T.E.C.II
Active Member
This is all remarkably stupid.
Go on....
This is all remarkably stupid.
This is all remarkably stupid.
the enlightenment many of us share is that Rogers has no intention to actually build but to string these type of fans along. But again we will see in 10 years. Personally I think the Blue Jays will be at a renovated Rogers Centre in 2050Enlighten us with your wisdom, oh holy one.
the enlightenment many of us share is that Rogers has no intention to actually build but to string these type of fans along.
I think currently most people agree that the skydome is a bit of a bunker. When the Reno’s are done and it’s less bunkery and the fans embrace it. Then it will be the end of the moving discussion.To what end?
Enlighten us with your wisdom, oh holy one.
14 hours and I am still waiting for the reply. Perhaps they are hosting a pro new stadium meeting on Saturday to iron out all their answers before commenting. Just a page earlier the pro new stadium crowd was patting themselves on the back in full support of each other. One question and they all went into hiding. hmmmmm.In your scheme - why would the feds just give land away to the city beside the CN Tower?
Why should Rogers be given free land to build a stadium in LV?
14 hours and I am still waiting for the reply. Perhaps they are hosting a pro new stadium meeting on Saturday to iron out all their answers before commenting. Just a page earlier the pro new stadium crowd was patting themselves on the back in full support of each other. One question and they all went into hiding. hmmmmm.
Actually Richard you are not here all the time so Ill believe you simply missed the question although I do question if you obsess over this stadium. However, a number of others who are here frequently suddenly vanished after the question was raised. By the way you didnt seem to answer the question either? Perhaps you're here to give mental health tips more than explain the validity of your friends ideas?Apologies for the delay.
Unfortunately I have a life that doesn't consist of obsessing over a stadium.
You should try it sometime, it does wonders for your health.
Actually Richard you are not here all the time so Ill believe you simply missed the question although I do question if you obsess over this stadium. However, a number of others who are here frequently suddenly vanished after the question was raised. By the way you didnt seem to answer the question either? Perhaps you're here to give mental health tips more than explain the validity of your friends ideas?
In your scheme - why would the feds just give land away to the city beside the CN Tower?
Why should Rogers be given free land to build a stadium in LV?
To (eventually) repurpose the land the Dome currently sits on. Again, this is all theoretical, not to mention factoring in the immense resources, financial, and environmental costs associated with dismantling the existing stadium. To your last point, Rogers wouldn't receive free land in LV, they'd have to purchase it outright and then redevelop it into a stadium.In your scheme - why would the feds just give land away to the city beside the CN Tower?
Why should Rogers be given free land to build a stadium in LV?
As stated earlier, this is purely theoretical, and there are two camps in this discussion: those who think the Jays will build a new venue within 15 - 20 years, and those who believe a renovated Dome will remain their home for the foreseeable future. I tend to side towards the renovated Dome camp, as the location is unbeatable, and I personally think extensive renovations, even beyond these preliminary ones, can revitalize the venue into something more ballpark-esque. Shaprio's consistent hinting at looking beyond the 12-15 year timeframe is interesting, and if they weren't seriously considering that option, then why bother saying it at all? Hence, here we are theorizing about prospective land sites to build a new stadium, sites that are becoming less readily available with each passing year. To me, the Lamport/LV site seems to check off all the prospective boxes on what a new stadium/site should offer.14 hours and I am still waiting for the reply. Perhaps they are hosting a pro new stadium meeting on Saturday to iron out all their answers before commenting. Just a page earlier the pro new stadium crowd was patting themselves on the back in full support of each other. One question and they all went into hiding. hmmmmm.
I don't believe he said it would be given. I believe he said it would some sort of swap. (maybe I'm wrong)
I'm not sure why it's so implausible that the government would be willing to lease them other land and take back the land the dome sits on.
To (eventually) repurpose the land the Dome currently sits on. Again, this is all theoretical, not to mention factoring in the immense resources, financial, and environmental costs associated with dismantling the existing stadium. To your last point, Rogers wouldn't receive free land in LV, they'd have to purchase it outright and then redevelop it into a stadium.
As stated earlier, this is purely theoretical, and there are two camps in this discussion: those who think the Jays will build a new venue within 15 - 20 years, and those who believe a renovated Dome will remain their home for the foreseeable future. I tend to side towards the renovated Dome camp, as the location is unbeatable, and I personally think extensive renovations, even beyond these preliminary ones, can revitalize the venue into something more ballpark-esque. Shaprio's consistent hinting at looking beyond the 12-15 year timeframe is interesting, and if they weren't seriously considering that option, then why bother saying it at all? Hence, here we are theorizing about prospective land sites to build a new stadium, sites that are becoming less readily available with each passing year. To me, the Lamport/LV site seems to check off all the prospective boxes on what a new stadium/site should offer.
Precisely. That type of transaction entails multiple levels of government and would take a lot of coordinated negotiating. Shapiro even registered a lobbying file with the city on behalf of the team related to these upcoming renovations. There could be more beyond that scope.
The government would not be interested in the land that Rogers sits on because it would cost several hundred million to demolish Rogers Centre and remove the debris, it would be easier to sell the land to Rogers and let them build a new stadium or have go through a massive renovation planI don't believe he said it would be given. I believe he said it would some sort of swap. (maybe I'm wrong)
I'm not sure why it's so implausible that the government would be willing to lease them other land and take back the land the dome sits on.
The government would not be interested in the land that Rogers sits on because it would cost several hundred million to demolish and remove the debris
The government would not be interested in the land that Rogers sits on because it would cost several hundred million to demolish Rogers Centre and remove the debris, it would be easier to sell the land to Rogers and let them build a new stadium or have go through a massive renovation plan
Is the government somehow compelled to sell to Rogers? Could they not sell to a property developer that would handle the demolition and merely factor that cost in on the offer for the land?The government would not be interested in the land that Rogers sits on because it would cost several hundred million to demolish Rogers Centre and remove the debris, it would be easier to sell the land to Rogers and let them build a new stadium or have go through a massive renovation plan
Sure...once they strip out all the interior finishings, seats, fixtures, pipes, cables, etc. They could probably drop the roof with some shape charges, then bring the sides in. However, you have to take the building down to just the concrete structure before you do that. It would cost a TON to demolish it.Could they not implode it?