kotsy
Senior Member
Agreed. I went to Progressive Field about 5 years ago and the difference between that & the dome was huge.
Toronto Rogers Centre Renovations | ?m | ?s | Toronto Blue Jays | Populous
- Thread starter buildup
- Start date
Agreed. I went to Progressive Field about 5 years ago and the difference between that & the dome was huge.
Richard White
Senior Member
My folks were there last year and even they admitted the experience cannot compare. At Progressive field they have fireworks shows tied in with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, interactive contests and the like. The Fan Experience is much better.
The Rogers Centre is likely constrained by fire code and other mitigating factors.
Johnny Au
Senior Member
Another problem: I believe that the Rogers Centre is a heritage building (despite it being three decades old), since it's the first stadium with over 40,000 seats in the world with a fully retractable roof that is fully operational and covers the entire field.
ericmacm
Active Member
I can attest to how great Progressive Field is. That is a fantastic example of how a baseball field should be done.
The Rogers Centre is in a really tricky situation. The area is probably one of the best possible places for a baseball stadium, but the stadium itself is starting to lose its touch. The dome is also incredibly useful, but also incredibly detrimental to the experience of the game. However, there's not much wrong with the layout of the stadium either.
The only ways to deal with it are to undergo either an expensive re-engineering of the stadium, or just build a whole new one. Either way will be super expensive.
One way it could be re-engineered is to deconstruct it to look more like the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum (prior to the installation of Mt. Davis, of course), since both have similar layouts, being more circular in shape. I know we don't view The A's stadium as a great example nowadays, but it probably would have become a classic park if not for Mt. Davis ruining everything. The removal of the dome, the concrete bunker exterior, and the hotel at the back would be an expensive demolition though, and would probably sentence the Blue Jays to an away season or two.
The Rogers Centre is in a really tricky situation. The area is probably one of the best possible places for a baseball stadium, but the stadium itself is starting to lose its touch. The dome is also incredibly useful, but also incredibly detrimental to the experience of the game. However, there's not much wrong with the layout of the stadium either.
The only ways to deal with it are to undergo either an expensive re-engineering of the stadium, or just build a whole new one. Either way will be super expensive.
One way it could be re-engineered is to deconstruct it to look more like the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum (prior to the installation of Mt. Davis, of course), since both have similar layouts, being more circular in shape. I know we don't view The A's stadium as a great example nowadays, but it probably would have become a classic park if not for Mt. Davis ruining everything. The removal of the dome, the concrete bunker exterior, and the hotel at the back would be an expensive demolition though, and would probably sentence the Blue Jays to an away season or two.
bmiller
Active Member
It's 30 years old and now the 6th oldest stadium in baseball. New ballparks have come on line a a quick pace the last 20 years. It doesn't take long to be old and out of date,
like myself and yes the dome. It was once a feat of engineering, but is now a tired old cavernous building. I don't think you can truly call it a ball park. It's not.
like myself and yes the dome. It was once a feat of engineering, but is now a tired old cavernous building. I don't think you can truly call it a ball park. It's not.
canarob
Senior Member
I wonder if there will be a push to build something new at Ontario Place?
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Im sure or across @ Exhibition Place which has more than enough room to build a 50.000 seat ballpark
narduch
Senior Member
It wouldn't have to be 50,000. Most newer stadiums are closer to 40,000.
But if it was built at the Ex grounds would there still be room for the CNE?
My prediction is nothing happens on this front. The Jays will keep playing at the SkyDome for at least 30 more years.
But if it was built at the Ex grounds would there still be room for the CNE?
My prediction is nothing happens on this front. The Jays will keep playing at the SkyDome for at least 30 more years.
mrgrieves
Active Member
It only took 2.5 years to build the Braves new stadium in Atlanta.
Rogers must realize they have to do something with the stadium. The team could be mediocre the next few years and attendance is already bad this year.
The trend is to develop mixed-use sites with the stadium/arena. CPPIB bought that Downsview land from Bombardier, I wonder how that could play into things.
raptor
Senior Member
Why, though? Any type of renovation/rebuild doesn't make any financial sense. Higher attendance comes with better on-field product. Rogers Centre is far from being a dump. Remember it was selling out every game just a few years ago?
My point is, Rogers does not owe people a better stadium. The fact that some people think they deserve a new stadium just because other teams got one recently, doesn't mean Rogers must realize anything.
UrbanOzz
Active Member
I don't think orientation matters too much any more provided studies are done. The new Atlanta Braves ballpark, Suntrust Park, has a Southeast orientation
mrgrieves
Active Member
No person is saying they deserve a new stadium and no one is saying the stadium is a dump. But the team president already said they have to do something about the stadium. It’s dated. Expectations for fan experience have changed since it was built. Rogers is a public company and of course will only make decisions if they make financial sense.
Translude15
Frank the Tank
I wouldn't call it a dump either. Anecdotally, many opposing team fans have commented that it's a lot nicer than they anticipated given all the bad press they've heard about the place prior to visiting. That said, despite a high capacity and selling out when the team is winning, the place still lags behind the rest of the MLB in terms of revenue generation per ticket sold. I've gone in depth in previous posts about what that means and how to maximize that revenue.
I'd like to see an extensive reno of the existing stadium but failing that, building an entirely new one would be necessary within 30 years. Anything on the water is likely a no-go from me because of the proximity to high winds off the lake. Exhibition Stadium was bad for that reason. If there's not a retractable roof, any notion of a new stadium by the lake isn't even worth considering. Ideally, you'd want a new stadium kept within or as close to the downtown core as possible with at least one transit link. There are multiple locations that could be potential options:
1. Roundhouse Park:
Pros- Near current location, close to transit; could incorporate train shed and railway heritage into design; outfield view of skyline
Cons- Concessions to Steamwhistle Brewery and the city
2. Lamport Stadium:
Pros- Close to Exhibition GO, King streetcar, future Liberty Village GO station, possible DRL West route; outfield view of skyline; vibrant location; large redevelopment potential
Cons- NIBMYism; concessions to city for Lamport; annexation/acquisition costs to landowners east of Jefferson Ave
3. Exhibition Place:
Pros- Close to Exhibition GO, possible DRL West route, potential future Lakeshore West LRT; outfield view of skyline
Cons- High winds off the lake; possible annexation/acquisition costs on CNE lands; impact on annual CNE event
4. Christie Pits:
Pros- Located on Bloor subway line; near downtown core; outfield view of skyline; vibrant area with large redevelopment potential along Bloor
Cons- NIMBYism; concessions to city for park land; capacity and overcrowding issues at Christie station; away from GO transit lines
5. Downsview Park:
Pros- Ample space; transit connections to Spadina line and GO Barrie line; access to 401 and Allan Rd; outfield view of skyline; large redevelopment potential
Cons- Far from downtown core; less accessible than other central locations; suburban location not as vibrant as downtown
6. Portlands:
Pros- Ample space; cheaper land costs; close to Gardiner/DVP; large redevelopment potential
Cons- Inconvenient with minimal transit connections; no skyline view; high winds off the lake; location not as vibrant as downtown
Last edited:
Richard White
Senior Member
Roundhouse Park, Christie Pits and Lamport Stadium are not large enough to accommodate a stadium of that size.
Exhibition Place also may be too tight with all the heritage buildings.
Exhibition Place also may be too tight with all the heritage buildings.
UrbanOzz
Active Member
i think the existing location would be perfect. for that to happen, the team would have to play away for 1 or 2 seasons which risks the fanbase a bit.
for a reno, i think it would open right up if they were to buy the renaissance hotel, tear it down, and replace it with glass and windows (open air) and support beams for the roof. i'd also remove the 200 - 500 levels in the outfield. Obviously i'm not an engineer so I don't know how many support columns you'd need considering the whole lid rests on it when the roof is open, but that would make it way more enjoyable.
one can dream
for a reno, i think it would open right up if they were to buy the renaissance hotel, tear it down, and replace it with glass and windows (open air) and support beams for the roof. i'd also remove the 200 - 500 levels in the outfield. Obviously i'm not an engineer so I don't know how many support columns you'd need considering the whole lid rests on it when the roof is open, but that would make it way more enjoyable.
one can dream