Translude15 said:
Enlighten us with your wisdom, oh holy one.
Click to expand...

In your scheme - why would the feds just give land away to the city beside the CN Tower?

Why should Rogers be given free land to build a stadium in LV?
 
ChesterCopperpot said:
In your scheme - why would the feds just give land away to the city beside the CN Tower?

Why should Rogers be given free land to build a stadium in LV?
Click to expand...
14 hours and I am still waiting for the reply. Perhaps they are hosting a pro new stadium meeting on Saturday to iron out all their answers before commenting. Just a page earlier the pro new stadium crowd was patting themselves on the back in full support of each other. One question and they all went into hiding. hmmmmm.
 
sixrings said:
14 hours and I am still waiting for the reply. Perhaps they are hosting a pro new stadium meeting on Saturday to iron out all their answers before commenting. Just a page earlier the pro new stadium crowd was patting themselves on the back in full support of each other. One question and they all went into hiding. hmmmmm.
Click to expand...

Apologies for the delay.

Unfortunately I have a life that doesn't consist of obsessing over a stadium.

You should try it sometime, it does wonders for your health.
 
Richard White said:
Apologies for the delay.

Unfortunately I have a life that doesn't consist of obsessing over a stadium.

You should try it sometime, it does wonders for your health.
Click to expand...
Actually Richard you are not here all the time so Ill believe you simply missed the question although I do question if you obsess over this stadium. However, a number of others who are here frequently suddenly vanished after the question was raised. By the way you didnt seem to answer the question either? Perhaps you're here to give mental health tips more than explain the validity of your friends ideas?
 
sixrings said:
Actually Richard you are not here all the time so Ill believe you simply missed the question although I do question if you obsess over this stadium. However, a number of others who are here frequently suddenly vanished after the question was raised. By the way you didnt seem to answer the question either? Perhaps you're here to give mental health tips more than explain the validity of your friends ideas?
Click to expand...

ChesterCopperpot said:
In your scheme - why would the feds just give land away to the city beside the CN Tower?

Why should Rogers be given free land to build a stadium in LV?
Click to expand...


I don't believe he said it would be given. I believe he said it would some sort of swap. (maybe I'm wrong)

I'm not sure why it's so implausible that the government would be willing to lease them other land and take back the land the dome sits on.
 
ChesterCopperpot said:
In your scheme - why would the feds just give land away to the city beside the CN Tower?

Why should Rogers be given free land to build a stadium in LV?
Click to expand...
To (eventually) repurpose the land the Dome currently sits on. Again, this is all theoretical, not to mention factoring in the immense resources, financial, and environmental costs associated with dismantling the existing stadium. To your last point, Rogers wouldn't receive free land in LV, they'd have to purchase it outright and then redevelop it into a stadium.

sixrings said:
14 hours and I am still waiting for the reply. Perhaps they are hosting a pro new stadium meeting on Saturday to iron out all their answers before commenting. Just a page earlier the pro new stadium crowd was patting themselves on the back in full support of each other. One question and they all went into hiding. hmmmmm.
Click to expand...
As stated earlier, this is purely theoretical, and there are two camps in this discussion: those who think the Jays will build a new venue within 15 - 20 years, and those who believe a renovated Dome will remain their home for the foreseeable future. I tend to side towards the renovated Dome camp, as the location is unbeatable, and I personally think extensive renovations, even beyond these preliminary ones, can revitalize the venue into something more ballpark-esque. Shaprio's consistent hinting at looking beyond the 12-15 year timeframe is interesting, and if they weren't seriously considering that option, then why bother saying it at all? Hence, here we are theorizing about prospective land sites to build a new stadium, sites that are becoming less readily available with each passing year. To me, the Lamport/LV site seems to check off all the prospective boxes on what a new stadium/site should offer.

C-mac said:
I don't believe he said it would be given. I believe he said it would some sort of swap. (maybe I'm wrong)

I'm not sure why it's so implausible that the government would be willing to lease them other land and take back the land the dome sits on.
Click to expand...

Precisely. That type of transaction entails multiple levels of government and would take a lot of coordinated negotiating. Shapiro even registered a lobbying file with the city on behalf of the team related to these upcoming renovations. There could be more beyond that scope.
 
Translude15 said:
To (eventually) repurpose the land the Dome currently sits on. Again, this is all theoretical, not to mention factoring in the immense resources, financial, and environmental costs associated with dismantling the existing stadium. To your last point, Rogers wouldn't receive free land in LV, they'd have to purchase it outright and then redevelop it into a stadium.


As stated earlier, this is purely theoretical, and there are two camps in this discussion: those who think the Jays will build a new venue within 15 - 20 years, and those who believe a renovated Dome will remain their home for the foreseeable future. I tend to side towards the renovated Dome camp, as the location is unbeatable, and I personally think extensive renovations, even beyond these preliminary ones, can revitalize the venue into something more ballpark-esque. Shaprio's consistent hinting at looking beyond the 12-15 year timeframe is interesting, and if they weren't seriously considering that option, then why bother saying it at all? Hence, here we are theorizing about prospective land sites to build a new stadium, sites that are becoming less readily available with each passing year. To me, the Lamport/LV site seems to check off all the prospective boxes on what a new stadium/site should offer.



Precisely. That type of transaction entails multiple levels of government and would take a lot of coordinated negotiating. Shapiro even registered a lobbying file with the city on behalf of the team related to these upcoming renovations. There could be more beyond that scope.
Click to expand...
C-mac said:
I don't believe he said it would be given. I believe he said it would some sort of swap. (maybe I'm wrong)

I'm not sure why it's so implausible that the government would be willing to lease them other land and take back the land the dome sits on.
Click to expand...
The government would not be interested in the land that Rogers sits on because it would cost several hundred million to demolish Rogers Centre and remove the debris, it would be easier to sell the land to Rogers and let them build a new stadium or have go through a massive renovation plan
 
Last edited by a moderator:
many7695 said:
The government would not be interested in the land that Rogers sits on because it would cost several hundred million to demolish and remove the debris


The government would not be interested in the land that Rogers sits on because it would cost several hundred million to demolish Rogers Centre and remove the debris, it would be easier to sell the land to Rogers and let them build a new stadium or have go through a massive renovation plan
Click to expand...

Could they not implode it?
 
many7695 said:
The government would not be interested in the land that Rogers sits on because it would cost several hundred million to demolish Rogers Centre and remove the debris, it would be easier to sell the land to Rogers and let them build a new stadium or have go through a massive renovation plan
Click to expand...
Is the government somehow compelled to sell to Rogers? Could they not sell to a property developer that would handle the demolition and merely factor that cost in on the offer for the land?
 
Richard White said:
Could they not implode it?
Click to expand...
Sure...once they strip out all the interior finishings, seats, fixtures, pipes, cables, etc. They could probably drop the roof with some shape charges, then bring the sides in. However, you have to take the building down to just the concrete structure before you do that. It would cost a TON to demolish it.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top