House Preps Health Care Vote
Restaurant Salt Ban Is Purely a New York Thing
Wolves Could Be Making Return To Illinois
New Exhibit Storms Into the MSI
While the $660 million project was billed as a remodel of the existing stadium, in fact a modern stadium was shoe-horned into the old outer wall. The hideous outcome looks like a UFO landed on the old stadium. The National Park System Advisory Board agrees, stating in its report, "The futuristic new stadium bowl is visually incompatible with the classical colonnades and the perimeter wall of the historic stadium."
The UFO analogy seems especially apt for the west side of the stadium, where a curved silver mass hovers over the once grand colonnades.
When unveiled last fall, even Tribune architecture critic Blair Kamin couldn't refrain from calling it crashed spaceship. And he's got to know all sorts of proper architecture terms for writing criticism.
Sure, there is no continuity to the designs and the architects didn't even make an effort to match colors--the warm sandstone and the cold steel and glass stand in stark contrast. Doesn't the stadium get any extra-credit for doubling of concession stands and restrooms?
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I still don't think it looks all that bad.
It's horribly disappointing to see the Chicagoist written by such small-minded, anti-architecture types.
The chief critics of Soldier Field aren't architects, they are anti-change Chicagoans who forget that Chicago USED TO BE a noted center for architecture. Now look at us. Other cities are producing FAR more significant architectural work that Chicago. Hell, look at our damn CTA stations - we can't even get modern-looking CTA stations and instead get these faux-historical stations.
Get a grip, Chicago. The Soldier Field may take getting used to, but it's a marvelous re-imagination of the site and the contrast of old and new enhances the stadium and reminds people that Chicago can still be the City of Progress.
I have to agree with all said above (except the small minded comment of course). No matter how they did it, the new stadium was doomed from the beginning. As long as the Bears win, that is really all that matters to me, and to most Chicago residents (well, at least the ones born and raised here).
The problem isn't that the stadium looks that bad — it doesn't. But for a city and team that prides itself on a rough, blue-collar attitude, all that blue-glass frippery bursting from the stone is a classic case of square peg meets round hole. It looks like a great venue for a massive chess tournament or Christian revival.
Chicagoist is not at all anti-architecture! One of the primary reasons I returned to Chicago was because of the beauty of the city as a result of its proud architectural history. Both in its cutting edge designs and also in its ability to preserve the historically significant.
But it's hard to do both in the same project, and Soldier Field didn't achieve its goal very well of synthesizing old with new. The proportions of the new do not fit with the old and the materials and colors used don't blend well. The symmetry of the old and the irregular angularity of the new are too jarring. I have seen many buildings that succeed in achieving what the Soldier Field designers tried to.
In my mind, the project did not succeed because there were too many "cooks in the kitchen" who tried to achieve too many different goals. Many were contradictory of others. For example, it's difficult to work within an existing footprint to preserve the historical elements yet add all the modern ammenities expected in today's stadiums that didn't exist in the old one. More bathrooms, more concession stands, a lot more luxury boxes. As a result, even though upper deck hovering up and over and colonnades, they also had to reduce seating capacity by 5,000 seats! In the 2nd largest football market (no L.A. team), we now have the 2nd smallest stadium. Does that really make sense?
Can I just say that moving to a city "because of the beauty of the city as a result of its proud architectural history" is not really a good reason. You moved for a girl, a job, more money, family member on death bed, whatever, BUT FOR ARCHITECTURE? Can I just imagine the scene... "I don't know, Atlanta is great, but I reaaaaaallly hate the architecture,its so '96 Olympics ... But Chicago, on the other hand, gives great skyscraper!"
Wait a minute Backer, are you saying a city's esthetics don't contribute to quality of life? Moving to some strip-mall haven like Dallas just because of some chick seems a lot more dubious than heading to Chi-Town because it's a beautiful city.
Mike, were you an architecture major in college, and feel those five years were a waste now? And who said anything about Dallas...listen up, all of you "Chicago" people in the house. Gots to relax ... WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A FOOTBALL STADIUM!!!!
One of the biggest misconceptions of the current epoch we are living in is that everything has to "match" and has to fit in a "context." Go see Rome and decide for yourself if buildings "match" like a well-picked Ann Taylor outfit. They don't! If anything, they match because all the grime is the same color. The "once grand colonnades" have as much to do with Chicago as a UFO does. So sorry that people are so afraid of doing something contemporary.
I never did any high falutin' architectural studies but alls I know is that Soldier field looks ridiculous. It isn't just about contrasting styles its about the fact that it just isn't very pleasing to the eye.
Well it befits that crappy team anyway..Go Packers, Vikings and the other nfl teams that artmuck supports
>Gots to relax ... WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A FOOTBALL STADIUM!!!!
But architecture is architecture and there is an opportunity for beauty anywhere. Otherwise, we wouldn't have this age old Wrigley vs. Comiskey debate.
I dislike the Solder Field design and think it's too modern, but stripping away its status is kind of extreme, to me.
Now, let's argue about whether the Millenium Park bucks should have been spent on puppies or schools or beer or something!
I have a sneaky feeling that the city won't mind if Soldier(s) Field is removed from its landmark status. Further changes will be easier to make without the weight of keeping the old character intact, and at this point, I would personally not mind if the old columns were taken down.
As for Eric's comments, he looks to be picking a fight, and glossing over that one of the chief critics of the Soldier Field renovation is an architect (Blair Kamin of the Tribune). In the case of Soldier Field, for me, the stadium had a unique design that made it stand out from other NFL stadiums; the renovation marred the view of the colonnades from the interior as well as the view of the skyline. At this point, the view from inside Solider Field could just as well be the same as the new stadiums in Pittsburgh, Cleveland or Cincinnati. Sure, there was change, and the result was modern, but not all changes are good.
I think some of the legitimate complaint, too, is that the Field is a memorial. So they were saying to the soldiers, "Enough with this understated neoroman colonnade. Here's a toilet bowl. Thanks for fighting for us!"
wooo! artmuck is a packers fan!!
At any rate, it serves its function extremely well...and to be able to actually walk amongst the vaunted colonnades year-round now is a real treat.
at least it isnt falling apart like wrigley
So have any of you been INSIDE the new stadium.
It is beautiful. The sight lines are amazing, scanning around the stadium I am in awe they fit this thing inside soldier field. It should be marveled for allowing to keep soldier field intact and providing one of the best views in sports.
That Benjy knows nothing he hasn't read.
Why don;t you go down to the stadium and walk around it and then go inside and survey rather than read news clippings and cursing it will you ride up and down the LSD
Honzo, I never commented negatively on the inside of the stadium. While I have not yet been inside the stadium, all I've heard are great things in terms of the seat sightlines, ammenities, etc. in regards to being a modern NFL stadium.
But that's a different goal from achieving a combination of the old and new elements that's architecturally pleasing.
And a modern stadium isn't one that deserves Historical Landmark designation, which was the ultimate point of the post.
Had they started from scratch with the intentions of building a modern stadium, I believe they'd have been more successful in achieving the positives they did but without the negatives they settled for. Sure they made a nice stadium in terms of watching football, but your "awe they fit this thing inside soldier field" fails to recognize they had to cut the capacity by 5,000 seats to do so -- which is a huge failure in planning for the second largest NFL market (which already had a long waiting list for tickets) to now have the 2nd smallest NFL stadium.
I didn't like it at first, but it is growing on me. When I look at it now, I see Healthy Contempt for the Past. It is like that moment when you are able to wrestle your Dad to the floor for the first time. You are strangely stronger and your Dad is suddenly smaller. A weird and wonderful moment that architecture never depicts all in one building site. Does this mean Da Bears feel a need to shrug off the oppressive weight of their history as badly as Italian Neo-futurists felt it?
You all missed the point. It doesn't matter if it's good or bad design. It IS bad because it is in the wrong place. The same building farther west might be okay. But is clearly too tall and massive for Chicago's sacred lakefront.
http://freehost.crimeanet.com/screens/voyeurcams/63241/black-forest-voyeur.html complimentwhosewondered