unfortunately a large part of our campus was built in the "let's make everything look like the planet of the apes movie from 1968, all concrete and modern shit" instead of the beautiful classic structures that were either torn or burned down. The removal of Guion Hall was just wrong and those who took part in it should be ashamed (of course they're probably mostly dead)

Get back to more traditional architecture. Olsen Field will be in this vein, they should make Kyle as well.







[This message has been edited by annie88 (edited 10/28/2011 2:35p).]

Guion Hall is not where Rudder now is. It was across the street, on the same side of the E-W street that goes from the Corps dorms past the MSC as G. Rollie White.

Beautiful photos of Kyle Field, btw.

Koldus is the building you are describing.

After mulling it over for a few days, I think I've come around to supporting a fresh start. There's nothing that I look at at Kyle Field and think, "I would really miss that if it were gone."

I think the most important thing for a new venue would be to ensure that the 12th Man is a central part of the atmosphere.

Ancalagon06,

Those photos of Kyle Field on p.2 are awesome, but they are so large that it makes it necessary to scroll to read every post on p.2. If you have a chance maybe you can resize your photos on that page....otherwise incredible pics!

OldArmy71,

I thought Guion Hall was next to the MSC where Rudder Tower now stands. If it wasn't where Rudder Tower is why the hell did they tear it down? Obviously Guion Hall lined up with Military Walk, but you are saying that it was further back where the Koldus Building is now?

Another note about future Kyle Field. Whatever they come up with, it would be awesome if our leaders would leave off the stupid bevel T A&M logos. The logo on the 50 yard line is a bevel T. I for one am sick and tired of the bevel T. Let's just use the classic aTm on new Kyle Field...





[This message has been edited by Old Main (edited 10/28/2011 3:01p).]

Would we incorporate The Zone with the new construction?

That part of the stadium isn't in need of replacing as bad as the rest. Seems a shame to tear that down after having it built (relatively) recently.

I wish I could go back in time and walk around campus at different periods. I know that is cheesy as shit, but just looking at old pictures of campus peaks my interest. While the new buildings going in on campus aren't horrible, they don't do anything for it either. I wish main campus would have been left alone and they could have just screwed up west campus. I know that wasn't the thinking at the time, but damn some of buildings are horrible.

What is the worst looking building on campus? I think the biological sciences building west is fairly horrible.

Have they said anything about keeping the student section the same size? If they haven't expect it to be much smaller!

BSBW

quote:

---

Would we incorporate The Zone with the new construction?

That part of the stadium isn't in need of replacing as bad as the rest. Seems a shame to tear that down after having it built (relatively) recently.

---

They won't tear down The Zone. That structure would be incorporated with the new construction (hopefully without the beige vinyl siding).

If they tear anything down it will be the west side, the east side, and G. Rollie if they need room on that side.

As I stated earlier, the east and west sides are too far away from the field of play because of the track that circled the field when it was originally constructed. New construction would be closer to the field with steeper stands. This would make Kyle Field even louder since the fans would be closer to the action.



[This message has been edited by Old Main (edited 10/28/2011 3:07p).]

quote:

---

If there are specific architectural elements that we want to preserve, incorporate them into the new structure or put them in a campus museum.

Design the structure with elements from the old stadium. There is nothing hallowed about the old concrete stadium. The ground is hallowed and shouldn't be moved.

---

Isn't this what good architects do? Capture the essence of the place the structure is representing? Why couldn't the stadium surrounding Kyle Field be built to capture the sense of history and tradition that A&M holds so dear?

I'd miss the existing stands, but sometimes I get creeped out looking at the hodgepodge of construction that's taken place over the years.

Tear it down, play in Houston, rebuild. Let's make a new Tradition, it's called winning.

My oldest brother, Class of '77, largely designed The Zone and was the Superintendant of the construction project.

They did extensive engineering surveys of both sides of the stadium. In a nutshell they determined that the East and West stands are completely stable and in his words would last another 100 years.

Interestingly, using lasers they found that the press box had about 2.5 inches of lateral movement during the War Hymm...no wonder folks get sick up there.

It was hard for me to watch the arches getting torn down. But due to the structural requirements of the foundation of the Zone there was no way to avoid it. I have several large chunks of marroon painted concrete here at the house...makes me sad to look at them.

The only structural element remaining that is in any way iconic and needs to be incorporated any any future plan is the tackle-box design.

One problem with a "closer to the field" rebuild is that The Zone is basically 100 yards wide. The front of our 2nd level of stands will not be able to be any closer to the field than it already is without people in the zone upper level essentiall having views that look into the side of a new deck.


[This message has been edited by JJxvi (edited 10/28/2011 3:24p).]

What the administrations don't understand is that neoclassical and neovictorian architechture NEVER go out of style in an academic setting. NEVER.

Actually, looking at another picture, you could probably improve things quite a bit since the outside sections of the zones are angled in nicely

I still have a distant faint memory of the drum cadence echoing louding going through the tunnel under the arches....

I think the rebuild should be made to look as much like a former Wachovia bank branch building as possible.

Some thoughts about our campus...

Although Texas A&M has sort of been cursed architecturally by having so much construction between 1965 and 1985 (much of it in the 1970s), we are fortunate in so many ways. Just a few thoughts (in no particular order)...

- We have an 18-hole golf course and expansive polo fields as our front lawn

- Our campus has two major historic axis lines which cross and are still in use. Restored Military Walk is one axis line (from Rudder to Sbisa) and the other is the Old Main axis that lines up with the esplanaded drive in front of the Systems Administration building, goes through the center of the Academic Building and the Sul Ross statue and then continues underneath the center of the arch in the Albritton Bell Tower.

- We have a presidential library on campus

- We still have numerous historic buildings including the Academic Building, The Systems Administration Building, YMCA Building, Scoates Hall, Chemistry Building, etc.

- Our campus is not "landlocked" like a lot of campuses in larger downtown areas.

- The renovated MSC will be one of the nicest student unions in the entire country

- The old part of campus with the large oak trees is still an enjoyable, shaded walk

- We have enough dorms that make campus life fun. Some universities don't have many dorms on campus.

- Eventually the buildings from the 1970s will need to be torn down

- We have one of the largest campuses in the country. How many universities have an airport on campus?

- What else am I forgetting?





[This message has been edited by Old Main (edited 10/28/2011 3:37p).]

quote:

---

I would like to be able to point to my kids (when I have them) the old arches half-hidden beneath the first deck as we go up the ramps and give them that sense of eras past and the accumulation of time.

---

+1


This is exactly what I want as well. I'd like to see a new Kyle but we need to keep these 1927 sections for this very reason.

The arches on the east and west sides of the first deck (as seen in the old pictures) are very much still there. However, they have been marred over the years by subsequent "improvements". For example, many on the west side have been blocked in and turned into equipment closets.

I don't think this decision has to be either/or - either a state-of-the-art modern stadium or preservation. It can be both. Raze the second and third decks and replace them with world-class facilities. Save the first decks - rip out everything that has marred the arches over the years and highlight the "new and improved" historic part of the stadium within the structure of the new addition to the stadium. Win/win.

quote:

---

I don't think this decision has to be either/or - either a state-of-the-art modern stadium or preservation. It can be both. Raze the second and third decks and replace them with world-class facilities. Save the first decks - rip out everything that has marred the arches over the years and highlight the "new and improved" historic part of the stadium within the structure of the new addition to the stadium. Win/win.

---

EXACTLY

Question for rowdy and other structural engineers and construction personnel-why not use AAC for the primary building material and shorten the refurbishment process to months instead of years? Is there a serious reason AAC is not a preferred choice?

quote:

---

I don't think this decision has to be either/or - either a state-of-the-art modern stadium or preservation. It can be both. Raze the second and third decks and replace them with world-class facilities. Save the first decks - rip out everything that has marred the arches over the years and highlight the "new and improved" historic part of the stadium within the structure of the new addition to the stadium. Win/win.

---

Then there is still the problem of the first decks (east and west) being too far away from the field because of the space for what used to be the track. In addition, as stated earlier, the east and west stands were built extremely "shallow" which puts the fans further away from the action.

Photo shows how Kyle Field was originally constructed with a track around it


Photo shows how "shallow" the first deck was constructed. Steeper stands will get fans closer to the action and also elevate the noise even more.







[This message has been edited by Old Main (edited 10/28/2011 3:57p).]

I would also lower the field and extend the first decks closer to the action just as our friends in Austin did.

Lowering the field is a solution that saves the first decks (east and west) and gets the fans closer to the action, but the stands will still be at a very shallow angle.

You won't find many people who are bigger believers in historic preservation and adaptive reuse than I am. When I was in grad school at A&M I started an organization called Old Main Society (a Student Government Organization that only lasted 3 or 4 years). We tried to save Law and Puryear, Downs and DeWare (for adaptive reuse) and keep the university from removing the original 1912 cypress windows from the Academic Building. Basically we wanted students to have a voice in campus preservation.



There is a reference to Old Main Society in this artwork description...
http://silvery.com/Sully.htm

Having stated my background, I think the angle (not very steep) and position (too much extra space because of the track) of the east and west stands is a big enough reason to start over. In addition, the iconic north side horseshoe entrance with the arches and tunnels is already gone. I'm not sure there is much architecturally to save at this point.







[This message has been edited by Old Main (edited 10/28/2011 4:32p).]

Disagree completely with the OP.

The first decks are mistakes that have attributed to many of the subsequent tack-ons that have us where we are now... we should have razed the first deck and started over with a bigger horseshoe way back when instead of adding on a second deck above it. Then, when we needed it, we could have added a top deck around the horseshoe and had two decks with good sight-lines. Instead, we're paralyzed by the first deck we have.

Guys, have you been around to many stadiums? I'm serious. I'm thinking not, because if you had, you would realize that the biggest problem with Kyle is the terrible sight-lines on the first deck coupled with and extending into the back of the third deck being a mile away from the playing surface.

The first deck isn't steep enough. I've never been in a stadium with that shallow of an incline. Because of that, Kyle has this weird three-deck layout. That's not a "good" thing. The first row of the third deck is pretty far back from the playing field. The back of it feels like it's miles away. Again, if you've been to other stadiums this would be an obvious flaw you'd notice in ours. I'm not a supporter of the "one big bowl" like Michigan and the Rose Bowl, because the back seats are so far away: same problem as the tri-deck layout.

Having a larger first deck with a steep profile topped by a smaller second deck is the way to go. No way I support saving the first deck - it's shallowness is asinine. No engineer or architect of stadiums living today would design a football grandstand that way - for good reason.

We need to tear the east and west stands down to the ground.

Lowering the field will require moving the field of play to the south. You already cannot see the north end zone from seats in the zone.

[This message has been edited by JJxvi (edited 10/28/2011 4:06p).]

The arches on the student side have been eaten by the visiting team's locker rooms and the Read building. You can still see the arches on the alumni side, especially near the south entrance gate.

quote:

---

Lowering the field is a solution that saves the first decks (east and west) and gets the fans closer to the action, but the stands will still be at a very shallow angle.

---

Cannot be done. We looked into it, BUT, if the field was lowered the folks toward the rear of the third decks and the top of the Zone couldn't see portions of the field.