RealGM

So we all know the general complaints about the Rogers Centre, no grass, its a concrete box, outdated, problems w the roof etc etc..

My question isn't when we get a new stadium ( I think we all know its at least 10 years away) but where/how?

I'm somewhat of a ballpark enthusiast, been to over a dozen MLB parks and in my opinion the best thing the Rogers Centre has is it's location. Right downtown, picturesque under the CN Tower, easily accessible by public transit. I'd actually rank the Rogers Centre ahead of places like CitiField on location alone.

But I do think Rogers needs to start thinking about at least an upgrade to the existing Rogers Centre, to get us on par with ballparks like Pittsburgh, Yankees, Cincy. Doesn't need to be a complete overhaul like Chicago's Soldier Field but I'd propose at the very least an upgrade to the ugly facade on the stadium.

What say you?

I'm not bothered by any aspect of the stadium other than the turf.

Beeston had a plan to put in grass. That plan lead to Argo's getting the boot. For some reason Shapiro thinks otherwise. I'm not sure if he was just ignorant to how much the grass was sold to the fanbase or what, but he took a pretty strange stance on it earlier this year.

What is generally considered the lifespan of a stadium?

bluerap23 wrote:I'm not bothered by any aspect of the stadium other than the turf.

Beeston had a plan to put in grass. That plan lead to Argo's getting the boot. For some reason Shapiro thinks otherwise. I'm not sure if he was just ignorant to how much the grass was sold to the fanbase or what, but he took a pretty strange stance on it earlier this year.

What is generally considered the lifespan of a stadium?

Beeston never had a plan to put in grass. He sold it that way to the fanbase, but he only ever had a plan to figure out if it was possible to put in grass and how much such an alteration would cost (and the answer was far too much for Rogers).

It's not going to happen under Shapiro and never was under Beeston either.

There really isn't much space left downtown to build a new stadium in the future. The only places relatively close I can think of would be somewhere on the Port Lands but I'm guessing even that area will be developed by the time an idea for a new stadium pops up.

Randle McMurphy wrote:

bluerap23 wrote:I'm not bothered by any aspect of the stadium other than the turf.

Beeston had a plan to put in grass. That plan lead to Argo's getting the boot. For some reason Shapiro thinks otherwise. I'm not sure if he was just ignorant to how much the grass was sold to the fanbase or what, but he took a pretty strange stance on it earlier this year.

What is generally considered the lifespan of a stadium?

Beeston never had a plan to put in grass. He sold it that way to the fanbase, but he only ever had a plan to figure out if it was possible to put in grass and how much such an alteration would cost (and the answer was far too much for Rogers).

It's not going to happen under Shapiro and never was under Beeston either.

Beeston talked grass so long that I think it was pretty clear he wasn't doing anything. The technology to make it work exists, there is a fantastic cost toward implementing it. Beeston's inability to have a front office that didn't work on telegraphs is a pretty good indication we were never going to be implementing anything technologically advanced under his direction and we all know that Rogers isn't going to invest money in something that won't result in net profits.

Never heard of it but in all seriousness a true Blue Jay fan would call it Skydome

I'd hate to see it anywhere but where it is. Downtown Toronto is awesome for sports.

Geddy wrote:There really isn't much space left downtown to build a new stadium in the future. The only places relatively close I can think of would be somewhere on the Port Lands but I'm guessing even that area will be developed by the time an idea for a new stadium pops up.

Even then I think the Port Lands would prove a logistical nightmare from an infrastructure and environmental POV.

Really, if the Dome was ever going to get replaced, it was where the ACC is now, or even the Condo developments adjacent to Spadina and Front and the railway tracks. IMO if another downtown build could happen, it'd somewhere at the EX or perhaps Ontario Place. But from a land value perspective, don't count out Downsview.

Ultimately the question about Rogers Centre is one that the execs are probably sweeping under the rug. When Rogers bought it for ~$23M, they did so with the intent of injecting several million back into the facility because to build a new stadium would be a political nightmare at this point (see city council and the transit debate). Last time I checked, Rogers has reinvested more than the $23M they used to buy the Dome, so that speaks to trying to maintain the building as long as they can before they have to go out and shell $500M-$1B on a new stadium for a team they may or may not own by then.

TL;DR, the Dome is going to stay operational until at least 2030, with no plans to move in sight.

I think they spent way too much money on the Skydome, I would be very surprised if they ever built another stadium. I think we're looking at 30-50 years of renovations myself.

Plus they'll never get public funding approved with so many fresh memories of the Skydome going ridiculously over-budget (I think it ended up costing 4 times it's original estimate) and getting bailed out by the taxpayers as a result. The stadium that could be sold to the taxpayers is an NFL stadium down the road.

Downtown is just too good of an area. I think it'll just always be renovations.

It is certainly going to be decades of renovations, Rogers isn't shelling out for a new stadium nor would they be happy giving up on the location of the Dome.

I'm perfectly fine with the way it looks. Location wise, it is the best place to be since it's easy to get to, and is highlighted by our city's skyline. It really does look amazing at night, with lights coming from both the CN Tower and the Dome.

Was hoping there was a plan to put in grass.. I thought the dirt infield renovation was setting up for that. But I guess not

Scott Hall wrote:Never heard of it but in all seriousness a true Blue Jay fan would call it Skydome

Seriously. I've never referred to it as anything other than the Skydome. When they had that article this past April 1st saying it would be renamed to "Roger's Skydome", I was so excited. Then when I found out it was a cruel April Fool's joke, I cried

rarefind wrote:It is certainly going to be decades of renovations, Rogers isn't shelling out for a new stadium nor would they be happy giving up on the location of the Dome.

This. There is zero chance that Rogers will pony up any dough for a new stadium. They won't even raise thier budget 10 or 20 million so it would be foolhardy to think they would fund any new stadium regardless if the city could get the taxpayer to foot some of the bill. There will be minor renovations over the next couple of decades but that's like putting lipstick on a pig. If you think it looks dated now, wait how decrepit it looks in another 10 years.

I would certainly settle for renovations as long as they are willing to shut the stadium down in the winter a few times to do major repairs to the stands/seats.

I'd agree that the Skydome is imperfect. However, I think that wasting money on a new stadium would be insane. Skydome has the best location imaginable and the retractable roof is fantastic. It may not be as pretty as other ballparks, but I'd take utility over looks when it means that we never have to worry about rain while playing at home.

You'd have to tear down the Dome and then build the new stadium in the exact same spot. That would involve finding a temp location...don't think that will happen.

Duffman100 wrote:You'd have to tear down the Dome and then build the new stadium in the exact same spot. That would involve finding a temp location...don't think that will happen.

Not just the stadium, but a profitable hotel.

RaptorMan33 wrote:I'd agree that the Skydome is imperfect. However, I think that wasting money on a new stadium would be insane. Skydome has the best location imaginable and the retractable roof is fantastic. It may not be as pretty as other ballparks, but I'd take utility over looks when it means that we never have to worry about rain while playing at home.

Not just rain.

Toronto temperatures in April aren't exactly pleasant to sit in for 3+ hours if you're attending a game early in the season.

Same issue in October, though at least then it's worth the sacrifice.

Put it on the Port lands, right next to the water. Build it like At&T Park and PNC Park (best stadiums in MLB imo)

Pittsburgh did everything right with its stadium. My favourite ballpark. Has there been any ballpark built in the last 20 years that was not downtown (other then San Francisco).

Unfortunately, I can't see Toronto really having any options other than to renovate as downtown seems critical.