

The Rogers Centre is likely constrained by fire code and other mitigating factors.
 
Another problem: I believe that the Rogers Centre is a heritage building (despite it being three decades old), since it's the first stadium with over 40,000 seats in the world with a fully retractable roof that is fully operational and covers the entire field.
 
I can attest to how great Progressive Field is. That is a fantastic example of how a baseball field should be done.

The Rogers Centre is in a really tricky situation. The area is probably one of the best possible places for a baseball stadium, but the stadium itself is starting to lose its touch. The dome is also incredibly useful, but also incredibly detrimental to the experience of the game. However, there's not much wrong with the layout of the stadium either.

The only ways to deal with it are to undergo either an expensive re-engineering of the stadium, or just build a whole new one. Either way will be super expensive.

One way it could be re-engineered is to deconstruct it to look more like the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum (prior to the installation of Mt. Davis, of course), since both have similar layouts, being more circular in shape. I know we don't view The A's stadium as a great example nowadays, but it probably would have become a classic park if not for Mt. Davis ruining everything. The removal of the dome, the concrete bunker exterior, and the hotel at the back would be an expensive demolition though, and would probably sentence the Blue Jays to an away season or two.

8e07e49f38290e7adce35572f767f563.jpg
 
It's 30 years old and now the 6th oldest stadium in baseball. New ballparks have come on line a a quick pace the last 20 years. It doesn't take long to be old and out of date,
like myself and yes the dome. It was once a feat of engineering, but is now a tired old cavernous building. I don't think you can truly call it a ball park. It's not.
 
It wouldn't have to be 50,000. Most newer stadiums are closer to 40,000.

But if it was built at the Ex grounds would there still be room for the CNE?

My prediction is nothing happens on this front. The Jays will keep playing at the SkyDome for at least 30 more years.
 
kotsy said:
That's fine. Even if they did build a new stadium, it like wouldn't be for another 10+ years.
Click to expand...

It only took 2.5 years to build the Braves new stadium in Atlanta.

Rogers must realize they have to do something with the stadium. The team could be mediocre the next few years and attendance is already bad this year.

The trend is to develop mixed-use sites with the stadium/arena. CPPIB bought that Downsview land from Bombardier, I wonder how that could play into things.
 
mrgrieves said:
It only took 2.5 years to build the Braves new stadium in Atlanta.

Rogers must realize they have to do something with the stadium. The team could be mediocre the next few years and attendance is already bad this year.

The trend is to develop mixed-use sites with the stadium/arena. CPPIB bought that Downsview land from Bombardier, I wonder how that could play into things.
Click to expand...
Why, though? Any type of renovation/rebuild doesn't make any financial sense. Higher attendance comes with better on-field product. Rogers Centre is far from being a dump. Remember it was selling out every game just a few years ago?
My point is, Rogers does not owe people a better stadium. The fact that some people think they deserve a new stadium just because other teams got one recently, doesn't mean Rogers must realize anything.
 
Black Beetle said:
The only ideal, downtown location for a new stadium would be the site of Billy Bishop Airport. Keep in mind that part of what makes many of these retro style, open air ballparks great is that they have excellent city skyline backdrops. Additionally, MLB diamonds are usually positioned on a northeastern axis, therefore, if a stadium were to be built in the Portlands, as of now, there would be no visual interest in terms of buildings framing the outfield. Over time and depending on the location of a prospective stadium in the Portlands, perhaps the East Harbour development and maybe some of the inevitable office/residential buildings in the former could serve that role. It would be preferable to have the CN Tower and financial district dominating said view, though.
Click to expand...

I don't think orientation matters too much any more provided studies are done. The new Atlanta Braves ballpark, Suntrust Park, has a Southeast orientation
 
raptor said:
Why, though? Any type of renovation/rebuild doesn't make any financial sense. Higher attendance comes with better on-field product. Rogers Centre is far from being a dump. Remember it was selling out every game just a few years ago?
My point is, Rogers does not owe people a better stadium. The fact that some people think they deserve a new stadium just because other teams got one recently, doesn't mean Rogers must realize anything.
Click to expand...

No person is saying they deserve a new stadium and no one is saying the stadium is a dump. But the team president already said they have to do something about the stadium. It’s dated. Expectations for fan experience have changed since it was built. Rogers is a public company and of course will only make decisions if they make financial sense.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top