Toronto Rogers Centre Renovations | ?m | ?s | Toronto Blue Jays | Populous

G.L.17 said:
Shapiro and those behind the scenes have been adamant in a ballpark that would reconnect with the City, with a much more intimate feel. Seeing the work Shapiro and his team have done in Cleveland gives me confidence for Toronto.

Remember that Texas is built out in the burbs, Miami isn't exactly downtown, and while Phoenix is in downtown, the team has explored options for a newer, intimate ballpark with a retractable roof, though this is probably years away.
Click to expand...

Why would a city like Phoenix, that has no winter and virtually no rain, need a retractable roof?
 
Translude15 said:
RC isn't perfect but considering all the upgrades that have occurred over the last 10 years and those that are ongoing, I wouldn't consider Globe Life, Marlins Park or Chase Field as superior. I honestly wouldn't. Globe Life is MLB's newest venue but it's been trashed by fans and critics alike as a dumpy, Costco ballpark. Add in its suburban location and complete lack of vibrancy then no, it is not superior. Oh, this place also uses artificial turf.

www.ksat.com

Texas Rangers’ new stadium is complete, but Twitter users aren’t pleased

Globe Life Field is officially ready to house the Texas Rangers, but many fans are taking to Twitter, claiming they are unhappy with the final results.
www.ksat.com www.ksat.com

Marlins Park or whatever it's called now is a soulless boondoggle. Oh and guess who just converted their grass playing surface to turf? The Marlins!

Chase Field is equally as large and empty as Rogers is and its amenities harken back to the 90's. A hot tub in CF? Oh goodness gracious, what a superior ballpark! FYI, Chase Field also abandoned real grass and replaced it with (drumroll please) AstroTurf!



A happy medium between extensive retrofitting and full on demolition is probably best. I've read the hotel was tacked on last minute to original construction plans and added like $100MM to the overall cost. Time to remove it and whichever land developer wants to get involved in the project can create a new hotel to house the existing Marriott. I'm hopeful an extensive retrofit can do the job similar to what was done with BC Place in Vancouver. That place was a heck of a lot more sterile and depressing than the Dome, I can tell you that much.
Click to expand...

yes, I am perfectly aware of all those things you mentioned about those ball parks, but they still rank higher then RC. I actually can't believe how bad Texas and Miami botched their new stadiums. All Texas had to do was put a roof over the old stadium as it was much nicer, but they wanted air conditioning...lol.


I'm okay with a retrofit if it can be done properly. Bottom line, is the RC needs work, and its just a matter of what is more cost efficient as well as ensuring it's done right.
 
I've posted Safeco Field in this thread before, but it's probably my favorite of the roofed stadiums. When open, the stadium doesn't feel quite like the bowl RC feels like.

MarinersCardinals-08339-1.jpg


MInute Maid Park is also similar. Having the side like that really opens up the stadium.

houston-astros.jpg



Biggest issue is, where would you put it? Honestly, I'm thinking the Portlands would be a poor spot, due to where the batter's box needs to be orientated. The fans would be facing away from the downtown core.
 
T.E.C.II said:
I've posted Safeco Field in this thread before, but it's probably my favorite of the roofed stadiums. When open, the stadium doesn't feel quite like the bowl RC feels like.

MarinersCardinals-08339-1.jpg


MInute Maid Park is also similar. Having the side like that really opens up the stadium.

houston-astros.jpg



Biggest issue is, where would you put it? Honestly, I'm thinking the Portlands would be a poor spot, due to where the batter's box needs to be orientated. The fans would be facing away from the downtown core.
Click to expand...
I agree about those two stadiums.

As far as the Portland’s being a poor spot, that’s way beyond my knowledge of construction and city planning.

I think there is a lot going on behind the scenes right now, as soon as the pandemic is about over, I think you’ll see some tentative plans unveiled.
 
T.E.C.II said:
Nobody is saying the Blue Jays can't draw fans. They obviously can. But they made the playoffs in 2015 and 2016, so naturally attendance would be high, particularly as it had been over 20 years since they had a playoff appearance, and that would have carried over into the 2017 season (in which they would have finished behind the Yankees in terms of AL attendance). In the years since (pre covid), attendance then dropped. While we're never the outright worst draw, on some nights, the attendance is noticeably sparse.

This is all besides the point, however. The issue is, the stadium is in serious need of upgrading to stay current. Some of these upgrades might be cost prohibitive. The general opinion seems to be from Rogers that the stadium upgrades are expensive to the point of almost being what they would spend on a new stadium.
Click to expand...

This is the point I'm getting at. The stadium is not the factor you're making it out to be in terms of drawing fans and maintaining interest.

If it was, then Camden Yards would routinely be packed...but it's not. Even when they were doing well in recent years the attendance was in the bottom half of the AL.
 
Richard White said:
The MLB gives the team an ultimatum like they did in Oakland when the lease expired.

Honestly, the MLB has alot of sway when it comes to where the teams play. If the stadium is not up to standards as put forth by the league they can make life difficult for the team up to and including forced sales (that is what happened in Oakland).

There is a need for modern media facilities, player facilities, etc etc. The stadium may be able to last 100 years but the facilities therein do not.

Just because you have a stadium does not mean you can play there. There is a reason they had to upgrade Sahlen Field in Buffalo.
Click to expand...
Oakland is in a completely different situation, with a franchise that's struggling financially. The Jays are not in that situation.

The idea that the Jays have to build a new stadium is not accurate. And it's quite obvious why they had to upgrade Sahen Field - it's a smaller, minor league facility. Of course it wasn't up to MLB standards. Rogers Centre may not be ideal, but it is clearly an MLB stadium.

I'd also argue the player facilities have been continuously upgraded at Rogers Centre, so it's not as though they're clubhouse and training facilities are from the late 80s.
 
C-mac said:
yes, I am perfectly aware of all those things you mentioned about those ball parks, but they still rank higher then RC. I actually can't believe how bad Texas and Miami botched their new stadiums. All Texas had to do was put a roof over the old stadium as it was much nicer, but they wanted air conditioning...lol.


I'm okay with a retrofit if it can be done properly. Bottom line, is the RC needs work, and its just a matter of what is more cost efficient as well as ensuring it's done right.
Click to expand...

Most pressing needs for the Rogers Centre are the seating, both the seats themselves (too cramped and no cupholders?!) and the seating orientation. Lack of natural light and modern amenities would be the other two IMO.
 
As a huge Jays fan, who goes to plenty of games each summer, and has tons of amazing memories from being at the Dome ... I truly do not understand why anyone would be against Rogers building a new privately financed ballpark and tearing the Dome down. The Dome is fine, it's passable. And I certainly have a sentimental attachment to it. But it was built to be multi purpose. Go to a few other parks that are baseball specific, and you'll find their aesthetics are usually so so much better. Would I be OK with the provincial government funding a new park? No. But if Rogers wants to do it? Hell ya. Build us something new with better amenities, better sightlines and better aesthetics.
 
CapitalSeven said:
Here's why. We can't keep tearing down massive, publicly funded concrete structures after 10% of their lifespan for the sake of fashion. Because money, because climate change. Same nonsense as the Scarborough Subway boondoggle.
Click to expand...
The new stadium according to some of the stories out there will be privately financed, wwhich will leave the Rogers Centre empty for 365 days because there there will nothing go on in that trash building. Concerts rarely go there because of the bad acoustics it has, Disney on ice has already left, with it being empty and not generating money to keep the doors open, the Rogers centre would just be collecting dust in a prime real estate area
 
CapitalSeven said:
Here's why. We can't keep tearing down massive, publicly funded concrete structures after 10% of their lifespan for the sake of fashion. Because money, because climate change. Same nonsense as the Scarborough Subway boondoggle.
Click to expand...

10% of its lifespan??? Didn't realize you were the official authority on a building's lifespan.

Money??? It's not going to be your money so what do you care??

Climate change??? How does tearing down a building effect climate change?
 
If you want a view you should buy a penthouse. Much cheaper than building a billion dollar baseball stadium.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top