quote:

---

Sell pieces of the old structure to help finance the new one. Maybe use a few blocks of the old strucutre as decorative parts of the new one. For example, slices of the original concrete could be cut and polished and use as decorative tiles in new construction.

---

Kyle is just one big giant ball of duct tape that has been severely neglected for years.

I'm glad some Aggies on here agree with me on the demolition of Guion Hall. It anchored military walk and was torn down in the early 1970s (well before my time...I am Class of '87)

I couldn't find a photo of the arches and tunnels on the old north endzone horseshoe, but it was the tunnels and arches on the north side that were iconic. If there was a post card of Kyle Field from the 1920s-1950s the north entrance is probably what would be featured. The photo below shows the arches all around Kyle Field when it was only one level.

All of us love Kyle Field because of the history there. With the north side arches and tunnels gone I'm not sure there is much left architecturally that is iconic to save. Maybe when they rebuild Kyle Field they can incorporate some of the elements of the already demolished arches, the tackle box layout, the incredible height, etc.

In my opinion there have always been some fundamental issues with Kyle Field. Obviously it was originally built with a track around it which is no longer in use (and is now covered with a black, rubber-like surface). This results in the stands being too far away from the field of play. In addition the stands were built very shallow (see second photo below) which takes the fans further away from the action than they could be if new stands were built steeper. Even the upper decks have very little overlap which results in the second and third level stands (east and west) that are too far away from the field.

New east, west and south side stands need to be built closer to the field and steeper to keep the fans close to the action and Kyle Field will even be louder than it is now!







[This message has been edited by Old Main (edited 10/28/2011 1:18p).]

quote:

---

We are still playing on the same field. THAT is what is important

---

The field has been replaced several times, including being artificial turf before. Hope this newfound truth doesn't cause anyone to huddle in a corner and cry like a girl. It's just a sporting arena and has many additions and renovations over the years. It is not the birthplace of Jesus Christ.

With a good plan in place, why not recreate some of the early features?

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.

I don't care how they do it, just as long as they make it both functional and attractive. Too many ugly buildings on campus already.

quote:

---

If there are specific architectural elements that we want to preserve, incorporate them into the new structure

---

+1

You ever noticed that (almost) every time A&M builds a new building, the campus gets uglier?

The people making decisions in the A&M administration are not competent judges of architecture, and apparently this has been the case since WWII.

quote:

---

You ever noticed that (almost) every time A&M builds a new building, the campus gets uglier?

The people making decisions in the A&M administration are not competent judges of architecture, and apparently this has been the case since WWII

---

They all look good for like 10 years while that architectural fad lasts. Then in 15-20 the fad changes and they look awful.

The only parts of the campus that look good are the classic buildings.

quote:

---

Old Main..
I agree 100% on saving historical buildings.
I was amazed to see the/your picture of Guion Hall being demolished. I was a freshman in 1970 fall semester and remember going into Guion just to look around. I remember sitting down in one of the theater chairs, it was pretty dark, no one else there, and I could just feel the history of that building and all that had transpired in her past. Was sorry she was leveled, but recall she didn't go easily. I think that was in early 1971 and don't recall what is in her place now?

---

"Beautiful" Rudder Tower is on the site where Guion Hall used to be. We needed a complex like Rudder in the 1970s, but the complex could have been built in addition to Guion Hall, not instead of Guion Hall. Unfortunately Texas A&M experienced so much growth from 1965 to 1985, some very poor decisions (as far as architecture) were made during this time period. Most of the ugly buildings on campus were built during this 30-year span. The 1970s was the worst part of this span as far as the architectural "contributions" to campus.

The columns of Guion Hall anchored military walk on the south side and the columns of Sbisa Dining Hall anchored military walk to the north. We are fortunate military walk was restored (despite the fact many of the historic buildings along military walk were demolished). The sunken circular plazas that were built along military walk in the 1970s were a horrible idea. I am proud that Texas A&M decided to restore military walk.

Photo of Sbisa anchoring the north end of Military Walk


Photo of Guion Hall anchoring the south end of Military Walk












[This message has been edited by Old Main (edited 10/28/2011 1:33p).]

quote:

---

We needed a complex like Rudder in the 1970s, but the complex could have been built in addition to Guion Hall, not instead of Guion Hall.

---

AGREED. The same arguments that were made then, saying "let it go, we need something state of the art," are being made now.

There is no reason to tear down the few historic parts of structures that are left.






[This message has been edited by pv (edited 10/28/2011 1:14p).]

Obviously I'm not an expert, but timeless, classic campus architecture like the Academic Building and the System Administration Building, etc. will ALWAYS look good. Fad of the year architecture (like the library, heldenfelds, and other 1970s campus landmarks) will only look good for 10 years as someone suggested earlier. Why can't we build classic style buildings that will look good for 100+ years instead of fad buildings that will only look good for 10 years?



[This message has been edited by Old Main (edited 10/28/2011 1:29p).]

There is not part of the existing Kyle Field structure as it exists in 2011 that makes me think "It would be a shame if they got rid of that"

I'm sure others feel differently about the structure as a whole, but for me...meh.

quote:

---

The 1970s was the worst part of this span as far as the architectural "contributions" to campus

---

The good ole' 70's. This is true on and off campus across the nation. Just a continuation of the 50's "bomb shelter" architectual style.

I like most of the post 2000 buildings on campus (at least the ones not designed for athletics anyway)

quote:

---

Why can't we build classic style buildings that will look good for 100+ years instead of fad buildings that will only look good for 10 years?

---

Agree 100% Old Main

We have gone modern as of late... I'm sure they'll find a way to incorporate glass into new Kyle facade.

view of the arches and tunnel:


[This message has been edited by Ancalagon06 (edited 10/28/2011 1:33p).]

I went to a game at Fenway this year and it was uncomfortable and smelly...

another pic of the arches:

When I think of kyle field....i think of the triple decker. That is what makes it awesome to me. I think that is special and unique

Here is a view of the classic arches. I believe you can still see some of the historic arches in the first deck, but I think what remains is "bricked-up" or hidden from view. Again, the horseshoe arches and tunnels on the north side were the most historic part of Kyle Field and they are already gone. Instead we get beige vinyl siding!



One good thing about campus architecture at Texas A&M is that at some point the eyesores that were built in the 1970s will need to be torn down. The elimination of these buildings will instantly improve the aesthetics of the campus.



[This message has been edited by Old Main (edited 10/28/2011 1:46p).]

safety is more important to me than tradition. it would be a tragedy for those stands to collapse just because we wanted to uphold tradition. It doesn't take an engineer to take a look around and realize that those stands are not the most structurally sound

I think probably the worst that could happen is the failure of some component, plumbing, crack, whatever during a season and we go into the next week with part of our stadium condemned and empty.

And that wouldn't be embarassing at all...

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.

---

Agree. Rebuild the 3 decks as is, just put huge ass bolts on decks 2 & 3 so that when a game is over, the stands can actually collapse onto one another for perfect storage.

Look at the picture of Military Walk. All of those building on the right side were beautiful, and they are all gone.

I loved the columns under the horseshoe. Someone on here posted that they were on the east and/or west side as well before the 3rd deck went up (before my time).

Whatever we do, I would like for Kyle Field to look like an old, classic college football stadium when it's done. I think incorporating the arches into the design would be awesome.


[This message has been edited by dabo man (edited 10/28/2011 1:57p).]

The 'historical' bits of architecture are already gone -- the north end zone was absolutely iconic and I still have fond child hood memories. However, that has all been dumped for The Zone monstrosity (though an admittedly rather nice monstrosity).

The concrete block stands aren't iconic or architecturally interesting. Unless you are just a fan of soviet-era bland same-ness of everything. The 12th Man are the fanatical fans and yell leaders and FTAB and the created atmosphere of it all.

Concrete is not atmosphere. Bleachers do not do the yells.

Rebuild it right. Make it pretty. As the phrase is so popular now, make it 100-year decision pretty.

My first football game at Kyle was in the old horseshoe. It was iconic. Hopefully they can incorporate arches in the new structure. But, the rest of that is gone. There are ugly ramps that lead to crappy restrooms and bad concession stands. There is nothing archetectually signifigant about Kyle anymore.

Unfortunately, a lot of the old buildings on campus were raized. It was a travesty and people still call A&M an ugly campus today because of all the new additions (70's). Its sad. And the Zone did nothing to help this as it took out the only iconic part of the stadium.

But, the rest of Kyle doesn't help with that fact. It can be rebuilt and done in an attractive way. Maybe all the new entrances can be arches. Bring back the old feel. But, as it is, it needs to be rebuilt. Ranger stadium is new but it was made to look classic. Same way with Camden yards. it can be done right. Unfortunately we tend to build building on the cheap, ala the Zone.

quote:

---

Obviously I'm not an expert, but timeless, classic campus architecture like the Academic Building and the System Administration Building, etc. will ALWAYS look good. Fad of the year architecture (like the library, heldenfelds, and other 1970s campus landmarks) will only look good for 10 years as someone suggested earlier. Why can't we build classic style buildings that will look good for 100+ years instead of fad buildings that will only look good for 10 years?

---

The problem is that the building methods that make those old buildings look authentic are not here anymore. We no longer lay large expanses of brick by hand several layers thick, we assemble it prefab and then place it around cinder-block sections. And even the brick itself looks different. Materials and labor were much cheaper 75 years ago allowing things to be heavier and more durable, although not resistant to wrecking balls or bulldozers.

Plus, most of today's architects couldn't design the classic stuff if they wanted to because they don't teach it in schools. The result is that whenever you design a building to look historic it usually just looks bad.

But the itch to build something new is always burning, and analysis of renovation costs or supposed structural dangers can be forged however you want, if the end goal in mind is to convince people to tear it town. That's how we've lost buildings like this one in Galveston (demolished 1963):



Or this one in New York (also demo'd 1963):



Of course Kyle Field is not really like either of those, but 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.

It's not just the 70's buildings that look bad. Most buildings built on campus since WWII look bad. The library addition (1990's?) is shockingly ugly.

We build some really nice parking garages, though.

Old Main is 100% correct. I had just reported in August and 10 days later they were tearing it down......we did manage to drag a bank of seat over to Folwer Hall and had them out front of the room.... In 4 years on campus that 10 day period was the ONLY time that they were not either tearing down or building something.

All this stuff is gone. GONE.

I wish we could bring it back, though.

I feel like there should be more of a classic feel around campus as well. I can't stand the fact that we've got a bunch of modernized 70's garbage on campus instead of a classic, flowing, thematic feel. Even the Spanish style genre at Tech impresses me. See also: Oklahoma State. We just slapped a bunch of concrete down in a hurry to expand. Nevertheless, it seems like Kyle is on track for a complete rebuild - which I support. I'd be in favor of just blowing it up and starting over on the east and west sides.

For those comparing it to Wrigley and Fenway - really?