There’s a reason it’s a struggle to save buildings like the Astrodome. They were built less than 50 years ago, the usual cutoff for inclusion on the government’s National Register of Historic Places... it’s relatively young buildings like these, from the 1960s, ’70s, and even ’80s, that preservationists are fighting to save. And in doing so, they are having to confront a tough question: What does tomorrow’s historic architecture look like? — bostonglobe.com
8 Comments
I tend to like round, or roundish, buildings. The Astrodome is a welcomed sight on the Houston skyline, though it's not really downtown. Losing the Astrodome would sadden me. If this is an issue, why was the longevity of Seattle's Kingdome not challenged? I think the 2 stadiums that now sit in approximately the same area look like shit and have no personality. Moreover, there was a rental car tax line item having to do with "stadiums" when renting a car in the Seattle area, if I recall. Absurd. How does a visitor seeing the sights and not taking in a game benefit from their stadiums? Born in 1976, I believe, the Kingdome was imploded on March 26, 2000 ... in a matter of seconds. It created a veritable Dust Bowl.
Here's a relevant article on the absurdity of stadium welfare, and hints as why a stadium like the Kingdome becomes obsolete so quickly:
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/40595178/
With regards to the Astrodome, its a peculiar situation as to what was being nominated (I'm not sure if it was entire building, facade, interior, etc) and how it relates to what could have been saved. I know the design competition for the re-use proposed a lot of interesting ideas for generating revenue (probably the only thing that would pique the interests of the Reliant Stadium ownership) and creating some great public spaces that could be used on Sundays. However, the argument against is that it would be just as easy (and perhaps more profitable) to tear the thing down, and build a spec Wal-Mart, TGI Fridays, Buffalo Wild Wings where everyone is happy.
^ Good article. I like the sarcastic tone, too. And his mention of the rental car tax in KC to pay for the Sprint Center, which is very nice, but still ...
As for the Kingdome, I heard that it was not conducive to use for both baseball and football, and that it didn't do BOTH extraordinarily well. I have never seen the Seahawks play there. However, I once saw a Mariner's game, and it was great. I enjoyed the event and I enjoyed studying the inside of the Kingdome. I detest Safeco Field. Ghastly.
It really is indicative of just how bankrupt american culture is. Sports are their most cherished thing yet they destroy their holy temple every year. bunch o shitheads.
Interesting question in the article...
Today, the demolition of New York’s original Pennsylvania Station, a Beaux-Arts masterpiece built in 1910, is almost universally considered foolish. The 50th anniversary of its razing was marked this year by widespread lamentation: Essentially, how could we not have known better?
Perhaps the better question is whether we’re making the same mistakes now.
Perhaps not. How could we not have known better? In other words, buildings go in and out of style, but for centuries, building sites where notably upgraded, so the loss of the old and familiar was mitigated by the belief that the new would be something better. When you look at what NYC. got in "exchange" for loosing the original Penn Station, it puts the whole notion of progress into question.
If we can’t save it all, the question is how we know what will be beautiful in the future?
Here I think the author is making a common mistake of conflating beauty with fashion. There are many works of art we find beautiful but are not in style, like admiring cities of the past. To say some building may not be in vogue 20 years from now is very different than saying, it is now not beautiful. If you are designing to shock and awe, don't expect people to find your work beautiful when the shock fades. And unless you believe in a disposable society, everything will age. If sustainability matters, why not design buildings to also be beautiful? Wouldn't we be more likely save buildings that we held in affection? Fashion in the built world is overrated, beauty in the built world is underrated.
One of the things that I find somewhat bothersome is just how much energy & work it takes to destroy a structure like a stadium. I'm not familiar with Houston but it doesn't sound like there is an especially pressing need to redevelop the site.
Until there is a reason for demolition, i'd just strip it down to the structure and leave it up as a sort of modern day roman colisseum. Maybe someday someone will have a good idea for it's redevelopment or at least it could continue to serve as a landmark and likely minor tourist attraction.
Something I don't understand: why don't they maintain those currently 'controversial' yet significant buildings and address the points inherent to them that are loathed by many (after some sort of community referendum on the building)
Sort of playfully 'edit' the building but with the possibility of being able to go back to the original intact structure when needed. Why drive oneself to one of two extreme conclusions? Either extreme reverence or extreme dogmatic opposition?
Now I recall the santa caterina project by miralles & tagliabue
nice quote in that sant caterina project:
As the architects explain in their brief, “The first mistake is to talk about old and new. Whatever has managed to survive into the present is current, useful, and contemporary. And it permits us to move back in time in order to continue forward.”
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.