[jje1000]

IMO, I doubt the Jays are worth the extra investment it would take to move them, demolish the stadium, and build a new one in its place.

I think there are three levels of expectations:

1. Low- Cosmetic/internal renovations- The structure is more or less spatially similar to the way it is now, maybe with a new lounge and cladding
2. Medium-High- Structural renovation- Larger renovations to the building that involves some level of structural reconfiguration (i.e. reconstruction of the lower stands)- The Jays play elsewhere/in a temporary stadium for a few years
3. High- New stadium- might as well build a new stadium elsewhere in the city with the time it would take to build a fancy new stadium

From this picture though, I wonder if there's any opportunity to remove some of the concrete cladding + some of the less desirable upper stands + the hotel, in order to create a less-bunker-like environment while retaining the supports for the roof?

How Toronto built the most hyped sports stadium ever

It's hard to believe, but the idea for a domed stadium in Toronto dates back the 1960s, long before the Blue Jays arrived in this town. In fact, on...

www.blogto.com

 

[mrgrieves]

yea, a roof is mandatory. I think the Rogers Centre was built backwards. It was built as an indoor stadium that can be opened. It should be built as an outdoor stadium that can be closed.

Not mandatory. Detroit, Cleveland & Minneapolis don't have domes. Pretty similar climates, if not colder in the case of Minneapolis. Just means starting the first couple of weeks of the season on the road. From an investment perspective it could be worth it to build the retractable roof though.

 

[Automation Gallery]

Regarding the roof, it needs to stay. I know we all like to think we'd enjoy going to games despite the weather, but baseball starts in April, and I recall the weather being fairly cold in April. I think you need to have a roof of some kind for those early months, and for when it rains.

You wan't an enclosed stadium with a retractable roof? well it will cost you a cool 1 billion US dollars..... https://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/ballparks/globe-life-field/

 

[jje1000]

The A-shaped wings are needed to support the roof once it opens- you can see it in your pictures how it supports a rail on top. I would definitely say that the hotel should be removed- especially once Union Centre gets built, it'll allow the building to essentially 'open up' onto a gigantic green space.

Also definitely wonder how much of the 3rd level stands can be removed to punch openings into the upper levels- a clerestory level could work well there in bringing in natural light and sense of the surroundings.

Source

Interesting note from a year ago- I did recall seeing something like this a while ago.

Perhaps that's obvious, given the talk about extending the building's life by 30 years, but what would that even look like?

A source with knowledge of proposals made by an architectural design firm working with the Blue Jays on the project told The Athletic it would be a “dramatic reconfiguration.” For example, one consideration is to rotate the entire field clockwise. In this scenario the Flight Deck would now sit along the left field line, and when the roof is open the CN Tower would be in view as backdrop for fans sitting behind the plate. The giant video scoreboard that's now in centre would remain, helping to break the too-symmetrical cookie cutter nature of the current setup. To that end, the fence line in this reconfiguration could change to have a bit more “real ballpark” character, and the area that would become right field might become an open concourse — something that is perhaps made possible by the fact that there is still room on that side of the building to expand its footprint to the east. (The source adds that, were they to do this, much would need to be done to reconfigure the roof for sunlight/shadow reasons, but tells me that there is a solution for this.)

Rotated field or not, not only does reconfiguring and upgrading the building's seats seem to be a given (having all seats actually face the action on the field would be a huge improvement), but openness seems the order of the day, whether that be more patio spaces like the ones at Petco Park in San Diego, or simply by widening concourses by expanding the building outward and removing seats. Interestingly, the source adds that another large part of the plan involves making the Dome a destination that can generate revenue during the offseason. This doesn't mean more Monster Truck rallies, but by making the Dome a destination people go to when the Jays aren't playing. For example, one of the things that was pitched was to open/run local restaurants throughout the 200 level to give the ballpark a more “Toronto” feel.

Stoeten: Talk is cheap, but delaying renovations will cost Blue Jays

On Thursday the Blue Jays will begin their 30th season of play at the building formerly known as SkyDome. I suspect that this is a milestone that is not going to be especially celebrated. Had there been more movement on the major renovations club president Mark Shapiro has frequently spoken of...

theathletic.com

What's old seems to become new again:

Also:

They were actually considering doing this (cutting open the dome) on the gate 5/6 side. There's talk about making it a huge atrium with views from outside to the field. I don't know if it's still being considered.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Torontobluejays/comments/c9k548/_/esznkec

 

[bmiller]

Costing of potential renovations vs. the actual cost at finish is usually higher. Weighing that against a new building can be a conundrum. Spend $250-$300 mil on an old building, and still have an old park with a new face, or build a new park.
Rogers will have to answer to the share holders, and we know how that will go. I expect the tired old park to get a facelift, but it will still be a somewhat outdated and old, and 10 years later this whole conversation will re-emerge.

 

[T.E.C.II]

The A-shaped wings are needed to support the roof once it opens- you can see it in your pictures how it supports a rail on top. I would definitely say that the hotel should be removed- especially once Union Centre gets built, it'll allow the building to essentially 'open up' onto a gigantic green space.

Also definitely wonder how much of the 3rd level stands can be removed to punch openings into the upper levels- a clerestory level could work well there in bringing in natural light and sense of the surroundings.



Interesting note from a year ago- I did recall seeing something like this a while ago.

Stoeten: Talk is cheap, but delaying renovations will cost Blue Jays

On Thursday the Blue Jays will begin their 30th season of play at the building formerly known as SkyDome. I suspect that this is a milestone that is not going to be especially celebrated. Had there been more movement on the major renovations club president Mark Shapiro has frequently spoken of...

theathletic.com

What's old seems to become new again:

Also:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Torontobluejays/comments/c9k548/_/esznkec

If Rogers goes the big renovations route, I'd be on board with rotating the field.

 

[Richard White]

What we really need is a rotating stadium, something on a rotating center bearing. Just press a button and the stadium spins 180 degrees. Press another button and the stadium turns into a giant centrifuge.

 

[pw20]

Costing of potential renovations vs. the actual cost at finish is usually higher. Weighing that against a new building can be a conundrum. Spend $250-$300 mil on an old building, and still have an old park with a new face, or build a new park.
Rogers will have to answer to the share holders, and we know how that will go. I expect the tired old park to get a facelift, but it will still be a somewhat outdated and old, and 10 years later this whole conversation will re-emerge.

$250-350M for a park that still won’t likely be able to support natural grass. That’s another major piece of the puzzle given MLB’s priorities, as well as attracting players who don’t like playing on fake turf.

 

[T.E.C.II]

I’d prefer to leave the field in its current orientation. The current setup has nearly perfect symmetry.

But is symmetry especially important in baseball? Most stadiums include some type of design quirk just to add character.

Right now, if you're behind home plate, you're facing the jumbotron and hotel, and the large, dark, shell of the dome. By rotating the field, you would see the CN Tower as the backdrop, which I think would be pretty cool.

 

[ChesterCopperpot]

$250-350M for a park that still won’t likely be able to support natural grass. That’s another major piece of the puzzle given MLB’s priorities, as well as attracting players who don’t like playing on fake turf.

If playing on natural grass is an MLB priority - why did they allow Arizona go back to synthetic turf?

 

[Richard White]

If playing on natural grass is an MLB priority - why did they allow Arizona go back to synthetic turf?

I doubt it an MLB Priority but the players do prefer it and it is one of the reasons most players do not want to come here.

The problem is that it is hard to maintain turf in the current stadium. It was never designed to have real grass and as such the infrastructure for an irrigation system was not installed. Also, it is a multi-use stadium and as such it is hard to put a full field of grass there without having to hire a grounds crew.

One of the most important reasons we do not have grass is our weather. Grass does not grow well indoors and the stadium has a domed roof. Yes you can open the roof but it is not open permanently to allow sunshine, rain, etc to foster the development of real turf.

Stadiums like Wrigley, Fenway, Progressive Field are all open air and single use for the most part (Baseball only). They are not used very much in the winter if at all. In order to have real turf, you need to rebuild the stadium and make it Baseball only.

 

[syn]

Costing of potential renovations vs. the actual cost at finish is usually higher. Weighing that against a new building can be a conundrum. Spend $250-$300 mil on an old building, and still have an old park with a new face, or build a new park.
Rogers will have to answer to the share holders, and we know how that will go. I expect the tired old park to get a facelift, but it will still be a somewhat outdated and old, and 10 years later this whole conversation will re-emerge.

Rogers Centre still has a lot of life left in it. An upgrade of that magnitude along with development of surrounding area should give it quite a few decades.

Building a new stadium may seem like a great idea, but the current location is practically perfect.

 

[Automation Gallery]

Rogers Centre still has a lot of life left in it.

Ugh? maybe the structure itself has but apparently everything else doesn't or they wouldn't be talking about what to do with it,
..it just might not be feasible to spend 200-300 million dollars to renovate and upgrade something on land they don't own

 

[syn]

Ugh? maybe the structure itself has but apparently everything else doesn't or they wouldn't be talking about what to do with it,
..it just might not be feasible to spend 200-300 million dollars to renovate and upgrade something on land they don't own

It's feasible. They may not own the land, but they own everything else. Owning the team, stadium and the broadcaster that does their games puts Rogers at a special advantage among other owners.

Spending $300 - $400 million to upgrade the Rogers Centre probably makes more sense than finding new land and building something from scratch. The new/improved revenue steams alone should make it worth it over time.

 

[jje1000]

Land costs are definitely an issue regarding any new stadium, the only real place I could see them headed to (even temporarily) is the CNE grounds, or maybe Downsview or the Portlands- and all of those are far more poorly serviced and located than the current space.