[many7695]

Sorry not a fan of this. I don’t think replacing the Rogers Center should even be a discussion, certainly not based on any of the examples provided here so far. A renovation designed by a high caliber firm is what it deserves. Introduce glazing at the roof, revise all the exterior glazing, storefronts and hotel curtain wall, etc. As for the location, if there is one thing Toronto has that New York, Chicago or any other city doesn’t have, it is the colossal / iconic one-two punch of the CN tower and Rogers Center. The baseball sightlines may not be the best according to some (I have enjoyed every game I have attended there from various seating areas) but we shouldn’t consider sacrificing so many other factors for the sake of a new stadium. Unless there is a proposal that matches or exceeds the ambition that created the SkyDome, we would end up with a worse stadium. Some of the examples in this thread are basically new versions of the old Exhibition stadium. The Rogers Center achieves so much on a very compact footprint, right in the middle of downtown. 100% of the field is exposed to the sky and I believe 90% of the seats. Fully agree that when the roof is closed it is its worst atrtribute, which is why introducing glazing at the roof would address this. With some much needed architectural design upgrades, this is our version of the Colosseum. It’s not an architectural jewel but to knock it down and replace it with a mediocre stadium would be very short sighted.

You are kidding right, SkyDome issues can’t be fixed be with a renovation, there are too many list but here goes, sightlines suck, 55000 seats way to much have to cut down 41,000 to 43,000, getting rid of the stupid useless hotel the geometric shape of the outfield and goes on and on, and to even use the Colosseum and Rogers centre in the same sentence is just ridiculous. The only Rogers Centre has going for it is the location, nothing else about that stadium is worth a damn

 

[animatronic]

Guessing that replacing the roof with something transparent wouldn’t work. Aside from the fact it was just replaced, the roof is basically a fabric tarp stretched over a steel frame. Anything else would be too heavy/interfere with the functioning.

 

[animatronic]

I think in the Rangers case, the decision was made due to not being able to maintain the field, and it probably being too hot to grow grass. Same goes for Arizona. Still, players tend to hate playing on turf, so I'd be surprised if Rogers didn't at least try to make grass work.

Wouldn’t be surprised if turf ends up superior to grass in the next decade.

 

[T.E.C.II]

this is our version of the Colosseum.

Oakland Coliseum, maybe...

Why assume a new stadium would be worse? The Rogers Centre became dated only a few years after opening. It is typically cited as being one of the worst in baseball when it comes to stadium rankings. A new stadium, made with ambition, could not only be better than the Rogers Centre, it could be one of the best in the league.

Also, I think you're way off base (no pun intended) comparing any of the stadiums posted here to Exhibition Stadium. So you think Safeco Field is as bad as the worst stadium in MLB history? That's such a bizarre take.

I'm not against renovating the Rogers Centre, but it requires a ton of work, some of which might not even be possible.

 

[T.E.C.II]

Wouldn’t be surprised if turf ends up superior to grass in the next decade.

Will it look visually superior? In this regard, I don't think turf will ever beat the real thing.

 

[JMSRead]

Sorry not a fan of this. I don’t think replacing the Rogers Center should even be a discussion, certainly not based on any of the examples provided here so far. A renovation designed by a high caliber firm is what it deserves. Introduce glazing at the roof, revise all the exterior glazing, storefronts and hotel curtain wall, etc. As for the location, if there is one thing Toronto has that New York, Chicago or any other city doesn’t have, it is the colossal / iconic one-two punch of the CN tower and Rogers Center. The baseball sightlines may not be the best according to some (I have enjoyed every game I have attended there from various seating areas) but we shouldn’t consider sacrificing so many other factors for the sake of a new stadium. Unless there is a proposal that matches or exceeds the ambition that created the SkyDome, we would end up with a worse stadium. Some of the examples in this thread are basically new versions of the old Exhibition stadium. The Rogers Center achieves so much on a very compact footprint, right in the middle of downtown. 100% of the field is exposed to the sky and I believe 90% of the seats. Fully agree that when the roof is closed it is its worst atrtribute, which is why introducing glazing at the roof would address this. With some much needed architectural design upgrades, this is our version of the Colosseum. It’s not an architectural jewel but to knock it down and replace it with a mediocre stadium would be very short sighted.

Not trying to be snarky - but just curious if you are a baseball fan? Or if you have been to other MLB parks in the US? The Skydome does the job OK, but it's basically the last of the big, concrete cookie cutter stadiums that were build in the 60s, 70s and 80s (although definitely a high end version of that kind of park). A few years after the Skydome opened teams started building smaller, intimate, quirky parks with a retro feel and it became instantly obvious that was a far preferable place to watch a game. I think the Dome would be pretty unanimously considered a bottom 5 stadium in the league by fans and those in the game. It's not to say the Dome can't be great when it's full, and I do have a deep affection for the place, but I feel like Blue Jays fans are generally thrilled with the idea of replacing the dome, while people who are less inclined to go to a game don't want to see it go because they like how it looks in the skyline. I guess the truth is, it doesn't matter if we think it should be replaced or not - Rogers evidently does, and don't seem to be asking for public money to do it. So, by all means, I say.

 

[JMSRead]

In terms of renovating the Skydome, my understanding based on plenty interviews I've heard with Mark Shapiro over the years - is that one of Shapiro's jobs when he was brought in as team president was to do a big renovation of the dome, much like he did with Progressive Field in Cleveland. However, the team realized that getting it to where they wanted would be incredibly expensive - including the fact that the roof will have to be replaced at some point. The renovation estimates were prohibitive enough that it made more sense to build a new stadium from scratch (which could include their own real estate play to offset the costs) rather than pay hundreds of millions to improve a flawed Skydome.

 

[Civdis]

Maybe the Jays could build a new baseball park and the dome could be totally rebuilt as an NFL football stadium? The foot print is big enough to get 70,000 seats if rebuilt

 

[Richard White]

Maybe the Jays could build a new baseball park and the dome could be totally rebuilt as an NFL football stadium? The foot print is big enough to get 70,000 seats if rebuilt

Yea no. The NFL will never put a team up here and the CFL is about to fold like a cheap suit if they cannot have fans in the stands this year.

 

[NIV]

Rogers will only do this if it makes financial sense. New ballpark with retractable roof in the city will cost 1.5-2 billion. I don’t see this happening. More likely a traditional ballpark without a roof outside the city.

Naive to think Taxpayers/ fans won’t be on the hook for some of this. Will Rogers pay massive capital gains tax for that valuable real estate once sold? Probably not, tax bill would most likely be negotiated out along with government land donation for new ballpark. Whose going to donate land? Markham? Mississauga? Brampton? Forget about downtown.

Local Governments would be on hook for new infrastructure around ballpark also.

New ballpark would be 10 years out at the earliest if stars line up. More likely 15-20.

 

[T.E.C.II]

In 10 years, might the land where Billy Bishop Airport be available? I thought I read that somewhere....

The Port Lands are often mentioned when talking about a new stadium, but I think that location isn't particularly desirable. The problem is, as someone mentioned here a while back, home plate wouldn't be facing the city's skyline, or the water, the two features you'd want to include when building a new stadium in that location.

Also, there have also been talks in MLB of possibly shortening its seasons, or starting later. If this actually happens, cold weather wouldn't be as big a factor as we'd be starting the season when the weather gets warmer. Which would make having an open air stadium more desirable.

 

[Mihairokov]

I would prefer the site to be used for a potential Olympic Games stadium, but Downsview Park has more than enough space for a future Jays stadium, or any other stadium proposal anyone wants to dream up.

 

[many7695]

I would prefer the site to be used for a potential Olympic Games stadium, but Downsview Park has more than enough space for a future Jays stadium, or any other stadium proposal anyone wants to dream up.

As someone who used to live in that area that is god awful area to put anything of this magnitude in there

 

[syn]

Not trying to be snarky - but just curious if you are a baseball fan? Or if you have been to other MLB parks in the US? The Skydome does the job OK, but it's basically the last of the big, concrete cookie cutter stadiums that were build in the 60s, 70s and 80s (although definitely a high end version of that kind of park). A few years after the Skydome opened teams started building smaller, intimate, quirky parks with a retro feel and it became instantly obvious that was a far preferable place to watch a game. I think the Dome would be pretty unanimously considered a bottom 5 stadium in the league by fans and those in the game. It's not to say the Dome can't be great when it's full, and I do have a deep affection for the place, but I feel like Blue Jays fans are generally thrilled with the idea of replacing the dome, while people who are less inclined to go to a game don't want to see it go because they like how it looks in the skyline. I guess the truth is, it doesn't matter if we think it should be replaced or not - Rogers evidently does, and don't seem to be asking for public money to do it. So, by all means, I say.

As a fan I'd agree with that assessment, with a caveat - I'm not sure there's a single retractable roof stadium that has a nice atmosphere when the roof's closed. The Skydome with the roof open is a good experience, IMO. Certainly not the best, but I feel like it can be improved without gutting the place.

 

[SubHuman]

... I'm not sure there's a single retractable roof stadium that has a nice atmosphere when the roof's closed. The Skydome with the roof open is a good experience ...

The way I've heard some people talk about this, they seem to think the roof is the villain -- if we could only get rid of it, we would have July weather 365 days a year.