SECTION 11
vibraslap
I'm gonna reset my take on the break from "traditional" stadium design.
Stadiums are monuments.
Fenway Park and Wrigley Field are authentic pieces of their time. In 2002, a contemporary (as opposed to modern) architecture is necessary because live are in a new era. The fact that the proposed stadium does not present a contrived version of historic significance (see Coors Field) is the fact that gives the design validity. The architecture itself typifies nothing, only that a new typology is needed.
Historic ballparks of the past are contextual in their material. The proposed stadium is contextual in its program. It’s both/and, as opposed to either/or. In the case of the proposed stadium at hand, it is a hybrid monument.
Its “looks” are significant only to those who cannot, or will not, investigate its contextual value, or its resistance to a homogenized environment.
Stadiums are monuments.
Fenway Park and Wrigley Field are authentic pieces of their time. In 2002, a contemporary (as opposed to modern) architecture is necessary because live are in a new era. The fact that the proposed stadium does not present a contrived version of historic significance (see Coors Field) is the fact that gives the design validity. The architecture itself typifies nothing, only that a new typology is needed.
Historic ballparks of the past are contextual in their material. The proposed stadium is contextual in its program. It’s both/and, as opposed to either/or. In the case of the proposed stadium at hand, it is a hybrid monument.
Its “looks” are significant only to those who cannot, or will not, investigate its contextual value, or its resistance to a homogenized environment.
