[Guiltyspark]

Originally Posted by esquire

Part of my fascination with these types of structures is the fact that even if they were ugly or boring, they were, with limited exceptions, 100% functional and useful, and perfectly capable of hosting the events for which they were designed. The Silverdome, for example, would still be completely capable of hosting a NFL team today.

Let's face it, the Orlando Arena and the Silverdome weren't replaced because they didn't meet the needs of the fans. As a fan, you buy a ticket, show up and watch sports... the venue is merely a backdrop to what is taking place on the field, the court or the ice. Even if a place like the Metrodome is a little boring, it's hard to make sense of demolishing a $100 million dollar facility to replace it with a $1 billion dollar facility on that basis alone.

These venues were replaced, in most cases, at significant public expense, because they simply didn't meet the business needs of the owners. How else do you explain shutting down a 13-year old sports venue like the Pyramid in Memphis?

But you don't just buy a ticket, show up and watch sports... Stadiums can take on an almost cathedral like importance (I am looking at you Big House). They are part of the identity of a team and a city. Since the stadiums of the 70s had no character, they really could not fulfill that role. The newer stadiums all have unique features and beauty is actually being considered an important part of the equation when they are built now. I think the stadiums that were built in the 90s, 00s and 10s will last at least 50 years. Time will tell though.