Comments on: County Judge Foresees New Use for Astrodome: Giant Enclosed Space, Shielded from Weather

By: Collier

Collier — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 22:04:31 +0000

I had thought there was a company looking into making it a film studio.

By: Angeli Wahlstedt

Angeli Wahlstedt — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:35:58 +0000

For God’s sake, just keep the Astrodome — I consider it to be one of Houston’s landmarks. Unfortunately, Houston doesn’t have too many distinctive landmarks (such as St. Louis’s arch or New York City’s Empire and Chrysler skyscrapers). Just find a good use for it.

By: Jimbo

Jimbo — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:51:41 +0000

To reference this to another thread from a few days ago if you don’t consider the Astrodome to be historic then the Freeland Historic District certainly isn’t. The Astrodome is architecturally significant at an international level and as you said yourself a few days ago Emme, “I don’t think historic designation requires beauty, if that were the case, many many of the world’s historic places would be flattened today”. We need to be sure that when applying the term historic we are truly discussing the building or neighborhood’s value as a piece of history rather than just it’s age. Of course that doesn’t help solve the problem of what to do with the place.

By: Howard Hughes

Howard Hughes — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 02:09:13 +0000

Keep the Dome. Joel Osteen is gonna need it when Lakewood outgrows the Compaq Center.

By: markd

markd — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 00:18:20 +0000

It would make a good FEMA camp.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:37:00 +0000

“But it has become dated and is no longer desirable.”

I have become dated and am no longer desireable. Your point, again, is?

By: kjb434

kjb434 — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:36:59 +0000

Marmer,

The outdated comment was referencing most pro leagues needed a certain number of luxury boxes and higher end seating along with the updated media capabilities. The Superdome went through several massive renovations to add what the pro leagues wanted and is one reason the Saints haven’t left NO yet. The Astrodome has some limitations on the renovations that it could receive. If you look at old domes in the US, the Superdome and Astrodome are the last ones standing with their age. And the Superdome is still in use. The Kingdome (built between Astrodome and Superdome) has been demolished. Texas Stadium (almost a dome) is going to meet it’s maker soon unless it gets another use. I have to check on Metrodome, Silverdome, and Hoosier Dome ages, but I think they are much younger.

Ballparks have been shrinking and are becoming more intimate venues (if you call 40k people intimate). The Astrodome is pretty much like the aging Dodger Stadium in LA in layout.

I agree the Astrodome was a great venue for baseball because of the low ticket price. With that many seats, the price can be low for a lot of them.

By: marmer

marmer — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:24:45 +0000

Oh, please. The first indoor professional baseball stadium? The Eighth Wonder of the World? The reason Astroturf was invented? The largest symbol of Houston’s space-age, can-do enthusiasm of the 60s? No, it’s not historic! Tear it down!

And from the everyday fan’s point of view, it was not outdated as a MLB venue, at least. Cheap, easy, safe, close parking. Reasonable ticket prices. Decent sight lines. Comfortable, padded seats. Good climate control. Way more pitcher friendly. Count me among the Astros fans who don’t consider the move downtown to be an upgrade.

By: kjb434

kjb434 — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:18:10 +0000

Does that mean if I think the Wilshire Village and River Oaks Theatre are ugly would be a valid reason to tear it down? LOL

By: EMME

EMME — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:02:50 +0000

I like the botanical and hydroponic gardens ideas.

I think maybe it isn’t on my list of historical buildings because a. it’s a sports stadium, it’s a commercial building, and c. IMO it is ugly.

However, I support those of you who think otherwise to fight for it if you wanna.

By: Jeromy Murphy

Jeromy Murphy — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:55:46 +0000

Interesting concept. It could become like the Colliseum in Rome, a giant ruin in the midst of a city. At some point it will be worth re-using or demolishing….no need to be in a great hurry.

By: TheNiche

TheNiche — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:48:50 +0000

There was a Chronicle article a while back that estimated the cost of demolition at $30 million, as compared to something like $600,000 per year just to keep it in mothballs. I ran it through an NPV analysis, and it actually was not cost effective to tear it down. It’s better fiscal policy to keep it, even if we never use it for any purpose ever again.
.
I’m not much of a sentimentalist, but this is the kind of historical preservation I can get behind. Anything to save a buck.