Jump to content

Military Circle Redevelopment


vdogg

Recommended Posts


If no pro team’s involved, I could understand not building the arena immediately although I do want to see it happen at some point in the next few years. I went to the MEAC tourney at the Scope a few years ago and felt like a sardine. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BFG said:

If no pro team’s involved, I could understand not building the arena immediately although I do want to see it happen at some point in the next few years. I went to the MEAC tourney at the Scope a few years ago and felt like a sardine. 

They need to pull the bandaid off, abandon Scope, and build a new state of the art arena. I never understood why it's so "historical". I believe it's an eyesore, but perhaps I'm alone in that opinion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 7/8/2022 at 9:21 PM, vdogg said:

They need to pull the bandaid off, abandon Scope, and build a new state of the art arena. I never understood why it's so "historical". I believe it's an eyesore, but perhaps I'm alone in that opinion.

If you don't understand why it is historical and an important piece of architecture, you need to learn who Pier Luigi Nervi is and the importance his work was to architecture. Then you need to look up his work in the US to see he only did a few projects in this country and Norfolk is lucky to have one of them.

 

Also to add to this, the Scope can be expanded to be about a 15K seat arena as well and continue to be located in downtown rather than out at Military Circle.  This would be on the very small side for NBA and on the small side for NHL. As for getting a pro team of any kind, I am not sure about that since I don't know which leagues are even seriously looking to expand or if any teams are even looking to move.

Edited by urbanlife
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with vdogg. Scope is an eyesore. It's not a great arena at all. If they do expand, it's not really worth it to do so. Norfolk will NOT get an NHL or NBA franchise over other cities. You can fit a proper 18k arena on Scope's footprint. Just demolish it and rebuild there if you want to keep an arena in downtown.

  • Like 3
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scope is unremarkable. I am in the camp for keeping an arena downtown instead of putting one elsewhere. I would be in favor of Scope being razed and a new arena put in its place. Norfolk isn't getting a NHL or NBA team so a new arena should be appropriately sized seating-wise and focus on quality and amenities over seating capacity. 12,000 to 14,000 seats is probably plenty big.

I think the Military Circle redevelopment will be fine without an arena or amphitheater.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, carolinaboy said:

Scope is unremarkable. I am in the camp for keeping an arena downtown instead of putting one elsewhere. I would be in favor of Scope being razed and a new arena put in its place. Norfolk isn't getting a NHL or NBA team so a new arena should be appropriately sized seating-wise and focus on quality and amenities over seating capacity. 12,000 to 14,000 seats is probably plenty big.

I think the Military Circle redevelopment will be fine without an arena or amphitheater.

I do agree with your final paragraph. Cheers.

Trust me, we’re not going to tear down SCOPE to fulfill some boyhood fantasy of pro sports in downtown Norfolk. Yes, fantasy.  It will never happen. It’s a pipe dream. You’d be better off spending your free time contemplating the next moon landing.  

“Unremarkable.” You are entitled to your opinion; however, I’ve always believed that there some people out there whose repository of taste will, perennially, be limited to their mouth. 

I won’t bother to regale you with all of the intricacies of Nervi’s designs, nor of his pioneering legacy in the medium of concrete…. but suffice it to say that architectural historians and enthusiasts around the world would disagree with your position.  Recently, there was an exhibition at the Chrysler about Mr. Nervi and his seemingly magical creations in concrete. Did you catch it? 

So who does this dead Italian guy Nervi  think he is, anyway? I mean, certainly Nervi is not as well known globally as someone like, say, Buddy Gadams.  

Speaking of Bud, 75 years from now SCOPE will still be standing. Will Bud’s boxes still be with us? And more importantly, will anybody care if they are?

Well I would care…to make a bet with you that an opinion poll commissioned in the year 2097 re: the relative importance and architectural significance of Bud’s boxes versus Nervi’s long-span concrete dome with flying buttresses would result in a 100% to 0% blowout in favor of the genius from Sondrio, Italia. ;)

Edited by baobabs727
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, baobabs727 said:

I do agree with your final paragraph. Cheers.

Trust me, we’re not going to tear down SCOPE to fulfill some boyhood fantasy of pro sports in downtown Norfolk. Yes, fantasy.  It will never happen. It’s a pipe dream. You’d be better off spending your free time contemplating the next moon landing.  

“Unremarkable.” You are entitled to your opinion; however, I’ve always believed that there some people out there whose repository of taste will, perennially, be limited to their mouth. 

I won’t bother to regale you with all of the intricacies of Nervi’s designs, nor of his pioneering legacy in the medium of concrete…. but suffice it to say that architectural historians and enthusiasts around the world would disagree with your position.  Recently, there was an exhibition at the Chrysler about Mr. Nervi and his seemingly magical creations in concrete. Did you catch it? 

So who does this dead Italian guy Nervi  think he is, anyway? I mean, certainly Nervi is not as well known globally as someone like, say, Buddy Gadams.  

Speaking of Bud, 75 years from now SCOPE will still be standing. Will Bud’s boxes still be with us? And more importantly, will anybody care if they are?

Well I would care…to make a bet with you that an opinion poll commissioned in the year 2097 re: the relative importance and architectural significance of Bud’s boxes versus Nervi’s long-span concrete dome with flying buttresses would result in a 100% to 0% blowout in favor of the genius from Sondrio, Italia. ;)

Lighten up Francis.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, carolinaboy said:

Lighten up Francis.


I’ll gladly leave you to your non sequiturs and your disposable architecture, the latter of which is a byproduct of a throwaway culture promulgated by an under-educated, hyper-stimulated, self-absorbed demographic cohort which, almost preternaturally, seems to eschew tradition and classicism in all of its forms. 

2 hours ago, Qdeathstar said:

I’m not gonna get that excited about concrete engineering. The scope looks like an old 1960s fallout shelter. Drub and boring. 

And I’m “not gonna get that excited” by yet another EIFS-clad, multi-colored, multi-family residential box. 

Edited by baobabs727
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, baobabs727 said:


I’ll gladly leave you to your non sequiturs and your disposable architecture, the latter of which is a byproduct of a throwaway culture promulgated by an under-educated, hyper-stimulated, self-absorbed demographic cohort which, almost preternaturally, seems to eschew tradition and classicism in all of its forms. 

And I’m “not gonna get that excited” by yet another EIFS-clad, multi-colored, multi-family residential box. 

Well, we're all entitled to our opinions. Scope is unremarkable. Architecturally and culturally significant? Sure. Irreplaceable? No.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole conversation boils down to "art", and what is subjectively and/or objectively considered art now and at the time a structure was built. Tastes change, people change, and the architectural significance of a structure is very much in the eye of the beholder. My lamentations of Norfolk's past revitalization effort does not center around the demolition of historical buildings, though that is part of it. My issue, rather, lies in the fact that they bulldozed the entire district with NO PLAN to replace anything. There was no vision, nothing, they just tore it down and hoped that something would spring up in the future. Whole area looked like a Nuclear bomb hit. That is not the case with Scope. If it were to be torn down, there would be something waiting to replace it. Something bigger, bolder, and a net benefit to the city. History is important, but not all history can be saved. Even cities that have done an excellent job preserving their architectural history have to tear down a historical building from time to time. Space is limited, it happens. I don't think that Norfolk's past overzealousness in their revivalization efforts should handcuff us when needing to make difficult choices in the future regarding whether a structure stays or goes.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, vdogg said:

This whole conversation boils down to "art", and what is subjectively and/or objectively considered art now and at the time a structure was built. Tastes change, people change, and the architectural significance of a structure is very much in the eye of the beholder. My lamentations of Norfolk's past revitalization effort does not center around the demolition of historical buildings, though that is part of it. My issue, rather, lies in the fact that they bulldozed the entire district with NO PLAN to replace anything. There was no vision, nothing, they just tore it down and hoped that something would spring up in the future. Whole area looked like a Nuclear bomb hit. That is not the case with Scope. If it were to be torn down, there would be something waiting to replace it. Something bigger, bolder, and a net benefit to the city. History is important, but not all history can be saved. Even cities that have done an excellent job preserving their architectural history have to tear down in historical building from time to time. Space is limited, it happens. I don't think that Norfolk's past overzealousness in their revivalization efforts should handcuff us when needing to make difficult choices in the future regarding whether a structure stays or goes.

I'm a bit surprised you feel this way. So be it. Perhaps your own, as you say, "tastes" have also "changed" over the past nearly two decades of posting here, for I don't recall ever seeing you express such a sentiment relative to Scope.  You may have done so; I could be wrong. 

I have studied Nervi fairly extensively and grew up attending sporting events and concerts at Scope, including watching the famed Virginia Squires of the A.B.A. play there (though admittedly I was a wee lad), Men's ODU basketball and ECHL Hockey, pro wrestling, Sweet Pea Whitaker live on HBO (and boy did that ribbed concrete dome look great on live TV all lit up!), etc., among many others. I have always admired Scope's classical flying buttresses rendered in concrete, the interior view of the mandala ribbed dome, etc. The only criticism I have is with the massive and disconnected raised plinthe upon which Scope and Chrysler Hall rest...totally disconnected from the rest of downtown. 

Contrary to what carolinaboy asserts,  Scope is, indeed, irreplaceable. That much is clear.  It's unique to Norfolk in America. You know, there is much to be said for keeping something so rare and internationally recognized/acclaimed for future generations to behold. Who is to say that tastes won't "circle back" at some point, though I do not accept your implied premise that Scope is no longer admired or considered to be attractive or interesting by today's public.

5 hours ago, carolinaboy said:

Well, we're all entitled to our opinions. Scope is unremarkable. Architecturally and culturally significant? Sure. Irreplaceable? No.

While I realize that you were attempting to be dismissive without going into detail,  your choice of  the adjective, "unremarkable," is just plain erroneous. "Unremarkable" would accurately describe one of hundreds of stick-built, brick row houses, strip malls, suburban ranches, low-rise office buildings, etc., as "unremarkable" means "common."  Accordingly,  in no way, shape or form does "unremarkable" describe the world's largest, steel-reinforced thinset concrete dome... and the only example of such a Nervi project in America.  Both descriptors fall into the category of "1 of 1."  You would be better off using "ugly" or "dated" if that is your opinion. 

1 hour ago, carolinaboy said:

Was there an arena in Norfolk prior to Scope?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norfolk_Municipal_Auditorium

Edited by baobabs727
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, baobabs727 said:

I'm a bit surprised you feel this way. So be it. Perhaps your own, as you say, "tastes" have also "changed" over the past nearly two decades of posting here, for I don't recall ever seeing you express such a sentiment relative to Scope.  You may have done so; I could be wrong. 

I've always thought Scope was ugly. :lol: I just wasn't vocal about it because, as you see, it's a touchy issue and a lot of people adore Scope. To each their own. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, NFKjeff said:

Your level of excitement does not change the fact that Scope is recognized throughout the world of architecture as a notable structure. 

  Baobabs is correct in pointing out that many on this site are quick to denounce the use of the wrecking ball by Norfolk in years past. An old picture of downtown Norfolk cannot be posted without bringing comments about how sad it was that our past was simply torn down to make way for "revitalization." Many of the downtown structures which were destroyed in the past were very nice, and had their place in our history, but not one of them was as architecturally significant as Norfolk Scope. 

 

I’m sure they were. But the scope looks dilapidated. It’s concrete all has mildew stains and it is visually boring. It isn’t like architecture from the 20s and 30s that is visually stimulating. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Qdeathstar said:

I’m sure they were. But the scope looks dilapidated. It’s concrete all has mildew stains and it is visually boring. It isn’t like architecture from the 20s and 30s that is visually stimulating. 

What???  There are lots of amazing pieces of architecture built in the 60s and 70s. The Scope is one of them.

Now think of this, this building is 50 years old. When Norfolk decided to tear down their downtown core, they tore down a lot of buildings that were about 50 years old. Now here we are 100 years from that time Norfolk tore down it's downtown core, and I know you can't tell me that was a great idea for them to have done. The Scope isn't some cheap building that wears out after a dozen years, it will be an icon for the city for generations to come. Since Norfolk is never gonna get a pro team, it makes no sense to tear down the Scope to replace it with an arena of a similar size. It makes sense to take a stand and actually preserve a piece of Norfolk history and improve on it because the beauty of the Scope is that you can remove the entire inside of the building and it will still stand because the weight of the dome is transferred through the buttresses. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, urbanlife said:

What???  There are lots of amazing pieces of architecture built in the 60s and 70s. The Scope is one of them.

Now think of this, this building is 50 years old. When Norfolk decided to tear down their downtown core, they tore down a lot of buildings that were about 50 years old. Now here we are 100 years from that time Norfolk tore down it's downtown core, and I know you can't tell me that was a great idea for them to have done. The Scope isn't some cheap building that wears out after a dozen years, it will be an icon for the city for generations to come. Since Norfolk is never gonna get a pro team, it makes no sense to tear down the Scope to replace it with an arena of a similar size. It makes sense to take a stand and actually preserve a piece of Norfolk history and improve on it because the beauty of the Scope is that you can remove the entire inside of the building and it will still stand because the weight of the dome is transferred through the buttresses. 

Seattle, a real city, already tore down their example and it was even bigger than then this hunk of concrete. Yes, tear it down and build a more modern arena.

Edited by Qdeathstar
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, urbanlife said:

What???  There are lots of amazing pieces of architecture built in the 60s and 70s. The Scope is one of them.

Now think of this, this building is 50 years old. When Norfolk decided to tear down their downtown core, they tore down a lot of buildings that were about 50 years old. Now here we are 100 years from that time Norfolk tore down it's downtown core, and I know you can't tell me that was a great idea for them to have done. The Scope isn't some cheap building that wears out after a dozen years, it will be an icon for the city for generations to come. Since Norfolk is never gonna get a pro team, it makes no sense to tear down the Scope to replace it with an arena of a similar size. It makes sense to take a stand and actually preserve a piece of Norfolk history and improve on it because the beauty of the Scope is that you can remove the entire inside of the building and it will still stand because the weight of the dome is transferred through the buttresses. 

I agree, Norfolk will never have a pro-team, definitely not in the near future. I have no problem with scope as an arena, I just doesn't seem to get much use if you ask me.  The area just north of there with a massive redevelopment could be a nice area for an arena, it also will stretch DT more North. When I think of Norfolk, I do think of the scope.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Scope is a cool building, it's just a question as to how useful it is as a venue and as a use of prime downtown land going forward.  There's so much wasted space and development potential downtown (Snyder Lot, MacMall, Gateway, St Pauls Quad, etc.)  that should see (re)development first, IMO.  With so much developable land and not much pressure to build up, I'm not in a rush to demolish Scope.  I'd rather see everything else get developed and filled, and for downtown to be bursting at the seams and in need of a complex of four 50-story towers at that site.  :tw_lol:

Edited by lammius
  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Qdeathstar said:

Seattle, a real city, already tore down their example and it was even bigger than then this hunk of concrete. Yes, tear it down and build a more modern arena.

You are confusing the King Dome with the Key Arena. The Key Arena is more like the Scope. Seattle just did a massive renovation to it for it to be the home of their new NHL team and will be the future home of their new NBA team when that happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Qdeathstar said:

Seattle, a real city, already tore down their example and it was even bigger than then this hunk of concrete. Yes, tear it down and build a more modern arena.

Nervi did not design the Kingdome.  In terms of the elegance of design of the thin shell reinforced concrete dome and structural support systems, The Kingdome was a Kia.  Scope:  a Rolls.  And that "real city" of Seattle had a real reason to tear down the Kingdome:  THE NFL's SEATTLE SEAHAWKS.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.