[TJ O'Pootertoot]

As much as I like the idea of a new park and am curious about all these scenarios getting kicked around, I'm inclined to agree that:
a) The current site (close to Union, in the heart of southcore etc.) is preferable to the Portlands (an area that will be infilling for decades), though one must concede that the area around SkyDome was also leaving a lot to be desired back in 1989;
b) It might not be impossible but it would be very challenging to rebuild on-site.

The building does have pluses. The location is ideal. Structurally, as far as I know, it's in great shape. The roof still works, again, without issue, as far as I know.
It has wide concourses and if the style is dated, that's superficial and they've been making improvements inside and outside with banners, signage etc.

So what I'd like to see is sort of a "What's the maximum they can do in a renovation?" scenario.
Let's say, hey, we've got a decent BUILDING here but it can be made a lot better than baseball. I suspect Shapiro and others have already undertaken this exercise and have a wish list but:
-Can they take out the north end, with the hotel, and open it up to the City (even if it's just the space above and around the "Flight Deck" and scoreboard)?
-Is it too hard to reface the concrete exterior with brick or something else warmer?
-Can they redo the seating so it's properly configured/oriented for baseball?
-Can they implement a new roof, either as an entirely new system or something that uses the same tracks but has a more modern (eg transparent/translucent/open) look?
-It sounds like the renos that would be required for grass were deemed too substantial but I guess they'd still be cheaper than a new stadium, so I'd throw that in the mix too; is that impossible or just very hard?

I don't think there's a real appetite for a new stadium, despite the grumbling about its shortcomings. I also don't think there's a really viable scenario for replacing it.

I think we've seen the pros/cons of relocating the team and there are definite downsides but maybe you do a major reno and if the team plays in Buffalo for a few months, that's tolerable?

 

[Richard White]

As much as I like the idea of a new park and am curious about all these scenarios getting kicked around, I'm inclined to agree that:
a) The current site (close to Union, in the heart of southcore etc.) is preferable to the Portlands (an area that will be infilling for decades), though one must concede that the area around SkyDome was also leaving a lot to be desired back in 1989;
b) It might not be impossible but it would be very challenging to rebuild on-site.

The building does have pluses. The location is ideal. Structurally, as far as I know, it's in great shape. The roof still works, again, without issue, as far as I know.
It has wide concourses and if the style is dated, that's superficial and they've been making improvements inside and outside with banners, signage etc.

So what I'd like to see is sort of a "What's the maximum they can do in a renovation?" scenario.
Let's say, hey, we've got a decent BUILDING here but it can be made a lot better than baseball. I suspect Shapiro and others have already undertaken this exercise and have a wish list but:
-Can they take out the north end, with the hotel, and open it up to the City (even if it's just the space above and around the "Flight Deck" and scoreboard)?
-Is it too hard to reface the concrete exterior with brick or something else warmer?
-Can they redo the seating so it's properly configured/oriented for baseball?
-Can they implement a new roof, either as an entirely new system or something that uses the same tracks but has a more modern (eg transparent/translucent/open) look?
-It sounds like the renos that would be required for grass were deemed too substantial but I guess they'd still be cheaper than a new stadium, so I'd throw that in the mix too; is that impossible or just very hard?

I don't think there's a real appetite for a new stadium, despite the grumbling about its shortcomings. I also don't think there's a really viable scenario for replacing it.

I think we've seen the pros/cons of relocating the team and there are definite downsides but maybe you do a major reno and if the team plays in Buffalo for a few months, that's tolerable?

They could do all this but the costs are so astronomically high that it makes tearing down and rebuilding it a better value

 

[C-mac]

I think what people have to keep in mind, is the main reason Rogers wants to do this. The lease on the land goes until 2088 or something like that. That's huge chunk of land that they can make much more profitable, so even if the "retro-fit" or whatever you want to called it ends up being the same as a new build, they still may want to do it. Whatever way they can profit from the land, I think they're hell bent on pursuing.

 

[G.L.17]

As much as I like the idea of a new park and am curious about all these scenarios getting kicked around, I'm inclined to agree that:
a) The current site (close to Union, in the heart of southcore etc.) is preferable to the Portlands (an area that will be infilling for decades), though one must concede that the area around SkyDome was also leaving a lot to be desired back in 1989;
b) It might not be impossible but it would be very challenging to rebuild on-site.

The building does have pluses. The location is ideal. Structurally, as far as I know, it's in great shape. The roof still works, again, without issue, as far as I know.
It has wide concourses and if the style is dated, that's superficial and they've been making improvements inside and outside with banners, signage etc.

So what I'd like to see is sort of a "What's the maximum they can do in a renovation?" scenario.
Let's say, hey, we've got a decent BUILDING here but it can be made a lot better than baseball. I suspect Shapiro and others have already undertaken this exercise and have a wish list but:
-Can they take out the north end, with the hotel, and open it up to the City (even if it's just the space above and around the "Flight Deck" and scoreboard)?
-Is it too hard to reface the concrete exterior with brick or something else warmer?
-Can they redo the seating so it's properly configured/oriented for baseball?
-Can they implement a new roof, either as an entirely new system or something that uses the same tracks but has a more modern (eg transparent/translucent/open) look?
-It sounds like the renos that would be required for grass were deemed too substantial but I guess they'd still be cheaper than a new stadium, so I'd throw that in the mix too; is that impossible or just very hard?

I don't think there's a real appetite for a new stadium, despite the grumbling about its shortcomings. I also don't think there's a really viable scenario for replacing it.

I think we've seen the pros/cons of relocating the team and there are definite downsides but maybe you do a major reno and if the team plays in Buffalo for a few months, that's tolerable?

If I recall correctly, the plans for the retrofit were made in either 2017 or 2018, with the intent that the public have access to viewing those docs.

Reading between the lines on this topic, upper management wasn't exactly satisfied with the plans (nor the cost associated vs building new) hence why nothing transpired from that. The limitations presented for a retrofit when factoring in an 11,000 ton moving roof (among other items) most certainly displayed a number of challenges.

Shapiro was even quoted when asked about grass vs turf, stating grass is obviously preferred, but factoring drainage, lighting, maintenance, the costs were in the tens of millions for that alone.

 

[T.E.C.II]

It sounds like the renos that would be required for grass were deemed too substantial but I guess they'd still be cheaper than a new stadium, so I'd throw that in the mix too; is that impossible or just very hard?

I think Rogers findings was that it was both expensive and very difficult, although maybe not impossible. The issues with installing grass were

- There's no drainage system, having to tear up all that concrete
- A proper lighting system would be needed to help keep the grass alive
- Having to deal with moisture, humidity levels, was apparently also a big issue
- The grass needs to be grown at a separate site, and then installed at the Rogers Centre, but under a tight time frame.

 

[wopchop]

I think what people have to keep in mind, is the main reason Rogers wants to do this. The lease on the land goes until 2088 or something like that. That's huge chunk of land that they can make much more profitable, so even if the "retro-fit" or whatever you want to called it ends up being the same as a new build, they still may want to do it. Whatever way they can profit from the land, I think they're hell bent on pursuing.

Rogers doesn't own that land.
Canada Lands Company does.
How would Rogers profit from land redevelopment?
And a better question is why would we let them? These are publicly owned lands.
If Rogers doesn't want to use the land for a stadium, maybe this spot needs to be the new downtown park.

 

[EddyMCD]

Rogers doesn't have to buy any land to put a new stadium there. If they build somewhere else there is a land acquisition cost that will make the financial case worse.

 

[wopchop]

Rogers doesn't have to buy any land to put a new stadium there. If they build somewhere else there is a land acquisition cost that will make the financial case worse.

Exactly right. It seems incredibly unlikely that they will spend $1bn on a new waterfront stadium plus real estate costs in this market. Not to mention whatever they just spent on renovations to Skydome. Not unless there are some shenanigans with public money, which I would oppose strongly. We should be extremely skeptical of any new stadium they propose on new land for this reason.

There are also people talking like Rogers is going to extract more value out of the land they don't own, which also calls for a great deal of public scrutiny.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Exactly right. It seems incredibly unlikely that they will spend $1bn on a new waterfront stadium plus real estate costs in this market. Not to mention whatever they just spent on renovations to Skydome. Not unless there are some shenanigans with public money, which I would oppose strongly. We should be extremely skeptical of any new stadium they propose on new land for this reason.

There are also people talking like Rogers is going to extract more value out of the land they don't own, which also calls for a great deal of public scrutiny.

Nevermind that the public just spent a neat 1B cleaning up and floodproofing the Portlands as well, and a good proportion of the land there is also public.

Rogers doesn't own that land.
Canada Lands Company does.
How would Rogers profit from land redevelopment?
And a better question is why would we let them? These are publicly owned lands.
If Rogers doesn't want to use the land for a stadium, maybe this spot needs to be the new downtown park.

Or revert back to CLC so that it can decide what to do with it.

AoD

 

[C-mac]

Rogers doesn't own that land.
Canada Lands Company does.
How would Rogers profit from land redevelopment?
And a better question is why would we let them? These are publicly owned lands.
If Rogers doesn't want to use the land for a stadium, maybe this spot needs to be the new downtown park.

That's exactly what I said, they dont own the land, but their lease is until 2088. So you think they will just sit idle until 2088 when their lease on the land is going to be more valuable then the stadium that currently now sits on prime real estate?

 

[sixrings]

That's exactly what I said, they dont own the land, but their lease is until 2088. So you think they will just sit idle until 2088 when their lease on the land is going to be more valuable then the stadium that currently now sits on prime real estate?

That’s the Madison square garden situation and they just resigned a lease after spending a billion dollars in renovations.

 

[wopchop]

That's exactly what I said, they dont own the land, but their lease is until 2088. So you think they will just sit idle until 2088 when their lease on the land is going to be more valuable then the stadium that currently now sits on prime real estate?

Right, but their lease is specifically for a stadium.
You seem to be suggesting that they can redevelop the land for other profitable uses.
If I am misunderstanding you, I apologize.
Canada Lands Company might have something to say about that, and we the general public should be suspicious about any Rogers backed plan to profit from public lands.
Last year there were reports that Rogers and Brookfield were looking into shifting the stadium, and developing condos on the site to finance it.
Any such plan should face immediate public opposition, as it would be no better than American-style stadium welfare, and straight up theft of public land.
That being said, given the political climate, I would not be surprised to see a backroom deal like this develop between Rogers, a developer and Canada Lands Company.
We citizens should watch carefully, lest these suits steal our assets from us for the benefits of their shareholders.

 

[C-mac]

Rogers doesn't own that land.
Canada Lands Company does.
How would Rogers profit from land redevelopment?
And a better question is why would we let them? These are publicly owned lands.
If Rogers doesn't want to use the land for a stadium, maybe this spot needs to be the new downtown park.

They will profit from the land by downsizing the stadium and putting in condos/office towers/retail ... etc. Their lease goes until 2088, that's long time to sit on piece of land that big that is no longer just a rail yard, but prime real estate. That's the way I look at it and understand it. Maybe someone here with more knowledge can explain it to me.

 

[Richard White]

They will profit from the land by downsizing the stadium and putting in condos/office towers/retail ... etc. Their lease goes until 2088, that's long time to sit on piece of land that big that is no longer just a rail yard, but prime real estate. That's the way I look at it and understand it. Maybe someone here with more knowledge can explain it to me.

There is a no doubt a clause in their lease that allows them out of it.

Anyone with any common sense would have realized a very long time ago how built up the area would become. There is probably a clause in the lease allowing for termination of the lease if required.

 

[rbt]

They will profit from the land by downsizing the stadium and putting in condos/office towers/retail ... etc. Their lease goes until 2088, that's long time to sit on piece of land that big that is no longer just a rail yard, but prime real estate. That's the way I look at it and understand it. Maybe someone here with more knowledge can explain it to me.

The lease is for a stadium only. Rogers can downsize the stadium (and team/game related retail) and Canada Lands Corporation can profit by putting in office towers/retail/... Renegotiation of the lease would be required for Rogers to profit from non-stadium elements.

Perhaps Rogers will propose the government should pay Rogers to rework the stadium so the government can sell a portion of the land.