Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

HOK Ballparks

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

  • HOK Ballparks

    I see a lot of comments about the bowl configuration of the new parks.
    They are not going to go back to the old pillar or beam method of supporting the upper decks so that is all you can really say about it.
    I also see a lot of bashing of HOK like they have ruined the game and are churning out crap stadiums just because they are the premier company for ballpark design and construction.
    The teams themselves have say so in what they want in the new place and if they want more Jacobs Field then HOK gives them what they are paying for.
    Like it or not, the parks that they have built in less than 2 decades have changed the face of major league ballparks and in my opinion it has changed for the better.
    Stop and think about the parks that were around during the 70s and 80s and look at what we have now.
    Their designs have done away with a lot of god awful ballparks while trying to pay tribute to the games history and tradition and that is a good thing.
    They have also tried to bring back the connection between the ballpark and the city itself. Also a good thing.
    Maybe they need to be given credit for the job that they have done instead of blaming them for not bringing Ebbits Field back from the dead.

    Now that they have more than a handful of stadiums around the country, several different styles and some years to let it all sink in.... what are some of the things that you like or dislike about the HOK ballparks?

    We went from going to places like this....






    To going to places like this...





  • #2
    in almost all cases, parks built since the early 90's have this in common - smaller capacities, fewer lower-priced seats, lower-priced seats farther from the field than in the parks they replaced. new parks are for the corporate customers, not for regular fans.
    the turd in the punchbowl
    reality really sucks.
    enjoy the game more...

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Philtration View Post
      I see a lot of comments about the bowl configuration of the new parks.
      They are not going to go back to the old pillar or beam method of supporting the upper decks so that is all you can really say about it.
      I don't think there should be obstructions in the seating bowl. I do, however, think that the upper decks can be far closer to the field than HOK currently allows. Between cantilevers and the RFK/Yankee Stadium solution, we can be much closer to the action.

      I also see a lot of bashing of HOK like they have ruined the game and are churning out crap stadiums just because they are the premier company for ballpark design and construction.
      The teams themselves have say so in what they want in the new place and if they want more Jacobs Field then HOK gives them what they are paying for.
      Does the team say that they want the upper deck farther away? What about the obstructions down the line? The total lack of innovation in seating options? I think you misunderstand what a team dealing with HOK means. They may say they want a park like Ebbets or Fenway or the freaking Guggenheim in Bilbao, but it's still up to HOK to make the functionality perfect. HOK has barely done a single thing different, fundamentally, since Camden opened.

      Like it or not, the parks that they have built in less than 2 decades have changed the face of major league ballparks and in my opinion it has changed for the better.
      These two things are completely separate from one another. Just because these parks are better than the donuts doesn't mean they're the best company for the job. They have still completely atrophied when it comes to the basic architecture involved.

      They have also tried to bring back the connection between the ballpark and the city itself. Also a good thing.
      Wait, so it's the teams who are limiting HOK's creativity (as you posted above), but it's HOK who "brings back the connection"? HOK didn't choose to put Comerica and SBC and PNC downtown, the site was already chosen. Anything short of building 60' walls to block out the view at PNC would've brought back that connection.

      Maybe they need to be given credit for the job that they have done instead of blaming them for not bringing Ebbits Field back from the dead.
      Or maybe someone should actually say how and why they're failing miserably and wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on mediocre pieces of crap.

      Now that they have more than a handful of stadiums around the country, several different styles and some years to let it all sink in.... what are some of the things that you like or dislike about the HOK ballparks?
      That's the thing, there are no different styles, it is all the exact same park. There is no innovation in any park since Camden, especially not compared to the simple conveniences one could expect from a place like Allianz Arena. I'm not even talking about the superficial exterior treatments, I'm talking about fan amenities like separate entrances for season ticket holders and electronic passcards instead of individual tickets.

      Ignore whether they used glass curtain walls or pre-made fake bricks on the exterior and look at the architectural creation itself. Every single thing is the same, with no advancement whatsoever. We need a sea change in the way parks are designed to fit our culture, and HOK is not that company.
      http://www.virtualfenway.com

      Comment


      • #4
        There is a trend going on in our country where people gravitate more and more to things that are already popular or familiar. Our large cities are starting to look the same. We see the same corporate restaurants, generic skyscrapers, and the same style of sporting venue. Our mainstream film industry continues to produce crap that is already popular and well known only to market their "brand" on a Burger King cup. Creative art and architecture are still alive in small pockets of our country, but there's this unfortunate trend of Wall St. getting too involved in our country's landscape. HoK is obviously a part of this trend. They are a company that gives people something that is already popular because it's too risky to be revolutionary. They keep winning bids because the majority of our citizens and owners of our teams don't notice, don't care, or just settle for the status quo. It's sad that independent and creative work is being held back by people who just don't get it.

        Comment


        • #5
          Here's a solution for everyone who doesn't like the stadiums:
          If you don't like them, don't go. It leaves more tickets for the people who would like to see the new stadiums. Seriously, if you don't like the way the new Yankee Stadium or Citi Field or any other new stadium looks, just don't go. Why do you complain all the time? Do you like being squished in like sardines when watching a baseball game? Or would you rather there be wider aisles with more legroom? Do you like waiting 3 or 4 innings on line to take a piss or buy a beer? Or would you rather there be more bathrooms and concession stands? Would you rather it take 3 hours to walk out of the stadium because the halls are so cramped? Or would you rather it take 20-30 min to walk out of the stadium because there's actually room to walk around people?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by jimmyjimjimz View Post
            Here's a solution for everyone who doesn't like the stadiums:
            If you don't like them, don't go. It leaves more tickets for the people who would like to see the new stadiums. Seriously, if you don't like the way the new Yankee Stadium or Citi Field or any other new stadium looks, just don't go. Why do you complain all the time? Do you like being squished in like sardines when watching a baseball game? Or would you rather there be wider aisles with more legroom? Do you like waiting 3 or 4 innings on line to take a piss or buy a beer? Or would you rather there be more bathrooms and concession stands? Would you rather it take 3 hours to walk out of the stadium because the halls are so cramped? Or would you rather it take 20-30 min to walk out of the stadium because there's actually room to walk around people?
            I'm going to try to say this as respectfully as humanly possible: If you don't understand the thread, don't post a comment.
            http://www.virtualfenway.com

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by jimmyjimjimz View Post
              Here's a solution for everyone who doesn't like the stadiums:
              If you don't like them, don't go. It leaves more tickets for the people who would like to see the new stadiums. Seriously, if you don't like the way the new Yankee Stadium or Citi Field or any other new stadium looks, just don't go. Why do you complain all the time? Do you like being squished in like sardines when watching a baseball game? Or would you rather there be wider aisles with more legroom? Do you like waiting 3 or 4 innings on line to take a piss or buy a beer? Or would you rather there be more bathrooms and concession stands? Would you rather it take 3 hours to walk out of the stadium because the halls are so cramped? Or would you rather it take 20-30 min to walk out of the stadium because there's actually room to walk around people?
              I agree. I've seen games at the Kingdome, Olympic Stadium, BC Place.... all were awful venues. It just seemed weird and artificial. Going to Safeco was amazing, in every way. No real lineups for anything, easy to get in and out of, and great views of the game. If there are less seats in the new parks so be it. I still see pretty cheap seats available in them, so....
              Check out some demos from my upcoming album: http://www.myspace.com/le_serge

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Nat Bailey View Post
                I agree. I've seen games at the Kingdome, Olympic Stadium, BC Place.... all were awful venues. It just seemed weird and artificial. Going to Safeco was amazing, in every way. No real lineups for anything, easy to get in and out of, and great views of the game. If there are less seats in the new parks so be it. I still see pretty cheap seats available in them, so....
                Safeco wasn't designed by HoK.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Sean O View Post
                  I'm going to try to say this as respectfully as humanly possible: If you don't understand the thread, don't post a comment.
                  can you please explain how I don't get it?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Lafferty Daniel View Post
                    Safeco wasn't designed by HoK.
                    I'm flying down to California next spring to do a tour of the 5 parks down there, shall see how they compare in person to the parks I've been to.
                    Check out some demos from my upcoming album: http://www.myspace.com/le_serge

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Lafferty Daniel View Post
                      There is a trend going on in our country where people gravitate more and more to things that are already popular or familiar. Our large cities are starting to look the same. We see the same corporate restaurants, generic skyscrapers, and the same style of sporting venue. Our mainstream film industry continues to produce crap that is already popular and well known only to market their "brand" on a Burger King cup. Creative art and architecture are still alive in small pockets of our country, but there's this unfortunate trend of Wall St. getting too involved in our country's landscape. HoK is obviously a part of this trend. They are a company that gives people something that is already popular because it's too risky to be revolutionary. They keep winning bids because the majority of our citizens and owners of our teams don't notice, don't care, or just settle for the status quo. It's sad that independent and creative work is being held back by people who just don't get it.
                      *standing ovation*

                      Thank you, thank you, thank you, Lefty! These are just about my thoughts on the matter of HOK and their "we're going to do it the same, because we don't have to do it differently, they'll love our ballparks no matter what we do" attitude as well.

                      Settling for the same and the status quo are killing original ideas in my opinion. HOK could be doing more when it comes to the distance from the upper deck bleachers to home plate. There should be (and are) no problems as to how to get those seats closer to the action. So, what's the deal? HOK chooses not to get those seats closer. They'll bend over backwards to give the owners their super special suites and press boxes and to have those things closer to the action, but won't try with the seats that matter, the fans who pay to come see the game in the first place. Typical HOK.

                      Originally posted by Philtration
                      They have also tried to bring back the connection between the ballpark and the city itself. Also a good thing.
                      What a load of bullcrap...I mean seriously, when you have the same company in HOK making just about every new ballpark these days, you do not connect the ballpark and the city in any sense or way whatsoever. Try as hard as you can, but the connection won't be made. I don't care if the ballpark has that connection or not to be honest, but you can't say that if it's HOK who's making ballparks looking exactly the same as each other.

                      When I look back at the ballparks of the past, and I mean the real good ones, such as Ebbets, the Polo Grounds, Shibe Park, etc., I see innovation, I see originality, I see the distinct features that set those ballparks apart from each other. They were interesting and unique in their own way. They had their own charm and character. While we will never have any new ballpark even remotely close to that, wouldn't any of you agree that there is a step above the mediocre crap that HOK is currently producing?

                      I seem to believe so.
                      Last edited by Knick9; 05-31-2008, 11:17 AM.
                      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


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Lafferty Daniel View Post
                        There is a trend going on in our country where people gravitate more and more to things that are already popular or familiar. Our large cities are starting to look the same. We see the same corporate restaurants, generic skyscrapers, and the same style of sporting venue.
                        Bingo. Most Americans are afraid of anything new and different in design. They want "safe and familiar".

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Don't blame HOK - blame the (mostly) visionless MLB owners who approve the plans. These are the same people who abandoned Shibe and Comiskey and are letting Tiger Stadium rot - what do you expect?

                          If the cheap-to-maintain '70s donuts had the necessary suites and points of sale they'd never have abandoned them.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by J.R. View Post
                            Don't blame HOK - blame the (mostly) visionless MLB owners who approve the plans.
                            I blame both, because neither the owners nor the designers seem to possess any kind of innovative vision or spirit.

                            The only reason Camden Yards got built the way it did was because Larry Lucino kept refusing HOK's boring and generic design concepts, and sending them back with specifics. If HOK had it their way, Camden Yards would've been a boring New Comiskey Park clone. They may know how to build a ballpark, but they are seriously lacking in any kind of vision on how to design one that isn't "safe and familiar".
                            Last edited by willisraverchk77; 05-31-2008, 12:05 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by J.R. View Post
                              Don't blame HOK - blame the (mostly) visionless MLB owners who approve the plans. These are the same people who abandoned Shibe and Comiskey and are letting Tiger Stadium rot - what do you expect?

                              If the cheap-to-maintain '70s donuts had the necessary suites and points of sale they'd never have abandoned them.
                              Yep, most owners also deserve part of the blame, but who do you think produces the concepts, renderings, and "vision."

                              HoK also takes the team representatives on tours of their other ballparks before the final design is complete. I'd imagine that this is where the mish-mosh of designs come in. HoK sells the split upper deck by convincing the organization that they can make more money by dividing the fans into two tiers, lower and upper. This is just one example of HoK convincing owners how to spend their money on a public subsidized ballpark.

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X