This story got me thinking: The Superdome, for some 20,000 people, if not more, will now directly be associated with a place of pain, fear and suffering. Media reports have made it likely that others will make the same association indirectly.
Before Katrina, there were already discussions of the Saints leaving New Orleans for (probably) San Antonio, where their owner lives. But now I’m thinking that, regardless of whether the Saints stay in New Orleans, the Superdome should be torn down as part of the recovery effort. From a practical standpoint, the dome is a relic, and not in a good way, of the era of ridiculously huge football stadiums that are actually poor places for watching the game. But more importantly, I think there’d just be too many negative associations with the place now.
Unlike the French Quarter, the Superdome is not exactly part of the city’s real character or the national fabric. In fact, it’s the antithesis of that: a monstrosity of a building with few defining characteristics beyond its size. If the Saints stay, why not give them a place to play that has more local flavor, a place that doubles as a monument to the city? In fact, it could also be the location for a definitive memorial to those who died and suffered in the Katrina disaster.
There obviously is the question of financing something like what I’ve described, but I think there’s an argument to be made that demolishing and replacing the Superdome is a legitimate part of a recovery effort, and therefore could be funded without increasing taxes on New Orleans residents. Perhaps it could even be funded privately. Does this sound like a good and/or plausible idea?
I can’t imagine the NFL hosting a Super Bowl inside the Superdome again. I’m not sure where the Sugar Bowl will be held, but I highly doubt it will be at the Superdome this year.
However, New Orleans is going to have so many more problems that I think talk of a new stadium should probably be delayed for at least a year or so. I believe we’re probably looking at the New Orleans Saints of San Antonio for at least the next couple of years.
The Superdome is one of the few buildings in the city that is not heavily damaged. The fabric on the roof needs to be repaired and the bathrooms are going to need a really good cleaning but it will be one of the first buildings back to its former glory.
I don’t think it is the brightest idea to suggest tearing down the biggest indoor stadium in the world just because some people don’t like the memories that they have from there this week. By that logic, we are going to need to tear down the Astrodome and other stadiums where they house people over the next few months.
I think inducing additional damage to New Orleans on purpose to build something “more in character” is not going to be really high on the rebuilding priority list.
Plus, it will continue a really good shelter when you don’t have any place to put thousands of people in a massive crisis. Duh!
Oh, I absolutely agree, but now that I’ve made my donation to the Red Cross, there’s not much else I can do from here aside from engage in idle chatter about the future of the city. The Superdome is obviously going to be a part of that, but I’m under no illusion that it’ll be the most important part.
Well, the Astrodome will have power, plumbing, unimpeded access to food and water, and will allow people to actually leave when they need to, even for school and jobs (aside: class act on this one, Texas; southern hospitality at its finest). It will probably seem downright luxurious compared to the Superdome.
But you do have a point on the shelter aspect. Perhaps instead of tearing it down, it should be the target of a massive renovation, one that would make it largely self-sufficient when used as a shelter. I guess that would have to include an independent power generation system, kitchen space, water storage and filtration (again, independent of the city’s water system).
It appears the Superdome is a publicly-owned stadium, so I wouldn’t see a decision to demolish as setting any sort of precedent for privately-owned venues.
True enough, but the same principle still applies.
Put it this way… if Manhattan had to be evacuated, wouldn’t it make it even a tiny bit harder for a mayor to choose Yankee Stadium as a refugee center if he knew that he might have to tear it down afterwards?
If you can’t absord horrific events into your history, then you’ve got a problem. If you need to rename, or rebuild, purely because of an identity crisis, then you should ask why you’re there at all.
zev_steinhardt hits on a nice point there - there’s (unfortunately) a number of British stadiums which have seen disasters (Bradford, Hillsborough, Ibrox)…but never was the solution to just abandon and set up elsewhere. If New Orleans has any self-respect the Superdome should become a subject of pride, not of shame.
Much more than just the bathrooms, from the reports I’ve read. There was no running water almost from the beginning, and the bathrooms very quickly became unusable, so people have been doing their business in a corner or wherever. They can’t clean it up by just turning on a fire hose, we’re talking an immense amount of human waste here, which you can’t just wash into the street.
Not that that justifies tearing it down, but restoring it to usability isn’t going to be all that simple.
Actually, if they do keep the Superdome and keep an NFL team in it, I think holding a Super Bowl there would be a great, great idea once the city is truly back on its feet. Similar reasoning was used by those who suggested the Super Bowl should be held in New York City. Of course, God forbid the game be played in a non-domed facility where it might actually sink below 70 degrees. :rolleyes:
I specifically chose these three, not only because they were the worst recent events by any measure, but because none had anything to do with riots or violence, but were simply a result of bad crowd control and tinderbox structures.
My point was that the Superdome hasn’t actually witnessed any disaster directly, it’s the chaotic aftermath that’s brought it to the headlines. For that alone to warrant wiping the place off the map as the OP suggests seems to me amazingly disproportionate. Clean the place up, find an appropriate way to acknowledge its role in the events of 2005, and carry on with life. I hope that the city itself manages to do the same.