urbanSTL

I don't see any way that Ballpark Village can be built without blocking the view of the Old Courthouse. Where is this idea coming from?

The PD "Visual Arts" critic Bonetti provides his opinion on the NBS

The fans at the new Busch Stadium on Monday were delirious - and why not?



It was a glorious day, the stadium was brand-spanking new, the seats were comfortable, its cut-away view of downtown made St. Louis look like a great city, Albert Pujols knocked a ball out of the park with the grace of a great dancer and the home team won. What more could you want?



Everything worked well. It took me all of 30 seconds to get in, the concourses were broad and spacious, there were plenty of food stalls and restrooms. More importantly, the sightlines I sampled during a two-hour prowl - even from the nosebleed seats and standing room - were clear and unimpeded.



So what was wrong? If you felt as if you'd been here before you must be very, very old - considerably over 100. But probably everybody, at some level, felt a sense of deja vu.





Mayor Francis Slay spoke optimistically about the stadium representing the Cardinals' commitment to downtown and its continued revival.



What the stadium more accurately represents, with its halfhearted historical references, is not a new, revived St. Louis but a frightened city that can only look back to its putative glory days 100 years ago: the World's Fair, "Meet Me in St. Louis" and all that. A city that continues to tear down buildings that were built honestly during a period the new Busch dishonestly tries to replicate.

From the 16 April 2006 St. Louis Post-Dispatch



Link to the complete article (for at least this week!):

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/entert ... enDocument

I agree with his take somewhat, but I don't agree with what he has to say about it being non functional. From my limited experience in the park, it seems to be quite functional. And I don't have a problem with most of the design, besides a few minor issues that have been covered already. He made some very good points from a planning perspective though, and I would generally agree with that portion of the article.



Would modern have been nice? I would have to see it, because like he noted, it's just as easy to screw that up too.

If we built a "modern" stadium we might as well have introduced the DH and start serving sushi instead of hot dogs.

Well, there already are clearly more "Italian" and "Mexican" food places inside. I say it should all be hot dogs, peanuts, cracker jacks, beer and soda.

stlmike wrote:

If we built a "modern" stadium we might as well have introduced the DH and start serving sushi instead of hot dogs.

Well, there already are clearly more "Italian" and "Mexican" food places inside. I say it should all be hot dogs, peanuts, cracker jacks, beer and soda.

Agreed. Anyone who orders sushi or a salad at a baseball game should be slapped.

I liked the article and agree with him to an extent - in general I think retro architecture is silly and in some ways just as bad as the anti-urban modernism it's replacing; but for baseball stadiums I don't think it's such a bad thing, since baseball is a sport that relies so heavily on it's past. Come on, does anyone really want to watch a baseball game in a stadium with an aggresively modern style (the author cites Frank Gehry and Rem Koolhaas, great architects...but for a baseball stadium?)? The style of the stadium is kitschy and retro, but this is baseball...it's supposed to be fun. Look at the designs for the Mets new ballpark...this is New York, supposedly hip and on the cutting edge right?









it takes many of the same elements from old Ebbets Field and other old parks that the new Busch does (brick, arched entrance-ways etc.)



I often find myself arguing against the architecture of the new stadium, but taken in context of the game of baseball, and seeing how other new stadiums look (and how they're succeeding) I'm cutting them some slack. I think we can leave the more academic, cutting-edge modernism to our residential towers and museums, and possibly other sports stadiums.

also, this ballpark was built with nearby Cupples in mind. I think it is fine for that area of downtown. we are talking about a baseball stadium here, not a modern skyscraper. ballparks are functional for about 40 years and then there will be talked of building another one.

bprop wrote:


If you read my post, it wasn't me who was looking for places to eat, even though you address my question as though it was. I know of and patronize all of those places. I was talking about out-of-towners who rode Metrolink downtown to see just how much the city is [supposedly] back. After getting off at 8th and Pine -- under the impression that it's in the middle of our vibrant downtown (isn't it?), they passed the myriad of restaurants that weren't open. Had they known to walk 8 blocks northwest, I'm sure they would have stumbled across the Washington Ave. places, or 12 blocks west to Union Station. BTW, Jack Patrick's was closed when they went by. As it was, they passed the dozens upon dozens of restaurants in our core city that are not open for lunch on Saturday.



Nice assumptions by the way.

Sorry if I offended you. I think downtown has come a long way in the last 5 or so years, and will cater nicely to those friends of yours in about 2 or so more. The way the ballpark is opened up I believe it'll encourage peole to explore other areas of downtown, which can only be a good thing.

The worst thing I've seen in the new ballpark: Juan Encarnacion.

Sushi? How about slapping the men who wear suits and ties? They'll shed the jacket but leave the tie on. Nuts.



The new design is intended to be park-like around a field of dreams. It's not a stadium (monolithic) and instead, is friendly and inviting to the pedestrian.

What about the NACHOS!? You gotta get the nachos 'n cheese with lots o' jalapenos at the ballpark!

aimster wrote:What about the NACHOS!? You gotta get the nachos 'n cheese with lots o' jalapenos at the ballpark!

In that case, I would slap the people who don't get jalapenos!

JivecitySTL wrote:Still doesn't have sh*t on the old Busch. That's a relic, and I will miss it terribly. It's such an intrinsic part of the city's identity.

I disagree. The old busch had it's great baseball moments, but it's walls acted as a barrier to keep the millions who passed through disconnected from downtown. The era it existed was the worst era that downtown has ever experienced. I have to think that the open nature of the new ballpark will compliment the rebirth of downtown, and connect the fans with the city.

aimster wrote:What about the NACHOS!? You gotta get the nachos 'n cheese with lots o' jalapenos at the ballpark!

have you seen those chili and nacho cheese jalepeno FRIES??

ContractorKitchens wrote:

aimster wrote:What about the NACHOS!? You gotta get the nachos 'n cheese with lots o' jalapenos at the ballpark!

have you seen those chili and nacho cheese jalepeno FRIES??

No, but by the looks of the crowds I've seen walking through the stadium on TV most of the people have LOL.

^





On the whole architecture debate-



Baseball is more historical than any other sport. It takes it's future from it's past, and i can't count how many times i've sat with friends talking about old players, parks, wrigley, bronx, comiskey etc, and relating peroids in baseball to many historical events that shaped our nation. It's America's pastime. It's not supposed to be played in a freaking spaceship. If they would have dropped a big mirrored piece of steel and futuristic nonsense downtown st.louis, it would have been a travesty. I love the throwback feel of the park. Well done.

The PD article written by David Bonetti is laughable. I love the architect's names he dropped (Gehry, Koolhaus, Eisenman, Meier) as a wishlist to select from. I guess Mr. Bonetti has never been in an Eisenman building - they suck! Mr. Gehry is more interested in the sculptural quality of his design - the actual function of the building is secondary in his mind (the art museum in Bilbao he mentioned is a very challenging environment to view art - a beautiful building from the street, but a marginal art museum). I do not find the design of the new Busch Stadium problematic at all - I actually think it responds very well to it's urban context. I wonder what Mr. Bonetti's reaction is to the disaster of Soldier's Field (a spaceship crashing into the old Soldier's Field Stadium - horrible design on every level - sight lines are okay, but the building looks like it was designed by a 5th grade art class).



These baseball only stadiums have history as a guide (Wrigley Field is still one of my favorite venues to view an afternoon baseball game...as long as the Cubs lose). "Modern" architectural design seems to have placed it's thumbprint on other sports venues (mostly basketball arenas and hockey arenas) but these are still multi-purpose buildings (hockey, basketball, concerts, etc...check the Savis calendar to see the variety of events). I am glad the new Busch Stadium is a baseball only venue, and I am glad it was created with a sensitive contextural image. I think the design is very appealing and I think Mr. Bonetti is way off base (I really think his article was only intended to generate conversations like this - there is no way he can truly believe the garbage he wrote...unless he was recently kicked in the head by a mule).

I did like how he mentioned that the way hwy 40 was constructed was a mistake...



I would guess he does actually feel that way about the new stadium's design, and if that makes St. Louis a backward-looking, frightened city then you have to come to the same conclusion about New York. Maybe even doubly so since both the Yankees and Mets are going retro in a few years. I like reading architectural criticism, but I think if he gets off his academic horse for a bit he'd enjoy the stadium a lot more. It would be like criticizing the Las Vegas strip for not being "architecturally honest"...sure it's not, but that's part of the reason it's so fun. It is what it is.



From our vantage point here at the beginning of the 21st century we have so many architectural styles to choose from, why not employ them all?

I read that article. It was laughaffable.



First of all, the design of the stadium isn't really retro. It's a baseball stadium, baseball is a timeless game, and so stadiums should be built to stand the test of time. This park is, it's very urban in context and will completely add to the streetscape for years to come. Modernism has no place in baseball, I'm sorry...it just doesn't. I'd love for some cutting edge towers to be built in Ballpark Village, but I'm much less concerned with the towers as I am the streetscape of BV.



I've also said before that I don't like how the more recent renderings of the Bottle District have gone conservative. I liked the fact that we had these oddly shaped towers springing out of our northern skyline.



Ballpark Village should really press for something that looks good. Not just something that fits in.

Well, the article actually did applaud its functionality, and its perfect match with the street grid as opposed to post-war modernist architecture that had a disdain for context (old Busch). The guy just criticizes the tendency to look to the past as the future. I agree in a lot of ways. It is disappointing to see a monument to the glory days of St. Louis while just down the road we demolished the Century building. I don't want to get into another Century argument. But some people pretend to look back to the past and neglect the REAL treasures.

Yes, the column's disjointed ramblings are meant to instigate conversation about Ballpark Village design, I think.

I went to the new ballpark last Thursday. Fun times. Experienced the first loss. While I think it's a good stadium for playing and viewing baseball I'm a little disappointed by the details. I hope that Ballpark Village and the Bottle District can make up for it. St. Louis is known as a baseball town and when people come in from around the world to see the Cardinals play they should have a full blown, unique to St. Louis experience at the ballpark.



I moved from Detroit not long after Comerica Park opened. The stadium is larger than life. The sculptural tigers, the baseball ferris wheel, the tigers merry go round. There are giant tiger heads all around the stadium with baseballs in their mouths that light up at night. It's really amazing. That's why the All Star Game was held there.



I'm hoping that they just aren't done with the stadium yet. Baseball fanatics will say that all of that stuff just takes away from watching the game, but going to the baseball game should be a family EVENT. Especially at the price of a ticket. The new Busch stadium feels a little like it could be plopped in any city. Over time I hope the details get added, and of course the most important thing is that the Cardinals win!

Honestly, and not to offend as it's all a matter of preference, but that looks like an entrance to an amusement park, and IMO is cheesy. It is a matter of preference though and I realize some do like these kinds of things, but that's my take on it. I also think that one of things that seperates our fans is that kids go to watch and learn the game, and not worry about all the other stuff. I think that sort of thing is best fit for the village which should include many family activities.