Should the Carolina Coliseum be razed?

[vicupstate]

If it's cheaper to rehab than build new, why not go with this plan? If the $85mm is too much, it seems it would be possible to only 'build out ' the space that is initially needed.

Rehabbing also puts more money nto the local economy than building new. This seems like a no brainer to me.

Re-build it and they will come!

[krazeeboi]

I think it's a no-brainer as well. Columbia can add this to the list of excellent examples of adaptive reuse in the city.

[Doug L]

I think it's a no-brainer as well. Columbia can add this to the list of excellent examples of adaptive reuse in the city.

Krazeeboi, you are full of them. Good thoughts that is! I'm one of those people that hate the thought of loosing the Coliseum and the adaptive reuse is the best idea USC has come up with to date. USC usually loves to tear down and re-build.

[krazeeboi]

Thanks, I try.

[Spartan]

The master plan didn't address the Coliseum specifically, but it did have a rendering of it. That crappy parking lot was gone. If they raze it, they need to restore devine st.

[krazeeboi]

I'm not understanding the case for razing it; seems like there was none. Cheaper to rehab it, so do it.

[Spartan]

Think about the functionality of that building if they have to rehab it vs building rom scratch. starting over means they will get exactly what they want. Rehabbing will mean that compromises on form and function will have to be made.

[krazeeboi]

^But the thing is, USC isn't saying exactly what they need and providing arguments for and against razing the Coliseum. They paid Sasaki $250K to say, "OK, now what can we use this building for?" They might as well go through with it now since they don't have anything specific in mind. Plus the rendering is pretty.

[GMoxley]

Make a park out of it. That side of town has too much concrete as it is.

[krazeeboi]

The city's largest park is going to be constructed by the river. That lot is prime Innovista property, no matter if they keep the Coliseum or raze it; I don't think a park belongs there.

[Doug L]

Make a park out of it. That side of town has too much concrete as it is.

Give me a break!

[Spartan]

Well, the will use that land for something. Its too valuable not to.

[krazeeboi]

From the Sasaki rendering, I think a renovated Coliseum would serve as a great gateway to downtown coming from the west on Blossom.

[vicupstate]

Think about the functionality of that building if they have to rehab it vs building rom scratch. starting over means they will get exactly what they want. Rehabbing will mean that compromises on form and function will have to be made.

It's 500,000 sq. ft. of space, which is like 50% or more of a major enclosed mall. They don't even NEED that much space currently. Gimme a break.

Your just expressing the "new is always better" view that has lead to needless distruction of beautiful historic structures. Structures that were largely replaced by bland shoebox architecture.

Our culture is so wasteful and throw-away, it is pathetic.

[Spartan]

You should know by now that I am all about saving our history, espectially in Columbia. That building is not beautiful for one thing, and its not technically historic either. I think that this particular building cannot be saved as it exists now. In order to make it usable they will have to radically alter it (eg: it will need windows). After they are done with it, the building will not look anything like its former self.

I'm saying that in this case, new will benefit USC more than this old building.

[krazeeboi]

It may not be beautiful, but I consider it iconic for Columbia. From the Sasaki rendering, it can still be recognized as the Coliseum, even with the radical alterations. I understand that it is only a rendering however.

I think the Coliseum is still useful.

[Doug L]

You should know by now that I am all about saving our history, espectially in Columbia. That building is not beautiful for one thing, and its not technically historic either. I think that this particular building cannot be saved as it exists now. In order to make it usable they will have to radically alter it (eg: it will need windows). After they are done with it, the building will not look anything like its former self.

I'm saying that in this case, new will benefit USC more than this old building.

Spartan, In most cases I agree with your take on things, however, on this one I think you are dead wrong.

First of all, the coliseum reflects a classical style that is uniquely its own and in many ways and on many levels it is a beautiful structure. Because of its size, shape, classical reflection, uniqueness, and location it presents an awesome gateway either from Assembly on the south or Blossom on the west to our beautiful and growing city.

Even though it is technically not old enough to be historic it has housed some famous and semi-famous players that it is worthy of historical recognition. Besides, if we can preserve it a little longer it can be designated as historical and could live a long and useful life here in Columbia.

[Spartan]

But the interior of this structure will not be the same. You won't be able to go to the arena and see where the history happened, unless it is in the form of some sort of plaque in the floor of a classroom or hallway. Is it right to preserve the basic facade in this case (even though they will have to alter that too)?

I don't think that it is.

[krazeeboi]

I can't think of many structures (aside from houses) that have been adaptively reused in which the interior stays exactly the same. That goes for just about all of the major structures that have been or are in the process of being adaptively reused in Columbia--the Confederate Printing Plant, the Barringer Building, the Palmetto Building, etc.

Maybe we should wait for some more detailed renderings and specifics to make judgments in this regard.

[JFER1980]

I've thought long and hard about this and as much as I love history, there is absolutely no way it would be responsible to keep a 12,000 seat empty arena on a prime spot like where the coliseum is. I was at that Cincinnati game, and I even graduated high school in the building, but without the Inferno it's absolutely useless. I would give anything to find a good reason to keep the place, and I'll be sad if or when it's gone. But the building is definately not very attractive, and it's taking up some priceless land. I think ultimately there will be no choice when it's all said and done. It would be different if the building was built much longer ago, or there was an obvious use for it.

[Doug L]

To answer your question (Is it right to preserve the basic facade in this case even though they will have to alter that too?), Spartan, YES.

Has everybody here lost all of their collective imagination?

[Spartan]

^Nope. I just don't like that building. I am all for saving history, when I think it is a good representation of it.

[vicupstate]

In response to JFER1980, NO ONE is suggesting the buiding remain as it is. It will not sit empty as an arena, it will either be razed or adaptively re-used.

As for Spartan's assertion that since the interior cannot be fully preserved, none of it should be, that is crazy.

Charleston is full of such adoptive re-use projects. Old theaters have been made into meeting space and retail stores (Urban Outfitters -- It is a AWESOME example). Office buildings have been made into condos, Vsion is doing the SAME THING in Columbia!!

Everyone HATES the way the Vsion building looks now, but everyone agrees the changes will be a big improvement. Keeping the building will allow LOWER PRICES, which will add to the much needed residential base. Razing it and building new would put the units beyond the budget of many.

But since it won't be preserved as an office building, the whole thing has to be torn down, it that the idea?.

Likewise, a rehab of the Coliseum would save MILIONS of tax dollars over new construction.

I agree there is a wholesale lack of imagination here.

[Spartan]

Of course, there is is major diffrerence between the current Vsion building and the Coliseum. What do most cities do with their old sport/entertainment centers after they construct a new one? They tear them down. They don't try to convert them to something else. Atlanta, Seattle, etc. They tear them down.

If the building is going to be saved for its skeleton, then thats fine. If thats the case, the building will have to be radically altered to make it useable, and it probably won't resemble the coliseum as we know it today. I would sure hate to have an office or a class in the middle of that thing.

IF they keep this building, I want to see the basketball court preserved in some fasion (even if its raised up to street level), and turned into the "CenterCourt Cafe" that can act as a central plaza and meeting area for this building. They can put a large skylight in the top to allow for natural light, and then some of the interior classrooms could have SOME light. Think of it as one of thoe hotel-atrium things that have balconies facing inward- but with windows for classrooms and offices, etc.

[Istvan]

Looks like we're not the only ones who are undecided about what to do with the Coliseum.

There's a cool rendering on the webpage. I wonder why it wasn't in the master plan document?

that plan looks great, it looks like a great urban mall from a much larger city. i would love to see a first rate movie theater go into a rehabbed coliseum...that would be a definite benefit for USC students and downtown residents, no more having to drive to the movies. and it would be guaranteed business.

i like the exterior of the coliseum. i had many nice smoke breaks there during undergrad.

-