On the Lifecycle of Stadiums in the United States
By Mackinley Wang-Xu B.S in
Civil
Engineering
Columbia University in the City of New York in New York, 2020
Submitted to the Department of Architecture in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE
At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology FEBRUARY 2025
© 2025 Mackinley Wang-Xu. All rights reserved.
“The author hereby grants to MIT a nonexclusive, worldwide, irrevocable, royalty-free license to exercise any and all rights under copyright., including to reproduce, preserve, distribute and publicly display copies of the thesis, or release the thesis under an open-access license.”
Authored by:
Mackinley Wang-Xu
Department of Architecture
January 6, 2025
Certified by:
John Ochsendorf
Class of 1942 Professor
Professor of Architecture
Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Accepted by:
Timothy Hyde
Professor of the History of Architecture
Chair, Department Committee on Graduate Students
This page was intentionally left blank
Committee
John Ochsendorf, PhD
Class of 1942 Professor
Professor of Architecture
Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Thesis Advisor
Brandon Clifford, MArch
Class of 1958 Career Development Professor
Associate Professor of Architecture Reader
This page was intentionally left blank
American (Ise) On the Lifecycles of Stadiums in the United States
By Mackinley Wang-Xu
Submitted to the Department of Architecture on January 6, 2025
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Architecture
Abstract
When the Kingdome in Seattle was completed in 1976, it was celebrated as a marvel of modern engineering, expected to last for centuries. Yet, in an ironic twist, it was demolished by implosion in 2000, surviving only twenty-four years. The Kingdome epitomizes the issue of short lifespans that has plagued American stadiums since the post-war era. A broad survey of these structures reveals an average lifespan of just three decades—a startlingly brief tenure for buildings of their scale and significance.
These stadiums also follow a distinctive model of renewal. Similar to the Shikinen Sengu ritual at the Ise Shrine, a new stadium is often constructed adjacent to its predecessor. However, unlike Ise, where materials from the old shrine are reused and disseminated throughout Japan’s network of shrines, old stadiums are almost always demolished and discarded.
This thesis seeks to superimpose Ise as a model onto American stadiums, envisioning an architecture that embraces both impermanence and longevity through circularity. Investigations into the barriers to circularity specific to stadiums serve as the foundation for design proposals, spanning scales from the detail to the site. The project ultimately imagines a stadium in a constant process of disassembly and renewal, where its spatial and programmatic potential challenge paradigms of completeness. In the context of a climate crisis demanding waste reduction, and for a typology notorious for its excess, stadiums can learn to do more with less.
Thesis Advisor: John Ochsendorf
Title: Class of 1942 Professor
Professor of Architecture
Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering
This page was intentionally left blank
Acknowledgements
There are many people who were instrumental in the production of this thesis, I want to take this time to thank:
John O. and Brandon
For your guidance over the course of this thesis. You always kept me centered on what was important, and I am eternally grateful for your expertise, time, and generosity. You were able to give me a voice.
Eno
For years of wonderful friendship. I am only able to become a better designer and person by watching you live by example.
My Thesis Helpers, Zeran, Blue, Grace, Mingjia, Yanyi, Thomas, Sam, Bernardo, Nathaniel, and Albert
For your help in the final production of the thesis. I am immensely grateful with the generosity of your time and moral support in the most hectic of times.
John W. and Jim
For reminding me the importance of being a fan.
Shaye
For the archival support. Only with your assistance procuring archive drawings was I able have a better understanding of the Kingdome.
Adriana
For always being my greatest advocate.
SJ
For being a wonderful friend and neighbor.
The Building Technology Department, Especially Caitlin, Keith, and Kiley
For your guidance and advice throughout the years. Thank you for reminding me of what truly matters and giving me optimism for the future.
M.Arch Classes of 2024, 2025, and 2026
For an eternity of friendship.
Frosty and Coal
For your warmth and serenity.
And to My parents, Chao and Jin
For everything, especially for giving me the courage to chase my dreams.
This page was intentionally left blank
AMERICAN (ISE)
Ise Jingu
The thesis considers lifecycles, circularity, and the cultural value of materials. No building in the history of architecture better exemplifies these issues than Ise Shrine.
The Ise shrine has captured the imagination of architects for generations. Located in the Mie Prefecture (三重県) in Central Japan, it is best known for its Shikinen Sengu (式年遷宮) Ritual. The ceremony, dating back as early as the 7th Century AD, occurs every twenty years. 1
At the beginning of each cycle, a series of ceremonies celebrate and honor the forest and the harvesting of timber from the sacred forest. (Figure 1.)
During its twenty-year lifespan, the shrine is unmaintained. It is left to weather, age, and decay. (Figure 2.)
Figure 1. Yamaguchi-sai ceremony where timber is harvested. Photo by: 神宮司庁
Figure 2. Roofline of Ise’s Naiku. Photo by: Malinche
Is Ise Circular?
At the end of its lifecycle. Ise is deconstructed, its parts are reused within the shrine complex itself or dispersed across Japan to refurbish countless shrines within the country. Most notably, the main compressional structural member, the Munemochibashira (棟持柱, beam-holding column), undergoes cycles of reuse.
It first exists as the main compressive member for the Ise Shrine.
After twenty-years, after the incarnation of Ise holding the column is disassembled, it is reconstructed as a Torii, a traditional structure that marks the entrance to Shinto sites, for the temple complex at Ise.1
After another twenty-years. The Torii at Ise is moved to another Shinto site to serve as its Torii. (Figure 3.)
Famously, the materials reclaimed from Shikinen Sengu has been sent to repair shrines damaged in the Great Hanshin Earthquake of 1995, and the Tohoku Earthquake in 2011.2
1 神宮司庁
2 Chunichi Shimbun, Ise Donates Cypress Logs to Fix Tohoku Shrines
Figure 3. Reuse cycles of the Munemochibashira of Ise. Image by Author
Toggling Between Sites
What is curious about Shikinen Sengu is the fact that this process of renewal takes place on adjacent plots. The existing shrine sits next to the plot of land named Shinmishikichi (新御敷地). For the past 1300 years, the different reincarnations of the shrine toggle between the two sites, with the new emerging next to the old and the old slowly disassembled once the new is complete. (Figure 4.)
Figure 4. Aerial View of the new shrine next to the old. Photo by: 神宮司庁
Case Study: The Texas Rangers
This cycle of renewal that Ise undergoes takes a parallel form in America’s Stadiums. A representative case study is the Texas Rangers. When the Texas Rangers first moved to Arlington Texas in 1971, the Turnpike Stadium, first built in 1964, was renovated and renamed Arlington Stadium. (Figure 5.) However, due to mediocre performance and the heat of Texan summers,1 the Rangers were tenants at the Arlington Stadium for only 22 years. In 1994, Rangers Park was built across from Arlington Stadium. (Figure 6.) The new stadium was built without a roof. Without protection from the frequent rains and blistering heat of its context,2 Rangers Park only lasted 27 years. Built with an immense retractable roof across the street, Globe Life Park was inaugurated as the newest American baseball stadium in 2021. (Figure 7.)
Figure 5. Arlington Stadium. Photo by: WBAP-TV
Figure 6. Rangers Park being constructed alongside Arlington Stadium. Photo by: Chocktaw Stadium
Figure 7. Globe Life Field being constructed alongside Rangers Park. Photo by: Manhattan Construction Group
An American Ise
The case of the Texas Rangers is not unique. The same mechanism of renewal is being played out across the country (Figure 8.). New Stadiums are built adjacent to old ones, often with very similar geometries. (Figures 9-16.).
Figure 8. A map of stadium construction since 1950. Image by Author
Figure 9. Comiskey Park and Guarenteed Rate Field. Photo by: Getty Images
Figure 10. Gillete Stadium and Foxboro Stadium. Photo by: Northeast Contracting
Figure 11. Lincoln Financial Field and Veteran’s Stadium. Photo by: George Widman
Figure 12. Great American Ballpark and Riverfront Stadium. Photo by: Steel Service
Figure 13. New Busch Stadium under construction. Photo by: Chris Lee
Figure 14. Old and New Yankee Stadiums. Photo by: Bernstein Assoc. Photographers
Figure 15. Metlife Stadium and Giants Stadium. Photo by: Gregory J Kingsley
Figure 16. Shea Stadium and Citifield. Photo by: Tom Kaminsky
(10)
(12)
(14)
(16)
A Typology Primed for Circularity
During this process of renewal, a majority of the old stadiums are demolished. There is almost always no discussion of reuse and circularity in the construction of these new stadiums. The mechanism in which renewal is carried out eliminates major barriers to circularity.
1. Demand Matching Barriers – There is an immediate demand for materials for the new stadium that the old stadium could fulfill.
2. Logistical Barriers – Materials reclaimed do not have to travel long distances to reach a new site, it simply needs to travel to the adjacent plot.
3. Informational Barriers – Construction is often carried out by the same client, who already have information and specification on reusable materials.
The vast amounts of materials, capital, and labor required to build these structures, makes the lack of circularity in stadium construction its major ecological failing.
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
Figure 17. Demolition of Milwaukee County Stadium. Photo by: Darren Hauck
Figure 18. Demolition of Three Rivers Stadium. Photo by: David Maxwell
Figure 19. Demolition of Veterans Stadium. Photo by: Tom Mihalek
Figure 20. Demolition of Fulton County Stadium. Photo by: John Bazemore
Shame in the Rain Case Study: Kingdome
The Kingdome officially opened on March 27, 1976, welcoming a crowd of 54,000 spectators in Seattle. With a diameter of 660 feet, it held the distinction of being the largest thin-shell concrete dome in the world. The stadium served as home to the Seattle Sounders, Seahawks, and Mariners. Over the years, the Kingdome also hosted large-scale concerts and sermons, including a Billy Graham evangelical crusade that drew an unprecedented crowd of 74,000—the venue’s largest-ever audience.1
The Kingdome was lauded by David Billington as a work of structural art, deserving of preservation.2 Despite being constructed and engineered to last for at least a century, inadequate maintenance and shifting demands for stadium infrastructure rendered the Kingdome functionally obsolete within a relatively short period. Designed with artificial, fluorescent lighting, the stadium exemplified the characteristics of many domed structures built during the Post-War Era. However, evolving fan preferences increasingly favored open-air stadiums with natural sunlight.3
The stadium’s fate was sealed in 1994 when four ceiling panels unexpectedly crashed onto the field. This incident, compounded by the tragic deaths of two workers during subsequent repair efforts, sparked the decision to demolish the structure. On March 26, 2000—just one day shy of its 24th anniversary—the Kingdome was brought down via implosion in a mere 16.8 seconds.4
Unlike Ise, which draws its biogenic materials from its local context, the Kingdome draws upon a global circuit of industrialize materials. Accounting for structural material alone, the building used 443 tons of steel and 52,800 cubic yards of concrete, non of which were reused or recycled.5
1 West, C. The Rise and Fall of Seattle’s Kingdome
2 Rose, C. Kingdome Considered Icon By Some Engineers
3 West, C. ibid
4 Condotta, Bob. ‘Loud. Insane. Fun.’
5 Loubere, P., Stensrud,W., & Hodson, J. Defying Gravity
Figure 21. Demolition of the Kingdome. Image by Dan Levine
Replacement Cycle of Stadiums
The case studies previously presented show an average replacement period of 26 years. Despite the scale of labor, capital, and materials mobilized to construct these structures, stadiums also seem to share a similarity with Ise in the timescale of its twenty-year lifespan. (Figure 22.). A further and more comprehensive study was conducted surveying the lifespan of every single stadium built for Major League Baseball and the National Football League. (Figure 23.)
Figure 22. Comparison of the timescale of lifecyles. Image by Author
Figure 23:
Timeline of every single MLB and NFL Stadium.
Shikinen Sengu of Ise highlighted in the middle. Stadiums with a lifespan of less than 40 years is highlighted in red.
Figure 24. Every Stadium Demolished Since 1950. Image by Author
The Average Lifespan of Demolished Stadiums since the Post-War Era
34 Years
Paid to Stay: Availability of Public Money
A primary reason for the shrinking lifespan of American stadiums is the availability of public funding. A survey of 116 major American professional sports teams reveals that 101 of them receive some form of stadium subsidy. (Figure 25.) These subsidies often take the form of tax-exempt municipal bonds, long-term tax exemptions, direct cash payments, subsidies, and infrastructure improvements.
Due to the highly commercialized nature of American professional sports, teams have gained significant leverage when negotiating with municipalities. Recent examples in Oakland, St. Louis, and Seattle highlight teams’ willingness to relocate—often at the expense of their loyal fanbases—in search of cities willing to offer substantial financial incentives for the construction of costly stadiums.
Despite decades of research demonstrating that stadiums do not deliver long-term economic benefits to their host cities, there remains little political will to resist the demands of billionaire team owners. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 attempted to curtail stadium subsidies by denying federal support if more than 10% of debt services were covered by stadium-generated revenues.1 However, the law inadvertently increased subsidies in the decades that followed.
Given the escalating costs of stadium construction and renovation, combined with the significant amounts of public money available, decision-making often leans toward replacement rather than renovation or preservation.
1 Zimbalist, A. & Noll, R. Sports, Jobs, & Taxes: Are New Stadiums Worth the Cost?
116 Professional Sports Teams in North America
Figure 25. Tally of Teams that Receive Stadium Subsidies. Image by Author
Asphalt Oceans: Availability of Public Land
Decades of suburbanization have pushed stadiums to the outskirts of cities. Municipal parking minimums, combined with a lack of investment in public transit, have resulted in American stadiums becoming synonymous with vast oceans of parking. These spaces are often underutilized, require massive amounts of materials to construct, and contribute to urban heat island effects, exacerbating public health challenges for municipalities.
Despite these drawbacks, stadium parking lots have given rise to a unique piece of Americana: the tailgate. Fans gather hours before events, transforming expansive asphalt surfaces into vibrant social hubs filled with grills, music, and team spirit. These pre-game rituals foster a sense of community, turning otherwise sterile parking lots into temporary neighborhoods united by shared enthusiasm.
While the availability of public funding shortens the replacement cycle of American stadiums, the sprawling parking lots they occupy often become the staging grounds for renewal.
Figure 26. Study of Stadiums and their contexts. Image by Author, Data via Google Earth
An Incoming Wave
The average age of surveyed stadiums in use is 25 years, which signals an upcoming wave of construction for new stadiums. There are already stadiums under construction in Buffalo, Nashville, Tampa, Las Vegas, and Chicago. Most of these stadiums following a similar model of constructing new stadiums adjacent to old ones. These projects remain constrained by a linear extractive mode of construction, where virgin material is extracted, reconfigured, and eventually discarded. While many projects seek to center sustainability, they often can only resort to methods of downcycling such as crushing concrete for pavers. This thesis thus accepts the context and mechanisms in which stadiums are replaced, but seeks to propose design innovations that reduce the embodied impact of stadium renewals.
Figure 27. New Titans stadium under construction. Image by Carson McNeely
Figure 28. New Bills stadium under construction. Image by Joshua Bessex (27) (28)
Like candy, stadiums represent a material dilemma where the wrapper outlasts its contents. When well-maintained, structural steel can endure for one to two centuries. While stadiums themselves may have a lifespan of three to four decades, their structural components could serve multiple lifecycles across different stadium structures. If we accept the premises of obsolescence and the challenge of predicting future contingencies for a structure, we should prioritize maximizing the reuse potential of structural components.
Figure 29. Lifespan comparison between structural component and stadiums. Image by Author
Shifting Stands, Stubborn Structures
A significant barrier to adopting more circular practices in stadium design lies in the geometry of the bowl. Stadium design is largely governed by a metric known as the C-Value, a geometric ratio that quantifies the quality of view from any given seat. (Figure 30.) Decades of refinement and optimization in stadium design have resulted in bowl geometries characterized by a subtly parabolic rake—a shape that is barely perceptible yet materially significant. (Figure 31.)
The highly calibrated nature of these bowl geometries means that even minor adjustments to the position of the stands during renovation or replacement can result in vastly different rake geometries. For example, the replacement of Shea Stadium with Citi Field involved a slight horizontal repositioning of the stands, which led to a completely different rake geometry. (Figure 32.)
As a result, the customized raker beams—structural elements designed to support the stands—lack reuse potential in new stadiums, rendering them obsolete in the context of renewal. (Figure 33.) This inherent geometric specificity presents a formidable challenge to implementing sustainable and circular design principles in stadium architecture.
Figure 30. C-Value. Image by FIFA
31. Comparison between an optimized rake and a standard linear rake. Image by Author
Shea Stadium (1961-2008)
Citifield (2009-)
Figure
Figure 33. Typical Raker Beams. Image by Heldenfels Enterprises
Figure 32. Comparison of rake geometry of Shea Stadium and Citifield. Image by Author
Staying Open for Business
The thesis questions the prevailing modality of stadium renewal, specifically the practice of constructing an entirely new stadium adjacent to the old one. In such cases, the materials from the old stadium often cannot be reused due to financial pressures to maintain continuous operation. The financial losses incurred by shutting down a stadium, disassembling it, and rebuilding on an adjacent plot vastly overshadow the benefits of adopting a circular construction approach.
Another challenge the thesis seeks to address is the choreography of construction—ensuring uninterrupted stadium operations within the tight windows of active seasons and off-seasons. By speculating on potential new modes of renewal, the thesis aims to dislodge existing barriers and advocate for more circular and sustainable construction and operational practices.
Figure 34. A game at Shea Stadium with Citifield in the backgorund. Image by UPI
This page was intentionally left blank
Design Framework of the Thesis
In search for a more circular future of stadium design, the thesis proposes new design propositions at three distinct scales:
Site
Structural Module
Detail
Framework for Reuse
While not explicitly positioned as an adaptive reuse project, this thesis emphasizes the importance of intelligent design strategies that anticipate future reuse. Therefore, the framework governing the design of the site, module, and details is informed by the following reuse priorities.
Priority 1. Reuse of Entire Assemblies
Priority 2. Reuse of Individual Components
Priority 3. Broken down for new use on site.
This page was intentionally left blank
I. Site
How does an old stadium grow into a new one?
This page was intentionally left blank
Figure 35. The initial configuration. Image by Author
by Author
Figure 36. Home and third base concourse disassembled. Image
Having fixed timeframes of disassembly gives a good checkpoint to monitor the aging and material performance of materials over time.
37. Components reconfigured as home and first base side stands. Image by Author
Figure
Figure 38. Outfield concourse reconfigured as outfield stands. Image by Author
This mechanism of chereographic produces extremeties that give new programming capacity for the stadium, allowing it to be multi-purpose.
Figure 39. Outfield stands reconfigured as outfield concourse. Image by Author
Figure 40. Infield stands reconfigured as infield concourse. Image by Author
Figure 41. The Twins and their layers. Image by Author
Rather than a spectacle to be viewed from a distance, the process becomes something spatial that fans can actively experience. The twinning produces a new sensibility of what it means to wander around the concourse.
Figure 42. View of lower concourse. Image by Author
The new, incomplete seating bowl gives the stadium a public-facing surface that counters the enclosing impulses of a stadium typology.
Figure 43. Model of stadium during transition. Image by Andy Ryan
Color of the structure marks the different epochs of renewal.
Figure 44. Twins. Image by Author
Figure 45. View of the new stands. Image by Author
Figure 46. View of Exterior. Image by Author
Preparing Foundations for Reuse
Foundations contribute significantly to the embodied carbon emissions of a building’s structural system, accounting for an average of up to 42%.1 During the process of renewal, the foundation systems of old stadiums are typically discarded. A potential innovation emerging from a new framework of stadium design could involve the preservation of these foundation systems.
If we can anticipate toggling between sites—similar to the cyclical rebuilding at Ise Shrine—the interaction between two superimposed grids could inspire a novel foundation layout. Moreover, drawing inspiration from existing stadium practices where traces of former stadiums are commemorated with plaques in parking lots, we might envision a scenario where foundation systems are preserved. Their specifications could be inscribed on plaques, creating a meaningful “field of plaques” that not only tells the story of the site’s structural legacy, but also imbed crucial information that enables reuse in the future.
1 Fickert. K, & Mueller. C. Thin shell foundations
Figure 47. Plaque commemorating homeplate of Shea Stadium. Image by Greg Goodman
Figure 48. Proposal of preserving foundations. Image by Author
Figure 49. Field of overlapping foundations grids. Image by Author
This page was intentionally left blank
II. Structural Module
What does a stadium that anticipates renewal look like?
50. Mirroring of structural systems. Image by Author
Figure
In order to facilitate the chereography of construction in the previous section, the thesis proposes a mirroring of the structural system, where stands on the inside becomes balconies, shading structures, and facade structures on the outside. During renewal, the outside layer is thus reconfigurable into seating structures.
Figure 51. Axonometric of Structural System. Image by Author
52. Exploded axonometric of column module. Image by Author
Figure
Figure 53. Column assembly. Image by Author
Reuse Retro
When describing the design of baseball stadiums since the 1990s, Paul Goldberger describes a general tendency and desire to evoke the past.1 The result is a spade of stadiums in the later 90s and early 2000s that can be characterized as steel structures with a historicist skin. This thesis proposes to use the structural module and the structural layout as a way to dislodge a façade dominated logic and to think about a new image of ballparks that not only evoke the jewel boxes of the past, but also is informed by the logics of the anticipatory logics of their construction.
1 Goldberger, P. Ballpark
Figure 54. Camden Yards. Image by Niall Kennedy
Figure 55. Citifield. Image by Leonard Zhukovsky
Figure 56. Rangers Park. Image by Robert Bellomy
Figure 57. Coors Field. Image by CMTS
(54)
(56)
(55)
(57)
Figure 58. Logic of the structural grid. Image by Author
Figure 59. Exterior View. Image by Author
Figure 60. View of Outfield Stands. Image by Author
Figure 61. Model Exterior View. Image by Author
Figure 62. Setting Up Model. Image by Author
Figure 63. Model. Image by Author
This page was intentionally left blank
III. Detail
How to find flexibility and modularity within a highly calibrated geometry?
Figure 64. Axonometric of Riser System. Image by Author
Figure 65. Detail of Riser System. Image by Author
Figure 66. Axonometric of Raker System. Image by Author
Figure 67. Detail of Raker System. Image by Author
Figure 68. Different Raker System Configuration. Image by Author
Figure 69. Disassembly of Raker System. Image by Author
Figure 70. Degrees of freedom for riser assembly. Image by Author
Figure 71. Degrees of freedom for raker assembly. Image by Author
Figure 72. Leveraging two sets of adjustments to anticipate new rake geometries. Image by Author
Figure 73. Former Arsenal Stadium converted into housing. Image by Dennis Gilbert
Material Memory Stadium’s
Life after Death
Despite efforts to anticipate reuse throughout the cycles of stadium renewal, this thesis must acknowledge the lessons taught by the Kingdome and many others: designing for longevity is a fallacy. In How Buildings Learn, Stewart Brand states, “All buildings are predictions. All predictions are wrong.”
Circularity remains challenging, particularly in the United States, where value is often shifted away from materials and towards labor. In contrast, at the Ise Shrine, the material itself becomes a sacred vessel for Shinto practices. This thesis argues that the stadium serves as another poignant example where prolonged use crystallizes cultural and emotional value into its materials.
From artifacts as small as an individual chair to spaces as vast as the structural module itself, each component holds the potential to be cherished by its community even in the event of the stadium’s death. This creates both an emotional and material relationship with its context, preserving value beyond mere functionality.
Figure 74. Individual Chairs could be cherished by fans. Image by Author
Figure 75. Stand structures could be reused at local schools. Image by Author
Roof structures could be reused a spanning structures, like a pedestrian bridge. Image by Author
Figure 76.
Figure 77. The entire structural module can be densified to become housing. Image by Author
Presentation Day
Figure 78. Pre-presentation pep talk with John. Image by Eno Chen
Figure 79. Presenting Ise. Image by Eno Chen
Figure 80. Glimpse of the Model. Image by Eno Chen
Figure 81. Gesticulating. Image by Chenyue “xdd” Dai
Figure 82. Discussion with Eric. Image by Chenyue “xdd” Dai
Figure 83. Fin. Image by Eno Chen
Appendix
Pg. 1
List of Figures
Figure 1. Yamaguchi-sai ceremony where timber is harvested. Photo by: 神宮司庁
Figure 2. Roofline of Ise’s Naiku. Photo by: Malinche
Figure 3. Reuse cycles of the Munemochibashira of Ise. Image by Author
Figure 4. Aerial View of the new shrine next to the old. Photo by: 神宮司庁
Figure 5. Arlington Stadium. Photo by: WBAP-TV
Figure 6. Rangers Park being constructed alongside Arlington Stadium. Photo by: Chocktaw Stadium
Figure 7. Globe Life Field being constructed alongside Rangers Park. Photo by: Manhattan Construction Group
Figure 8. A map of stadium construction since 1950. Image by Author
Figure 9. Comiskey Park and Guarenteed Rate Field. Photo by: Getty Images
Figure 10. Gillete Stadium and Foxboro Stadium. Photo by: Northeast Contracting
Figure 11. Lincoln Financial Field and Veteran’s Stadium. Photo by: George Widman
Figure 12. Great American Ballpark and Riverfront Stadium. Photo by: Steel Service
Figure 13. New Busch Stadium under construction. Photo by: Chris Lee
Figure 14. Old and New Yankee Stadiums. Photo by: Bernstein Assoc. Photographers
Figure 15. Metlife Stadium and Giants Stadium. Photo by: Gregory J Kingsley
Figure 16. Shea Stadium and Citifield. Photo by: Tom Kaminsky
Figure 17. Demolition of Milwaukee County Stadium. Photo by: Darren Hauck
Figure 18. Demolition of Three Rivers Stadium. Photo by: David Maxwell
Figure 19. Demolition of Veterans Stadium. Photo by: Tom Mihalek
Figure 20. Demolition of Fulton County Stadium. Photo by: John Bazemore
Figure 21. Demolition of the Kingdome. Image by Dan Levine
Figure 22. Comparison of the timescale of lifecyles. Image by Author
Figure 23: Timeline of every single MLB and NFL Stadium.
Figure 24. Every Stadium Demolished Since 1950. Image by Author
Figure 25. Tally of Teams that Receive Stadium Subsidies. Image by Author
Figure 26. Study of Stadiums and their contexts. Image by Author, Data via Google Earth
Figure 27. New Titans stadium under construction. Image by Carson McNeely
Figure 28. New Bills stadium under construction. Image by Joshua Bessex
Figure 29. Lifespan comparison between structural component and stadiums. Image by Author
Figure 30. C-Value. Image by FIFA
Figure 31. Comparison between an optimized rake and a standard linear rake. Image by Author
Figure 32. Comparison of rake geometry of Shea Stadium and Citifield. Image by Author
Figure 33. Typical Raker Beams Image by Heldenfels Enterprises
Figure 34. A game at Shea Stadium with Citifield in the backgorund. Image by UPI
Figure 35. The initial configuration. Image by Author
Figure 36. Home and third base concourse disassembled. Image by Author
Figure 37. Components reconfigured as home and first base side stands. Image by Author
Figure 38. Outfield concourse reconfigured as outfield stands. Image by Author
Figure 39. Outfield stands reconfigured as outfield concourse. Image by Author
Figure 40. Infield stands reconfigured as infield concourse. Image by Author
Figure 41. The Twins and their layers. Image by Author
Figure 42. View of lower concourse. Image by Author
Figure 43. Model of stadium during transition Image by Andy Ryan
Figure 44. Twins. Image by Author
Figure 45. View of the new stands. Image by Author
Figure 46. View of Exterior. Image by Author
Figure 47. Plaque commemorating homeplate of Shea Stadium. Image by Greg Goodman
Figure 48. Proposal of preserving foundations. Image by Author
Figure 49. Field of overlapping foundations grids. Image by Author
Figure 50. Mirroring of structural systems. Image by Author
Figure 51. Axonometric of Structural System. Image by Author
Figure 52. Exploded axonometric of column module. Image by Author
Figure 53. Column assembly. Image by Author
Figure 54. Camden Yards. Image by Niall Kennedy
Figure 55. Citifield. Image by Leonard Zhukovsky
Figure 56. Rangers Park. Image by Robert Bellomy
Figure 57. Coors Field. Image by CMTS
Figure 58. Logic of the structural grid. Image by Author
Figure 59. Exterior View. Image by Author
Figure 60. View of Outfield Stands. Image by Author
Figure 61. Model Exterior View. Image by Author
Figure 62. Setting Up Model. Image by Author
Figure 63. Model. Image by Author
Figure 64. Axonometric of Riser System. Image by Author
Figure 65. Detail of Riser System. Image by Author
Figure 66. Axonometric of Raker System. Image by Author
Figure 67. Detail of Raker System. Image by Author
Figure 68. Different Raker System Configuration. Image by Author
Figure 69. Disassembly of Raker System. Image by Author
Figure 70. Degrees of freedom for riser assembly. Image by Author
Figure 71. Degrees of freedom for raker assembly. Image by Author
Figure 72. Leveraging two sets of adjustments to anticipate new rake geometries. Image by Author
Figure 73. Former Arsenal Stadium converted into housing. Image by Dennis Gilbert
Figure 74. Individual Chairs could be cherished by fans. Image by Author
Figure 75. Stand structures could be reused at local schools. Image by Author
Figure 76. Roof structures could be reused a spanning structures, like a pedestrian bridge. Image by Author
Figure 77. The entire structural module can be densified to become housing. Image by Author
Figure 78. Pre-presentation pep talk with John. Image by Eno Chen
Figure 79. Presenting Ise. Image by Eno Chen
Figure 80. Glimpse of the Model. Image by Eno Chen
Figure 81. Gesticulating. Image by Chenyue “xdd” Dai
Figure 82. Discussion with Eric. Image by Chenyue “xdd” Dai
Figure 83. Fin. Image by Chenyue “xdd” Dai
Bibliography
Bazemore, J. (1997). Fulton County Stadium Demolition. ESPN. Retrieved January 6, 2025, from https://a.espncdn.com/photo/2014/0114/mlb_ fultoncounty_1984x794.jpg.
Bellomy, R. (n.d.). Globe Life Field. Retrieved January 6, 2025, from https:// www.ctsflange.com/globe-life-park-arlington/.
Bernstein Associates Phototraphers. (n.d.). New York Yankee Stadiums. Retrieved January 6, 2025, from https://www.bernsteinassociates.com/image/ I00006gF3uo2vG8E.
Bessex, J. (2024). Buffalo Bills New Stadium Construction Progress. The Citizen. Retrieved January 6, 2025, from https://auburnpub.com/news/local/ buffalo-bills-new-stadium-construction-progress-nfl/article_28a9d4212638-5a4d-86df-ee5af28a4d4d.html.
Brand, S. (1997). How buildings learn. BBC.
Braungart, M., & McDonough, W. (2019). Cradle to cradle: Remaking the way we make things. Vintage Classics.
Chunichi, S. (2013, January 4). Ise donates cypress logs to fix Tohoku shrines. The Japan Times. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/01/12/isedonates-cypress-logs-to-fix-tohoku-shrines/
CMTS. (n.d.). Coors Field. Retrieved January 6, 2025, from https://cmtsllc.com/ coors-field-denver/.
Condotta, B. (2020, March 26). “loud. insane. fun.” 20 years after its implosion, Seattle’s kingdome will never be forgotten. Seattle Times. https://www. seattletimes.com/sports/loud-insane-fun-remembering-the-best-andthe-worst-of-seattles-kingdome-20-years-after-its-implosion/
De Wolf, Catherine & Ochsendorf, John. (2014). Comparing material quantities and embodied carbon in stadia.
Feickert, K., Mueller, C.T. Thin shell foundations: Quantification of embodied carbon reduction through materially efficient geometry. Archit. Struct. Constr. 4, 15–36 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44150-023-00101-z
FIFA. (n.d.). C-Value. FIFA Football Stadium Design Guidelines. Retrieved January 6, 2025, from https://publications.fifa.com/es/footballstadiums-guidelines/general-process-guidelines/design/stadium-bowl/.
Getty Images. (1990). Comiskey Park and Guaranteed Rate Park. Retrieved January 6, 2025, from https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/ uqw_-sk_SCgsrgovFDIjvueRxds=/0x0:3610x2427/920x0/ filters:focal(0x0:3610x2427):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn. com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/10528883/GettyImages_50820461.jpg.
Gilbert, D. (n.d.). Highbury Square. Allies and Morrison. Retrieved January 6, 2025, from https://www.alliesandmorrison.com/projects/highburysquare.
Goldberger, P. (2019). Ballpark: Baseball in the American city. Alfred A. Knopf.
Goodman, G. (2011). Shea Stadium Home Plate in Citi Field Parking Lot. Flickr. Retrieved January 6, 2025, from https://www.flickr.com/photos/ greggoodman/5718039208.
Guridy, F. A. (2024). The stadium: An American history of politics, protest, and play. Basic Books.
Hauck, D. (2001). Milwaukee County Stadium Demolition. ESPN. Retrieved January 6, 2025, from https://a.espncdn.com/photo/2014/0114/mlb_ countystadium_1992x1006.jpg.
Heldenfels Enterprises. (n.d.). Precast Raker Beams. Heldenfels Enterprises Precast Products. Retrieved January 2025, from https://heldenfels.com/ stadiums-arenas/.
John, G., Sheard, R., & Vickery, B. (2016). Stadia: The Populous Design and Development Guide. Routledge.
Kaminsky, T. (2008). Shea Stadium and Citifield. Retrieved January 6, 2025, from https://i0.wp.com/greensportsblog.com/wp-content/ uploads/2019/02/Citi-Field-Shea.jpg?w=1280&ssl=1.
Kennedy, N. (2018). Oriole Park at Camden Yards. Flickr. Retrieved January 6, 2025, from https://www.flickr.com/photos/niallkennedy/26902162947.
Kingsley, G. J. (2009). View of MetLife Stadium and Giants Stadium . Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetLife_Stadium#/media/ File:Meadowlands_Sports_Complex_-_kingsley_-_04-JUL-09.JPG.
Lee, C. (n.d.). Busch Stadium Under Construction. St. Louis Dispatch. Retrieved January 6, 2025, from https://www.stltoday.com/sports/professional/ mlb/cardinals/see-the-cardinals-home-being-built-during-two-yearconstruction/collection_b90ae9e4-0787-5162-84c0-d6428c5e381d. html#6.
Levine, D. (2021). Seattle Kingdome Demolition. The New York Times. Retrieved January 6, 2025, from https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/04/us/ controlled-demolition-seattle-kingdome.html.
Loubere, P., Stensrud, W., & Hodson, J. (2000, March 19). Defying Gravity. The Seattle Times. https://special.seattletimes.com/o/special/kingdome/k_ gravity.html
Manhattan Construction Group, G. (n.d.). Globe Life Field. Retrieved January 6, 2025, from https://manhattanconstructiongroup.com/manhattanconstruction-company/Projects/globe-life-field-new-home-of-the-texasrangers/.
Maxwell, D. (2001). Three Rivers Stadium: 1970-2001. ESPN. Retrieved January 6, 2025, from https://a.espncdn.com/photo/2014/0114/mlb_threerivers_ kh_1948x1280.jpg.
McIntosh, H. (2000, March 1). The kingdome: The controversial birth of a Seattle icon HistoryLink. https://www.historylink.org/file/2164
McNeely, C. (2024). New Titans Stadium Under Construction. Stadiumdb. Retrieved January 6, 2025, from https://stadiumdb.com/img/ news/2024/08/03Ten03.jpg.
Mihalek, T. (2004). The implosion of Veterans Stadium on March 21, 2004. Philadelphia Magazine. Retrieved January 6, 2025, from https://www. phillymag.com/news/veterans-stadium-philadelphia/.
Moe, K. (2021). Unless the Seagram Building Construction Ecology. Actar D. Northeast Contractors, Inc. (n.d.). Gillette Stadium. http://www. northeastcontractors.com/category/16568/gillette-stadium-project-andfoxborough-ma.htm. Retrieved January 6, 2025,.
Osgood, W. (2020, September 30). Arlington Stadium (Texas). Society for American Baseball Research. https://sabr.org/bioproj/park/arlingtonstadium-texas
Paine, A., & MacArthur, J. (2021). Valuing architecture: Heritage and the Economics of Culture. Valiz.
Provoost, M. (2000). The stadium: The Architecture of Mass Sport. NAi Publishers.
Re-use in construction: A compendium of circular architecture. (2022). . Park Books.
Rose, C. (1998, August 6). Kingdome Considered Icon By Some Engineers. The Seattle Times. https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/19980806/2765013/ kingdome-considered-icon-by-some-engineers
Ruby, I., Ruby, A., & Janson, N. (2014). The economy of sustainable construction. Ruby Press.
Steel Service. (n.d.). Great American Ballpark Under Construction. Retrieved January 6, 2025, from https://www.steelservice.com/wp-content/ uploads/Great-American-BP.jpg.
Tange, K., & Kawazoe, N. (1965). Ise, prototype of Japanese architecture by Kenzo Tange and Noboru Kawazoe. photos. by Yoshio Watanabe. layout and book design by Yusaku Kamekura. M.I.T. Press.
UPI. (2024). Game at Shea Stadium . New York Post. Retrieved January 6, 2025, from https://nypost.com/2024/06/22/sports/trip-to-shea-stadium-50years-ago-started-a-lifelong-love-of-baseball/.
WBAP-TV (Television station : Fort Worth, Tex.). [Aerial view of a filled Arlington Stadium], photograph, 197X; (https://texashistory.unt. edu/ark:/67531/metadc1632302/m1/1/: accessed January 7, 2025), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Special Collections.
West, C. (2023, February 24). The rise and fall of Seattle’s kingdome. The Daily of the University of Washington. https://www.dailyuw.com/archives/ the-rise-and-fall-of-seattles-kingdome/article_9f19efaa-b404-11ed-917177e38261c779.html
Widman, G. (2003). Eagles Stadium Construction. Associated Press. Retrieved January 6, 2025, from https://www.republicanherald.com/wp-content/ uploads/migration/2021/04/28aa5a328ef59b683a4b04d2228a778e. jpg?w=780.
Wimmer, A., Rothauer, D., & Borries, F. von. (2008). Stadien = stadiums: Allbert Wimmer. Springer.
Zimbalist, A., & Noll, R. G. (1997, June 1). Sports, jobs, & taxes: Are new stadiums worth the cost?. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/ articles/sports-jobs-taxes-are-new-stadiums-worth-the-cost/ Zhukovsky, L. (n.d.). Citifield. Retrieved January 6, 2025, from https://www. fivestarelectriccorp.com/projects/sports/citi-field/.
変わらないために、変えるということ . 伊勢神宮. (n.d.-a). https://www. isejingu.or.jp/first/future.html
式年遷宮の歴史. 伊勢神宮. (n.d.-b). https://www.isejingu.or.jp/sengu/ senguhistory.html
