SMF

They need to erect a statue to whoever had the idea of building Discovery Green. It may the be single coolest game changer in Houston in the last decade. What a great place to have future New Year's Eve events. I'd love to see the GRB, the Hilton and the Marriott Marquis dripping in some serious lighting like Time Square.

What a waste.

   Are we so certain that this will be "on the freeway"? How do you know it won't be located back a few feet like the W in Dallas.

It is best to have the W along side the freeway so that it is easy for cars to get in and out of it. I hope the W entrance and huge surface parking lot is off feeder so that no driver is bothered by any foolish uptown pedestrians.

O right, because projects don't get scrapped, scaled back or shelved in any other city except Houston. Your bad.

I guess all those cranes on the horizon are just mirages. Why does Houston have to be the only city in the world where projects get cancelled, scaled down and/or modified.

The W in Dallas is about a block away from 35. You can CLEARLY see and hear the freeway from it. It is also very close to Woodall Rodgers freeway too. It is close to TWO freeways. http://hksinc.com/wp-content/uploads/w-dallas-victory-hotel-5.jpg http://dweddings.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/WHotel_Altitude_0029.jpg http://assets.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/Victory%20Park%20P16%20%2011-10*304.jpg?v=1 http://www.americanairlinescenter.com/gfx/PHOTOS/new_photos/vp_ariel1.jpg

   I know I've said all this before, but since you asked and don't feel like clicking back a couple of pages, here is a summery. NO it's o.k. I really don't mind at all. 1. Time is running out. (the wolf is at the door) 2. Skiing isn't a realistic option. (needs 100% private investor - I don't see anyone volunteering money to this) 3. No one with any power is considering it. (proposal time is over) 4. Prefab skiing has limited appeal. (tourist will be doing this in their own towns) 5. Indoor park has more uses, flexibility, ect. (potential to attract a wide variety of events, interests and people) 6. Indoor park can evolve, grow and expand. (today it's a park, tomorrow they add a hotel or something if planned correctly) 7. Astrodome deserves better than a fly-by-night, financially risky, glorified carnival attraction. (a park is more classic - parks appeal to everyone -skiing does not) I'm sure I'll think up some more reasons later.

@ Cloud - It seems clear enough to me. I've seen that figure written in a other few articles and it seems totally believable to me. You can tell by just looking at google maps arial photos that the dome roof covers about 9.5 acres. 7.43 seems believable to me as well. Remind me again why it matters anyway? They can put a park in the dome if it's 9.5 acres or it's 9.5 square feet if they want to. They can plop trees and grass on several layers seating decks if they want to or just keep it no bigger than the baseball field used to be - which is what I would expect them to do. I would expect them to start small and add stuff. I would hope there is a master plan, but I would also hope that they would use the existing seating decks as a way to increase the amount of usable space. Maybe if a park is put in the existing open space at first, those seating decks could be used for other amenities in the future - maybe even restaurants, hotel rooms or something no one's thought up yet. Like I said before the park idea has legs. The diagram that was posted earlier is just one idea. There are an infinite number of ways to make a creative interesting indoor park work in the Astrodome space.

@ Cloud - There is 9.5 acres of space inside the dome. I don't know how I can make that any clearer. They can do whatever they want, use part of it, use all of it, the existing open area, the footprint, whatever. What's the problem? The park idea has the backing of one of the most powerful persons in Harris County and a lot of people like it because it would make the Astrodome an attractive place to hold events. It is the best chance we have to save the dome right now - and a GOOD one. Of course the Astrodome park would not be the kind of park that local residents would be using to walk their dog. It would be a destination. It would be the Astrodome - with a park atmosphere to attract special events. Events that people would either drive to or take LRT to get to. I'm sorry that I keep over-estimating your capacity to 'get it'. If the park idea is silly (and maybe it is a little silly), ideas like the indoor fake ski hill are off-the-charts asinine. There is NO CHANCE IN A MILLION YEARS that the Astrodome will be saved by building a ski slope in it. NOBODY in authority is even considering it.

^ I agree.

   The point is that there is 9.5 acres of space to work with INSIDE the dome. I'm fairly sure that ripping out the seating decks is an option. Although, I would hope that whatever they do, they are able to use some of the dome's height to maximize floor space so keeping the decks would seem to be a good idea IMO. A Gaylord Hotel-like proposal was one of the first ideas rejected. The Texans and the Rodeo got the blame for rejecting it but I'm sure it went deeper than that. Probably had more to do with no one willing to invest in the idea. I thought it was a shame they couldn't make it happen, I think it would have been cool. No offense, but it's hard having a discussion with someone who never even bothers to collect any facts or even reads previous postings before commenting and then has the nerve to offer any assessment of the Astrodome's legacy or future. Seriously, did you not know about the original Gaylord-like proposal? http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Astrodome-hotel-plan-includes-610-exit-ramp-1488657.php Off topic - Cloud, I'm curious, have you ever even been inside the dome in your entire life? Have you ever seen the ceiling from the inside? Please tell me you have, even if you have to lie. You just don't seem to get it. The county is not looking for new ideas for what to do with the dome anymore. They are ESPECIALLY not looking for old ones like the Gaylord idea. Proposal time is over for the time being. Although my posts directed at you may come out sounding harsh. I do admire the fact you want them to do what you think is best for the dome. Ultimately, I think we are on the same side of this issue. Saving the dome is what I really care about. I think the park sounds like a solid and realistic plan to get people into the dome again and have it used and appreciated by the masses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrodome This says the dome covers 9.5 acres. This wikipage is very interesting. The Astrodome was designed by architects Hermon Lloyd & W. B. Morgan, and Wilson, Morris, Crain and Anderson. Structural engineering and structural design was performed by Walter P Moore Engineers and Consultants of Houston. It was constructed by H. A. Lott, Inc. for Harris County, Texas. It stands 18 stories tall, covering 9.5 acres (3.8 ha). The dome is 710 feet (220 m) in diameter and the ceiling is 208 feet (63 m) above the playing surface, which itself sits 25 feet (7.6 m) below street level.[6]

The one in Dallas is next to a freeway so it's o.k. Isn't this going into a $1.2 billion development? I bet there will be something else to do in the area that won't require a cab. Isn't the BRT and maybe the LRT going to be right in front of this location, eventually?

The Chronicle is strictly 'amateur hour'. It's like their website is run by summer interns. I would trust the most clueless poster at HAIF before I would trust anyone that writes for the Chronicle.

The Astrodome left it's mark on many more people than just sentimental Houstonians. That you would even suggest otherwise proves you don't know what you are talking about. The prospect that the dome could be demolished has caught the attention of preservationists and people who live far away from Houston. Look, the ski idea is NEVER GONNA HAPPEN. No one is even considering it. It's not on the table. It's not an option. If you were to pitch the idea to the county, you would be laughed out of the building. You are talking about putting something with VERY limited appeal and a questionable track record of profitability into Houston's most famous building with the hope that it will lure tourists - when every other city in America is about to build something similar. Indoor skiing can be built anywhere. Indoor skiing has the same kind of appeal as a water park or an amusement park. Not everyone likes skiing, water slides, bungee jumping or roller coasters. The park idea may or may not bring tourist to Houston on it's own merits (we won't know until it's built), but the events held in an indoor park inside Houston's most iconic building stands a much better chance of success and to bring in MANY more people, wherever they may come from and whatever they are there for. This is why it is being considered. This is why Judge Emmit is pushing it. You can't keep ignoring the fact that half the people in Houston don't want any public money going into the dome at all. The park idea stands a chance because it would allow the dome to be developed gradually and instantly get the most bang for the buck. People can start using it right away and the county can start taking in revenue even if the entire park isn't developed yet. For the ski idea, it would have to be 100% privately financed. Now go find someone willing to commit millions of dollars in planning and development putting an indoor ski facility into a building that may not even be here in a couple of years. You would have a better chance of finding an investor to build an indoor ski facility on the other side of 610, where Astroworld used to be. Now lets talk about being "REALISTIC".

    I like the idea of a park and a way to make the dome a great place to hold a variety of events. That rendering would allow for that, that's why I like it. A ski park is ridiculous and nothing but a childish fantasy. Unlike other stadiums, the dome set a standard and holds a special place in history and deserves to NOT be turned into something that would only appeal to half-wits with trashy taste and people with no regard for iconic architecture. The Astrodome is just as unique as Alcatraz or Ellis Island. There is only ONE world's first domed stadium. There is no other dome on earth that looks like the Astrodome. It would be tragic if the county allowed the visionless, the confused and the utterly CLUELESS to turn Houston's most famous building into a cheap road side attraction.

I blame poor management.

@ On The Other Hand - LOVE IT! That's what I'm talking about. @ Montrose - Who would have ever guessed in 1933 that Alcatraz would ever be a tourists destination? Or the grungy old beaten up Fisherman's Wharf? Or Ellis Island? I would never try to predict what will be romanticized in the future. They were just ordinary buildings used for practical purposes. I think the Astrodome has as good a chance as anything standing today to be a top visited landmark in the world in the future, if marketed correctly. It's certainly got a better chance than anything else in Houston. It's got historical relevance. It's big. People have already 'heard' about it outside of Houston. And even if it doesn't become a top visited landmark in the future, it could still be a usable, terrific public space for the locals to enjoy. I strongly disagree that it's 'just a stadium'. If it was 'just a stadium' we wouldn't be having this discussion. It would have been torn down years ago like Texas Stadium. The Astrodome revolutionized stadiums. It helped put Houston on the map in the 1960's. It made people re-imagine what kinds of events could be held indoors. It represents an engineering milestone and is an unique architectural icon. About what to do with it... Frankly, at this point, I'm tired of listening to wild ideas and cooler than cool hypotheticals of repurposing of the dome. To me it isn't about coming up with the coolest idea anymore, it's about coming up with the most REALISTIC cool idea that has a better chance of happening against an army of people who would just as soon see it become another 10 acres of additional parking. People have been dreaming up cool ideas for 15 years and nothing happens. Granted, the park idea does not allow for the coolest or wildest structures to be built inside the dome or cater to any specialize group of people with a particular interest. I know many people love the idea of indoor skiing, water parks or casinos ect., because all of those things are more fun than just going to a park full of boring trees that just stand there and do nothing. But the park idea works for me because it keeps the dome as an multipurpose usable venue. It's not about building something really cool inside the dome. The dome is already cool. It's about the events and fun activities that would be going on inside the dome - a climate controlled, comfortable environment that also has some notoriety and historic relevance. Do they need living trees and a park environment to hold special events inside the dome? I don't know, but the permanent living park idea certainly sounds more inviting and provides extra reason to want to go there or hold your event there instead of at another large, less ornamental indoor venue. Holding a public event inside the dome could kind of be like holding a party on the Queen Mary only instead of a party it could be street fairs, big time festivals, farmers markets, concerts, conventions or any other traditionally held outdoor events that people travel to other parts of town to go to for weekend fun. The dome is so big, you could have different events held at once. There may be ideas of what to add inside or new types of events we haven't even thought up yet. The park idea has legs and would allow for growth. The park idea would allow the dome to return to the days when it attracted a large variety of events. But instead of buying a ticket and sitting in seat to watch athletes and famous people do their stuff, the public would be on the floor, truly interacting with this unique space. Throw in the fact that famous people once did cool things on this ground and it only adds to the fun and novelty of being there.

That's what I'm saying. It needs to be better than what we already have at the airport. DT has (will have) the hotels, conventions and activities. Business travelers from Dallas won't like having to deal with the same issues they have to coming in at Houston airport. I can see how it would be great on the Dallas end to get to the station, but once they are in Houston HSR won't be much or any better what is already here.

People from Houston and people coming from Dallas will still have to rent a car, still have to deal with parking and still have to wait in traffic to get to downtown Houston. Even in the best possible scenario, this whole project seems like a long shot to me. I think they would increase their chances for success by making certain that the station ties into both cities existing rail transit and making the entire experience as easy on the traveler as possible. It need to be significantly better and faster than air travel.

If they don't build in downtown Houston and downtown Dallas, this will fail shorty after the novelty wears off. If people have to drive to NW Mall to catch a train, they might as well drive to Bush or Hobby to catch a plane. If you are going to do this, spend the extra billion and do it right.

What is the Eiffel Tower? Its just a collection of old oxidized steel beams shaped like a droopy letter A. When people compare the Astrodome to the Eiffel Tower they are not comparing the amount of tourism they bring or fame they have today. They are comparing the architectural breakthroughs that they represent, uniqueness, iconic relevance and the identification with the cities they are in. Both achieved fame outside their own city. Maybe few people talk about the dome today outside Houston but that wasn't always the case. If you watch old t.v. shows and movies the Astrodome was referenced all the time. I realize that some people can't get past the fact that in 2014 people from all over the world tour the Eiffel Tower and the Astrodome is mothballed. But if repurposed and marketed correctly, I think the Astrodome could absolutely one day attract the same kind of tourism that the Eiffel Tower currently does. The older the dome gets, the more historically relevant it gets. Believe it or not, not everyone was impressed with the Eiffel Tower when it was built or when it began to show it age either. In fact, a lot of destinations were discarded eye sores before they were reborn as tourist attractions. Alcatraz, Fisherman's Wharf and Pier 39 in San Francisco come to mind. What I'm saying is that even if the Astrodome never achieves the same type of acclaim that the Eiffel Tower receives, the dome is the closest thing we have to it in Houston. I think of the dome as "HOUSTON'S Eiffel Tower", not as something that competes with the Eiffel Tower as it exist today. At least not yet. Just as people identify the Eiffel Tower with Paris, the Astrodome WAS commonly identified with Houston for years, many years ago, and can be again if directed to. It's all about marketing and repurposing. As long as the building exist, it has the chance to become famous again. If they tear it down it is a lost opportunity FOREVER. Not just for Houston, but for the world - even if the world or Houston doesn't know it yet.

The idea didn't get past the Texans or Rodeo and I don't think they could find investors. I don't know the whole story. Here is the rendering. http://images.chron.com/photos/2005/08/17/2885413/311xInlineGallery.jpg