Soldier Field Concept

[TimEOBrien]

Ok, so basically I am in the early stages of trying to fix Soldier Field so it's:

A. Usable in inclement weather (covered roof),

B. Super Bowl site eligible (covered roof, increased capacity),

C. A better home advantage (More fans, louder atmosphere).

D. A return to classical architecture.

Basically, it's the Parthenon with a stadium inside (a temple of football, as it should be with the Bears).

As you can see, it's still open air, but there is now a retractable roof that closes by retracting into the roofs above the N and S concourses.

With two bowls at about 35-40 thousand seats, the new capacity should be somewhere between 70,000-80,000

\

C&C appreciated

[RoughRiders99]

While I think this concept is awesome and I absolutely love the idea of making the stadium a Parthenon.

But my biggest, biggest gripe with this thing is that when you "place" the stadium on the google maps birds eye view, I can still see some of the "current" soldier field. The reason why I'm a little bothered by it is when you described the new stadium, it just sounds HUGE.

Otherwise, it's a great, great idea. I can tell that this is a beautiful stadium.

[aci]

It's a cool idea, to be sure, but I think we need some more interior view and details. How about seeing where the pressboxes and luxury suites are, are there any restaurants overlooking the field, etc?

I definitely like the idea of a Parthenon-like structure housing a football stadium, and letting it be covered yet somewhat open-air at the same time.

[mcrosby]

The architecture for this seems better fitted for a team in DC. The Redskins may not deserve to be in such a monument to football, but the first thing I associate parthenon-like architecture in the U.S. with is D.C.

Chicago has two Chicago school styles of architecture. I think either would work for a stadium. With some modern tweaks the first Chicago school could make a great, commercial looking stadium.

Wiki Link

[Buster]

I just got it. I never understood the Greek columns until now. They were Chicago columns! He was ripping off Soldier Field.

[TimEOBrien]

I just got it. I never understood the Greek columns until now. They were Chicago columns! He was ripping off Soldier Field.

Hey, clown? Take that bull partisan trolling and post it somewhere else. You're an idiot. Please don't ever post in any of my threads again. KThanksBye.

[Mings]

You should understand Greek architecture before using it. If this were presented to me in a studio, I would tell you to drop and switch majors. There is nothing good about this concept, and in fact your copying serves to only cheapen the original as it is an added layer of pastiche (and a pastiche which is not understood by the designer). Greek architecture is about proportion and ratios. You have absolutely none here. It is simply not good.

[TimEOBrien]

You should understand Greek architecture before using it. If this were presented to me in a studio, I would tell you to drop and switch majors. There is nothing good about this concept, and in fact your copying serves to only cheapen the original as it is an added layer of pastiche (and a pastiche which is not understood by the designer). Greek architecture is about proportion and ratios. You have absolutely none here. It is simply not good.

Jesus Christ. What part of, "I am in the early stages," did you not get?

First, I'm not an architect, so if I presented this first draft of an amateur design to a professor of architecture, I'm pretty sure I'd be laughed out of the room.

I understand that.

But I'm not doing that. I'm showing my progress on a sports logos board hoping that people help me fine tune this with insightful critiques, just like my NU stadium thread. And I'm not going to be able to fine tune details, like Doric, Ionic or Corinthian columns. Due to the limitations of the program I use, I just get to put a cylinder in rather than a rectangle (or maybe there's a feature on there that I don't know or haven't seen).

Second, I know the pastiche, as you call it, that I am working with. I graduated Indiana with a minor in classical studies. I know the golden ratio (which is why the LxW ratio is a golden ratio rectangle, jerk) and I know about the many tricks the Greek and Romans used to have the eye believe it was seeing what it wasn't. Now, given that, maybe you will take your invalid criticism, about me have absolutely no proportions or ratios, back.

Originally, the height to width ratio was going to be 1 to 1.618 but I had trouble with the designing roof on sketchup (which I downloaded four days ago) so the roof is too low, the entabliture is too small and the pediment is all out of whack. Today I plan on fixing that in an update.

Third, I am not copying the Parthenon any more than I am copying the old Soldier Field architecture but adding a retractable roof to it, which was my main goal. It just started to shape itself like the Parthenon because of my needs.

And last, don't be a jerk. Your comment just came of as mean-spirited, hurtful and rude. Maybe you're an architect and you find this an affront to all your hard work, but that's not what this is and you know it. Just because you know more than me - and from your ridiculously condescending tone I can only assume that you do - doesn't mean you need to tear me down.

If you do have knowledge in this theater, build me up (no pun intended) and help me correct glaring errors I might have made. If you look at my images thus far, you'll notice I don't even have a single column on one side of the super structure - this is so early in the design, I haven't even added simple structural necessities, scoreboards or press boxes.

So, if this is just the worst thing ever and I have no redemption, please leave my to toil in my futility. If all is not lost, come back to this thread but, please, be constructive this time.

[MDGP]

I have to agree with Mings, this really isn't very good. Besides the points that Mings noted, find that this just looks incomplete. For one, the Parthenon portion of the stadium looks more like the roof used to cover outdoor basketball courts.

Obviously, this is not a good look, and certainly does not portray the greatness of ancient Greece, nor the greatness of the Chicago Bears.

Second, the stadium is just bland. There is no detailing whatsoever inside or out. Where are the entrances and exits? How do fans get to the upper deck? Where will things like scoreboards, luxury boxes, lights, etc. be located? These are all things you need to take into account, and until you do that, your concept will look like nothing more than a half-baked effort. The best example I can think of a great stadium concept is Raysox's concept of Rays Stadium. It is clear he put lots of thought and effort into it, and took the amount of time to make it look great.

To me, this doesn't appear to be that well thought out, and you should probably go back to the drawing board.

Also, you need to seriously calm down. It seems like whenever I look at one of your concepts, you either fly off the handle at somebody for being "mean" or just ignore their comments completely. You are an adult, show some decorum, and if you think someone is being a jerk, be the bigger man and don't stoop down to that level.

[Mings]

You should read the PM he sent me. Nothing about my criticism was personal, nor an attack or attempt to troll. It was merely the cold, hard truth about the concept. Read it again Tim, you will find it to be constructive. There are pointers in there for you to follow. I apologize for not kissing your ass. It is just not a good concept at all. I'm sorry but "Hey everyone, I put the Parthenon over Soldier Field!" just doesn't cut it. You may not like my style of criticism, but tough .

[TimEOBrien]

It looks incomplete because it is incomplete. smh

[TimEOBrien]

I updated the outside a but that's going to change how I structure the the inside, so I'll get working on that again this weekend:

I'm also considering making it fully indoors by placing glass between the columns but I still like my idea for an open air stadium.

[mcrosby]

The actual seating footprint of this one appears to be considerably smaller than that of the current Soldier Field. Are you lowering capacity? making seating steeper?

[TimEOBrien]

The actual seating footprint of this one appears to be considerably smaller than that of the current Soldier Field. Are you lowering capacity? making seating steeper?

Slope is increased a bit and my original estimate was probably too high, but I'm fixing that as we speak in an update. 70,000 - 80,000 is within my sights.

[The_Admiral]

The famous complaint with the 2002-03 renovation is that it looks like a UFO landed on the Parthenon. Supposing that you're enclosing the existing structure in Greek columns and not tearing the whole thing down a second time, aren't you then putting a Parthenon on a UFO on a Parthenon? I'm not sure about this one. I don't even think pro football belongs on the Museum Campus in the first place. It's like slotting a Jerry Bruckheimer film into a Godard festival, to say nothing of the realities of poor parking/accessibility and problems with the water table.

What about wind? A strong wind coming off the lake and whipping through those columns could be holy hell for everyone, and not even in a home field advantage way, just a pain-in-the-ass way.

I do agree with you, though, that the Soldier Field renovation should have been neoclassical in nature with a capacity around 75,000, as opposed to, well, whatever that shiny waterlogged bandbox is.

[WideRight]

My concern is that you would create a massive structure around the stadium, which basically throws most of the stadium into shade, making it even colder than Soldier Field usually is and yet not protecting anyone from rain or wind in a meaningful way. I also think adding a huge square structure to what is basically a round stadium is going to be awkward. I think a parthenon theme can work with a retractable roof stadium, but one which is built in a more rectangular design, like the new dome in Indy, for example.

[TimEOBrien]

Ok, something appears unclear in my description.

The new stadium, underneath the roof, will be an entirely new structure. No UFO, no old Soldier Field facade. So maybe that will alleviate some design issues for people.

The issue with the wind is somewhat valid, but in the last decade (with two notable exceptions) the Bears haven't had wind play more of role than most teams. Hell, wind consistently affects Pittsburgh games more, just look at FG numbers at Heinz Field. Plus, as you probably know, the title of Windy City has nothing to do with literal wind. I see wind being somewhat of an issue, but not more so than is acceptable.

WideRight, as far as your issues, with the roof closed, there is no possible way for rain to hit the field or spectators in the stadium. When I post an update, this will be clearer.

Now, the cold will still be there, to appease fans who think Chicago weather provides a home field advantage, but the shade issue is only an issue when the roof is closed and the fact that the shade is cooler is actually an illusion. The biggest reason being in the sun feels warmer than being in the shade is because the radiation from the direct sun irritate the skin, making you feel warmer, but you really aren't.

The stadium will no longer be round in any way or sense.

and I have no idea by what you mean when you say, "but one which is built in a more rectangular design." My concept is a giant rectangle...

[TimEOBrien]

Ok some new photos showing the inside with the roof open.

The bottom two boxes on each side are private boxes, The top two are offices, media boxes, coaches boxes and private boxes.

The structures in the corners are two restaurants and the other two are banquet halls/bars/private box hangout areas. Above them are decks that can be for private use or used as standing room for big games.

[marlinfan]

Greek architecture would look incredibly out of place used in a scale that large. Just eyeballing it, the highest point on that is atleast 400 off the ground. That is insane.

[TimEOBrien]

Greek architecture would look incredibly out of place used in a scale that large. Just eyeballing it, the highest point on that is atleast 400 off the ground. That is insane.

309 feet. And Soldier Field's neighbor, the Field Museum is Greek architecture on a pretty large scale:

But yes, it would be large.