PDA

View Full Version : Jays buying Sky Dome


Paulwny
11-29-2004, 01:44 PM
$21.24 mil: From the link:

The 50,000-seat stadium, which opened in 1989, cost about $375 million to construct and was mostly funded by taxpayers. The Blue Jays, who are owned by Rogers Communications, will acquire the ballpark from Sportsco International LP, a Chicago-based group of investors who bought SkyDome out of bankruptcy court in 1999 for about $74 million.
http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/wire/sns-ap-bba-blue-jays-skydome,0,505213.story?coll=sns-ap-baseball-headlines

jabrch
11-29-2004, 01:52 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=bluejaysskydome&prov=st&type=lgns

A lot of people here regularly gripe that JR was "given" a stadium. Toronto just bought theirs (nicer than ours) for only 21mm? Now there are plenty of other factors I guess that go into the value of that asset - but it just seems strange to me. SkyDome should be worth more than 21mm?

PorkChopExpress
11-29-2004, 01:55 PM
No way is the Skydome nicer than USCF.

robertks61
11-29-2004, 01:58 PM
No way is the Skydome nicer than USCF.

Yea, ***?

munchman33
11-29-2004, 02:10 PM
No way is the Skydome nicer than USCF.
Yeah, its not even close. With the move of the Expos out of Olympic Stadium, the Sky Dome might be the second worst ballpark in all of baseball (right behind the metradome).

MUsoxfan
11-29-2004, 02:30 PM
Yeah, its not even close. With the move of the Expos out of Olympic Stadium, the Sky Dome might be the second worst ballpark in all of baseball (right behind the metradome).
What about the Juicebox down in Tampa? That looks and sounds much more awful than the Trashbag Dome.

munchman33
11-29-2004, 02:39 PM
What about the Juicebox down in Tampa? That looks and sounds much more awful than the Trashbag Dome.
You know, I didn't really mind Tropicana Field. Don't get me wrong. It wasn't a good stadium by any stretch of the imagination. But it certainly doesn't belong in the same league as HHH or Sky Dome.

NonetheLoaiza
11-29-2004, 03:29 PM
i agree, tropicana is bad, but its not as terrible as the metrodome or skydome...although you do have to worry about hitting the catwalk with pop flies.

Brian26
11-29-2004, 04:15 PM
Yeah, its not even close. With the move of the Expos out of Olympic Stadium, the Sky Dome might be the second worst ballpark in all of baseball (right behind the metradome).

Funny, because the place was heralded as the Taj Mahal for a few years after it opened. Camden Yards definitely reinvented the culture of baseball parks in this nation.

Brian26
11-29-2004, 04:16 PM
You know, I didn't really mind Tropicana Field. Don't get me wrong. It wasn't a good stadium by any stretch of the imagination. But it certainly doesn't belong in the same league as HHH or Sky Dome.

I don't know what redeeming quality you could attribute to Tropicana that would make it better than either HHH or Skydome. Tropicana is an absolute, friggin dump. EASILY the worst baseball stadium in the majors right now, followed closely by HHH.

Brian26
11-29-2004, 04:17 PM
i agree, tropicana is bad, but its not as terrible as the metrodome or skydome...although you do have to worry about hitting the catwalk with pop flies.

Again, at least Skydome is clean and the novelty of the roof opening is still fun. Tropicana has no redeeming qualities. It's a dump.

Baby Fisk
11-29-2004, 04:27 PM
Funny, because the place was heralded as the Taj Mahal for a few years after it opened. Camden Yards definitely reinvented the culture of baseball parks in this nation.Both Skydome and USCF are "bridges" from the old era of stadia (decrepit piles/sterile cookie cutters) to the new era (retro gems/retractable roof wonders). Compared to Safeco or Minute Maid park, Skydome is sadly outdated and soulless. USCF is neither a decrepit pile, a cookie cutter, a retro gem nor a retractable roof wonder. It is truly unique unto itself -- a bridge from one era of baseball architecture to another...complete with pinwheels!

Tekijawa
11-29-2004, 04:44 PM
Funny, because the place was heralded as the Taj Mahal for a few years after it opened.
What's even funnier is that the Taj Mahal just filed for bankruptcy, Trump Taj that is.

Brian26
11-29-2004, 05:11 PM
What's even funnier is that the Taj Mahal just filed for bankruptcy, Trump Taj that is.

Never count the Donald out.

There's a joke somewhere regarding a retractable roof and Trump's hair, but I'm too busy to find it.

FightingBillini
11-29-2004, 06:38 PM
New Comiskey Park and now US Cellular Field will always have a dubious distinction. Everyone sees is as a giant mistake, an embarrassment, out of touch, past its time, the last of its type, etc. No matter how great it becomes with the renovations (and it is already MUCH better than it started out), it will always be remembered as for the prefab concrete, sea of blue seats, huge parking lots, giant billboards, and an incredibly steep upperdeck that is so high due to 2 levels of luxury boxes. The Cell gets a bad rep for most of that stuff because of a)the Cubune and b)people who cant accept a utilitarian park in an era of aesthetically pleasing ones. The upperdecks are just as steep in Camden Yards and Jacobs Field. Obviously there were huge mistakes made in the design of the park, but people who look at the it objectively realize its a great park. When it opened, it was a marvel. Everyone loved it, only to change their minds a year later when they saw Oriole Park. It was only surpassed by Skydome. Skydome was seen as the 8th wonder of the world. Nobody could believe how futuristic it was with its retractable roof. People still marvel at Skydome because they have never seen it. I saw it up close. Its a dump. Its a big circle with many obstructed view seats, and an upperdeck that is much much worse than ours ever was. There isn't a single good seat in the house. Its cold, bland, and giant (100 feet taller than the Cell) with its rows and rows of empty blue seats and blue walls (sound familiar?), but the difference is it is covered by a roof most of the time, and it has AstroTurf. There isn't a single redeeming quality about this park. Now that Stade Olimpique is gone, Skydome will take its place as a national embarrassment for Canada. However, most people will think its cool because the media never focuses on it.

The ONLY reason US Cellular gets such as bad reputation is that it was the last of its kind. People will always compare it to Camden Yards because of that. Skydome was the second to last, so it receives "immunity". If there were articles upon articles and news exposes on the steep upperdeck, sterile environment, bad seats, and more about Skydome, maybe people would start to realize what a joke it is. US Cellular has stood up to the criticism, Skydome wouldn't.

batmanZoSo
11-29-2004, 08:03 PM
Yeah, its not even close. With the move of the Expos out of Olympic Stadium, the Sky Dome might be the second worst ballpark in all of baseball (right behind the metradome).
Put grass in there and it's pretty nice. It has some ultra modern style flair and character in my opinion. It's roughly symmetrical, but it's not a monotonous donut like Riverfront and company were.

Speaking of which, why the hell doesn't it have grass?

munchman33
11-29-2004, 08:25 PM
Put grass in there and it's pretty nice. It has some ultra modern style flair and character in my opinion. It's roughly symmetrical, but it's not a monotonous donut like Riverfront and company were.

Speaking of which, why the hell doesn't it have grass?
Have you ever been there? The place looks better suited to football its so big. And WAY too much light blue.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-29-2004, 09:08 PM
You guys trashing SkyDome have extremely short memories.

Nobody ever builds a stadium with the intent of seeing it become prematurely obsolete. The 60's-vintage donuts were state of the art for their time. KC's Royals Stadium inherited the title in the early-70's. Bubble domes like the HumpDome were all the rage in the early-80's. And the retractible roof SkyDome was compared to the eighth wonder of the world when it opened in 1989.

Face it. Some of us are just too jaded to appreciate anything that doesn't have the latest bells and whistles. The very same people trashing SkyDome are the ones who in 20 years will be trashing PNC Park, Petco Field, and all the other 90's-vintage adult theme parks that don't have the newest gee-whiz gimmick to attract fickled fans.

That's what makes the retrofitting of U.S. Cellular Field so unique. Here's a ballpark less than 14 years old and it has already been given several years worth of makeovers. Sorry, that's just lousy design and there is no excuse for it. Architects and public planners are paid to avoid these sorts of costly fixes.

munchman33
11-29-2004, 09:17 PM
You guys trashing SkyDome have extremely short memories.

Nobody ever builds a stadium with the intent of seeing it become prematurely obsolete. The 60's-vintage donuts were state of the art for their time. KC's Royals Stadium inherited the title in the early-70's. Bubble domes like the HumpDome were all the rage in the early-80's. And the retractible roof SkyDome was compared to the eighth wonder of the world when it opened in 1989.

Face it. Some of us are just too jaded to appreciate anything that doesn't have the latest bells and whistles. The very same people trashing SkyDome are the ones who in 20 years will be trashing PNC Park, Petco Field, and all the other 90's-vintage adult theme parks that don't have the newest gee-whiz gimmick to attract fickled fans.

That's what makes the retrofitting of U.S. Cellular Field so unique. Here's a ballpark less than 14 years old and it has already been given several years worth of makeovers. Sorry, that's just lousy design and there is no excuse for it. Architects and public planners are paid to avoid these sorts of costly fixes.
George-

I've been to Skydome 12 times in my lifetime, including its opening season and last season. Believe me - its a dump. The sound system is terrible, the dimensions make it seem barren even when packed, and the color scheme is vomit inducing. But none of that includes its worst factor-the worst site lines in all of baseball. It seems odd that they got them so wrong in so many places, especially down the left and right field lines. IMHO, they're actually worse than those at Fenway!

PaleHoseGeorge
11-29-2004, 09:22 PM
George-

I've been to Skydome 12 times in my lifetime, including its opening season and last season. Believe me - its a dump. The sound system is terrible, the dimensions make it seem barren even when packed, and the color scheme is vomit inducing. But none of that includes its worst factor-the worst site lines in all of baseball. It seems odd that they got them so wrong in so many places, especially down the left and right field lines. IMHO, they're actually worse than those at Fenway!
... and none of this was important back in the late-80's when SkyDome was designed.

Believe me... in 20 years nobody will care that SF home run hitters can deposit baseballs into McCovey's Cove. It's a gimmick, and the gimmick will wear out... not unlike Toronto's retractable roof, as you have already stated for us many times in this thread.

munchman33
11-29-2004, 09:34 PM
... and none of this was important back in the late-80's when SkyDome was designed.

Believe me... in 20 years nobody will care that SF home run hitters can deposit baseballs into McCovey's Cove. It's a gimmick, and the gimmick will wear out... not unlike Toronto's retractable roof, as you have already stated for us many times in this thread.
Well, for the record, I never liked skydome.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-29-2004, 09:38 PM
Well, for the record, I never liked skydome.
Frankly, neither did I. The playing surface always looked cheesy, second only to the AstroDome. Why have a retractable roof stadium if you're just going to install plastic grass anyway?

Canadians... I'll never understand them.
:wink:

FightingBillini
11-29-2004, 09:53 PM
You guys trashing SkyDome have extremely short memories.

Nobody ever builds a stadium with the intent of seeing it become prematurely obsolete. The 60's-vintage donuts were state of the art for their time. KC's Royals Stadium inherited the title in the early-70's. Bubble domes like the HumpDome were all the rage in the early-80's. And the retractible roof SkyDome was compared to the eighth wonder of the world when it opened in 1989.

Face it. Some of us are just too jaded to appreciate anything that doesn't have the latest bells and whistles. The very same people trashing SkyDome are the ones who in 20 years will be trashing PNC Park, Petco Field, and all the other 90's-vintage adult theme parks that don't have the newest gee-whiz gimmick to attract fickled fans.

That's what makes the retrofitting of U.S. Cellular Field so unique. Here's a ballpark less than 14 years old and it has already been given several years worth of makeovers. Sorry, that's just lousy design and there is no excuse for it. Architects and public planners are paid to avoid these sorts of costly fixes.
I think you missed the point I was making. I understand that Skydome was state of the art in it's day. That was before these architects remembered how to build BASEBALL stadiums. Those donut stadiums from the 60's and 70's were made for baseball and football. At a pricetag so high, you could see why they would want a stadium that could host both teams. There are a few problems with that. First of all, the sightlines for baseball are very very bad in those stadiums. They are designed for football, but can accommodate baseball. Not to make unfair generalizations, but I would guess the Argonauts never draw 20,000 for a game. I saw a few CFL games on TV, and the stadiums weren't even close to full. Therefore, Skydome could have been designed for baseball with the capability to host football. You mentioned Kansas City. Kauffman Stadium is a BASEBALL stadium, and a very nice one. Kansas City got it right when they decided to build separate stadiums for baseball and football. (Besides that, it would have been much cheaper for Toronto to build separate stadiums). So when the Sox built an actual baseball stadium instead of some circular one, this was nothing revolutionary. USCF is a step above Kauffman, Skydome is two steps back. I know people will say that there was no football team to play in a stadium with the White Sox because the Bears had a home, but don't you think Reinsy would like to have built a domed stadium where he could hold conferences and stuff? They would get the extra revenue created, just like the Bears would have had to pay them lots to play a year at the Cell.
The problem with Skydome isn't that it doesn't have the latest bells and whistles. The problem is that it wasn't the best baseball facility when it was built. It was built to impress tourists and be an answer to trivia questions such as "name the baseball park with a hotel in center field". It was a ridiculously big, extravagant stadium that was built more for international attention than for baseball.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-29-2004, 10:01 PM
....
The problem with Skydome isn't that it doesn't have the latest bells and whistles. The problem is that it wasn't the best baseball facility when it was built. It was built to impress tourists and be an answer to trivia questions such as "name the baseball park with a hotel in center field". It was a ridiculously big, extravagant stadium that was built more for international attention than for baseball. Here are some more "impress the tourists" features you'll find ridiculous, extravagant, and intended more for attention than for baseball... just give it time for the novelty to finally wear off of you.
:cool:

** Baseballs dropping into McCovey's Cove
** The choo choo train in Houston
** Obstructed view seats in Baltimore
** Riverboat paddler in Cincinnati
** Bud's retro tribute to Ebbetts Field... complete with retractable roof in Milwaukee.

FightingBillini
11-29-2004, 10:17 PM
Here are some more "impress the tourists" features you'll find ridiculous, extravagant, and intended more for attention than for baseball... just give it time for the novelty to finally wear off of you.
:cool:

** Baseballs dropping into McCovey's Cove
** The choo choo train in Houston
** Obstructed view seats in Baltimore
** Riverboat paddler in Cincinnati
** Bud's retro tribute to Ebbetts Field... complete with retractable roof in Milwaukee.
Point taken, but those are all much better baseball facilities than Skydome. Skydome was built to stand alongside the CN Tower. Thr Skydome-CN Tower complex is one of the most distinctive urban signatures in the world. Whenever someone goes to Toronto, they are asked "did you see Skydome?". Its in every tourist brouchure on Toronto. Thats what it was built for.

Brian26
11-29-2004, 10:17 PM
You guys trashing SkyDome have extremely short memories.

Nobody ever builds a stadium with the intent of seeing it become prematurely obsolete. The 60's-vintage donuts were state of the art for their time. KC's Royals Stadium inherited the title in the early-70's. Bubble domes like the HumpDome were all the rage in the early-80's. And the retractible roof SkyDome was compared to the eighth wonder of the world when it opened in 1989..
I think Royals Stadium, of all the places you listed, has endured the most. You can still look at it today and appreciate it's beauty.

Face it. Some of us are just too jaded to appreciate anything that doesn't have the latest bells and whistles. The very same people trashing SkyDome are the ones who in 20 years will be trashing PNC Park, Petco Field, and all the other 90's-vintage adult theme parks that don't have the newest gee-whiz gimmick to attract fickled fans.
I disagree. I don't think the new batch of stadiums are going to be obsolete anytime soon. Let's face it- this is basically the third generation of baseball stadiums in MLB history. The first generation was the crop w/ Old Comiskey, Wrigley, Fenway, Ebbets, Shibe, Forbes, Griffith, Tiger, Yankee, etc. The second generation was the cookie-cutter multi-purpose stadiums of the 60's: Riverfront, Three Rivers, The Vet, Fulton County, Shea, Busch, etc. The third generation is the new parks we see now. I just can't see how the general thinking would sway in the other direction anytime soon towards bigger/multi-purpose stadiums.

That's what makes the retrofitting of U.S. Cellular Field so unique. Here's a ballpark less than 14 years old and it has already been given several years worth of makeovers. Sorry, that's just lousy design and there is no excuse for it. Architects and public planners are paid to avoid these sorts of costly fixes.
Unless they are paid cheaply for a 1986 design for Addison.

robertks61
11-29-2004, 10:57 PM
The Argonauts will be moving out of Skydome soon. At York University they are building a 25,000 football - soccer facility for $70 million.

Parrothead
11-29-2004, 11:38 PM
No way is the Skydome nicer than USCF.
USCF does not have a retractable roof, hotel or a hard rock cafe. Skydome is not the worst active park I have been to, Dodger Stadium is.

FightingBillini
11-29-2004, 11:50 PM
USCF does not have a retractable roof, hotel or a hard rock cafe. Skydome is not the worst active park I have been to, Dodger Stadium is.So you are saying Skydome is a better baseball park than US Cellular Field because it doesnt have a retractable roof, hotel, or a hard rock cafe? Wow. Do you honestly believe that? The place his horrible. Its not a baseball park. Its an "archetectural marvel" that happens to house a baseball team. Whether you like it or not (I do), US Cellular is a baseball park.

DSpivack
11-30-2004, 12:00 AM
Call me crazy, but I actually didn't mind Skydome. Club seats were cheap (in American $$), concourse was carpeted, seats were padded. OK, gimmicks, I know. But another thing they had which I thought was cool were bars overlooking the field.

Maybe it's just me but SkyDome has character in it's "blandness." A real yawn of a stadium is Turner Field.

Parrothead
11-30-2004, 12:03 AM
So you are saying Skydome is a better baseball park than US Cellular Field because it doesnt have a retractable roof, hotel, or a hard rock cafe? Wow. Do you honestly believe that? The place his horrible. Its not a baseball park. Its an "archetectural marvel" that happens to house a baseball team. Whether you like it or not (I do), US Cellular is a baseball park.
I am saying it is not the worst out there. I did not think it was bad. I have been at worst places. It would be even better if they got natural grass. When the place had 50,000 plus it was rocking and a fun place to watch a game. Now that there are only 20,000 plus there the place stinks, to hear other people. I do like USCF but there are things wrong with it.

FightingBillini
11-30-2004, 12:44 AM
I am saying it is not the worst out there. I did not think it was bad. I have been at worst places. It would be even better if they got natural grass. When the place had 50,000 plus it was rocking and a fun place to watch a game. Now that there are only 20,000 plus there the place stinks, to hear other people. I do like USCF but there are things wrong with it.
Any place is rocking with 50,000 people in it. I understand that there are design flaws with the Cell, but overall I think its a great park. As for Dodger Stadium, I personally think it looks like a huge, hideous mistake. However, several people that I talked to that have gone their thought it was nice, so I cant rush to judgment.

Brian26
11-30-2004, 11:59 AM
USCF does not have a retractable roof, hotel or a hard rock cafe. Skydome is not the worst active park I have been to, Dodger Stadium is.

How in the heck can you say Dodger Stadium is worse than Tropicana or the Metrodome? That's unbelievable. The scenic mountains behind the outfield alone makes the park that much better that either of the domed stadiums. I just don't get it.

doublem23
11-30-2004, 12:31 PM
How in the heck can you say Dodger Stadium is worse than Tropicana or the Metrodome? That's unbelievable. The scenic mountains behind the outfield alone makes the park that much better that either of the domed stadiums. I just don't get it.
I guess the question is... do you want scenery, or a Hard Rock Cafe?

Parrothead
11-30-2004, 07:26 PM
How in the heck can you say Dodger Stadium is worse than Tropicana or the Metrodome? That's unbelievable. The scenic mountains behind the outfield alone makes the park that much better that either of the domed stadiums. I just don't get it.
Have not been to the Metrodome (for baseball) or Tropicana, that is how. Dodger Stadium is a dump, mainly because it is old. The seats are cramped, the upper deck is way high and there is only a couple of ways up there, the park is dingy and the view is overrated.

Brian26
11-30-2004, 08:39 PM
Have not been to the Metrodome (for baseball) or Tropicana, that is how. Dodger Stadium is a dump, mainly because it is old. The seats are cramped, the upper deck is way high and there is only a couple of ways up there, the park is dingy and the view is overrated.
I haven't been to HHH or the Trop either, but I can tell on tv that they are both dumps. There's no way in hell Tropicana is better than Dodger Stadium.

Parrothead
11-30-2004, 10:14 PM
I haven't been to HHH or the Trop either, but I can tell on tv that they are both dumps. There's no way in hell Tropicana is better than Dodger Stadium.
On tv Dodger Stadium looks great....so you never know til you been there.

batmanZoSo
11-30-2004, 11:38 PM
Architects and public planners are paid to avoid these sorts of costly fixes.
:reinsy
Psh, that kind of thinking only works on paper and in real life.