They already have bids from demolition groups who say it absolutely can be done. I'm not advocating for that position, necessarily, but it can be done. And yes, those demolition groups would have to be bonded to the hilt.
Candlestick's not gone...yet. The Niners will play the 2013 season there and then move to Santa Clara in 2014. The Stick gets imploded soon after.
The Texans, the Rodeo and Reliant all have to sign off on any idea. They will NOT sign off on any idea that puts people into that area to congest it on Sundays, any day Reliant leases the Stadium or the arena or any day the Rodeo is using. So, let's spend millions to convert it to a convention center with the following restrictions: You can't hold any conventions on Sundays at all You can't plan any conventions for Thursdays or Mondays in the NFL season until after the NFL schedule for that year has been released You can't hold any conventions during the month of rodeo You cannot plan any conventions far in enough in advance that could potentially conflict with a Reliant booked event that is not yet announced On top of that, is there some need in Houston that I don't know about to have a mega convention center that is not being met? You are talking about significant monies being dumped into it in order to convert it to a convention center. What is the demand level?
To me, it seems like the gauge on the spectrum of REUSE to DEMOLITION is like this: 1 can't demolish it, but some bids (as MadMax states above) say they can do it. 2 can't reuse it, but there are restrictions on when it will and can be used, as justtxyank says Before Katrina: REUSE------------------|-|NOTHING|--------------------DEMOLISH During Katrina: REUSE--|-----------------|NOTHING|--------------------DEMOLISH Right now: REUSE--------------------|NOTHING|---|----------------DEMOLISH Bye bye, Astrodome. I wish I knew how to quit you.
It's still up now, so when was the last time you went out to the dome specifically just to look at it's deteriorating exterior and reminisce about the good old days or admire it's historical architectural significance? Most people will only incidentally see it when they are going to that area for some other purpose, and I suspect most wouldn't miss it if it was gone. Obviously investors don't agree about flexibility of use, or someone would have done something by now. If someone with the money comes up with an idea that they are willing to invest in to save the dome, then by all means go ahead. If no one with the money to actually follow thru on their idea is willing to invest then keeping the building up because it was once historically relevant, when there isn't any tourist interest doesn't make a lot of sense.
Exactly. Wanting to keep it around for sentimental reasons is a bit like wanting to keep your dead relatives around instead of burying them. Spoiler
Don't know if trying to be funny or... well, I'll just entertain your analogy: 1. The Astrodome won't stink like decaying or bacteria-laden cells would. 2. The Astrodome is a structure that can be reused or renovated, unlike Aunt Edna. 3. DEATH is a part of LIFE (the end, mind you), but RENOVATION is also a choice for buildings that don't fall on their own or have structural damage. Humans DIE, buildings can be restored or left alone. METAL, CEMENT, PLASTIC will rot or decay, but in MANY years, unlike living organisms that can deteriorate in a few days or even hours. Stonehenge? Mayan ruins? Yeah, those aren't dead or demolished, are they? I got more, im_an_analogy_dude.
Actually, burying them IS sentimental. In my culture, we cremate the bodies on a pyre and scatter the ashes. The Astrodome has a special place in most of our hearts, but watching it decay and fall apart is even harder. If there is a feasible solution to keeping the shell, and turning it into a productive structure again, then I'm all for it. However, if not, letting it rot from the inside out is the worst possible situation. Demolish it, build a monument in its honor, and put the land to better use.
1. The astrodome stinks bad. 2. Mummies 3. King Tut was renovated and goes on tours around the world.
How many walk by the Astrodome going to the Texans game or other events and stop to take pictures of the Dome? I don't think people even care to see it off the highway driving by. When is time to bring up the idea of tearing it down, some would say NO! is historic and this and that ... but in reality, is been sitting there and nobody really gives a damn about it anymore. If you skeleton it out and make something of it ... would people even go there if is not during football season? I can't envision people parking at Reliant to make a visit.
Posted this in the other thread, but I guess it goes here now. I like the idea of leaving the superstructure and removing everything else -- they did something similar in Austin with the Palmer EC. Spoiler
The grad students idea is a good start, but just needs something more to it NOW THIS WOULD BE AWESOME!!!! :grin:
Excellent example of what Dubious was suggesting, KC. As for those asking, "When was the last time you went by to look at it?" Hey, I watched the Colt 45's play right next to it, fighting the bugs the whole time, sweating like crazy, and cheering the team. I saw the damn thing grow from a hole in the ground to "The 8th Wonder of the World," so yeah, it means something to me. Most of you are too young to remember just what a huge deal the Dome was, and what an enormous influence it had architecturally. Something similar to what they did with Palmer in Austin, but on an immense scale, would be really cool, in my humble opinion. Great idea! About time the city had more public works of art, and that's exactly what it would be, done the right way.
The article failed to mention that John Stagliano filmed Buttman's Big t## Adventure #3 at the dome featuring local strippers. :grin:
