The egg-shaped Taipei Dome is capable of hosting baseball and basketball games, filled to the brim with fans, hosting events back-to-back without issue.
Many people these days are asking: Why is it any different from using the same venue space, with the same spectator seating, entrances, exits and emergency equipment, now that some people want to hold a pop concert? Why is the Taipei Dome suddenly not capable of hosting sports and music events?
The answer to this question could be found in the spectator seating being built underground.
The arena is under the following restrictions and regulations found in Paragraph 127 of the Taipei City Architectural Technical Regulations (建築技術規則): “For [performance venues] situated on a floor below an evacuation level; the floor containing spectator seating shall not be situated more than 7m below the street level or beneath building foundation; its surface area shall not exceed 200m2.”
The level of the Taipei Dome’s spectator seating area was built at a depth of 10m underground. Simply put: The arena does not meet the existing regulations for entertainment venues.
However, this regulation was enacted in 1974 and was last amended in 2001.
Half a century ago, nobody could have predicted that a building like the Taipei Dome would one day be built, let alone that several tens of thousands of spectators would be seated under one roof, watching performances and matches, or that spectator seating would be built so deep underground.
Outdated laws cannot possibly keep up with the pace of constantly evolving social developments.
Amending the law again would take time, money and effort.
Despite having a legislature that seems reluctant to properly discuss revisions to laws, it ought to be a simple matter to make changes. This is a common occurrence in countries with rule of law.
In light of this, the National Land Management Agency, under the Ministry of the Interior, made an interpretation of the law in 2017.
“When the Taipei Arena [predecessor to the Taipei Dome] is used provisionally for non-athletic events, none of such use shall subject the building to the specified technical regulations found in Chapter 2, Articles 121 to 128 of the Technical Regulations,” it said.
Meanwhile, the agency made a broad interpretation that “when venues are temporarily used in a non-athletics capacity, such usage shall be applied for in accordance with the Taipei City Large Crowd Event Safety Management Ordinance [台北市大型群眾活動安全管理自治條例].”
When the Taipei City Government issues a use permit, it is doing so largely in accordance with the agency’s interpretation.
Why does anyone need to reapply for a permit according to Article 29 of The Taipei City Regulations on Usage Permits?
It says: “When accepting applications for work plans for large-scale mass events, a review must be applied for in accordance with Article 127 in the chapter on Architectural Designs and Construction of the Architectural Technical Regulations [建築技規則建築設計施工篇].”
This regulation was supposedly annotated and given an addendum in the early years of former Taipei mayor Ko Wen-je’s (柯文哲) administration.
The use permit was only issued as per the regulations. The issuing of the construction permit happened in the middle of the saber rattling between Ko’s Municipal Urban Development Bureau and the administrators for the Taipei Dome.
Just as well, nobody knows which regulatory unit has the final say.
The final portion of Article 29 states: “Or the safety of fire escape and evacuation has been verified through a performance design review by a professional organization [or others permitted to do so].”
For the moment, the Taipei City Government and Farglory (the contractor for the Dome) seem to be heading in this direction.
Who exactly is going to carry out the inspections and how they are going to do them, are entirely new questions.
Can we hold a concert?
If we put aside the professionals and the cumbersome building management, and look through the perspective of spectators, then the answer is crystal clear: There are no problems when it comes to hosting a baseball game, so why would a concert not be okay?
These questions were raised, because of a concern that superstar performances might be too rowdy for structural safety.
Is it due to dangers from pyrotechnics? Have past sporting events ever cut back on those?
Additionally, the regulatory review approved the venue holding large-scale events attended by more than 55,000 spectators.
If there truly are any concerns, could they not have been raised during the application period and protections bolstered retroactively?
From its inception, the Taipei Dome has long been a contentious issue.
Yes, it is the first time something like this has been attempted in Taiwan. Yes, we have come up against antiquated rules and regulations.
If we add on political calculations, the hatched-up result was heavily reduced from its initial designs after the “gestation” process.
These problems are not outliers in the field of architecture.
The decision to literally interpret the law during investigations and the implementation process is really quite ridiculous.
How many Taiwanese hope to go to the Taipei Dome and experience something that used to only be experienced through international media?
Experts hope that there is a reasonable way to apply the regulations to the whole of the Taipei Dome. They do not want a repeat of all the controversy and fighting from the time of its construction.
Leu Chin-wen is an architect and a board member of the Organization of Urban Re-s (OURs).
Translated by Tim Smith
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS