Another glowing review today about Huntington Park, this time from the executive’s perspective. Read it here: http://www.columbusceo.com/article3.html.
A telling quote from the story: “Franklin County Commissioner Marilyn Brown agrees there’s something special about the new home of the Columbus Clippers. ‘It has a soul,’ she says.”
The raves for Huntington Park stand in contrast to reviews of the new Yankee Stadium and Citi Field. In particular, this review from Metropolis: http://www.metropolismag.com/story/20090722/play-ball. Here’s an excerpt: “Design, as idea and physical reality, is the locus of this fan-team covenant, and the ballpark the place of its maintenance and dissolution. That became dismayingly clear to New Yorkers this spring, as they watched their local teams, the Yankees and the Mets, open new stadiums. Both buildings ply the kind of nostalgic aesthetics that reinforce fans’ bonds with their chosen team… In each case, the feel-good design is the lipstick on the pig of a massive commercial project, financed in large measure by the public and unabashedly aimed at liberating fans from the contents of their wallets.”
In many ways, it is unfair to compare the projects. Different expectations: minor-league vs. major-league facilities; different clients with different needs. When you’re at the pinnacle with lots of money, it seems to be human nature that people look for ways to take you down a notch or two. And it should be noted that the Metropolis story gives Yankee Stadium and Citi Field some credit for their designs.
But the comparison brings up an interesting question. How does one design give a place soul? How in another instance does it portend to do so yet miss the mark? Any comments?
A telling quote from the story: “Franklin County Commissioner Marilyn Brown agrees there’s something special about the new home of the Columbus Clippers. ‘It has a soul,’ she says.”
The raves for Huntington Park stand in contrast to reviews of the new Yankee Stadium and Citi Field. In particular, this review from Metropolis: http://www.metropolismag.com/story/20090722/play-ball. Here’s an excerpt: “Design, as idea and physical reality, is the locus of this fan-team covenant, and the ballpark the place of its maintenance and dissolution. That became dismayingly clear to New Yorkers this spring, as they watched their local teams, the Yankees and the Mets, open new stadiums. Both buildings ply the kind of nostalgic aesthetics that reinforce fans’ bonds with their chosen team… In each case, the feel-good design is the lipstick on the pig of a massive commercial project, financed in large measure by the public and unabashedly aimed at liberating fans from the contents of their wallets.”
In many ways, it is unfair to compare the projects. Different expectations: minor-league vs. major-league facilities; different clients with different needs. When you’re at the pinnacle with lots of money, it seems to be human nature that people look for ways to take you down a notch or two. And it should be noted that the Metropolis story gives Yankee Stadium and Citi Field some credit for their designs.
But the comparison brings up an interesting question. How does one design give a place soul? How in another instance does it portend to do so yet miss the mark? Any comments?
No comments:
Post a Comment