Is the Astrodome staying

[redlegsfan21]

I was watching the Reds-Astros game on FSN Ohio when I heard about possiblities that the Astrodome would be destroyed. Is this true?

[64Cards]

Boy, I'd hope so. It brought to bb and football domes and artificial turf. What an awful legacy!

[Knick9]

I'd want it to stay up, really. Not real sure what to use it for though if it stays up. Perhaps make it into a museum? Or get another sporting team to play there?

Well, who knows but it should stay up regardless, but I have a bad feeling it'll go down. And as for the artifictial turf, that was a bad idea. :ughh

[totalautoracing]

There is nothing to the rumor. Unfortunately, there aren't any plans for the Astrodome right now, but some of the ideas that have been tossed around are a convention center/hotel or a casino if Texas passes the legislation allowing for casino gambling in Texas.

[nolanryan5714]

Yeah, that is correct. It is incredible, but true.

The Astrodome is a huge piece of history...not Wrigley, not Yankee Stadium, but it does have enormous historical significance since it was the first of its kind in baseball.

I miss going there, but hey, Minute Maid is just amazing!

[64Cards]

To me, as an architectual wonder, the Astrodome ranks up there with with Wal-Mart stores and shopping centers from the 60's. It served its purpose. I don't know how in the hell you could or would want to put a casino in there. If they want to preserve some old stadiums keep Tiger, Wrigley and Fenway.

[barzilla]

Currently, they have no repaid all of the money that went to the "improvements" made in 1987 at the request of Bud Adams. :mad: So, they can't really tear it down until they pay for all of that. Beyond that I'm not really sure. One thing is for sure, they've allowed it to get run down. :(

[west coast orange and black]

...Not real sure what to use it for though if it stays up...
isn't it still used for the annual rodeo?
the two-week extravaganza used to pay for the operating costs of the place for an entire year.

[totalautoracing]

The Houston Livestock Show & Rodeo is now held at Reliant Stadium.

[barzilla]

The Houston Livestock Show & Rodeo is now held at Reliant Stadium.

That is correct. From what I understand, the only thing the Dome is used for us the occasional high school playoff game.

[skeletor]

Mantle hit the first ' monster ' home run there in 1965..

They originally had real grass in there, but due to the glaring
sun light, they painted the dome dark, and the grass died off
and was replaced by the first generation of that hokey astro turf.

Hard to believe it was once dubbed as the 8th wonder of the world,
by the Judge..now, there was a character..first with the colt 45's,
then the astros...

[Seattle1]

It brought to bb and football domes and artificial turf. What an awful legacy!

That is true. At least it came in handy in the wake of Hurricane Katrina though.

[ivylover]

isn't it still used for the annual rodeo?
the two-week extravaganza used to pay for the operating costs of the place for an entire year.

I thought it went to Reliant Stadium?

[redbuck]

To me, as an architectual wonder, the Astrodome ranks up there with with Wal-Mart stores and shopping centers from the 60's. It served its purpose. I don't know how in the hell you could or would want to put a casino in there. If they want to preserve some old stadiums keep Tiger, Wrigley and Fenway.

Tiger, Wrigley and Fenway are no more superior than the Astrodome. They're just older. In fact, they had a far less revolutionary effect on the game.

The Astrodome brought in astroturf, was one of the first with the cookie cutter circle shape, luxury boxes, large scoreboards, air conditioning and colorful seats. You may not like astroturf now, but have you ever stopped to consider why so many of the old parks like Crosley, Forbes, etc. were torn down in the 60s and 70s?

They came down, yes, because they were old, but also because they were seen as out of date, unable to compete in revenue and comfort with the big nice modern parks. Fans wanted something nice and new, clean. Fans after years of odd parks saw the symmetrical ones as revolutionary.

We'll see again not too far off the demise of the retro parks and the start of something entirely new. Ballparks follow the progression of "nice and new" to "old and needs to be replaced" to "really old and a treasure".

The astrodome is a treasure, as was old Busch Stadium, as were many of the parks being replaced by these supposedly inferior copycat retro parks whose consistency in similarity makes the cookie cutter age seem like a flash.

This is just my opinion based on several years of talking to architects, critics, historians, etc. specializing on this topic, but one day soon the brick exteriors and pseudo-historic look will be viewed the same way astroturf and the round shape of ballparks is looked at today.

I know I'm already sick of it.

Ballparks eventually need to be replaced. But some of the real treasures are lost for modern styles and fads. The Astrodome is a real treasure.

[Sean O]

But, the astrodome isn't a treasure. There is a time and a place for architectural elements such as line, texture and form, but it must be based on more than a contrarian point of view. Just because the retro fad was regrettable and the backlash is inevitable doesn't mean that the Astrodome must be preserved.

Yes, it was interesting when it was built, and it was historically significant, but it was far from beautiful. When you want to discuss clean symmetry as the antidote to the forced quirkiness of retro, Kauffman Stadium is the prototype of what parks can be. And if you need one that combines both history and beauty (though nowhere in the same universe as Kauffman on the beauty front), then you have Chavez Ravine.

I'm not advocating the destruction of the Astrodome, especially as we are entering a horrible period of hurricane activity in the gulf, but it doesn't have the architectural splendor required to keep it just on that front.

[Seattle1]

the forced quirkiness of retro

Since we are sort of on the subject of Texas stadiums, and at the risk of offending Texas baseball fans here, the Astros and Rangers stadiums seem to have the most contrived designs of all the new stadiums. The Rangers stadium seems to randomly borrow bits and pieces of other historic stadiums, like the overhanging upper deck of Tigers Stadium. And what's with the random slope in center field in Minute Maid Park? And why a train? Etc. To me they went out of their way to be quirky with those stadiums and they went too far imho.

[redbuck]

But, the astrodome isn't a treasure. There is a time and a place for architectural elements such as line, texture and form, but it must be based on more than a contrarian point of view. Just because the retro fad was regrettable and the backlash is inevitable doesn't mean that the Astrodome must be preserved.

Yes, it was interesting when it was built, and it was historically significant, but it was far from beautiful. When you want to discuss clean symmetry as the antidote to the forced quirkiness of retro, Kauffman Stadium is the prototype of what parks can be. And if you need one that combines both history and beauty (though nowhere in the same universe as Kauffman on the beauty front), then you have Chavez Ravine.

I'm not advocating the destruction of the Astrodome, especially as we are entering a horrible period of hurricane activity in the gulf, but it doesn't have the architectural splendor required to keep it just on that front.

Neither does Fenway Park.

[redbuck]

Since we are sort of on the subject of Texas stadiums, and at the risk of offending Texas baseball fans here, the Astros and Rangers stadiums seem to have the most contrived designs of all the new stadiums. The Rangers stadium seems to randomly borrow bits and pieces of other historic stadiums, like the overhanging upper deck of Tigers Stadium. And what's with the random slope in center field in Minute Maid Park? And why a train? Etc. To me they went out of their way to be quirky with those stadiums and they went too far imho.

The train makes sense because the ballpark is on land that used to be part of the Union Train Station (which still exists across the street). The slope is unnecessary.

"In the short run, those attempts do seem contrived. However, in the
long run, I think we're glad those attempts were made."
-Paul Munsey, ballparks.com

"Houston tried... it's not a bad park. It's still that contrived look
that doesn't seem to offer a real ballpark feel, but at least it doesn't
look like everything else. It's a step in the right direction. It's still
better than these apathetically sterile facilites that we see today."
-Eric Pastore, digitalballparks.com

One of the main problems with these gimmicks, and with the whole retro trend, is that all the ideas come from something that already existed. There's nothing really forward or revolutionary about them (obviously they are advances in many ways but I think you see my point). They try to recreate the past by adding features of historical parks.

The cookie cutters were original, even if they did become overused. They were unique at first as the retro idea was. But it's been so overused and no real advances other than in the areas of comfort, etc. have been made. There's no new type of design, no new shapes. No team is willing to try something really different. They're (almost) all three decks, brick exterior, natural grass, big scoreboard, bleacher section, made to look like they squeeze in an area even though almost all of them don't.

Baseball's past was great. I'm a huge historian. But what about its future? Are we just going to keep recreating the parks of the 19teens? Is that really the only era of baseball history worth remembering?

[Sean O]

Neither does Fenway Park.

Uh, what? You have to clarify this, because I don't see how it remotely relates to the argument I'm making. The classic parks are a completely different argument from what i'm making, and don't even remotely need to be factored into the equation as far as I can tell.

Fenway, the oldest park in the majors, has no relationship to the Astrodome whatsoever.

[Jeter576]

most of those are pretty bad

[Captain Cold Nose]

most of those are pretty bad
Most of what?

[redbuck]

Uh, what? You have to clarify this, because I don't see how it remotely relates to the argument I'm making. The classic parks are a completely different argument from what i'm making, and don't even remotely need to be factored into the equation as far as I can tell.

Fenway, the oldest park in the majors, has no relationship to the Astrodome whatsoever.

Fenway is loved because it is old. It was no more unique in its heyday than were many other parks. Same with Wrigley Field. Both had unique features, but they were typical quirky parks. We love them now because they are so old. Just because the Astrodome isn't as old doesn't make it not as good. In 50 years if the Astrodome still exists, it will be old and unique.

[Jeter576]

Most of what?

Most of the fields nscar posted up in the first place.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Most of the fields nscar posted up in the first place.
Meaning what? If all you're doing is trashing the teams, station and stadium in his post, then, let me tell you, you are very much on the wrong site. But since you really didn't say anything, it's very hard to figure out what you're trying to get across.

[Seattle1]

Baseball's past was great. I'm a huge historian. But what about its future? Are we just going to keep recreating the parks of the 19teens? Is that really the only era of baseball history worth remembering?

To me Safeco is one of the new parks that is unique & tastefully done. It has enough of a classic feel to it to give you sense of remembering baseball's past, but doesn't overdo it, it's not a Disney version of Wrigley or something like that. The architecture is appealing without being contrived. It's not a dome (puke), but it does have that giant rolling "umbrella." Very unique, very close to downtown, great views (Qwest Field, downtown skyscrapers, Mount Rainier, Olympic Mountains, etc.). Best park in the league! :D

[BasEbaLlKnoItAll]

Fenway is loved because it is old. It was no more unique in its heyday than were many other parks. Same with Wrigley Field. Both had unique features, but they were typical quirky parks. We love them now because they are so old. Just because the Astrodome isn't as old doesn't make it not as good. In 50 years if the Astrodome still exists, it will be old and unique.
Only difference is 50 years from now the Astrodome will have gone 57 years without a tennant. Nobody will care. The fact that Fenway and Wrigley have supported a Baseball team for so long adds to them being unique.

[Seattle1]

50 years from now the Astrodome will have gone 57 years without a tennant. Nobody will care.

And it will still be a dome (puke) with artificial turf (puke), lol. ;)