Previous entry: 
Next entry:
Arena design: economics v. art
A little delayed on this, but I’ve been getting my thoughts together since the news last week that renowned architect Frank Gehry’s design (see left) for the Nets’ new arena in Brooklyn was being tossed aside for a less expensive one by Ellerbe Beckett (see below right).
Economics were cited as the reason – the Ellerbe Beckett version is to cost about $200 million less than Gehry’s $1 billion glass-walled arena that is part of the Atlantic Yards development. Kansas City-based Ellerbe Beckett has designed stadiums and arenas, including Conseco Fieldhouse in Indianapolis, and BankAtlantic Center, the Sunrise home of the Panthers.
According to a New York Times story last week: “Officials who have seen the design say that while it resembles Conseco Fieldhouse it also bears a likeness to an ‘airplane hangar.’”
Say what you will about South Florida’s two arenas -- and plenty of fans have. I hear routinely how much fans love BankAtlantic Center for its ease of parking, wide concourses, comfort and carpeting. I’ve heard the Heat’s AmericanAirlines Arena is too stark, looks unfinished, isn’t as cozy.
But if we’re comparing architecture, AmericanAirlines Arena, designed by Miami-based Arquitectonica with Heinlein Schrock Stearns Architecture + Design, says Miami. It’s sleek and different and wouldn’t be deemed to look like an “airplane hangar.” By contrast, BankAtlantic Center could be described as a bunker in the swamp.
Clearly, this isn’t the time showy. But the $4 billion Atlantic Yards project has been delayed for years. Now Nets owner and Atlantic Yards developer Bruce Ratner is rushing to begin arena construction by year’s end so he can take advantage of tax-exempt financing.
You may think Gehry’s design was unrealistic to begin with – as one local team official expressed to me earlier this week – but it was ground-breaking and unique. It might not have changed arena design forever, but it would have become a showplace, a symbol of Brooklyn and the Nets.
Consider this: the past two decades have been spent replacing outdated stadiums and arenas that didn’t have revenue-generating premium seats and club seats. Dual-purpose (baseball and football) concrete doughnut stadiums have been replaced by ballparks with unique features. Of course, even those have become cookie cutter, as some teams have chosen to duplicate the red brick, green steel design. 
But those that chose to be different have successfully built sports venues that represent their communities, ones for which fans can immediately identify their place. Think PNC Park overlooking the Allegheny River in Pittsburgh; the old brick warehouse that’s part of Oriole Park at Camden Yards in Baltimore; and, even American Airlines Arena, overlooking Biscayne Bay.
Isn’t making progress correcting bad decisions of the past? Do we want to regret a decision that was made based on economics? Miami Arena, anyone? The pink elephant was obsolete when it opened in 1988, lost its tenants and was demolished last year.
Nicolai Ouroussoff, the New York Times architecture critic, called the scuttling of Gehry’s design "a shameful betrayal of the public trust, one that should enrage all those who care about this city." Read Ouroussoff's thoughtful piece here.
During the SportsBusiness Journal’s conference on sports facilities and franchises this week, Nets officials defended their decision, according to the Associated Press.
“Unfortunately the world we live in today is very different than what it was three or four years ago when we hired Frank," Nets chief executive Brett Yormark said Wednesday according to the piece. "The world is more simplistic. It's not as grand and glitzy. And I'm not sure that design would have been appropriate right now, as much as we all loved it. I think the design that we have now is very appropriate. It speaks to Brooklyn."
I’m not so sure.
What do you think?
Follow me on Twitter: @sarahtalalay
Comments
Saving $200 mill. by building THAT generic piece of hoohah? This is ALL about money, despite the mystifying claptrap about how "times have changed," blahblahblah. It's obviously just code (as you were insinuating) for: "we can't afford Gehry now, and we have to get going to take advantage of the tax-exempt financing."
If this were about public financing, then by all means do it as efficiently as possible (if at all!). Civic responsibility and ethics trumps aesthetics in that situation. But from my limited understanding this is a speculative venture, right?, where real estate development will eventually pay for the building, like what Lew Wolff and the As were attempting to do with their now-dead stadium deal in Fremont? In that case, Ratner appears just to be wimping out. Guys like that want all the insider privileges associated with high-end development, but not the responsibility to help develop the image of the city from which they are profiting--and in a capitalist system, it's these private investors who should out there in the forefront embodying the vision and being catalysts for the city's future image. Manhattan's skyline is a testament to that sort of thinking, whether good or bad (mostly good, which is one reason why NYC is one of the world's great cities).
Instead, developer allegiances are almost always to their wallets, not the city's image. It doesn't always have to be "either/or," though. Gehry has the rep to charge top-dollar and not compromise. OK. But with all the emphasis now in design on sustainability, there are plenty of hungry, talented, less-known designers out there who could come up with something just about as impressive as Gehry for less money. Cost factors can actually bring out some of the most creative solutions if the designer has the right outlook about it (lemonade from lemons and all that)--that was one of modernism's main lessons. But no...creativity and vision just isn't the strong suit of this guy Ratner. Quelle surprise.
As soon as the economy gets better, "the times" will change again. And then they'll be stuck with another cookie-cutter arena, which they'll want to tear down in 20 years.
"It speaks to Brooklyn"--what is that supposed to mean?!? Brooklyn doesn't deserve to have anything like Manhattan's skyline? Most Brooklynites probably wouldn't be able to afford going to NBA games in either place. Here's what speaks to Brooklyn: FOLLOW THE MONEY.
Profitability hooks up with short-sightedness...yet again!
You get what you pay for!
Posted by: Richard Wright | June 14, 2009 7:47 PM
Saving $200 mill. by building THAT generic piece of hoohah? This is ALL about money, despite the mystifying claptrap about how "times have changed," blahblahblah. It's obviously just code (as you were insinuating) for: "we can't afford Gehry now, and we have to get going to take advantage of the tax-exempt financing."
If this were about public financing, then by all means do it as efficiently as possible (if at all!). Ethics trumps aesthetics in that situation. But from my limited understanding this is a speculative venture, right?, where real estate development will eventually pay for the building, like what Lew Wolff and the As were attempting to do with their now-dead stadium deal in Fremont? In that case, Ratner is just wimping out. Guys like that want all the insider privileges associated with high-end development, but not the responsibility to help develop the city's image from which they are profiting--and in a capitalist system, it's these private investors who should embody the vision and be catalysts for the city's future image. New York's skyline is a real monument to that kind of thinking (both good and bad, but mostly good, which is in part why it's such a great city). Instead, their allegiance is almost always to their pockets, not the city's image.
It doesn't always have to be "either/or," though--find a hungrier architect who could do something similar for less, etc.; Gehry has the rep to charge top dollar and won't compromise. But with so many architecture schools stressing sustainability now, there are plenty of good designers out there thinking in more cost-conscious ways. If anything, cost-consciousness can really bring out creativity if the designer is good--that was one of the main lessons of modernism. But no... creativity and vision just isn't the strong suit of this guy. Quelle surprise!
As soon as the economy gets better, "the times" will change again. And then they'll be stuck with another cookie-cutter arena, which they'll want to tear down in 20 years.
"It speaks to Brooklyn"--what is that supposed to mean?!? Most Brooklynites probably wouldn't be able to afford going to NBA games in either place. Here's what speaks to Brooklyn: FOLLOW THE MONEY.
Profitability hooks up with short-sightedness...yet again!
You get what you pay for!
Posted by: Richard Wright | June 14, 2009 7:31 PM