Richard White
Senior Member
When I Read it in my head it sounded differently.. I mean to say "the first game was snowed and during others, the weather was a factor. Even Dave Winfield took out a seagull flying in off the lake at one point."
- Thread starter buildup
- Start date
When I Read it in my head it sounded differently.. I mean to say "the first game was snowed and during others, the weather was a factor. Even Dave Winfield took out a seagull flying in off the lake at one point."
Isotack
Active Member
No it wasn't, I was there. Winfield was a Yankee and hit the seagull in 1983. You can still hit a seagull or pigeon in the Rogers Dome today if you tried.
Richard White
Senior Member
Modern standards in the sense that no stadium is built to the same specifications and standards today. It is a concrete bunker, the sightlines are iffy at best and the layout is impractical.
It was designed as a multi-use facility designed to host football, baseball, disney on ice, concerts and other events. It is not the most hospitable setting for games comparatively speaking.
As anyone who has sat out near third base can tell you the outfield is far from anything. Even some players have stated that the dome plays differently depending on when the roof is open or closed.
Also, it has astroturf not actual turf. That is the standard now.
ericmacm
Active Member
As a Blue Jays fan, I can say that the Skydome is not a great ballpark experience. I have had many good memories, going to games regularly since I was a young kid, but there is nothing at the Dome worth saving. This stadium should be in no way considered a heritage structure. It's a giant concrete cavern that was not designed to be used as a baseball-only facility. In creating a multi-purpose stadium, there is a lot taken away from the baseball experience. They have done a wonderful job at improving the atmosphere over the years, but the bones of the stadium are just not capable of accommodating the game properly in the modern day, mainly due to the configuration issues with seating angles and inability to use real turf. It's time to move on and build an actual baseball-specific park like the majority of the MLB has done. This is an opportunity to create something wonderful and timeless that will further cement the future of baseball in Toronto for many years, and establish the Blue Jays as the large-market team they should be.
Since it appears to be fully privately financed by Rogers/Brookfield, it's their show, and I say let them go for it.
Since it appears to be fully privately financed by Rogers/Brookfield, it's their show, and I say let them go for it.
Translude15
Frank the Tank
Bolded and italicized for emphasis. That is the main point of this project.
You can't compete with the heavyweights of MLB with an inadequate stadium and outdated facilities.
UrbanOzz
Active Member
i'm curious if the people who are upset that it may get demolished are jays fans? I can't imagine that there are any jays fans out there that are asking to save it. It was amazing at its time but there's nothing worth saving here. It's absolutely terrible to watch a game in. I've been to 18 ballparks and it's the worst one i've been to. When the roof is open, it's okay but not great. When it's closed, it's flat out depressing in there. The cost to renovate it to bring it to modern standards would probably cost more than putting up a new park. You would have to remove the hotel, hollow out all the exterior concrete to put in windows and glass to brighten it up and from my understanding the hotel (and all its concrete) hold the roof up on days where the dome is open so that wouldn't be easy to change.
This gives them the opportunity to put in a beautiful park that holds far less people (in the 30-40K range i'd hope). Yes, the skyline will change but it changes all the time anyways. The dome is already blocked if you look at the skyline from the east or west. From the south it's visible but still obstructed a bit.
This gives them the opportunity to put in a beautiful park that holds far less people (in the 30-40K range i'd hope). Yes, the skyline will change but it changes all the time anyways. The dome is already blocked if you look at the skyline from the east or west. From the south it's visible but still obstructed a bit.
toronto647
Active Member
These are my issues...
1) Rogers Centre/Sky Dome is a Heritage Location - If the city really cares about its heritage buildings none screams louder. Put your money where your mouth is. If this project goes ahead then there will be precedence for other projects and the lawyers for developers will point at rogers centre every single time in court or tribunal as past precedence.
2) They will likely reduce capacity from 55K to perhaps 30K or 35K less (They rather have more space for condos/office towers lets be real). This will take them from second highest in the MLB to second lowest.
3) What is the city/citizens really getting out of this? There is no value what so ever for the average citizen. Park/Green Space? There is already the rail deck park and Union Park's park space
At the end of the day we will just get half a size Rogers Centre and more than 60/70 (if not higher) story condos/officer towers. Great work city council!
CharmAlarm
Active Member
Rogers Centre plans on hold amid pandemic despite report of possible demolition
picard102
Senior Member
Ya, this would be a huge mistake if our civic leaders let this happen.
UrbanOzz
Active Member
Removing capacity is one of your issues? Capacity hasn't been 55,000 for many many years. MLB stadiums have been getting smaller in every city. the average is mid 40's now but there are a few even lower than that. In Pittsburgh, it's so cozy and intimate that the highest seat in the entire park is only 88ft from the field.
The city and citizens are getting a new destination to visit. More people will visit the ballpark. Rogers are invested in the jays and have been for a few years now. The fans are coming to the games, even more will come if the ballpark was a desirable place. There needs to be more kids zones and family friendly areas. New ballparks are designed where they are a destination to visit, a real attraction.
ericmacm
Active Member
My answers to your points:
1) It is most certainly not a heritage structure. It is not even listed as such. Why would a legal precedent for heritage demolition be set by the redevelopment of a non-heritage structure? It may be publicly seen that way by some, but it is not even remotely in the same ballpark (haha) as actual heritage structures that need protecting.
2) Size and capacity aren't everything. Sure, having a high seating capacity is great from a pure numbers perspective if you are only concerned about stats and rankings, but what good are 55k seats when you are only filling half on a regular basis? Keep in mind that the high capacity was for CFL football, it's more like 49k for baseball. Additionally, who's to say that they would be reducing it to 30k-35k seats? We are seeing reductions like that proposed for smaller-market teams like Oakland, but since Toronto is aiming larger, it's possible we will see something more like 40k-42k seats, which is more in line with what we see from larger market new parks like Globe Life Field (DFW) and Truist Park (Atlanta).
3) The City gets more tax revenue from office/residential towers, can levy more community benefit charges for this development, and can keep the Jays in the city. Blue Jays fans get a better ballpark/fan experience, in addition to potentially attracting more people to come to the games. From a development standpoint, land is used more efficiently, and there is never too much green space when it comes to downtown Toronto. Pedestrians in the area get a better-designed district than the windswept concrete plazas that the 80s had to offer. Keep in mind that the Skydome is also huge in comparison to other ballparks. It is grossly inefficient when it comes to space.
Stec
Active Member
But what about the concerts? We will lose all stadium concerts if we lose Skydome. 
If they build a new stadium I really hope it has some sort of a retractable roof and similar capacity.
If they build a new stadium I really hope it has some sort of a retractable roof and similar capacity.toronto647
Active Member
1) Compared to the other heritage locations the city is trying to designate... Rogers Centre would fit the bill more nicely under their criteria.
2) Concerts and other events. For example Wrestlemania had close to 70K participants.
3) The only reason the city would even consider this is tax revenue... Folks in the city would rather see less condos in downtown than get more tax money. Folks have made this point loud and clear. Also about your green space... Once Rail deck and union park are built that will cover that need.
Lets not forget Tory has strong ties to Rogers Corporation.
animatronic
Senior Member
It's a tight squeeze, but here's Progressive Field overlaid on the space. Lots of room to loop Bremner Blvd north of the stadium and provide access to a row of condos. Parking will be an issue, as there won't be as much room under the stands.
They'll also have to work around/over the deep water cooling plant in the SE corner of the lot - assume that relocating it would be prohibitively expensive.
If they want a retractable roof they're going to have to get creative with space.
If they want to keep the SkyDome open while the new one is built they're going to have to rotate the field 180 degrees, permanently retract the roof and demolish the southern end - if that's even possible. More likely they'd build as much as possible in advance then demo the SkyDome in October. That gives them 7 months to prep the new field and keep building the new stands.
They'll also have to work around/over the deep water cooling plant in the SE corner of the lot - assume that relocating it would be prohibitively expensive.
If they want a retractable roof they're going to have to get creative with space.
If they want to keep the SkyDome open while the new one is built they're going to have to rotate the field 180 degrees, permanently retract the roof and demolish the southern end - if that's even possible. More likely they'd build as much as possible in advance then demo the SkyDome in October. That gives them 7 months to prep the new field and keep building the new stands.
picard102
Senior Member
Even more of an argument to not rebuild a purpose built baseball stadium. Baseball's fan base is shrinking, and it's best suited to multi use facility if it's going to continue to decline.