JasonParis said:
Many would have said the same about Wrigley and Fenway 30 years after they opened.
Click to expand...

Rogers Centre just doesn't have the history of either of those buildings, though. They're attractions in themselves, landmarks. Even if the product on the field isn't great, you still get the experience of being in these historic parks. I don't think you get that with the Rogers Centre (which I'll be attending a game at tomorrow.)
.
 
T.E.C.II said:
Rogers Centre just doesn't have the history of either of those buildings, though. They're attractions in themselves, landmarks. Even if the product on the field isn't great, you still get the experience of being in these historic parks. I don't think you get that with the Rogers Centre (which I'll be attending a game at tomorrow.)
.
Click to expand...
In a century's time, Rogers Centre (or whatever the new name of SkyDome will be), will be one of those historic parks baseball historians will often discuss.
 
Gotta strongly disagree with the sentiment that Rogers Centre could be viewed similarly to Wrigley Field or Fenway if enough time passes. Those parks are small, quaint, and evoke a timeless, minimal atmosphere. I don't think the Dome is a bad place to watch a game, but it doesn't have that timeless, quaint, old timey vibe - it's very big and very concrete. Not every stadium ends up being beloved after enough time has passed (see Olympic Stadium, the Metrodome, Tropicana Field, and plenty of cookie cutter type stadiums that went up in the 60s.)

That said, even though the Rogers Centre is never going to have a Fenway/PNC Park type feel, I'm hopeful a reno could make it feel at least a bit more "ballparky". I'd be satisfied with that. It's an almost unbeatable location, nice with the roof open, and can have a great atomosphere if it's a big game.
 
Would have no issue with it being razed. It's a giant bunker. The problem is there probably isn't a better location for a ballpark so the only option is probably an extensive renovation. If they can renovate Soldier Field and Lambeau Field they can do the Skydome (I don't call it Rogers Center).
 
Johnny Au said:
I believe that the SkyDome is a heritage structure, especially given that it is the oldest structure in the world with a fully functioning retractable roof that is capable of covering the entire facility and can seat over 40,000 people.
Click to expand...
If you mean 'listed' it is not. It MAY be worth retaining and upgrading but having the world's first retractable roof is probably not what will decide that.
 
MetroMan said:
The SkyDome is much a part of Toronto's skyline as the CN Tower. That's why its view from the lake is protected. It's not going anywhere.
Click to expand...

Sure but I don't think Torontonians are all that attached to the Skydome. If one day another stadium rises in that same spot I'd be fine with it. Skydome isn't iconic in the way that the CN Tower is.

If we can tear down Varsity Stadium, a structure with far more charm and historical significance that Skydome, we can certainly take this one down one day.
 
Last edited:
TheKingEast said:
Would have no issue with it being razed. It's a giant bunker. The problem is there probably isn't a better location for a ballpark so the only option is probably an extensive renovation. If they can renovate Soldier Field and Lambeau Field they can do the Skydome (I don't call it Rogers Center).
Click to expand...

Why should any of us? I haven't seen a dime they paid for the naming rights so until Rogers decides to hand me a large bag of cash, it's SkyDome for me too!
 
isaidso said:
Sure but I don't think Torontonians are all that attached to the Skydome. If one day another stadium rises in that same spot I'd be fine with it. Skydome isn't iconic in the way that the CN Tower is.

If we can tear down Varsity Stadium, a structure with far more charm and historical significance that Skydome, we can certainly take this one down one day.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I disagree, I'd argue the Skydome is just as historically significant as the CN Tower.

At its time, it was a world marvel, the first retractible arena with an attached hotel looking into the field. Yes, stadiums around the world are now more technologically advanced, but that doesn't erase its incredible history and example to Toronto of the benefits of innovation. Much like the CN Tower (which is no longer the tallest free standing structure).
 
For anyone who has a subscription to the Athletic, here's an article by Andrew Stoeten from April re Dome renovations:

https://theathletic.com/283699/2018...inating-over-renovations-will-cost-blue-jays/

There's some pretty intriguing stuff in his article, namely this piece towards the end about what a renovated Dome would look like:

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.

Shapiro and Co. have presented multiple proposals to Rogers ownership, with varying price points. It's up to ownership to decide which direction the renovation will go. Rotating the field's orientation as well as the roof's would be incredibly interesting. Any worthwhile renovation will likely cost upwards of $500 million. That is no small amount of money but in my mind, that kind of reno would absolutely transform and reinvigorate the stadium. Points made about eastern expansion and developing land around the Dome seem to coincide with Davidi's recent article about creating "destination areas" in the vicinity as well.
 
Last edited:
JMSRead said:
I don't think the Dome is a bad place to watch a game, but it doesn't have that timeless, quaint, old timey vibe - it's very big and very concrete.
Click to expand...
Which may be exactly what is in vogue in 100 years. You have no idea at this point what will be considered "timeless, quaint, and old timey" in 2089. None of us do, and few would have predicted Boston or (north) Chicago's parks 100 years ago.
 
JasonParis said:
Which may be exactly what is in vogue in 100 years. You have no idea at this point what will be considered "timeless, quaint, and old timey" in 2089. None of us do, and few would have predicted Boston or (north) Chicago's parks 100 years ago.
Click to expand...

Well.. assuming WWIII has started at that point we can use the Rogers Centre as a bunker.
 
JasonParis said:
Which may be exactly what is in vogue in 100 years. You have no idea at this point what will be considered "timeless, quaint, and old timey" in 2089. None of us do, and few would have predicted Boston or (north) Chicago's parks 100 years ago.
Click to expand...

Oh, so all we have to do is wait a 100 years for the stadium to become a classic baseball destination. Great.
 
T.E.C.II said:
Oh, so all we have to do is wait a 100 years for the stadium to become a classic baseball destination. Great.
Click to expand...

Look, everything has its day and not always does it age well. Take Maple Leaf Gardens. It is a national treasure and a still an important piece of both Canadian and Hockey History but when it closed in 1999 it was akin to your local rink. It was not capable of hosting hockey on a major league scale anymore. Sure you could host an NHL game there but he facility was dated and not able to keep up with times hence why they built the ACC. The Gardens were 68 years old at that time.. can you imagine what the Rogers Centre will look like in 68 years?

Just because something is vintage does not mean it is ideal for sustained use.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top