Here's an extensive bunch of photos of the Dutch (Rotterdam) building:
http://www.dezeen.com/2014/10/01/mvrdv-markthal-rotterdam-arched-market-housing/
It turns out it belongs to the city so it might be hard to get them to sell.
Scroll down to the isometric drawings and note the similarity in form to
Lakehurst Hangar One.
Maybe the US.N. would sell us Hangar One for development of indoor flying
and housing. Hmm. The *gave* the Grumman facility to the town of Riverhead
on Long Island a while back. Only one clean open arched building on the
Grumman field that might be an indoor site but it's kind of small. Big open
area, though. It'd be great for outdoor FF flying.
RW
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 8:49 PM, Ron Williams <groncan_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Thinking more about the Dutch building, the floor is covered with what
> seem to be permanent stalls for small businesses. Tearing that out and
> replacing it with a system of demountable structures would not be beyond
> the realm of possibilities. Europe in general is used to weekly markets
> being set up and dismantled to alter a site for alternate uses. The
> structures for them are highly sophisticated. There are lots of other
> sports that could adapt to and use such a shelter (chess? Hah!).
>
> The building could be zoned to house the elderly on lower floors and share
> those levels with hotel space to house visiting flyers, merchants in the
> markets and sports people. Dedicating the space to weekly use by flyers
> would not be a problem for the flyers if they were the controlling party in
> the ownership of the building. The first step might be to form a group of
> investors to buy the building and then modify it to suit.
>
> It might also be a good time to capitalize on the public's recent exposure
> and paranoia about drones. Put them indoors and the fear is diminished a
> great deal. The indoor owners might allow them to use the space a few times
> a year.
>
> Location choices in the U.S.A. or actually, anywhere, should consider the
> outside weather as well. A steadily reliable climate should be a criteria
> for site choice. Cloudy, rainy calm cities with lots of nerds would be good
> choices. Actually, places like that also have great potential what with the
> many wealthy nerds that live in them, potential investors.
>
> In parts of the country that have less stable weather patterns, well,
> c'est la vie . . .
>
> If I'm not mistaken, indoor flying was a big thing on New York City during
> the late thirties and for a while after WWII. Where did they fly? In the
> Armories. The Armories are still there, largely empty and beautiful
> potential indoor sites.
>
> Ron, the dreamer.
>
>
> On Thursday, November 27, 2014, Ron Williams <groncan_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> First of all, the thinking has to expand. It's always easier to pare
>> down, never to go back up.
>>
>> Location: at least five sites, spread around the country with more around
>> the world.
>>
>> Size: at least 200 ft. Ceilings, the size of at least half of a dirigible
>> hangar.
>>
>> Maintenance: The Dutch building with residences along side or around the
>> space would cover financial support over the years. The only thing wrong
>> with the Dutch building is that it's developers didn't know about indoor
>> aviation when they conceived it and design for it being part of the
>> building's experience.
>>
>> Money: Crowd sourcing, I.e., Kickstarter, et al.
>>
>> Members: I'm doing my best - looking to the freeflight (or even the Drone
>> flyers (formerly known as RC flyers) is too narrow in scope. The general
>> public, everyone, must be the source for new enthusiasts. When my book
>> first came out there was a jump in indoor enthusiasm. It's now on the best
>> seller list at the Smithsonian's Cooper Hewitt museum. There needs to be
>> more of its kind and more of Float and TV and publicity for what's already
>> going on.
>>
>> Okay, there's some points to chew over. It's time for me to chew some
>> breakfast.
>>
>> Ron
>>
>> On Thursday, November 27, 2014, mkirda_at_sbcglobal.net
>> [Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's a great idea, Manuel.
>>>
>>> I'm sure you'd find many willing to donate within their means.
>>> But where would you put it?
>>>
>>> West Coast wouldn't help me, nor would East Coast.
>>> Midwest - possibly, but depends upon the location.
>>> Folks aren't going to drive six hours one way more than once a month.
>>> (At least and stay married and connected to their children!)
>>>
>>> Then you need someone to spearhead it, who has the right skills.
>>> I know enough about myself that I am not that person.
>>> I can lead but I don't have the marketing skills nor any experience in
>>> raising funds.
>>> This would be a full time job until it is built, of which I already
>>> arguably have two (job/family).
>>>
>>> Then there is the building the club around the site piece, which is
>>> another set of skills.
>>> Having been in a club that imploded due to incredible lack of
>>> leadership, keeping them going isn't easy.
>>> One bad apple is all it takes to turn it toxic.
>>>
>>> I am not at all trying to be dismissive, throw water on the flames,
>>> whatever. I'd support this effort as much as I could. Just pointing out
>>> obstacles in the path to success - I'm pretty sure the Field of Dreams,
>>> build it and they will come thing will not work, even if it results in a
>>> purpose-built indoor flying facility. There is more required, a lot more.
>>>
>>> Regards.
>>> Mike Kirda
>>>
>>>
>>
Received on Thu Nov 27 2014 - 19:24:03 CET