Sign in to follow this  
griffin128

More proof that retro stadiums are cookie cutters

Recommended Posts

Cookie-cutter this:

pncpark.jpg

Gosh dang i love that stadium......

So beautiful...........

wait there is something wrong with that pic. There are people at a Pirates game!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You ain't gonna see the Gateway Arch in any other place than new Bush Stadium in St. Louis.

If these are cookie-cutter ballparks, then please, give me more cookies.

Yep...

busch.JPG

Having been to them all, I think the only thing better are the two originals -- Fenway and Wrigley...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DID YOU IGNORE EVERYTHING ELSE I SAID.

We all keep trying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As somebody working towards licensure as an architect (and having done a hockey arena for my master's thesis), I can't stand the way some non-architects look at ballparks, it sickens me to think that all of these new ballparks are viewed as cookie-cutters. For one thing, look at the neighborhoods that the ballparks reside in. For the most part, they're urban in nature, and in the case of most cities, they're older neighborhoods that tie sports facilities into neighborhood redevelopment. What is the materiality of most of these older urban buildings? Brick masonry, steel, concrete, and glass. Most non-architects don't really get a chance to appreciate the ballpark in plan, either. It is here where each stadium design shows its idiosyncracies and uniqueness. Could you plop the plan for one ballpark into the grid of another city? Probably not.

Ballparks are object buildings by virtue of their size alone. In elevation and perspective, these ballparks offset that a bit by integrating themselves into their surrounding neighborhoods (instead of dominating them). This is the way it's been for nearly a century, save for a brief period of brutalist multi-sport insanity in the 1960's and 1970's. I'm not going to excuse or condemn what St. Louis did for their ballpark, but let's all withhold judgement until the neighborhood around the ballpark develops.

In conclusion, is there room for innovation in ballpark design? Of course there is. But let's not forget that the ballpark is a completely different animal than the stadium or arena. It always has been, and thankfully always will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, yes, they all have a certain uniqueness to each, but there are a lot of common design elements that have grown very overused. Do you not realize that? So St. Louis's park has an arch, and Denver's a ring (WOW!), but beyond that, they're all ripping off Camden Yards with the brick-and-green steel, contrived dimensions, forest-green seats, and so on. RETRO STYLE WITH MODERN AMENITIES! People are starting to feel that it's retro-by-numbers with some of these parks, and would welcome something that doesn't look like everything else for once.

Well, think of it this way: What was the difference between, say, Riverfront Stadium in Cincinnati and Three Rivers Stadium in Pittsburgh? Not much, right?

Now, think of the differences between Great American Ballpark in Cincinnati and PNC Park in Pittsburgh. You can see tons of differences.

One thing Riverfront and Three Rivers did have going for them: They had cool names (or original name in the case of Riverfront).

And by the way, all you have to do is go to a game at the Metrodome and you'll learn to appreciate these so-called modern cookie-cutter ballparks even more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DID YOU IGNORE EVERYTHING ELSE I SAID.

We all keep trying.

The hell did I ever do to you? And who are you to speak for everybody else? All I said was that despite the uniqueness of the new parks, there are some elements that give people the impression that maybe HOK is starting to cut corners here. But hey, don't let that stop you from your stupid snarky little comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PNC is different because they used limestone.

Petco is unique because they used sandstone.

Camden yards was unique because they used brick for the first time in 40 years.

Busch-brick, Coors- brick, Safeco- brick, Cit-Bank - brick, new Shea -brick, Ameriquest -brick, AT&T - brick.

Yes I get it, they all have uique features but they are all based off of the Camden Yards design. It worked in baltimore so they repeat the same GENERAL idea in other places.

At least the Nationals are considering using marble and glass. That's all I'm asking for. Move past the brick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marble and glass works because it is DC and you expect such a construction. I don't know how many other cities you could say that for, though.

Brick looks good and blends in with the urban environment. The only possible problem I have with brick for Busch III stems from its proximety to the New Madrid fault line.

You should also consider that there aren't a huge variety of available options for stadium construction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brick looks good and blends in with the urban environment. The only possible problem I have with brick for Busch III stems from its proximety to the New Madrid fault line.

AT&T Park, being in proximity of the San Andreas and Hayward Faults, gets around this because the brick exterior is really a precast shell affixed to a steel reinforced concrete structure. Im pretty sure thats how Busch III was built as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True that most of the new ballparks do use brick and stell. But, the bricks vary in color, size and most importantly in layout pattern. The steel is also used in a variety of ways. If using brick and steel is cookie cutter than, except for the concrete multi-purpose stadiums of the 60s and 70s all ballparks are cookie cutter. Ebbets, Wrigley, Fenway, Comisky, Shibe, and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't care if it monsoons in St. Petersburg every day, it's gotta be better than being in there.

FWIW, every article I read on the city says it's one of the sunniest in America. Why would there be so many old people retiring there if it's always cloudy and rainy, anyway?

Youve obviously never been to St. Pete in mid July. The humidity is HORRIBLE. The dome makes perfect sense. And accually, the trop isnt that bad of a stadium.

And thats another reason why i pray that Washington DC builds a retractable roof stadium. The only place ive been more miserable due to heat and humidity 24 hours a day was New Orleans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Youve obviously never been to St. Pete in mid July. The humidity is HORRIBLE.

Check out Houston between June and August....and dear God bring an extra absorbent towel, you'll need it to mop up the twenty pounds of sweat you'll drop if you stay outdoors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just sick of reading/hearing "it's classic architecture, with modern amenities!" every single time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Move past the brick.

We get it.

You don't like brick facades.

That single shared building material does not make them cookie-cutters, though. You'll need to find a new name for your quest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
retro by the numbers. i can't agree. each has a distinct personality. all ballparks are defined by certain parameters, and you can't escape those. but they all have distinctive features. like, you can't hit one into the water in any other park in the majors, I believe.

Nope. Home plate at PNC Park in Pittsburgh is within 450 feet of the Allegheny River at its closest point. I can't remember if someone's dunked one in the river there yet, but I'd think it's entirely possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dunn had put one into the Ohio from GABP. I believe thats right around 500 feet. He also hit the Steamboat monument before as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if we all turn back the clock the old stadiums were all similar too. After they learned that most of the wooden structures burned in a fire (who knew!) they went with a steel core. The differences came in the location of the lot. Back in the day the construction was financed by the owner and to keep costs down they would shoe horn it in to the lot that was available. In today's age we pay for the place except in SF and they buy all the land they can grab to put the most money generating place they can.

In the original concepts for Camden they had the warehouse gone with more of a view of the city, not so much the harbor because in is 4 blocks or so away. The second idea was that the warehouse would BE the rightfield wall and the stadium would have had a much higher profile.

But who can we thank for all this new construction in sports...Mr. Robert Ersay.

IF he didn't move the Colts out in the middle of that snowy March night the fans of Baltimore would not have feared the worse for the Orioles and not demanded a new stadium. Now all cities must have the latest and greatest at all times to prevent that from happening. Give me what I want or I'll move!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
retro by the numbers.  i can't agree.  each has a distinct personality.  all ballparks are defined by certain parameters, and you can't escape those.  but they all have distinctive features.  like, you can't hit one into the water in any other park in the majors, I believe.

Nope. Home plate at PNC Park in Pittsburgh is within 450 feet of the Allegheny River at its closest point. I can't remember if someone's dunked one in the river there yet, but I'd think it's entirely possible.

It happened last year. I think it might have been Mackowiak but I'm not sure. They were talking about it on a Cubs broadcast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie-cutter this:

pncpark.jpg

if you insist.

detroit2.jpg

not saying i don't like them. as a matter of fact, i love the new wave of stadiums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you visit Busch, and you look around at the Buildings to the West, North, South, and East, you will see why Red Brick and arches were used. No Green Iron, its Black Ironwork to replicate what you had at Sportsman's park and The Eads Bridge. The overhang of the stadium is nearly the exact layout of Sportsman's park. Have you ever seen 3-D logos on a backstop? Me either. Brick has been used for a really long time before the new stadiums came out, Brick Buildings are everywhere around. I don't want to see a stadium look like a skyscraper.

The people that hate Busch III are the ones that had a boner over Busch II and couldn't let it go. Its not even freakin' finished yet and people are complaining about it. Of course there are a few things I'm not happy about (where are banners for the 9 world championships?) but I'll reserve complete judgement at least until they finish the damn building. The Crown of this Stadium is going to be the Yet to be finished Ballpark Villiage. Come back in 2008 and tell me its a "cookie-cutter"

The Westin Hotel

na1248ex5_lg.jpg

The backstop

buschbackstop.jpg

The Roof to sportsman:

kmov0076.jpgStadiumsSportsmansPark_photo2.jpg

Visit an NFL stadium if you want cookie cutter. The only one to break the Mold recently was the Arizona one, and personally, that wasn't a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this