droyces
Active Member
The three things I referred to were at 3 different times.
There can only be one first game.
The three things I referred to were at 3 different times.
Excellent news. Rogers probably realised it was cost prohibitive to gently renovate the stadium and decided to rebuild it to modern standards.
There can only be one first game.
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.The first jays game was snowed out, the rain and wind was heavy off the lake and Dave Winfield managed to take out a seagull (later requiring a police escort).
The consensus was that a roofed stadium was warranted.
What are these modern standards?
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.
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.
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!
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!
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.