[C-mac]

This is going to add a lot of intimacy. Fans are way closer to the game and there will never be a home run that skips into the dark concourse. The bullpens are so much more involved in the fan experience here. I know everyone wants camden yards, but this is a huge boost to the fan experience.

As much as I want Camden yards, I have to agree that they've done a lot with the place and it's come a long way. Everyone continues to ask Shapiro about natural grass, quite frankly with new turf that looks like its mowed because of the stripes and how real it looks, in addition to the all dirt infield, I can't really tell the difference.

The remaining issue I have with it, that only a new stadium will fix or some major structural change ,is I still feel like I'm in this concrete bunker. Even with the roof open, which helps a lot, all the walls around the stadium are just to high. In 12 years I'll be 59 so maybe I'll get to experience this new stadium that's coming...lol.

For now, at least we've got some big improvements coming in next few years.

 

[EddyMCD]

The "lipstick on a pig" people want no roof (or a transparent roof), and way less concrete in/outside the building. Both of those things aren't achievable.

They're fixing literally everything else though.

 

[syn]

As much as I want Camden yards, I have to agree that they've done a lot with the place and it's come a long way. Everyone continues to ask Shapiro about natural grass, quite frankly with new turf that looks like its mowed because of the stripes and how real it looks, in addition to the all dirt infield, I can't really tell the difference.

The remaining issue I have with it, that only a new stadium will fix or some major structural change ,is I still feel like I'm in this concrete bunker. Even with the roof open, which helps a lot, all the walls around the stadium are just to high. In 12 years I'll be 59 so maybe I'll get to experience this new stadium that's coming...lol.

For now, at least we've got some big improvements coming in next few years.

I've never quite got that criticism. I get it when looking at the exterior, but on a nice day with the roof open I feel like I'm in a stadium watching a game. It's never felt like a generic concrete bunker.

The experience with the roof closed is decidedly worse, no doubt. That's something I think could be addressed down the road.

There are plenty of stadiums that don't have open city views, and none with the CN Tower looming over the baseball field. These major upgrades should really enhance the experience, even with the roof closed.

 

[syn]

The "lipstick on a pig" people want no roof (or a transparent roof), and way less concrete in/outside the building. Both of those things aren't achievable.

They're fixing literally everything else though.

I wonder if they could take a cue from Rogers Place in Edmonton and give it some sort of cladding?

 

[daptive]

The experience with the roof closed is decidedly worse, no doubt. That's something I think could be addressed down the road.

I wonder if the roof mechanism allows for thin white membrane to be stretched over the supports, creating a similar look to the outside of the dome; plus then it could be used for lighting effects and projections!

 

[T.E.C.II]

Sports writer Arden Zwelling was on a podcast a few days ago reporting on what he's heard regarding the stadium's upgrades.

Hour 2: Are The Jays Out On Soto? Latest MLB Trade Buzz w/ Jon Morosi - Sportsnet.ca

MLB Network Insider Jon Morosi joins JD and Ailish to discuss the unlikelihood of the Blue Jays acquiring Juan Soto, the Angels listening to offers for Shohei Ohtani, Toronto’s interest in Martin Perez, and potential trade fits to bolster the bullpen. Arden Zwelling, co-host of the At The...

www.sportsnet.ca

Apparently there were more expensive, more elaborate plans proposed. Which isn't surprising, but supposedly one idea involved "knocking down walls". Makes me wonder just how much more they can do with the stadium. And how much Rogers wants to do if a new stadium is still on the table?

 

[UrbanOzz]

If they are serious about the renovations turning it from a “stadium” to a “ballpark” they should change the name. Rogers Centre doesn’t cut it.

Rogers Field at SkyDome, Rogers Park, etc

this is the silliest thing. they can change the name whenever they want. the focus here is the construction.

Plus, i read a while back that they're open to shopping the naming rights around. It's more revenue for Rogers since they own the team anyways. I wouldn't be surprised if a bank or something else scoops it up. we live in the era or Crypto dot com arena. They could give it a turd emoji and if it's nice and renovated to give it a better feel in there, i won't care. Do you actually think once the construction is done, renaming it from a centre to a park will be a difference maker?

 

[many7695]

this is the silliest thing. they can change the name whenever they want. the focus here is the construction.

Plus, i read a while back that they're open to shopping the naming rights around. It's more revenue for Rogers since they own the team anyways. I wouldn't be surprised if a bank or something else scoops it up. we live in the era or Crypto dot com arena. They could give it a turd emoji and if it's nice and renovated to give it a better feel in there, i won't care. Do you actually think once the construction is done, renaming it from a centre to a park will be a difference maker?

At least making it Rogers Field at least it would make sense no other baseball teams uses “centre” for their stadiums, Rogers are the only stupid ones that do

 

[rbt]

I wonder if the roof mechanism allows for thin white membrane to be stretched over the supports, creating a similar look to the outside of the dome; plus then it could be used for lighting effects and projections!

The old (pre-2018) roof wasn't very thick:

Roofing a stadium

www.professionalroofing.net

The existing roof assembly consisted of 10-mil-thick polyethylene vapor retarder, mechanically fastened 2-inch-thick foil-faced polyisocyanurate insulation and 48-mil-thick Sarnafil® S327 PVC membrane fastened with Sarnabar® (U-shaped, roll-formed steel bars) on an acoustical metal deck. The Sarnabars were fastened with No. 11 Sarnafasteners.

The new roof sounds considerably thicker due to insulation:

Because the original Sarnafil membrane maintained excellent condition, a Sarnafil-engineered mechanically attached polymeric membrane was chosen for the new Rogers Centre roof.
...
At the base of the roof panels where the roofing material was removed down to the deck, workers placed self-adhering Sarnavap SA vapor retarder and secured 1.8-inch-thick Sarnatherm ® polyisocyanurate insulation using 8 fasteners per sheet followed by new membrane.

For the detailing along the ends of the panels, team members installed new 16-gauge galvanized steel liners, brackets and girts to support new 2-inch-thick Sarnatherm polyisocyanurate insulation. Workers tied-in the field membrane to the Sarnaclad drip flashing by welding Sarnafil G410 cover strips.

 

[Davy88]

Forgive me for jumping 147 pages late into this topic. I've been following the renovations of the Rogers Centre for years. This forum and topic as well.

I was really impressed how honest and open Mark Shapiro was with the Q and A. Especially answering a question about wanting more light in the Rogers Centre. But as he said there was a "limit".
But Shapiro mentioned how the construction is still good. So my question to anyone is ( now this is down the road not now of course ), would they be able to take down the cement/concrete, interior and exterior and, possibly be replaceable ( such as more windows or wood ) to bring in more light? I get weather a key factor to that situation as well.

 

[interchange42]

Forgive me for jumping 147 pages late into this topic. I've been following the renovations of the Rogers Centre for years. This forum and topic as well.

I was really impressed how honest and open Mark Shapiro was with the Q and A. Especially answering a question about wanting more light in the Rogers Centre. But as he said there was a "limit".
But Shapiro mentioned how the construction is still good. So my question to anyone is ( now this is down the road not now of course ), would they be able to take down the cement/concrete, interior and exterior and, possibly be replaceable ( such as more windows or wood ) to bring in more light? I get weather a key factor to that situation as well.

It would have been nice for someone active in this thread to have answered your first post! Sorry about that, and welcome to UrbanToronto nevertheless!

We don't know to what extent such changes to the exterior are possible. Likely many things are possible if they want to spend enough on it… but with them talking about replacing the stadium in the future, the extent to which they'll want to invest heavily in this one will be curtailed if they are serious about a move. That said, I suspect, as others here do too, that Shapiro's remarks about a new stadium down the road may just be a smokescreen to blunt criticism of the current facility until people start liking the completed and coming upgrades that they have announced so far. If the upgrades get an enthusiastic response, Shapiro can always say in the future that "we've got something good here now, and with only X amount more, we can make this a great facility instead of spending $1.5B (or whatever) on a new one."

Only time will tell what happens. The team could still make a play for a new stadium 6, 7, 8, however many years from now and try to shamelessly bilk taxpayers for it, etc. …or maybe you'll get (expensive) windows on this one. We don't know, no-one knows.

42

 

[Translude15]

Forgive me for jumping 147 pages late into this topic. I've been following the renovations of the Rogers Centre for years. This forum and topic as well.

I was really impressed how honest and open Mark Shapiro was with the Q and A. Especially answering a question about wanting more light in the Rogers Centre. But as he said there was a "limit".
But Shapiro mentioned how the construction is still good. So my question to anyone is ( now this is down the road not now of course ), would they be able to take down the cement/concrete, interior and exterior and, possibly be replaceable ( such as more windows or wood ) to bring in more light? I get weather a key factor to that situation as well.

There was some information that came out earlier this year that the Blue Jays were actively looking to open up the roof:

VR technology explored in Rogers Centre roof renovations | Urbanized

The newest set of Rogers Centre renovations explored the use of VR technology to test out different roof types, according to details from a firm.

dailyhive.com

Engineering firm Walter P. Moore made up some renderings and performed a light simulation study to see the impacts of additional light on the field of play. Images of that study are online.

IMO, it's a pretty big difference maker but again, it begs the question of budgetary limits. If the budget for the current project is $300MM, renovating the roof (again - they replaced the entire membrane a few years ago) to add transparent paneling would likely add another $100MM to the overall cost. Perhaps this roof reno is more suitable to be completed in conjunction with opening up the stadium's north end and removing the hotel and other concrete facing. Those changes are larger in scope and involve multiple stakeholders, including the current hotel owner, a potential Rail Deck Park (City of Toronto) and whatever redevelopments are slated to occur north of the tracks.

My guess that instead of building an entirely new stadium, Rogers decides to extensively renovate the exterior in ~10 years by opening up the stadium and incorporating transparent roof panels. That would likely cost an additional $500MM and with new premium seating and revenue streams coming into effect over the next few seasons, they will certainly have the funds to pay for it.

 

[DSC]

Well personally I wish they would replace the seats just to give everyone more room. I’d much rather a little more width and the stadium only fit 40k then 50k because realistically 90% of the time we are at the 25k mark Not only would it be more comfortable it would make the stadium feel more full.

...... and result in less revenue for Rogers.

 

[GabrielHurl]

Not necessarily - more roomy seats mean you can charge more

 

[Translude15]

...... and result in less revenue for Rogers.

With current seating being essentially the original 1989 layout, revenue is actually limited. Lower capacity (40k - 45k), roomier seating, and more premium amenities in the 100 level allows the team to justify a higher ticket price than the current setup. Same concept exists at Scotiabank with Leafs, Raptors and the premium clubs underneath the seating bowl. The perks add to the ticket cost, not just the performance of the team, as many seem to believe.