Lloydian

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/ar...ts&oref=slogin

Oh, sure, it's probably the best stadium in all of the NFL, but couldn't they have done better? I mean, who wants to see pictures of the players on the walls?

__________________
Lloyd

16-0. I can feel it!

cheesebeef

you DO realize the article comes from an ARCHITECTURE'S perspective, not a sports fans', right? You do realize it's not an article in the Sports section, right?

Sheesh, some people are so defensive about EVERYTHING said about the Cards.

__________________
Rubarb is what makes my feet look cheese!

Mulli is smarter than the Cheese!

SoCal Cardfan

Page Not Found


The page you've requested does not exist at this address. Please note:
If you typed in the address, used a bookmark or followed a link from another Web site, the page is no longer available. Most articles remain online for seven days after publication. Articles back to 1851 are available through The New York Times Article Archive: 1851-Present.
If you clicked on a headline or other link on NYTimes.com, you can report the missing page.
E-mail subscribers: If the article links in your mailing do not work, your e-mail program may not support the HTML version of the mailings. Please try switching to the Text Version. <img alt="" name="s_i_nytimesglobal" border="0" height="1" width="1">

Dr. Jones

I probably would have liked this..... Guess money got in the way.

njlawrence

Here's the text. I think the inadequacies of the architecture will be lost on most of us. We are interested in a winning season, not whether the roof color matches.

The Arizona Cardinals’ new stadium is a rarity in the world of the National Football League: a work of serious architecture packed with the energy of a coiled snake. Unfortunately, this snake lacks fangs.

Designed by the architect Peter Eisenman in collaboration with HOK Sport, the $450 million stadium is a taut machine whose bulging steel skin and gigantic movable parts fuse a keen aesthetic sensibility with an appreciation for football’s glory days.

The site, a parched desert landscape near the Loop 101 freeway, is appropriately surreal: Eisenman says Cardinals Stadium’s swollen form was inspired in part by the succulent barrel cactuses that sprout across the Arizona desert.

Viewed from the crest of an overpass on the drive out from Phoenix, the stadium first appears as a shimmering apparition, its silvery skin baking in the desert sun. But the dynamic tension will eventually give way to a tame experience, suggesting that Eisenman made plenty of compromises.

Certainly two cultures are colliding here. Eisenman, 73, is one of architecture’s aging bad boys; professional football is about playing within the rules.

That they came together at all is a small miracle. The typical stadium designer today is a corporate servant who churns out formulaic structures, either crudely serviceable or slathered in nostalgic references to the Roman Colosseum. By contrast, Eisenman is an architect who sometimes gets trapped in his own head: he is known for conceptual references that, while playful, can border on the impenetrable.

What got him the Cardinals job, Eisenman likes to say, is that he was the only candidate who could name every member of the Chicago Cardinals’ legendary 1947 backfield. (Eisenman is a longtime football fan.)

But if Cardinals executives took a courageous leap in hiring Eisenman, they were also careful to keep him on a tight leash. In doing so, they forfeited the venomous sting that made so much of his early work so delicious.

The project has repeatedly tripped up and threatened to unravel. Eisenman’s first attempt at a design, a sprawling sports complex sheltered beneath two interlocking boomerang-shaped roofs in Tempe, Ariz., was the most florid he had produced in years. But the project was abandoned when the Coyotes hockey team, which was to share the complex, backed out of the deal. A planned site near Phoenix International Airport was dumped after 9/11, when local government officials began fretting that terrorists might fly a plane into it.

Those familiar with the early renderings of the current design will pick up on some unfortunate last-minute changes. A beige roof has replaced the silvery steel one that would have matched the stadium’s exterior shell and lent the stadium a sleeker appearance. And the vertical slots cutting through the exterior skin were originally intended to cut into the surrounding pavement, rooting the stadium into the site; instead, they end at the base.

Still, the slots create a seductive tension: viewed from different angles as the observer circles around to the parking lot, they make it seem as if the building is pulling apart at the seams.

The arena’s interior, however, evokes 19th-century bridge technology. Muscular concrete columns support the stands. A pair of gorgeous Brunel trusses support a retractable roof; their bowed top and bottom chords are asymmetrical, so that the trusses seem to press down toward the field.

The design’s clarity should allay criticism that Eisenman is lost in a conceptual fog, with little consideration for the little people who use his buildings. The glass slots ringing the main concourse level, for example, are not just part of an intellectual game; they mark the entries into the stadium and offer mesmerizing views of the surrounding valley.

Expanding on the symbolism of the spiral, Eisenman animates the interior by setting it slightly off balance. He routes most of the circulation in the space between the inner stadium’s concrete structure and its exterior metal skin, with elevators shooting up through a Piranesian web of crisscrossing steel braces. The winding form of the exterior shell is echoed in the outline of the retractable roof and in the gray-and-red color pattern of the stadium seats.

But it is the stadium’s celebration of machinery that sets the visitor spinning. In cooler weather, the retractable roof will be opened to allow natural light to spill into stadium. The football field rests in an enormous steel tray set on rails powered by motors so that it can be moved out of the stadium when it is not in use.

The solution is inventive yet wonderfully eccentric. In recent years, softer artificial materials have replaced AstroTurf, with its notoriously brutal impact on the falling athlete’s body. To football purists, there’s still nothing like a grass field, but indoor grass remains extremely difficult to maintain. Eisenman’s solution is to tend the field outdoors in the gigantic steel tray, then slide it back inside on game days. (This also makes it easier to reconfigure the stadium for events like trade shows or rodeos.)

Yet somehow, the visitor rarely experiences the building in a truly visceral, emotional way. Eisenman is not a detail man: he will never match the structural refinement of, say, a Carlo Scarpa, who could transform the connection between a steel handrail and a stone wall into a work of art. His talent lies in expressing conceptual ideas in architectural form.

Clearly, Eisenman had to make painful compromises on this project. Along with eliminating the slots in the pavement for budget reasons, for example, the Cardinals’ cost-cutters jettisoned the idea of continuing the glass slots across the roof. As a result, they look like mere conventional windows from inside the arena rather than incisions that slice through the entire building.

Developers call this value engineering; to architects, it is a form of water torture, in which a design is eroded drop by drop until the original meaning is lost.

What’s more, in a possible bout of cold feet, the stadium owners chose to slather the building with graphics rather than let the architecture speak for itself. Concrete corridors are wallpapered in photos of receivers with outstretched arms. The once-bare concrete walls at one end of the field are now painted a cheerier Cardinal red.

The result is a more timid design than one might expect from an architect like Peter Eisenman. While Cardinals Stadium is a big leap forward for stadium architecture in this country, it is also a strange offspring. From an ornery architect and a culture of macho aggression, we get a polite building.

Pariah

I thought it was a really good article!

Bobcat

Time out...!!! I am and Architect, and I love the New digs for the Cardinals. Playing Baseball in College paid my way to my degree in Architecture. People in NY will always state That they could have should have would done it better than anyone. Hell that is where I grew-up, In Brooklyn and NASSAU County, Long Island; which Brooklyn and Queens is really a part of.

Just have to look no further than Gambo. He is so NY it hurts. He went to Seaford High School in Suffolk County, which is on Long Island.

Bu really guy's most Architect's that I know love sports, especially Football.

BOBCAT

__________________
"We now have The Real person Behind the CURTAIN and he is not The Wizard of Glendale"; Go Cards!!!!!!!!!

nidan

I like the football photos around the place, this isn't an art gallery or an arhitecture display.

It's a football stadium, OUR foorball stadium and it should look like it

__________________

DogTv

Lloydian

You mean it was about architecture? Boy, you think when the article talks about the look of the stadium, it would belong in the food section.

Now that I've treated you as intelligently as you treated me, everyone (except the NYT) has raved about how wonderful a stadium this is.

We've seen the pics of the walls adorned with action shots and loved them. They come along and see that as evidence that the team wants to hide the architecture with cheesy photos.

And in point of fact, the hysteria about airplanes crashing into the Tempe location came before 9/11. http://www.sportslawnews.com/archive...iumAirport.htm

I take pride in such a beautiful structure, and that article, using phrases like "this snake lacks fangs," "will eventually give way to a tame experience," and "we get a polite building" suggests an architecture that will not impress people who, like the author, "get it."

I'm reminded of the Dick Van Dyke Show episode where Rob is invited to a party filled with snobs. When he tells one that he writes for a TV show, the snob replies, "I don't even own a television machine." This stadium is now the standard for all stadiums, so I find it a bit pretentious that it represents, to the author, such a collection of missed opportunities.

__________________
Lloyd

16-0. I can feel it!

Scott MS

It's a football stadium and the colors inside (with the photos on the walls) is one colorful and modern stadium. I love it.


.

Dback Jon

Mostly good article, but the writer plays too freely with the need to spend other people's money.

This is not an unique constraint on the Cardinals Stadium - the BeanCounters like me frequently have to bring the pie-in-the-skiers back to reality.

__________________



R.I.P Tim Minnick

The KING of Cards

D-Dogg

Pretty interesting article. Even architecture snobs have to agree that the stadium is sweet and only complain that it isn't more awesome than completely awesome.

When people say things like "it's a pretty nice building, but they really could have given it some jet engines and have it fly to different cities for events, that would have been the kicker here" then you have something special.

__________________
You see, Cards fans, when you love a team without likin' it, the games can be long and cold, and contempt comes up with the sun...

Azlen

If anyone is familiar with Digg, this article has hit the front page there and is being discussed here.

http://www.digg.com/football/A_look_...nd_new_stadium

Many are impressed, but you also get a few people ripping on the Cards.

Scott MS

I saw that. The funny part of it was when the non-Arizonans were saying "there's a retractable roof for weather" and then were joking about the amount of rain that Arizona gets. Don't know if they figured out the retractable roof is really for the A/C.

AzCards21

Sure shows people will comment on anything, even if they haven't a clue.

4 billion dollars