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

T.E.C.II said:
Any new stadium would need to have grass. I don't think that's up for debate. It might be tricky keeping grass alive in the winter, but I'm sure Rogers would plan for that.

As for the glass roof, I posted this a few pages back, but Portland is hoping to get an MLB franchise, and this is their proposal for a domed stadium. Of course, this is just a proposal, but maybe they've figured things regarding how a glass roof could work?
Portland-Ballpark-Rendering-4-11-2.jpg
Click to expand...
I'm guessing it is plastic film and not glass.
 
T.E.C.II said:
Any new stadium would need to have grass. I don't think that's up for debate. It might be tricky keeping grass alive in the winter, but I'm sure Rogers would plan for that.

As for the glass roof, I posted this a few pages back, but Portland is hoping to get an MLB franchise, and this is their proposal for a domed stadium. Of course, this is just a proposal, but maybe they've figured things regarding how a glass roof could work?
Portland-Ballpark-Rendering-4-11-2.jpg
Click to expand...
Rangers stadium uses turf. With recent advances in turf quality there isn’t the same pressure for natural grass.
 
Johnny Au said:
Like American Family Field, but it would be more original and less hideous (due to advances in technology since the planning of that stadium).

The new Blue Jays stadium should combine the aesthetics of a classic jewelbox ballpark with a transparent retractable roof that covers both the field and the seats.

This new stadium should seat 30,000 to 40,000 fans.
Click to expand...
40k is way too big. Should be less than 35k.
 
animatronic said:
Rangers stadium uses turf. With recent advances in turf quality there isn’t the same pressure for natural grass.
Click to expand...

I think in the Rangers case, the decision was made due to not being able to maintain the field, and it probably being too hot to grow grass. Same goes for Arizona. Still, players tend to hate playing on turf, so I'd be surprised if Rogers didn't at least try to make grass work.
 
many7695 said:
Love it
Click to expand...
Sorry not a fan of this. I don’t think replacing the Rogers Center should even be a discussion, certainly not based on any of the examples provided here so far. A renovation designed by a high caliber firm is what it deserves. Introduce glazing at the roof, revise all the exterior glazing, storefronts and hotel curtain wall, etc. As for the location, if there is one thing Toronto has that New York, Chicago or any other city doesn’t have, it is the colossal / iconic one-two punch of the CN tower and Rogers Center. The baseball sightlines may not be the best according to some (I have enjoyed every game I have attended there from various seating areas) but we shouldn’t consider sacrificing so many other factors for the sake of a new stadium. Unless there is a proposal that matches or exceeds the ambition that created the SkyDome, we would end up with a worse stadium. Some of the examples in this thread are basically new versions of the old Exhibition stadium. The Rogers Center achieves so much on a very compact footprint, right in the middle of downtown. 100% of the field is exposed to the sky and I believe 90% of the seats. Fully agree that when the roof is closed it is its worst atrtribute, which is why introducing glazing at the roof would address this. With some much needed architectural design upgrades, this is our version of the Colosseum. It’s not an architectural jewel but to knock it down and replace it with a mediocre stadium would be very short sighted.
 
Last edited:
architecture fan said:
Sorry not a fan of this. I don’t think replacing the Rogers Center should even be a discussion, certainly not based on any of the examples provided here so far. A renovation designed by a high caliber firm is what it deserves. Introduce glazing at the roof, revise all the exterior glazing, storefronts and hotel curtain wall, etc. As for the location, if there is one thing Toronto has that New York, Chicago or any other city doesn’t have, it is the colossal / iconic one-two punch of the CN tower and Rogers Center. The baseball sightlines may not be the best according to some (I have enjoyed every game I have attended there from various seating areas) but we shouldn’t consider sacrificing so many other factors for the sake of a new stadium. Unless there is a proposal that matches or exceeds the ambition that created the SkyDome, we would end up with a worse stadium. Some of the examples in this thread are basically new versions of the old Exhibition stadium. The Rogers Center achieves so much on a very compact footprint, right in the middle of downtown. 100% of the field is exposed to the sky and I believe 90% of the seats. Fully agree that when the roof is closed it is its worst atrtribute, which is why introducing glazing at the roof would address this. With some much needed architectural design upgrades, this is our version of the Colosseum. It’s not an architectural jewel but to knock it down and replace it with a mediocre stadium would be very short sighted.
Click to expand...
You are kidding right, SkyDome issues can’t be fixed be with a renovation, there are too many list but here goes, sightlines suck, 55000 seats way to much have to cut down 41,000 to 43,000, getting rid of the stupid useless hotel the geometric shape of the outfield and goes on and on, and to even use the Colosseum and Rogers centre in the same sentence is just ridiculous. The only Rogers Centre has going for it is the location, nothing else about that stadium is worth a damn
 
Guessing that replacing the roof with something transparent wouldn’t work. Aside from the fact it was just replaced, the roof is basically a fabric tarp stretched over a steel frame. Anything else would be too heavy/interfere with the functioning.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top