Master Index of Archived Threads


Stadium Design (split from split from Piazza)

Mr. Zero Apr 01 2008 12:52 PM

designer. present. and not to sidetrack this great idea, but graphic designers are talking about citifield! [url]http://www.designobserver.com/archives/034974.html#comments[/url]

AG/DC Apr 01 2008 12:56 PM

Hey, Fred Bell. Shut up. I'm confused by that article. On one hand, Shea sucks. On the other, the new ballpark should draw its design elements from the remaining architecture of the 1964 World's Fair, which is what Shea did.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 01 2008 01:11 PM

Michael O'Donoghue once facetiously said the point of writing was to make yourself feel superior to whoever would read it. He suggested, for instance, writing jokes with punchlines written in arabic. I was reminded of this remark after Doug Bartow capped his lengthy description of his trip to the Yankee game by revealing that words on the new stadium's facade were anamorphically scaled. Um, ha ha? I mean, oh. Hmmm. Interesting.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 01 2008 01:15 PM

That one furrowed my brow as well. I like Mark Kaufman's idea of building a stadium on top of a skyscraper. It would make for great visuals from the Goodyear blimp. The only (minor!) problems I could think of would be high winds and trying to get 50,000 people to exit at the same time. Imagine the backup to get on the elevator after the game ends!

Mr. Zero Apr 01 2008 01:34 PM

I think the point of the article—once we agree to go along with the assumption that Shea's a goner—is the lack of imagination applied to the design of Citifield. That and the missed opportunity to revisit some modernism. Anyway back to the senior circuit. Open tryouts for old guys? a different city each year?

metirish Apr 01 2008 01:38 PM

Isn't this more about what Fred Wilpon wanted , can HOK be blamed if they are told to "build me a fucking place that reminds people of Ebbets Field", of course we all remember Ebbets Field.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 01 2008 01:44 PM

No, you can't blame HOK so much. They're giving the customer what he wants. I more blame Fred Wilpon for his lack of foresight and imagination. Maybe HOK could have said, "Geez, Fred, not another retro park!" but even if they did, Fred probably wouldn't have been deterred. I'm sure Citi Field will be a very nice park. But I agree that it could have been a lot nicer if it wasn't what it is (and where it is). The game is the thing, not the ballpark. But these retro parks are just little pieces of Disneyland, and that's the last thing we need.

themetfairy Apr 01 2008 02:24 PM

At least it's not going to have a ferris wheel and carousel, like at Comerica Park. Talk about detracting attention from the game!

Benjamin Grimm Apr 01 2008 02:30 PM

I think it's okay to detract attention from the game. Not everybody in the park is a serious baseball fan. If I'm watching an exciting or important game, no ferris wheel is going to distract me.

Mr. Zero Apr 01 2008 02:43 PM

HOK and Fred are the culprits. HOK probably more so. They designed the damn thing. They could have proposed and pushed for something else (maybe they did?). They get all the credit in the world for Camden Yards, which was a new concept in ballparks at that time. They've designed some interesting new stadiums, the Olympic Stadium in China and the new Wembley. So I guess its OK to call them on it when they're doing elevated hack work. That said, I don't blame them for doing it either, architecture is a tough, tough business. Getting something actually built a rarity. You can't be turning down work. It's just, the whole concept is wrong.

AG/DC Apr 01 2008 02:55 PM

I'm a lonely Shea defender, but aren't we jumping quickly here to acceptance of the conclusion that CitField (at least the façade) is modeled on an old ballpark. A lot of recent ballparks have been modeled on the style of old ballparks. What's been done a lot is bad. CitiField is bad It's not what I would do either, but I've told many a self-loathing Met fan that I'm hopping on one of their bandwagons, and I'm slow to join them on this one until, at least, you know, the place opens.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 01 2008 03:07 PM

I don't think it will be bad. I think the overall experience at the park will probably be very nice. I regret the Disney aspect, but it is possible to have a nice time at Disneyland. I've been to Europe and I've been to EPCOT. I enjoyed EPCOT, but I like the real Europe a whole lot more.

Mr. Zero Apr 01 2008 03:19 PM

I am actually pro Shea as well, and will reserve final judgement on Citifield for when the thing opens. Though I still think the concept totally eats dog poop.

themetfairy Apr 01 2008 03:26 PM

I thought that HOK was also borrowing a lot from PNC Park for this design. If that's the case, it should be pretty nice - PNC is gorgeous.

Mr. Zero Apr 01 2008 03:42 PM

I like PNC too. Mostly because of the approach to the stadium (the walk across the Roberto Clemente Bridge) and the wonderful view you get of the city from inside. The Primanti Bros sandwiches too! Manny Sanguillen signing autographs! Its all about Pittsburgh. Citifield appears to be all about not the Mets.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 01 2008 03:44 PM

Yeah, it's about the Brooklyn Dodgers. It's like if I was the boss of the Mets and I had a stadium designed to reflect my childhood interests. It would be a hybrid of the Sixties Shea Stadium and the Baxter Building. (Complete with a portal to the Negative Zone!)

themetfairy Apr 01 2008 03:50 PM

My retro vision would bring back the orange and blue tiles.

Mr. Zero Apr 01 2008 03:52 PM

Funny. My personal stadium would probably look like a giant station wagon covered with blue and orange tiles. Smoking allowed! Cheap seats in the way back.

Vic Sage Apr 01 2008 04:00 PM

Danielle hits the nail right on the head: ]Nothing is so American as baseball and apple pie, and it doesn't surprise me at all that stadiums around the country are being built in the vernacular of a bygone era: baseball uniforms are extremely similar to those worn when the game was created, fans still eat peanuts and popcorn, even non-fans sing that catchy song during inning changes (or commercial breaks). Americans hold nothing as sancrosanct as baseball and its visual cues, and the sport takes on meaning far beyond recreation for many fans. Not only does "ye olde" stadium architecture play into and reinforce this cultural tradition, it also provides a level of comfort and nostalgia. Think about it - Camden Yards opened in 1992, during an economic downshift that arrived on the heels of the ra-ra patriotic Reagan era. This national gloom, coupled with a push to revitalize post-industrial second-tier American cities, practically demanded safe, cozy, and traditional architectural symbols to house America's pastime. Despite economic surges since then, the majority of the stadiums mentioned in this article are in cities that are not growing. Industry isn't moving to Cleveland, or St Louis. Even in growing, economically healthy metropoli like NYC, San Francisco, Atlanta, baseball fans demand a certain level of tradition in their baseball watching experience - season ticket holders don't want architectural experimentation, or even glory. They want a ritual, nostalgia, and the fulfillment of an expectation that was instilled from birth. How many baseball fans are coaching their toddlers in these traditions at this very moment? The game has changed minutely in its history (and those changes are debated, often fiercely, to this day) and its architecture is no exception. This posting is not to defend the trend, but rather to situate a rebuttal in the current and historical American zeitgeist. We, of all nationalities, crave stability; in a constantly rocking world, we cling to those design elements that are most comfortable and constant. I can think of no more comforting to Americans than baseball. I thought Shea was a shithole. In fact, i didn't think much of it as a kid, either. Having gone to other stadia, including Yankees stadium, i always felt like i got the fuzzy side of the lollipop, as a fan. I was less interested in seeing a change in its exterior design than in the condition, amenities (or lack thereof), crappy sightlines, limited transportation access and chopshop location. While they've apparently done little about the location and access problems, the designs indicate a great improvement in sightlines and amenities. Which i'm very happy about. As for its general aesthetic, I agree with Danielle. Baseball is about the past, not the modern. And certainly they could've drawn on the retro-60s "world's fare" past, but I've got no problem with the Dodgers past. After all, the Dodgers and Giants abandonment was what led to the Mets coming in to existence. Many of its original players were former Dodger and Giant greats for that very reason. Gil Hodges' number is retired on the OF wall. If this "return" of an Ebbets-style aesthetic is the way the owner wants to reclaim that tradition, I've got no problem with it. I know it would have made my parents very happy, were they alive to see it. If that makes design-heads weap for the lack of architectural boldness, they can suck my Dixie Walker.

Vic Sage Apr 01 2008 04:08 PM

And to dismiss our Dodger antecedents as just one of Fred's "childhood interests", is to dismiss the blue in the uniform.

Mr. Zero Apr 01 2008 04:09 PM

I have no problem with nostalgia. I just want Mets nostalgia. Isn't Dodger (my father's team as well) nostalgia what the are Cyclones for?

G-Fafif Apr 01 2008 04:12 PM

Citi Field deserves a clean slate, but the scent of a great idea for 1994 or thereabouts permeates the concept. Making it look like something out of a World's Fair is intriguing, though I suppose that's what Shea Stadium was kind of for. Thanks, Mr. Zero, for the link. Food for thought, and not from Aramark either.

KC Apr 01 2008 04:33 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 01 2008 04:49 PM

When the whole plan came out the first time I'm sure I was all over "Brooklyn Fred" and bbbyyy ... but I've lost some fire in my belly and there are much worse owners of sports teams with much more obnoxious stamps (in various forms) on their teams than Wilpon's exterior decorating. So what if it looks like Ebbets Field? I fear my complaints aren't going to be anything about the stadium but rather that getting tickets is going to be a pain in the ass for the first few years and E-X-P-E-N-S-I-V-E. I'm set in my ways being able to "show up at Shea" whenever I get the urge to on a Sunday afternoon without any headaches. I was actually talking about Harry M. Stevens yesterday, speaking of Aramark.

themetfairy Apr 01 2008 04:36 PM

Kase - the ESPN is working. I saw Aramark and immediately sent an e-mail to someone mentioning Harry M. Stevens.

Triple Dee Apr 01 2008 05:27 PM

What really, really irks me is that HOK's major competitor is HKS. They also thought rebuilding Ebbets Field was a good idea. So they used it as their "inspiration" for Miller Park. So now you'll have two retro ballparks which look to close for comfort. At least, Miller Park has a roof so it has a modern look to it.........except it makes even less sense to recreate Ebbets Fields in the middle of WI.

Spacemans Bong Apr 01 2008 05:33 PM

Vic Sage wrote: And to dismiss our Dodger antecedents as just one of Fred's "childhood interests", is to dismiss the blue in the uniform. It's good to know that the new Citi Field will have 250 foot foul lines as well. No?

Nymr83 Apr 01 2008 05:52 PM

Might it simply be that the old style architecture is simply objectively nicer? the ugly stadiums of the 60's and 70's (i can't think of a baseball stadium built in the 80's) are a trend that has thankfully expired.

AG/DC Apr 01 2008 07:11 PM

Metrodome came into action in 1982. Comiskey II came in 1991.

Nymr83 Apr 01 2008 08:04 PM

wow I didn't think the new Comiskey was that old already.

themetfairy Apr 01 2008 08:09 PM

Yeah, we were at New Comiskey in 1991, just before our daughter turned 2. She's 18 now. So it's been a while.