The Abandoned Astrodome And Its Future

[H-Town Man]

Not sure how to summarize my thoughts right now, but... Sometimes it can be real hard caring about this city when it doesn't care about itself.

[Triton]

Goodbye Astrodome

[fatesdisastr]

It's not a done deal demolition but tonight certainly was quite the death blow

[Triton]

Unless there's private investment, the fate is pretty much sealed unfortunately. Of course I still have hope but I prefer to be a realist at the same time.

[Sellanious Caesar]

Every November, I become disappointed in Houston. Last November it was transit.

[cloud713]

ugh, this was not the demolition i wanted to see..

[TowerSpotter]

This is just sad.  

[Subdude]

 

Astrodome Faces Likely Demolition As Voters Nix Plan

HOUSTON -- HOUSTON (AP) — Memories will likely soon be all that's left of the Houston Astrodome, the world's first multipurpose domed stadium.

Voters on Tuesday did not approve a referendum that would have authorized up to $217 million in bonds to turn the stadium that once hosted both professional baseball and football games into a giant convention and event center and exhibition space.

Harris County Judge Ed Emmett said while a final decision on what now happens to the Astrodome will be up to the Commissioners Court, the group of local officials who manage the county, the stadium's future was pretty much sealed with the referendum's failure. Emmett, who is a member of the Court, said there are no other plans to revamp the stadium.

"If we can't spend tax dollars to repurpose the dome and there are no private dollars to repurpose the dome, then the only thing at that point is we can't leave it sitting there. So it would have to come down. But that is a decision to be made by Commissioners Court," he said.

Emmett said a final decision on the Astrodome would have to be made quickly but didn't say exactly when that would happen.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/06/astrodome-demolition_n_4222966.html

 

 

[IronTiger]

OK--the county made a lot of bucks selling off parts of the interior. It would cost Houston almost as more to demolish the structure than to renovate it. The solution? I'd say have the county practically give away the dome (some strings attached) to a willing acceptor. Like Bass Pro taking over the Memphis pyramid, who wants to see a Cabela's?

[Nate99]

Sad to see it go, but it was sad to see it sit there and rot. Had it been made in to convention space, it would sit there empty while the newly installed equipment rots away or soaks up cash to be maintained. I would like to see the operating cost/revenue numbers on the GRB and Reliant Center while we are at it, but as far as I can tell, they were never put forth in this discussion. Pointless now, I suppose.

 

No one could think of a good use for it that did not involve public funding, and the public doesn't want to fund it. I did not think that any plan involving public money would be executed faithfully anyway, nor did I think preserving an expensive historical structure was a good use of public money.

 

I personally think that retaining tangible pieces of history is a diminishing return type proposition.  The bigger you have to go, the less you are going to ge out of it.  Italy could bankrupt itself restoring its history that is far more significant and rich than a professional sports stadium.

 

They tore down Yankee Stadium, Texas Stadium, Three Rivers, etc, we can't pretend that the Dome meant more than that.

[brian0123]

Why is demo the talk now? Can't we push the county to do the UH student's "skeleton" idea?

[Nate99]

Why is demo the talk now? Can't we push the county to do the UH student's "skeleton" idea?

 

I'm sure anything is possible with enough interest, but I think the public viewed this election as a demolition referendum, and the county sure seems to agree.

[Subdude]

Why is demo the talk now? Can't we push the county to do the UH student's "skeleton" idea?

 

Were that only the case.  I actually think the skeleton and park idea would have had a decent chance in the vote.  The "New Dome Experience" was so obviously a hail mary pass that I think a lot of voters didn't really believe it was a viable proposal.  It's a shame, I think the skeleton would have become a monument in its own right.

 

It's worked before:

[H-Town Man]

Sad to see it go, but it was sad to see it sit there and rot. Had it been made in to convention space, it would sit there empty while the newly installed equipment rots away or soaks up cash to be maintained. I would like to see the operating cost/revenue numbers on the GRB and Reliant Center while we are at it, but as far as I can tell, they were never put forth in this discussion. Pointless now, I suppose.

 

No one could think of a good use for it that did not involve public funding, and the public doesn't want to fund it. I did not think that any plan involving public money would be executed faithfully anyway, nor did I think preserving an expensive historical structure was a good use of public money.

 

I personally think that retaining tangible pieces of history is a diminishing return type proposition.  The bigger you have to go, the less you are going to ge out of it.  Italy could bankrupt itself restoring its history that is far more significant and rich than a professional sports stadium.

 

They tore down Yankee Stadium, Texas Stadium, Three Rivers, etc, we can't pretend that the Dome meant more than that.

 

We can't pretend that the Dome meant more than that? The NY Times a few months ago called it "the most important, distinctive and influential stadium ever built in the United States." It tripled the world record for longest unsupported roof span. The LA Times yesterday called for it to be saved. The referendum results today are being covered in almost every national media outlet. The whole country is trying to tell us that "the Dome meant more than that"; why are we refusing to listen?

 

As to Italy, they make nice money off of tourism for their historic monuments, although I believe if you ask them, they probably see a value in those monuments that can't be boiled down to how much money they take in. They have a word for this mindset - barbarismo.

[jt16]

We can't pretend that the Dome meant more than that? The NY Times a few months ago called it "the most important, distinctive and influential stadium ever built in the United States." It tripled the world record for longest unsupported roof span. The LA Times yesterday called for it to be saved. The referendum results today are being covered in almost every national media outlet. The whole country is trying to tell us that "the Dome meant more than that"; why are we refusing to listen?

 

As to Italy, they make nice money off of tourism for their historic monuments, although I believe if you ask them, they probably see a value in those monuments that can't be boiled down to how much money they take in. They have a word for this mindset - barbarismo.

 

Then come up with a plan that isn't asking everyone else to pay for it.  If it's so important to all these people, money would be pouring in from preservationists.  But it clearly isn't. 

[Subdude]

We can't pretend that the Dome meant more than that? The NY Times a few months ago called it "the most important, distinctive and influential stadium ever built in the United States." It tripled the world record for longest unsupported roof span. The LA Times yesterday called for it to be saved. The referendum results today are being covered in almost every national media outlet. The whole country is trying to tell us that "the Dome meant more than that"; why are we refusing to listen?

 

As to Italy, they make nice money off of tourism for their historic monuments, although I believe if you ask them, they probably see a value in those monuments that can't be boiled down to how much money they take in. They have a word for this mindset - barbarismo.

 

My earlier point wasn't that it oughtn't be saved, but the appropriate form in which to save it.  I simply don't think that the "New Dome Experience" was the right answer.  To take the Roman example, would it be better if the Coliseum had been preserved by repurposing it into a new soccer pitch or ice rink?  Sometimes preserved ruins are more appropriate and evocative of what the original structure meant.  

[H-Town Man]

My earlier point wasn't that it oughtn't be saved, but the appropriate form in which to save it.  I simply don't think that the "New Dome Experience" was the right answer.  To take the Roman example, would it be better if the Coliseum had been preserved by repurposing it into a new soccer pitch or ice rink?  Sometimes preserved ruins are more appropriate and evocative of what the original structure meant.  

 

A lot of our great historic structures had to go through phases when they had less than ideal uses. The Coliseum was actually preserved by turning it into a church in the early 600's.  This adaptation of the Dome as essentially a giant public room would have bought time until we thought of something ideal to put into that room.

[H-Town Man]

Then come up with a plan that isn't asking everyone else to pay for it.  If it's so important to all these people, money would be pouring in from preservationists.  But it clearly isn't. 

 

Preservation money never pours in, it trickles, no matter what the landmark. The developer who wanted to tear apart Grand Central Station in the 1970's for a skyscraper told the preservation movement "If you don't want me to do this, pay me what I'm going to lose by not doing it!" Of course they couldn't, so they went through govt. channels and got the city to block his plans, with the help of the Supreme Court. This was 12 years after another stupid developer tore down Pennsylvania Station, so the public was mobilized by this time.

 

This referendum was predicated on the theory that there was enough civic pride in Harris County for our county's single most important landmark that we could all stand to pay $8 a year on average to save it. Put into terms that your typical Harris County resident would understand, that's one less fast food meal a year. It's one less impulse buy in the grocery store checkout line. It's two less drinks at Starbucks. It's less than half a car wash for the truck...

[arche_757]

Sadly - amongst all this talk of this stadiums re-use is the very large elephant (also very silent) just up the road who some how has gotten zero mentions from county leaders...  The Texas Medical Center could easily re-purpose this facility...  yes it would cost a lot of money, but the gain in intellectual talent something that large could bring to Houston would far outweight the initial costs.

 

Sad.  Jesse H Jones must be rolling in his grave to see the lack of foresight we have in today's Houstonians.  I mean $200 million sounds like a lot, but that much money is being spent currently on future growth projects around the TMC.

 

Would have made a great Bio/Nano-Medical reseach facility replete with open courtyard space for the staff to utilize on breaks.  Oh well.

[brian0123]

I just emailed Ed Emmett asking him to consider the wireframe idea again. If they are going to pay to tear it down and raise the floor for parking, why not just leave the steel structure behind in the process? They could let people park in it, or rent it out and rope it off if someone wants to host an event under the wireframe. Eventually they could even light it up at night with cool displays. Both sides get their way. More parking, possibly another asset for Reliant Park to rent out that no one else around the world has, and the memory of the dome is saved.

[Subdude]

Sadly - amongst all this talk of this stadiums re-use is the very large elephant (also very silent) just up the road who some how has gotten zero mentions from county leaders...  The Texas Medical Center could easily re-purpose this facility...  yes it would cost a lot of money, but the gain in intellectual talent something that large could bring to Houston would far outweight the initial costs.

 

Sad.  Jesse H Jones must be rolling in his grave to see the lack of foresight we have in today's Houstonians.  I mean $200 million sounds like a lot, but that much money is being spent currently on future growth projects around the TMC.

 

Would have made a great Bio/Nano-Medical reseach facility replete with open courtyard space for the staff to utilize on breaks.  Oh well.

 

I don't think the TMC goes in for  re-purposing.  Both the Prudential Building and the Shamrock would have been far easier to re-purpose than the Astrodome, but the Med Center still went ahead and demolished both (and the Shamrock was as much a symbol of Houston as the Astrodome).  

[arche_757]

That was different.  The Shamrock was a mistake, and the Prudential (while a nice old building) lacked the floor to floor heights that the TMC desires.  The Astrodome has little in the way of turning it into a large scale research facility (think Apples Cuppertino Campus design) yet covered.  It is still possible to do that.  I think the TMC doesn't want to pay the money needed to buy the dome first - or perhaps they just don't want it?

 

It would be a monumental undertaking, but with the right incentives and help from the city/county it is very much possible.

 

I mean - I'm still waiting for the Texas Biomedical Center proposed many, many years ago by TMC and others that was supposed to pop-up just south of the TMC.  Still hasn't happened.  Houston is losing that race with Boston, Seattle, Chicago, San Diego and probably DC.  Oh well.  I guess we sort of kind of tried to maybe do something?  Sorta.

[Nate99]

We can't pretend that the Dome meant more than that? The NY Times a few months ago called it "the most important, distinctive and influential stadium ever built in the United States." It tripled the world record for longest unsupported roof span. The LA Times yesterday called for it to be saved. The referendum results today are being covered in almost every national media outlet. The whole country is trying to tell us that "the Dome meant more than that"; why are we refusing to listen?

 

As to Italy, they make nice money off of tourism for their historic monuments, although I believe if you ask them, they probably see a value in those monuments that can't be boiled down to how much money they take in. They have a word for this mindset - barbarismo.

 

The whole country, and the NYT in particular, has a particular habit of vociferously supporting what they believe to be important so long as it is on someone else’s dime and they can avoid discussion of the opportunity costs.  If preservationists without money can not sell their ideas through the political process, then their ideas are out of luck. I wouldn’t begin to try and justify anything that would have occurred to get any large scale NYC project done or undone, nor would I want to follow their model, regardless of the outcome that was achieved. 

 

I’m not completely unsympathetic to the value of historical structures, but do you want to spend a half billion dollars on something that looks neat and makes you think of interesting times, or do you want to build a hospital, road, or other infrastructure project? I’d rather have civic pride in a thriving city than a cash hole of a trophy that can’t be accessed because Greenbriar and Fannin flooded again.  The previous largest unsupported span set a record too, and the one before that, and the one before that.

 

Archive pictures, stories, plans and ideas. That makes history. Give the government a perpetual license to spend money to preserve something with emotional appeals, and you’re just asking for the next Lee Brown to grease his brother’s bank account with it.

 

My Italian analogy came from a thought of what options they had from the time their ruins first started to decay, Visigoths notwithstanding. They had other things to tend to, and still do, but as you point out, theirs probably turn a profit, as ruins, not as restored structures kept in something similar to the same scope as their original intent.

 

The skeleton frame park always sounded like the best idea to me, must be politically unworkable.

[arche_757]

The previous largest unsupported span set a record too, and the one before that, and the one before that.

 

And those buildings are still standing... And considered world wide architectural marvels.  Perhaps they were not as grand as the buildings that came after them (in the minds of the generations that lived while they were still young buildings) but we flock to them today and marvel at their ingenuity - even if it is rudimentary by today's standards.

[Nate99]

And those buildings are still standing... And considered world wide architectural marvels.  Perhaps they were not as grand as the buildings that came after them (in the minds of the generations that lived while they were still young buildings) but we flock to them today and marvel at their ingenuity - even if it is rudimentary by today's standards.

 

Perhaps, but (I'm going off wikipedia here, I could be wrong on the specifics) the Dome beat some hall in Belgrade that was built in 1957 by 86m (27%), so it beat a mark that stood for 8 years, only 10 years later, the Superdome went another 12 meters, and by 1992 the Dome's span was beaten by 147 meters or 152%.  I think the marvel has gone out of the absolute accomplishment, but you are certainly justified if to believe otherwise.  I doubt anyone has or ever will flock to Georgia Dome, or Bojangles Coliseum.

 

It was a notable engineering and interesting achievement, but one that was not that much greater than what had been done previously, nor did it stand for very long.  All these things just take money, it was not some rare confluence of genius that made it happen, just political power to get people to pay for it.  Therein lies the rub, who can convince whom to pay for it.

[Pumapayam]

As to Italy, they make nice money off of tourism for their historic monuments, although I believe if you ask them, they probably see a value in those monuments that can't be boiled down to how much money they take in. They have a word for this mindset - barbarismo.

The dome is surrounded by an ugly sea of parking spaces, and fenced in. If you want tourist to visit it on that aspect, more would need to be done to give it appeal. Touristy spots are usually walkable.

[arche_757]

Ah, I'm not talking about sporting structures... I ws talking about far more important domed buildings.  Never mind.

 

You guys go ahead and tear down whatever floats your boat - its the Houston way.  Sad really.

 

Funny though, the Dome is a sort of ageless shape and form.  Reliant will look bad in 20 more years - to me it already looks rather ungainly and mashed together.  It is if anything far from being a beauty.  It is certainly lacking in historical importance.

[Pumapayam]

You guys go ahead and tear down whatever floats your boat - its the Houston way.  Sad really.

We shall, and hopefully replace it with a nice 8 story parking garage.

[H-Town Man]

Perhaps, but (I'm going off wikipedia here, I could be wrong on the specifics) the Dome beat some hall in Belgrade that was built in 1957 by 86m (27%), so it beat a mark that stood for 8 years, only 10 years later, the Superdome went another 12 meters, and by 1992 the Dome's span was beaten by 147 meters or 152%.  I think the marvel has gone out of the absolute accomplishment, but you are certainly justified if to believe otherwise.  I doubt anyone has or ever will flock to Georgia Dome, or Bojangles Coliseum.

 

It was a notable engineering and interesting achievement, but one that was not that much greater than what had been done previously, nor did it stand for very long.  All these things just take money, it was not some rare confluence of genius that made it happen, just political power to get people to pay for it.  Therein lies the rub, who can convince whom to pay for it.

 

Something wrong with the math here. The dome in Belgrade - still Europe's largest - spans 109m; the Astrodome spans 195.5m. That is an increase of 79%.

 

As to the domes that beat the Astrodome, like the Superdome, the dome on them is cloth and opaque. Ours is a steel structure with thousands of skylights. It is a magnificent structure compared to those.

 

I challenge you to post here a photograph of another dome with a roof that can beat this one:

 

 

As the LA Times architecture critic wrote yesterday, "[A]ll I had to do to understand the full appeal of the architecture was look up toward the center of the massive steel-framed roof, more than 200 feet above my head. Light filtered through its hundreds of panels fell serenely on the rest of the vast interior. Seen from that vantage point, the building has lost none of its tremendous aesthetic power."

[Nate99]

Something wrong with the math here. The dome in Belgrade - still Europe's largest - spans 109m; the Astrodome spans 195.5m. That is an increase of 79%.

 

As to the domes that beat the Astrodome, like the Superdome, the dome on them is cloth and opaque. Ours is a steel structure with thousands of skylights. It is a magnificent structure compared to those.

 

I challenge you to post here a photograph of another dome with a roof that can beat this one:

 

 

As the LA Times architecture critic wrote yesterday, "[A]ll I had to do to understand the full appeal of the architecture was look up toward the center of the massive steel-framed roof, more than 200 feet above my head. Light filtered through its hundreds of panels fell serenely on the rest of the vast interior. Seen from that vantage point, the building has lost none of its tremendous aesthetic power."

 

I totally botched the math on the Belgrade comparison, you're right there. It was a significant, though short lived leap.  We'll call it a draw between my 27% and your 200%.

 

Aesthetically, everyone will feel the way they feel and none of us will be more right or wrong.

 

I'm definitely more sports fan than architecture critc, so in the design, I see a well executed and novel (at the time) solution to our climate that was compromised by having to accomodate football and baseball.  Apart from the functionality afforded by the roof (and pretty design, if you are so moved) it is very similar to Riverfront Stadium, Three Rivers Stadium, old Busch Stadium, Shea Stadium, Fulton County Stadium and other contemporaries that are all gone now.  Compared to earlier and later stadiums, these all strike me as very sterile and plain.  MMP and Reliant came across as unquestionable upgrades in my mind.

 

It will be interesting to see what becomes of the Superdome an if it continues to be renovated and not replaced. That is the only analog I can think of that has not already been torn down or similarly abandoned.