Natural Grass in the Rogers Centre/Possibility of a New Baseball Stadium in Toronto

[animatronic]

Well, they can get around having a transparent roof by simply keeping the roof open during peak sunlight every day. Right now, the entire field is in sunlight with the roof open.

I'd like for it to be transparent to allow for a better sense of connection to the city, specially as more and more tall skyscrapers go up in the area and are viewable from inside.

Opening up the concrete walls to allow more natural light in should is another measure to open up the stadium and lessen its imposing stature.

Transparent panels would probably be too heavy, too expensive, too dirty and too difficult to keep waterproof.

 

[ChesterCopperpot]

It works here in New Zealand

 

[BurlOak]

The transparent roof would also allow the Rogers Dome to be able to have a natural grass playing field, since the grass can grow during the off-season.

With natural grass, the Jays can attract star players who would otherwise be intimidated by the prospect of playing home games on artificial turf. Oh, and natural grass would reduce injuries (some of which could affect the chances of making to the playoffs).

Interesting that you say that when less than a month ago, the Jays top pitcher gets injured due to playing on natural grass. I don't think they have any sprinkler head on the artificial turf.

 

[TOareaFan]

Interesting that you say that when less than a month ago, the Jays top pitcher gets injured due to playing on natural grass. I don't think they have any sprinkler head on the artificial turf.

I know they lost a star outfielder to a sprinkler head a couple of days before camp....was not aware it was also a sprinkler that did in Stroman too

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Well, they can get around having a transparent roof by simply keeping the roof open during peak sunlight every day. Right now, the entire field is in sunlight with the roof open.

I'd like for it to be transparent to allow for a better sense of connection to the city, specially as more and more tall skyscrapers go up in the area and are viewable from inside.

Opening up the concrete walls to allow more natural light in should is another measure to open up the stadium and lessen its imposing stature.

The way the roof is engineered, it's effectively designed to be closed most of the time, but opened in nice weather (as opposed to open most of the time, but closed in bad weather, if you follow). I love the idea of making some or all of it transparent; I have no idea how practical that is. But keeping it open all of the time is very unlikely. I'm sure there are challenges replacing sheet metal with glass (or plexiglass or whatever) but it doesn't sound crazy hard to do.

Opening up the concrete walls sounds like an awfully huge enterprise, but it's another good idea. If they could knock down, say, the east and west facades, you can do almost anything you want. But I think it's, like the idea of keeping the roof open, too big to be practical, even with $400M to spend.

All that said, clearly there is a realization that:
A) Rogers Centre is imperfect
b) We're not building a new stadium any time soon

And so, there's a desire to bring it up to speed and remake it. I'm sure they've thought of everything we have and more.

 

[BurlOak]

I know they lost a star outfielder to a sprinkler head a couple of days before camp....was not aware it was also a sprinkler that did in Stroman too

Sorry, your right. It was OF Michael Saunders. I mixed up my injuries.

 

[animatronic]

The way the roof is engineered, it's effectively designed to be closed most of the time, but opened in nice weather (as opposed to open most of the time, but closed in bad weather, if you follow). I love the idea of making some or all of it transparent; I have no idea how practical that is. But keeping it open all of the time is very unlikely. I'm sure there are challenges replacing sheet metal with glass (or plexiglass or whatever) but it doesn't sound crazy hard to do.

Opening up the concrete walls sounds like an awfully huge enterprise, but it's another good idea. If they could knock down, say, the east and west facades, you can do almost anything you want. But I think it's, like the idea of keeping the roof open, too big to be practical, even with $400M to spend.

All that said, clearly there is a realization that:
A) Rogers Centre is imperfect
b) We're not building a new stadium any time soon

And so, there's a desire to bring it up to speed and remake it. I'm sure they've thought of everything we have and more.

It's worth remembering that the Skydome is one of the few domes that actually opens all the way - most stadiums either have fixed roofs or feature retractable roofs that really only cover the playing field (e.g., BC Place). Having a transparent or translucent dome would be counter-productive because if it's nice outside the dome is wide open, and if it's nasty out then you wouldn't have much to look at anyways.

I'd be interested to see if there's something they can do with low-energy LEDs and the inside of the roof. If you've ever been to Vegas they do some neat tricks with the ceilings to make it seem like you're outside. It's "Vegas classy" if you will, but it is effective. (Example here: http://tomharrismedia.com/shot-show-2012-hdr-photography-inside-the-venetian-hotel-las-vegas/).

Imagine if they could light paint the inside of the dome to resemble a daytime or nighttime sky. In addition to being the world's largest planetarium it would go a long way to not making it seem so cavernous and be several hundred $M less than replacing the roof skin with panels that would probably leak.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

It's worth remembering that the Skydome is one of the few domes that actually opens all the way - most stadiums either have fixed roofs or feature retractable roofs that really only cover the playing field (e.g., BC Place). Having a transparent or translucent dome would be counter-productive because if it's nice outside the dome is wide open, and if it's nasty out then you wouldn't have much to look at anyways.

I'd be interested to see if there's something they can do with low-energy LEDs and the inside of the roof. If you've ever been to Vegas they do some neat tricks with the ceilings to make it seem like you're outside. It's "Vegas classy" if you will, but it is effective. (Example here: http://tomharrismedia.com/shot-show-2012-hdr-photography-inside-the-venetian-hotel-las-vegas/).

I've been to Vegas and those skies are nice, for a mall. I don't think the illusion would hold at the scale of the dome, to say nothing of the fact the LED array would be (I'm pretty sure) the biggest ever made. Besides, who wants a fake sky? It also depends how you define "all the way." The roof is still a pretty good design but all the pieces still nest under about 1/4-1/5 of the total, right?

If they are, hypothetically, looking at glass panels, you don't even have to do the whole thing. you could just do the 2 rectangular pieces that go across the middle. Even that would make a huge difference. Houston also has a retractable roof but they have glass in the rear walls that open it to the city and (at least on TV!) make it look somewhat outdoors. There's basically no way they can do that at the Skydome (that's what I call it) but, even on a rainy day, being able to look up and see the CN Tower would make a huge difference, IMHO. I dislike the closed roof because it feels like a big, huge room with no connection to outside at all. Adding transparency wherever they can, I think, is crucial if they're doing a redesign. (And it presumably dovetails nicely with the grass thing.)

 

[animatronic]

I've been to Vegas and those skies are nice, for a mall. I don't think the illusion would hold at the scale of the dome, to say nothing of the fact the LED array would be (I'm pretty sure) the biggest ever made. Besides, who wants a fake sky? It also depends how you define "all the way." The roof is still a pretty good design but all the pieces still nest under about 1/4-1/5 of the total, right?

If they are, hypothetically, looking at glass panels, you don't even have to do the whole thing. you could just do the 2 rectangular pieces that go across the middle. Even that would make a huge difference. Houston also has a retractable roof but they have glass in the rear walls that open it to the city and (at least on TV!) make it look somewhat outdoors. There's basically no way they can do that at the Skydome (that's what I call it) but, even on a rainy day, being able to look up and see the CN Tower would make a huge difference, IMHO. I dislike the closed roof because it feels like a big, huge room with no connection to outside at all. Adding transparency wherever they can, I think, is crucial if they're doing a redesign. (And it presumably dovetails nicely with the grass thing.)

Yeah - it wouldn't be the same effect but surely you could line all the girders with led lights pointing up at the skin for a reasonable amount of money. It would keep the dome from looking so gloomy.

 

[nfitz]

It's Canadian football. Gridiron football has a longer history in Canada (1860-61) than the U.S. (1869).

Surely "Canadian football" back in the 1860s was Rugby, before the rules diverged into the various codes.

The governing body for amateur Canadian Football is Football Canada. When first founded in the 1880s it was called the "Canadian Rugby Football Union".

So the sport played in Canada back in the 1860s is already played at BMO Field on grass.

 

[Long Island Mike]

Everyone:

The problem with retrofitting the Rogers Skydome with new roof panels is that there needs to be a visibility contrast that
allows fielders to spot fly balls which may become a significant problem if clear panels are installed to allow more light to
enter when the roof is closed...

For example when the Houston Astrodome was new in the middle 1960s it was designed with natural grass and a translucent
roof - the trouble was fielders complained of problems trying to see fly balls and the panels were made darker - and as a result
the grass died - and then to solve the field problem "Astroturf" was invented...

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrodome

Scroll down to "Fielding Surface" for more information about how these two Astrodome problems were solved...

In recent years one of the best examples of a natural grass field in a dome is the University of Phoenix Stadium
which is the home of the NFL Arizona Cardinals - and the venue that hosted the 2015 Super Bowl - that turf is
on a moveable "tray" which can literally be slid outside to allow the field to get sun exposure and be watered -
with the design of the Rogers Skydome in a built up urban area this option would not be possible - with the
U of P Stadium in a open area surrounded by parking lots this feature was easily accommodated...

See: www.universityofphoenixstadium.com

LI MIKE

 

[sixrings]

If they can make a removable grass field then why could they not have removable grass at bmo for soccer and removable turf for football.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Everyone:

The problem with retrofitting the Rogers Skydome with new roof panels is that there needs to be a visibility contrast that
allows fielders to see fly balls which may become a significant problem if clear panels are installed to allow more light to
enter when the roof is closed...

For example when the Houston Astrodome was new in the middle 1960s it was designed with natural grass and a translucent
roof - the trouble was fielders complained of problems trying to see fly balls and the panels were made darker - and as a result
the grass died - and then to solve the field problem "Astroturf" was invented...

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrodome

Scroll down to "Fielding Surface" for more information about how these two Astrodome problems were solved...

In recent years one of the best examples of a natural grass field in a dome is the University of Phoenix Stadium
which is the home of the NFL Arizona Cardinals - and the venue that hosted the 2015 Super Bowl - that turf is
on a moveable "tray" which can literally be slid outside to allow the field to get sun exposure and be watered -
with the design of the Rogers Skydome in a built up urban area this feature would not be possible - with the
U of P Stadium in a open area surrounded by parking lots this feature was easily accommodated...

LI MIKE

That's a good point about the Houston situation....Maybe they should just knock out the whole south facade and open things up that way (won't happen!). but, on the other hand, how are clear panels any different than the actual sky which is often present?

The tray thing in Arizona is super cool though, as you point out, hugely impractical here. (Not only because it's an urban area but also, you know, because our climate is different from theirs...)

I assume Rogers has some sort of wish list of what they'd like to do. I have to think there's something they can do with the roof...it's not a bad design, especially considering its age, but I think they close it to often and it's too dead in there when it's closed. As I said above, seeing the CN Tower on a sunny day is kind of an iconic thing. Look up during tonight's game and you won't see anything remotely iconic. Just dark metal and girders.

I think adding faux brick or faux windows or some other facade is probably pointless. The design is what it is. Even the banners they've added over the past decade have spruced it up a bit. If they're spending $400M I'm sure they can do better. On a semi-related note, weren't they talking about re-cladding the CN Tower? Might be some value in co-ordinating the projects aesthetically, at least on some level.

 

[GenerationW]

Surely "Canadian football" back in the 1860s was Rugby, before the rules diverged into the various codes.

The governing body for amateur Canadian Football is Football Canada. When first founded in the 1880s it was called the "Canadian Rugby Football Union".

So the sport played in Canada back in the 1860s is already played at BMO Field on grass.

No idea what your point is.

 

[nfitz]

No idea what your point is.

Your comment was that gridiron football has a longer history in Canada than the US. And dating Canada to 1860 and the USA in 1869.

However, as Canadian football was rugby in the 1860s, then how does that have a longer history than the USA? There are reports of rugby clubs in some Universities as early as the 1840s; didn't Yale ban Rugby in 1862?

Given the origins of both Canadian and American Football being Rugby Football, and the origins in the US of Rugby Football long predating 1869, then I'm not sure your comment was correct.

That was my point ... as irrelevant as it may be ...