TrickyRicky
Senior Member
Slap up some barn board, inappropriate lighting, and lack of proper signage. Instant contemporary upgrade.
The SkyDome is much a part of Toronto's skyline as the CN Tower. That's why its view from the lake is protected. It's not going anywhere.
Would have no issue with it being razed. It's a giant bunker. The problem is there probably isn't a better location for a ballpark so the only option is probably an extensive renovation. If they can renovate Soldier Field and Lambeau Field they can do the Skydome (I don't call it Rogers Center).
Hmm, I disagree, I'd argue the Skydome is just as historically significant as the CN Tower.Sure but I don't think Torontonians are all that attached to the Skydome. If one day another stadium rises in that same spot I'd be fine with it. Skydome isn't iconic in the way that the CN Tower is.
If we can tear down Varsity Stadium, a structure with far more charm and historical significance that Skydome, we can certainly take this one down one day.
Which may be exactly what is in vogue in 100 years. You have no idea at this point what will be considered "timeless, quaint, and old timey" in 2089. None of us do, and few would have predicted Boston or (north) Chicago's parks 100 years ago.I don't think the Dome is a bad place to watch a game, but it doesn't have that timeless, quaint, old timey vibe - it's very big and very concrete.
Which may be exactly what is in vogue in 100 years. You have no idea at this point what will be considered "timeless, quaint, and old timey" in 2089. None of us do, and few would have predicted Boston or (north) Chicago's parks 100 years ago.
Which may be exactly what is in vogue in 100 years. You have no idea at this point what will be considered "timeless, quaint, and old timey" in 2089. None of us do, and few would have predicted Boston or (north) Chicago's parks 100 years ago.
Oh, so all we have to do is wait a 100 years for the stadium to become a classic baseball destination. Great.
Fenway Park and Wrigley Field never went out of vogue. That's why they're still standing.Which may be exactly what is in vogue in 100 years. You have no idea at this point what will be considered "timeless, quaint, and old timey" in 2089. None of us do, and few would have predicted Boston or (north) Chicago's parks 100 years ago.
Look, everything has its day and not always does it age well. Take Maple Leaf Gardens. It is a national treasure and a still an important piece of both Canadian and Hockey History but when it closed in 1999 it was akin to your local rink. It was not capable of hosting hockey on a major league scale anymore. Sure you could host an NHL game there but he facility was dated and not able to keep up with times hence why they built the ACC. The Gardens were 68 years old at that time.. can you imagine what the Rogers Centre will look like in 68 years?
Just because something is vintage does not mean it is ideal for sustained use.
Look, everything has its day and not always does it age well. Take Maple Leaf Gardens. It is a national treasure and a still an important piece of both Canadian and Hockey History but when it closed in 1999 it was akin to your local rink. It was not capable of hosting hockey on a major league scale anymore. Sure you could host an NHL game there but he facility was dated and not able to keep up with times hence why they built the ACC. The Gardens were 68 years old at that time.. can you imagine what the Rogers Centre will look like in 68 years?
Just because something is vintage does not mean it is ideal for sustained use.
You're comparing apples to oranges here. The Gardens and all other vintage NHL/NBA arenas were typically constrained in their revenue-generating abilities due to 1. lower seating capacity, 2. lack of adequate private boxes and 3. smaller footprints. Point 3 made any attempts to expand these arenas next to impossible, hence why all Original 6 teams gradually moved to larger, more modern venues. You couldn't expand MLG's seating capacity if you tried.
Classic ballparks like Fenway and Wrigley may be 100+ years old but both have undergone extensive renovations and modernization to meet current standards, although some believe both parks are still inadequate. They are also both capable of generating additional revenue beyond ticket sales i.e. premium revenue via club seating and private boxes. Fenway and Wrigley also have Yawkey Way and Wrigleyville as pre and post-game congregation areas that are unique to each franchise; something very much lacking in Toronto.
Updating and modernizing the Dome is something that can be done if planned and funded correctly. The aim would be to replicate the amenities of most modern sports venues with more club seating, improved private suites/boxes and more open concourses and fan areas. In the Dome's context, accomplishing this task is easier because of the large footprint of the building and much higher seating capacity.
In this instance, lowering the seating capacity would not reduce overall per game revenue once all upgrades and renovations are completed, thus justifying higher ticket prices. Beyond that, you've got multiple possibilities in terms of replacing the look and feel of the place via new roof paneling, field orientations and opening up areas to natural light. We don't know if the Dome will remain an outdated, concrete bunker once these renovations are competed.
Codes change and at some point you will need major renovations above and beyond what is currently sufficient to get by. It is a cost thing... would you rather spend 500 million to renovate the stadium or spend a billion or more to implode and rebuild?
At some point the facilities will need to be upgrade to meet expanded capacity and you only expand so much before it becomes impractical.
Take BMO field and all the grandstands they have erected. They expanded and modified the stadium so many times but it is starting to become overbearing and impractical.