Originally posted by Bobcat
Stronso
I hope that you are not an Architect!!! Because if you are... let leave it at that.
I am an Architect. And we were all shown the original designs for this Stadium before we all voted. What has happen is known as "Bait and Switch" They lure you in and make you think that you are getting one thing and wala. They ran out of that model, but for a little more or less you now can get this model. I believe Sears go sued for this practice some years ago.
This proposed stadium looks like a wart on the desert. Have you ever gone out to the Tempe Cardinal Facility. Jones and Assoicates did an admiral design that blended into the desert surroundings, while not being overbaring to the site. It is very site sympathic to say the least.
This new design of the Stadium reminds me of the new Sandra Day Oconner court house. Not very sensitive to Arizona conditons. If you are ever in the Atrium area 9 storie high. and our up on the upper floors tell me how you like the temp's at those area's. That building was also designed by an ourside heavy hitter Architect.
Look at the Arts and Science building at ASU. done by Antone Predock. That is what desert architecture is all about.
Allan
No, I am not an architect - my field is finance and banking. However, I disagree with your view that this would be a "wart on the desert". Personally, I like this design much more than the proposed "Toilet Bowl" design. That would have been a wart on the desert - and a place to invite ridicule and darts from across the country should the Cards continue to play poorly.
As far as desert design: I am partial to the Cardinals facility as a great example of this type of architecture. It makes great use of natural light, "desert" materials, etc. Since I am in NYC I am only passibly familiar with the SDO Court House and I have not seen the AS Building at ASU so I really cannot comment on those. In reality, most architecture in AZ is boring and un-interesting. "Cookie-cutter" is the term that leaps to my mind. At least this design, as well as the prior mock-ups, invite debate and discourse. Which, as I am sure you will agree, is part of what your science is all about.
But since you are, as you stated - an architect, why don't you comment on the architectural merits of the design and impact instead of one off "pot shots". I would be interested to hear your comments to that effect. The discussions here in NYC surrounding the WTC designs made for great debate and exchange of ideas. For the record...I love the Liebeskind design - I think it is brilliant - but, unfortunately - many aspects of the design might not exist in its final form. Such is the way of politics.
BTW: The "bait and switch" idea does not hold water. The original Rio Salado design was part of a larger project. The subsequent evolution of the design has brought about many changes and most likely they are tied to money. 1999 dollars were more valuable than 2003 dollars so decsions have to be made about what to keep and what to delete. Since the Cards are on the hook for the over-runs I have absolutely no problem with the changes in design. If the shovel was in the dirt two years ago most likely the design would be closer to the original mock-ups. I am sure you have, in your experience as an architect, had to make changes based upon dollars and cents. Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions on this one.
