Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nationals Park

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by nymdan9 View Post
    It's snowing...
    it looks like cleveland

    Comment


    • Looks bland. I'm not impressed by this at all, but then again, any new ballpark is considered good these days just because it's being built.
      My Top 4 funniest BBF posts ever:

      1) "plZ dOn;t' pOsT LikE tHIs n e mOr!"

      2) "The teams play 1962 games in 180 days."

      3) "Stadiums don't move silly, people do."

      4) "Once again you quibble, because it is I who speaks."

      5) Almost anything RuthMayBond says...

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Knick9 View Post
        Looks bland. I'm not impressed by this at all, but then again, any new ballpark is considered good these days just because it's being built.
        Do you think it looks bland in this rendering? The park definitely has a lot of issues, but I like the way it looks from behind home plate.

        Comment


        • I just noticed something, look at the angle of the aisles from that behind home plate view. No wonder this place looks psychotic; every single one is heading in a different direction.

          Too many angles, too many seating sections, too many weird, jarring elements, too many non-complementary colors, too much of everything. It's like HOK knew they couldn't create a cohesive whole, so they kept trying to slam 20 pounds of.. stuff.. into a 5 pound bag.

          My favorite part remains that horrible batter's eye triangular wall in center leading to the awkward empty area. Way to control the space, HOK! And the MVP '05 Owner Mode giant baseball in center. And the totally out of place roller coaster-looking support for the Nationals sign. And the red seating vomited into center.

          This park is unbelievable; it's like a magic eye puzzle.
          http://www.virtualfenway.com

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sean O View Post
            I just noticed something, look at the angle of the aisles from that behind home plate view. No wonder this place looks psychotic; every single one is heading in a different direction.
            I noticed that too and have been hoping that it's just some sort of optical illusion.

            If all they need to do is move a seat from one side of the aisle to the other*, don't you think someone would look at it and say, "we need to fix that."

            (* I realize that there's probably a little bit more than that but I can't imagine it's tougher than getting a team to move to your city after losing two teams and then getting a stadium built for that team.)

            Comment


            • Wow, been awhile since I've seen construction shots. Some major progress in the last couple of months. I personally see it as an improvement over RFK, but then again, all these HOK builds are almost just as cookie-cutter as the others (the more we change, the more we stay the same). However if anyone has seen the new design for Tampa, that is an amazing stadium and is quite innovative (designed by HOK no less) but that is getting off topic.

              New Nats park isn't that innovative and looks like very other HOK park on the inside IMO. There are certain details that keep it from being every other park, but in the end, it just strikes me as the same layout as their previous designs.
              Baseball writer

              Comment


              • i guess only interior work going on these days

                Comment


                • So it looks like the official name of the new ballpark, at least through the 2008 season, is going to be Nationals Park: Full story.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by BradC34 View Post
                    However if anyone has seen the new design for Tampa, that is an amazing stadium and is quite innovative (designed by HOK no less) but that is getting off topic.
                    Yes, it looks pretty good. Hopefully the ever-present financing problem gets worked out. There's a thread on it in the forum: http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=70147


                    The Nationals' stadium certainly is a mis-mash of eclectic styles and elements. And thanks for the snowy pics - it's 70-something degress here right now and all the windows are open in my home office... Not that I'm gloating...

                    Comment


                    • [QUOTE=BradC34;1063887

                      New Nats park isn't that innovative and looks like very other HOK park on the inside IMO. There are certain details that keep it from being every other park, but in the end, it just strikes me as the same layout as their previous designs.[/QUOTE]



                      Yea its funny how many hate the new designs or claim lack of originality?? Ive seen alot of designs and most look good. I dont get what more people want from these parks. Its a diamond with seats , a fence, a scoreboard, Dugouts ,hopefully wider concourses and more bathrooms and plenty of vendors. There are few older parks that have original flavor that arent forced like Fenway, and Wrigley etc ,And even those parks are only special because of their history. If either one was made today like they are now they would be Bashed harshly..I dont get why so many people are up in arms over this. I care more about the team on the field and having a new clean park with more immenities as a bonus IMO.. It aint my house , i just go and visit!! LOL!!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by gemcaptom View Post
                        I dont get why so many people are up in arms over this. I care more about the team on the field and having a new clean park with more immenities as a bonus IMO.. It aint my house , i just go and visit!! LOL!!
                        Then, just out of curiosity, why exactly do you visit a forum that's mostly dedicated to critiquing the architecture of ballparks? That's kind of what we do here. I would assume that the people who negatively critique these parks believe that a ballpark can be something more than the sum of its parts, and become a part of the city's culture. One way to prevent that is by making it look like every other park out there.

                        Ballparks should not be a commodity.
                        http://www.virtualfenway.com

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sean O View Post
                          Then, just out of curiosity, why exactly do you visit a forum that's mostly dedicated to critiquing the architecture of ballparks? That's kind of what we do here. I would assume that the people who negatively critique these parks believe that a ballpark can be something more than the sum of its parts, and become a part of the city's culture. One way to prevent that is by making it look like every other park out there.

                          Ballparks should not be a commodity.
                          It seems that for the most part only YOU talk negatively about ballparks, which is fine. It is your God given right. But you are wrong when you say that this forum is mostly dedicated to critiquing the architecture of ballparks. I came to this forum, as do I think most people, to talk about ballparks, discuss them and share photos and experiences. The main Baseballfever page describes this forum as "Discuss both modern and historic Ballparks."

                          Back to the topic of this thread, yes, there are several "what the hell were they thinking" design elements with Nationals Park. But you could make that argument for ANY park. No ballpark is perfect. I think this ballpark will be better than RFK. I have been to RFK and it was very bland and uninspiring. I think, as with NYS and Citi Field, we should all wait until the finished product before we rip them apart. Heck, it is well known that during the first few years of a ballpark that ownership tweaks things based on fan responses or unforseen flaws.

                          I agree with what gemcaptom says when he states "I dont get what more people want from these parks. Its a diamond with seats , a fence, a scoreboard, Dugouts ,hopefully wider concourses and more bathrooms and plenty of vendors." A ballpark seating bowl is restricted by the shape of the field of the sport being played. So by that aspect, most seating bowls from foul pole to foul pole are going to be very similar. Football stadiums, hockey/basketball arenas an soccer stadiums all have this constraint. The main thing I care about in a ballpark is a good view of the field, nice wide concourses, good concessions and a good team on the field. Isn't that what it's all about?
                          sigpic

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by stlfan View Post
                            The main thing I care about in a ballpark is a good view of the field, nice wide concourses, good concessions and a good team on the field. Isn't that what it's all about?
                            Well, the cookie cutters, for the most part, had this, did that make them acceptable? Designers are capable of much more, but we rarely ever see that. Look at the proposed Rays park, that shows the potential variations on a theme.

                            Did you not like RFK because it had narrow concourses or because it was "bland"? Because RFK's sightlines will be dramatically better than the new park's view, all that with far more seats. So, all RFK really needed to satisfy your criteria was a new concessions vendor and $3m to expand the concourses.

                            You can do countless different things with the seating bowl, without making it needlessly jarring and divided like Washington's. Just because HOK only offers us one flavor doesn't mean that's the only option.
                            http://www.virtualfenway.com

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sean O View Post
                              Well, the cookie cutters, for the most part, had this, did that make them acceptable? Designers are capable of much more, but we rarely ever see that. Look at the proposed Rays park, that shows the potential variations on a theme.
                              You're right designers are capable of much much more, but sometimes there are restraints on thier creativity. For one the reason I think the cookie cutter parks were so sterile were that they really couldn't show allegiance to one team for the fact that for half the year it was used by another team of another sport. I'm not defending the cookie cutter parks but showing why they might have lacked creativity. Also those cookie cutter parks were not built on an endless budget, they had limits. Like I know Shea Stadium had a budget of $24million, not very big even for the 60's.

                              As for the retro trend not too long ago, those stadiums weren't that bad. The only thing extremely wrong with them was that they all really had a very similar feature to them. And the same thing, they all weren't built on endless budgets.

                              Anyway back to the topic, I really don't care so much for the design of the Nationals Park. It has a little too much uniqueness on the outside, and the inside is a mish mosh of isles and green areas and such.
                              The 27 Time World Series Champions New York Yankees!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Yankeefan90 View Post
                                As for the retro trend not too long ago, those stadiums weren't that bad. The only thing extremely wrong with them was that they all really had a very similar feature to them. And the same thing, they all weren't built on endless budgets.
                                At the same time, quality isn't exactly correlated to the cost. Look at PNC, it's probably the smallest, but they oriented it to the city, created a cohesive seating arrangement, integrated the retro elements subtly rather than shouting them, and generally looks like a polished work.

                                The Nats park looks like an erector set that someone kept adding to, almost as if they had no idea what they were going for originally. Seats show up and disappear, the exterior has absolutely no idea what it wants to be, the aisles are going in every direction, and the designers didn't deem it necessary to block out the view of the parking garages in left.

                                For $600m I'd expect something that looked planned instead of totally haphazard. I know HOK seems to be on a deconstructivist kick between the MN and Washington parks, but you can choose your source material and execution better. I may think Frank Gehry is the antichrist, but at least his creations look like they were all done by the same guy at the same time.
                                http://www.virtualfenway.com

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X