Topic: On the Red Sox stadium (Fenway Park)

[LiamG]

And what architects were appointed for it out of a possible 5? Hok Sport (populous)! Thats kind of made me a little bit happy because if our owners go with these guys they are 1 of the best in the world!

http://portfolio.populous.com/projects/redsoxtraining.html

[Peter McGurk]

And what architects were appointed for it out of a possible 5? Hok Sport (populous)! Thats kind of made me a little bit happy because if our owners go with these guys they are 1 of the best in the world!

http://portfolio.populous.com/projects/redsoxtraining.html

You have to be impressed with HOK Sports' achievements but I believe they've been at it for so long that they have a clear idea of the 'perfect' stadium that 'fits all', which is worrying.  Every football club is unique with vastly different values if very similar goals.

[LiamG]

At the end of the day though they still have to listen to what the Clients want because at the end of the day they are the ones that are paying them!

This is what they wrote about the millenium stadium

The architectural priority was to retain the 'cauldron' atmosphere of Cardiff Arms Park, with a close, almost intimate connection between the players and the spectators. The stadium's vibrant red and green colour scheme is an expression of the growing pride of Wales.

[Peter McGurk]

At the end of the day though they still have to listen to what the Clients want because at the end of the day they are the ones that are paying them!

This is what they wrote about the millenium stadium

It's a double-edge sword.  If an architect does just what he's told, what's the point in hiring an architect? If an architect goes absolutely their own way, only clients wanting the unexpected would hire them.  The good make the best compromise within the constraints of the client's situation - the best, question the brief and move the goalposts to fit an ideal solution for their client.  They don't come with preconceived ideas.

[scouse29]

It's a double-edge sword.  If an architect does just what he's told, what's the point in hiring an architect? If an architect goes absolutely their own way, only clients wanting the unexpected would hire them.  The good make the best compromise within the constraints of the client's situation - the best, question the brief and move the goalposts to fit an ideal solution for their client.  They don't come with preconceived ideas.

I enjoy reading your posts Peter as your obvioulsy well versed in this field. Is this your trade?

[LiamG]

It's a double-edge sword.  If an architect does just what he's told, what's the point in hiring an architect? If an architect goes absolutely their own way, only clients wanting the unexpected would hire them.  The good make the best compromise within the constraints of the client's situation - the best, question the brief and move the goalposts to fit an ideal solution for their client.  They don't come with preconceived ideas.

Your right, But obviously if they were to hire them architects they would be briefed much in the same way as the millenium stadium

-Keep the brilliant atmosphere
-Build a single tiered Kop

Etc,etc,etc

Hok wont exacly go, no we arnt doing that we want to give you the ground that we want to design

[Peter McGurk]

Your right, But obviously if they were to hire them architects they would be briefed much in the same way as the millenium stadium

-Keep the brilliant atmosphere
-Build a single tiered Kop

Etc,etc,etc

Hok wont exacly go, no we arnt doing that we want to give you the ground that we want to design

True again, but anyone who goes to Populous these days, does so because they like what they do and knows what to expect.  There seems to be a discernible 'anywhere' quality to the design that somehow lacks intensity.  Call it internationalism or call it generic - what was their last design that wasn't a 'bowl'?

[xerxes1]

At the end of the day though they still have to listen to what the Clients want because at the end of the day they are the ones that are paying them!
This is what they wrote about the millenium stadium.

The balance is always between the architect's imagination and the client's pocket.

What was largely  lost in design in the latter part of the 20th Century was the sense of legacy on the part of the commissioning clients. The over riding imperative was invariably to get the job done for the minimum cost. Football Clubs who think nothing of splashing out on a star player whose playing span might only be a few years are less prepared to invest in a structure which will represent a community for maybe half a century.

Internally, there is a limit to what you can do with a football stadium, it is the external elevations where the opportunity lies.

[Peter McGurk]

The balance is always between the architect's imagination and the client's pocket.

What was largely  lost in design in the latter part of the 20th Century was the sense of legacy on the part of the commissioning clients. The over riding imperative was invariably to get the job done for the minimum cost. Football Clubs who think nothing of splashing out on a star player whose playing span might only be a few years are less prepared to invest in a structure which will represent a community for maybe half a century.

Internally, there is a limit to what you can do with a football stadium, it is the external elevations where the opportunity lies.

Your assumption that the architect’s imagination and the client’s pocket are at opposite ends of the scale shows in stark clarity that you do not understand what an architect does.    You assume that there is nowhere that an architect can add commercial value to a client’s business.  I pity any architect who finds himself working in that kind of environment.

Short term commercialism is endemic in business in the UK (and in the ‘developed’ ie., post-industrial nations) today and is not the sole province of the commissioning client.  I would have thought you would have more sympathy for that.

In terms of the ‘matchday experience’, a fan might be inside the stadium for two hours (and that’s where he’s going to spend his money).  While the outside is emblemic of the pride and value placed in the team, he will rush past the outside to get in on time on the day.  The idea that the inside is just a bunch of seats and boxes in a regulatory-compliant arrangement (and shove in some rooms to sell beer - it’s ok, people will queue for toilets or better, piss on the wall) shows a very poor understanding of what it means to watch and actively support a football team as a valued contributor to the team’s (and the commercial owner's) success. 

[xerxes1]

Your assumption that the architect’s imagination and the client’s pocket are at opposite ends of the scale shows in stark clarity that you do not understand what an architect does.    You assume that there is nowhere that an architect can add commercial value to a client’s business.  I pity any architect who finds himself working in that kind of environment.

Short term commercialism is endemic in business in the UK (and in the ‘developed’ ie., post-industrial nations) today and is not the sole province of the commissioning client.  I would have thought you would have more sympathy for that.

In terms of the ‘matchday experience’, a fan might be inside the stadium for two hours (and that’s where he’s going to spend his money).  While the outside is emblemic of the pride and value placed in the team, he will rush past the outside to get in on time on the day.  The idea that the inside is just a bunch of seats and boxes in a regulatory-compliant arrangement (and shove in some rooms to sell beer - it’s ok, people will queue for toilets or better, piss on the wall) shows a very poor understanding of what it means to watch and actively support a football team as a valued contributor to the team’s (and the commercial owner's) success. 

I commission architects and recommend them to clients. Your assumptions are characteristically flawed.

A key part of the architect’s role IS to add commercial value to a clients business, that is what they are paid for. Almost all architects commissions are within strict budgets. Don’t pity those who cannot perform within those constraints- they are not working.

Short term commercialism in design and build always has been, and always will be, with us. Various past era’s though did have one eye on legacy in grand projects, the Victorians being a good example. More locally, and recently, the Liver building also reflects that. Such projects invariably reflect confidence and vision, both are in short supply here at present.

You are right that the outside of the stadium is your statement to the world. Your grasp of the rest, less so. The inwards are indeed primarily a money generating space, the pitch side elevations though to me are vital, they represent the soul of the club where the team, and the fans, unite.

[Peter McGurk]

I commission architects and recommend them to clients. Your assumptions are characteristically flawed.

A key part of the architect’s role IS to add commercial value to a clients business, that is what they are paid for. Almost all architects commissions are within strict budgets. Don’t pity those who cannot perform within those constraints- they are not working.

Short term commercialism in design and build always has been, and always will be, with us. Various past era’s though did have one eye on legacy in grand projects, the Victorians being a good example. More locally, and recently, the Liver building also reflects that. Such projects invariably reflect confidence and vision, both are in short supply here at present.

You are right that the outside of the stadium is your statement to the world. Your grasp of the rest, less so. The inwards are indeed primarily a money generating space, the pitch side elevations though to me are vital, they represent the soul of the club where the team, and the fans, unite.

Per usual, dissemblance, deliberate misunderstanding and statements of the bleedin’ obvious to add ‘realism’.

It’s impossible to reason with a closed book.

[LiamG]

True again, but anyone who goes to Populous these days, does so because they like what they do and knows what to expect.  There seems to be a discernible 'anywhere' quality to the design that somehow lacks intensity.  Call it internationalism or call it generic - what was their last design that wasn't a 'bowl'?

This http://portfolio.populous.com/projects/edenpark.html

but it was a redevelopment

[redandwhitesox]

The red ones are for World Series wins. They have seven of those. The blue are for American League championships (the World Series is played between the American and National League champs). White ones are for Division titles (there are currently three regional Divisions in the American League). The banners signify the highest success they had in a year, so if they won a World Series they wouldn't also hang an AL banner.

The one exception is 1904. You see an AL banner, but in fact the NL winner refused the challenge to play the AL winning Red Sox, so we fans tend to think of ourselves as 1904 World Series winners by default.

The banners actually look very nice in person. Fenway used to be a giant mix of brick and green - a little drab. The banners add some nice splashes of color to the building. Considering that I don't hang draperies of any sort in my house, that's quite a compliment! 

Here a big picture of them all: http://community.webshots.com/photo/fullsize/1326831925068654856ASSChQ

Another shot: http://www.preciseseating.com/fenwaypark_banners1.jpg

To add to this (months later), until recently, there were two completely distinct leagues in baseball, the American League and the National League. The teams from the two leagues never played each other except in the "World Series" or championship, which is nowadays a best of seven round. Sort of a tiny champions league.

Before the two leagues started playing each other, in limited fashion, in the 1990's, the leagues were totally distinct, had different governing bodies, and to this day they have small differences in rules, etc. So, winning your league was seen as a great honor, and the winner got a flag or a "pennant" to do with as they chose, I suppose. To this day winning the league is more often than not referred to as "winning the pennant." So the blue banners aren't a celebration of second place, but of winning their league.  So most teams fly some sort of flag to commemorate that feat. In my opinion, the way the sox do it (shown in the pics in the original post) is among the least tacky approaches I've seen.

I personally don't care much for the white banners, but c'est la vie. I agree completely, btw, with whoever said those banners do wonders for the neighborhood. Used to be a really drab and depressing street (when not a game day) before they put those in.