C-mac

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 5, 2021
Messages
624
Reaction score
847
If you want a view you should buy a penthouse. Much cheaper than building a billion dollar baseball stadium.

If you want a penthouse you should by a penthouse provided you can afford it. If you want to watch a baseball game with a great fan experience, you hope that thing that looks like an egg in the DT core gets torn down, and something respectable goes up.
 

interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
25,925
Reaction score
30,252
City:
Toronto
10% of its lifespan??? Didn't realize you were the official authority on a building's lifespan.

Climate change??? How does tearing down a building effect climate change?
You ask the first question as if "lifespan" were only a measure of how long a building might be fashionable to use, and you ask it as if you're the one in this thread with the objective answer, anyone who disagrees with you has to be wrong.

Change your tone. This thread is for discussion purposes, it's not for you to preach. You can try to convince others, but not through bullying. Another example of your tone problem on recent pages is in regard to "consensus" where you essentially state that there appears to be more who agree than those are opposed, and therefore your views must be right. Linking the two, however, is a fallacy. Sure, you may have the numbers, but that may only indicate that you've succeeding in tiring out the opposition, not convincing them. That happens when other members bump into a member who goes on and on endlessly about something. It takes time and energy to refute what someone says who's willing to go on forever, and many have better things to do with their time.

For those who do slip into endlessly going on about something, we call that trolling, and it's against the rules. Make your point, and then let the thread move on.

To the point of your first question though, most times that "lifespan of a building" is quoted, it's to describe how long a building will hold out against the elements, be safe for use, perform its intended purpose. A building may no longer be considered state-of-the-art for long after it's built, but it will likely be useful for many years after. Housing, our most ubiquitous building stock, normally last a century or longer, and much more of it gets adapted over time than gets demolished. The lifespan of major league stadiums in recent years has been far shorter than what they are actually built to endure as technologies and tastes have changed,

To the point of your last question, if stadiums weren't so tough to adapt—so much concrete and steel—we wouldn't smash wrecking balls into them, as yes, tearing down buildings does affect climate change. There is embodied energy in anything we make, and generally the larger, tougher, and heavier the product, the more embodied energy it has, and pretty much nothing has more embodied energy than a concrete building, which requires a ton of energy be used to create it, and a ton to be expended to take it down too. Since the development industry overwhelmingly burns fossil fuels to build and to tear down/recycle, yes, buildings affect climate change. It's a big reason why many people are concerned about throwing away yet another massive stadium, and in this case, a building that may very well represent the most embodied energy in the entire city. For my part, I really hope that a good firm is hired to make the changes to the existing structure that will fix the sightline issue, bring in natural light, etc. etc., achieved through precise cuts and not wasteful, wholesale demolition.

Finally, Rogers has said they won't ask for public money, but people are very skeptical, and they have good reason to be. While this isn't the States and things aren't quite as bad here in regards to what billionaire owners have been able to prize away from the taxpayers down there, we did pay most of the cost of building SkyDome (about $420 M of the $570 M cost) before it was gifted (minus the hotel) to Rogers for only $25 M. No wonder many people don't buy that there won't be ways that the public ends up holding many of the purse strings for a new stadium.

Anyway, please tone down your posts on UrbanToronto. Discuss, don't bully.

42

 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
31,842
Reaction score
25,352
City:
Toronto
Finally, Rogers has said they won't ask for public money, but people are very skeptical, and they have good reason to be. While this isn't the States and things aren't quite as bad here in regards to what billionaire owners have been able to prize away from the taxpayers down there, we did pay most of the cost of building SkyDome (about $420 M of the $570 M cost) before it was gifted (minus the hotel) to Rogers for only $25 M. No wonder many people don't buy that there won't be ways that the public ends up holding many of the purse strings for a new stadium.

42


Also on top of that - the land is leased for the express purpose of hosting a stadium; any redevelopment scheme that see that converted into other uses (ostensibly as "improvements") by default convert a public asset into one that generates private profit. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, but what's the public getting out of a prime piece of real estate that is owned by the public, from the redevelopment of a stadium that is built mostly with public money?

AoD
 
Last edited:

C-mac

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 5, 2021
Messages
624
Reaction score
847
You ask the first question as if "lifespan" were only a measure of how long a building might be fashionable to use, and you ask it as if you're the one in this thread with the objective answer, anyone who disagrees with you has to be wrong.

Change your tone. This thread is for discussion purposes, it's not for you to preach. You can try to convince others, but not through bullying. Another example of your tone problem on recent pages is in regard to "consensus" where you essentially state that there appears to be more who agree than those are opposed, and therefore your views must be right. Linking the two, however, is a fallacy. Sure, you may have the numbers, but that may only indicate that you've succeeding in tiring out the opposition, not convincing them. That happens when other members bump into a member who goes on and on endlessly about something. It takes time and energy to refute what someone says who's willing to go on forever, and many have better things to do with their time.

For those who do slip into endlessly going on about something, we call that trolling, and it's against the rules. Make your point, and then let the thread move on.

To the point of your first question though, most times that "lifespan of a building" is quoted, it's to describe how long a building will hold out against the elements, be safe for use, perform its intended purpose. A building may no longer be considered state-of-the-art for long after it's built, but it will likely be useful for many years after. Housing, our most ubiquitous building stock, normally last a century or longer, and much more of it gets adapted over time than gets demolished. The lifespan of major league stadiums in recent years has been far shorter than what they are actually built to endure as technologies and tastes have changed,

To the point of your last question, if stadiums weren't so tough to adapt—so much concrete and steel—we wouldn't smash wrecking balls into them, as yes, tearing down buildings does affect climate change. There is embodied energy in anything we make, and generally the larger, tougher, and heavier the product, the more embodied energy it has, and pretty much nothing has more embodied energy than a concrete building, which requires a ton of energy be used to create it, and a ton to be expended to take it down too. Since the development industry overwhelmingly burns fossil fuels to build and to tear down/recycle, yes, buildings affect climate change. It's a big reason why many people are concerned about throwing away yet another massive stadium, and in this case, a building that may very well represent the most embodied energy in the entire city. For my part, I really hope that a good firm is hired to make the changes to the existing structure that will fix the sightline issue, bring in natural light, etc. etc., achieved through precise cuts and not wasteful, wholesale demolition.

Finally, Rogers has said they won't ask for public money, but people are very skeptical, and they have good reason to be. While this isn't the States and things aren't quite as bad here in regards to what billionaire owners have been able to prize away from the taxpayers down there, we did pay most of the cost of building SkyDome (about $420 M of the $570 M cost) before it was gifted (minus the hotel) to Rogers for only $25 M. No wonder many people don't buy that there won't be ways that the public ends up holding many of the purse strings for a new stadium.

Anyway, please tone down your posts on UrbanToronto. Discuss, don't bully.

42


My tone is fine and I'm not trolling thanks.

This is a debate, and I'm simply expressing my opinion.

The member stated the building was only at 10% if its life span, physically maybe, but it had already been discussed at length, the context of whether the building was outdated or not aside from the physical component of the building. Sure in 100 years there might be some kind of decaying structure that resembles what was once a stadium, that doesn't mean it's still a serviceable building.

If we want to nitpick about all the things that cause damage to the environment and whether it benefits society or not, we could have an endless debate about that. Knocking down a 40 year old building is probably way down the totem pole relative to all the other environmental issues we have today.

Seeing as you're an administrator, and I'll take this as some sort of warning, that's fine. I'll refrain from expressing my opinion or engaging in a debate going forward. For the record, I never used any vulgar language or profanity and diplomatic. Maybe a small dose of sarcasm with my question marks to last members post as it came across pretty authoritarian and absolute, but yet I'm being told to watch my tone...lol.

I'll now let others debate this going forward.
 
Last edited:

interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
25,925
Reaction score
30,252
City:
Toronto
My tone is fine and I'm not trolling thanks.

This is a debate, and I'm simply expressing my opinion.

The member stated the building was only at 10% if its life span, physically maybe, but it had already been discussed at length, the context of whether the building was outdated or not aside from the physical component of the building. Sure in 100 years there might be some kind of decaying structure that resembles what was once a stadium, that doesn't mean it's still a serviceable building.

If we want to nitpick about all the things that cause damage to the environment and whether it benefits society or not, we could have an endless debate about that. Knocking down a 40 year old building is probably way down the totem pole relative to all the other environmental issues we have today.

Seeing as you're an administrator, and I'll take this as some sort of warning, that's fine. I'll refrain from expressing my opinion or engaging in a debate going forward. For the record, I never used any vulgar language or profanity and diplomatic. Maybe a small dose of sarcasm with my question marks to last members post as it came across pretty authoritarian and absolute, but yet I'm being told to watch my tone...lol.

I'll now let others debate this going forward.
Sorry, but along with other moderators, we get to determine whether your tone is fine or not. Try a little harder to see the difference between debate and bullying and you'll last longer here.

42
 

Bogtrotter

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
1,572
Reaction score
510
Also on top of that - the land is leased by the province for the express purpose of hosting a stadium; any redevelopment scheme that see that converted into other uses (ostensibly as "improvements") by default convert a public asset into one that generates private profit. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, but what's the public getting out of a prime piece of real estate that is owned by the public, from the redevelopment of a stadium that is built mostly with public money?

AoD
"Most new stadiums look like they were designed by a coked-up Willy Wonka". Classic. Some of the amenities are just ridiculous.

I'm leaning more towards getting more time out of the dome. My main contention is the turf, although as stated in earlier posts there are brand new stadiums that use better modern turf now- Arlington and Arizona for eg. They can probably reconfigure the seats too and add some flashy amenities. Please no pool or fish tank though.
 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
31,842
Reaction score
25,352
City:
Toronto
"Most new stadiums look like they were designed by a coked-up Willy Wonka". Classic. Some of the amenities are just ridiculous.

I'm leaning more towards getting more time out of the dome. My main contention is the turf, although as stated in earlier posts there are brand new stadiums that use better modern turf now- Arlington and Arizona for eg. They can probably reconfigure the seats too and add some flashy amenities. Please no pool or fish tank though.

I want to see what is being proposed in terms of retrofitting, the financial case, and the cost-benefit for the public first. It's way too early to say yay or nay without a shred of concrete info. What I do not want to see is going down the road of franchises in the US, where direct/indirect public subsidies ended up to the tune of billions.

AoD
 

many7695

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
56
Reaction score
40
I want to see what is being proposed in terms of retrofitting, the financial case, and the cost-benefit for the public first. It's way too early to say yay or nay without a shred of concrete info. What I do not want to see is going down the road of franchises in the US, where direct/indirect public subsidies ended up to the tune of billions.

AoD
Retrofitting, financial case and cost benefit will only matter if they ask us for money, if it done with private money who cares. Rogers Centre has to be replaced with a field that has current amenities which includes and because of the way Rogers Centre was build can’t and will never provide what fans, players and owners want in the stadium. Rogers Centre is crap trash as it is
 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
31,842
Reaction score
25,352
City:
Toronto
Retrofitting, financial case and cost benefit will only matter if they ask us for money, if it done with private money who cares. Rogers Centre has to be replaced with a field that has current amenities which includes and because of the way Rogers Centre was build can’t and will never provide what fans, players and owners want in the stadium. Rogers Centre is crap trash as it is

You missed my previous point - the land is leased for the purposes of a baseball stadium; if you are going to use it for something else in addition, that's very much a public matter - because in essence you are using what isn't yours to profit. It *might* be a good idea, but it is still something that should be scrutinized by the public.

AoD
 
Last edited:

syn

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
5,293
Reaction score
3,565
Being in Baltimore probably doesn't help.

If Baltimore is only capable of poor attendance then it probably doesn't have much of a future as a MLB city. I'm sure the owners would want to relocate. At the very least MLB would be pushing them for a new stadium to draw fans.

I don't think either of those things is happening.

If you don't want to use Baltimore, then let's look at Seattle. You just used Safeco field as an example of a stadium you like.

It fully opened in 2000, finishing 4th in AL attendance. The next two years it was first (coinciding with the most successful years in franchise history). By year 7 it was down to 6th, and just kept falling from there.

What about Minute Maid Park, another example you cited? They've never led the league in attendance. Their first few years they were no higher than 5th. The only time they were as high as 3rd was during their World Series years. In 22 seasons there's only a handful of times they were anywhere near close to capacity.

I think the idea that a new stadium is worth it for the sake of increased interest and attendance can be put to rest.
 
Last edited:

syn

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
5,293
Reaction score
3,565
Free agents would continue to refuse to sign in Toronto, star players previously under team control decide to opt out as they would prefer to play in ballparks with the latest amenities (not to mention real grass which makes zero sense to install at the dome from a feasibility standpoint), and in addition to being the only Canadian team (in a province where players are heavily taxed and a lot of players don't want to be in Canada), the Blue Jays organization understands that this is a business, and in order to be competitive, they have to catch up with the times - it worked when the dome first opened to the amazement of a lot of players, but that is in the rear view mirror.

It's true, free agents are avoiding Toronto like the plague.
 

many7695

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
56
Reaction score
40
You missed my previous point - the land is leased for the purposes of a baseball stadium; if you are going to use it for something else in addition, that's very much a public matter - because in essence you are using what isn't yours to profit. It *might* be a good idea, but it is still something that should be scrutinized by the public.

AoD
So if Rogers builds a new stadium elsewhere in Toronto the government should force them to stay in a decrepit building that no one wants because of the so many problems it has
 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
31,842
Reaction score
25,352
City:
Toronto
So if Rogers builds a new stadium elsewhere in Toronto the government should force them to stay in a decrepit building that no one wants because of the so many problems it has

The question you should be asking yourself is how are they going to fund that without using the existing SkyDome site for something else. The latter is the question - it is not something for them to redevelop unilaterally. If they are going to leave, find another place in the city and fund it entirely out of the pocket without using the existing site and the proceeds from it in any shape, way or form for other developments? By all means - but somehow I don't think Rogers Inc. is in the business of bleeding cash.

And SkyDome is "decrepit"? It might be older and not-ideal, but decrepit it isn't.

AoD
 
Last edited:

T.E.C.II

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 15, 2015
Messages
309
Reaction score
298
If Baltimore is only capable of poor attendance then it probably doesn't have much of a future as a MLB city. I'm sure the owners would want to relocate. At the very least MLB would be pushing them for a new stadium to draw fans.

I don't think either of those things is happening.

If you don't want to use Baltimore, then let's look at Seattle. You just used Safeco field as an example of a stadium you like.

It fully opened in 2000, finishing 4th in AL attendance. The next two years it was first (coinciding with the most successful years in franchise history). By year 7 it was down to 6th, and just kept falling from there.

What about Minute Maid Park, another example you cited? They've never led the league in attendance. Their first few years they were no higher than 5th. The only time they were as high as 3rd was during their World Series years. In 22 seasons there's only a handful of times they were anywhere near close to capacity.

I think the idea that a new stadium is worth it for the sake of increased interest and attendance can be put to rest.

I"m not sure why you are trying to link two separate, unrelated, posts. I'm talking about roofed stadiums that I like, and you continue to harp on attendance.
 

many7695

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
56
Reaction score
40
The question you should be asking yourself is how are they going to fund that without using the existing SkyDome site for something else. The latter is the question - it is not something for them to redevelop unilaterally. If they are going to leave, find another place in the city and fund it entirely out of the pocket without using the existing site and the proceeds from it in any shape, way or form for other developments? By all means.

And SkyDome is "decrepit"? It might be older and not-ideal, but decrepit it isn't.

AoD
Well that is my interpretation of Rogers Centre by having been there for baseball and concerts (it’s trash for baseball it’s unbearable for concerts) and by visiting some of the newer stadiums. Rogers has done a poor as job in maintenance even in the small areas
 

Top