Well I was reading my latest edition of Sports Illustrated and I read an article about the Phoenix Suns playing well at home at "U.S. Airways Arena." This immediatley brought me back to memories of the good 'ol U.S. Air Arena (formerly the Capital Centre), along Harry Truman Drive just off the Capital Beltway, formerly home to your Washington Capitals, Washington Bullets, and Washington Warthogs.
Home of the Phoenix Suns
Home of the Capitals, Bullets, Warthogs
space
Look at the two pictures though. We look at the lower picture of U.S. Air Arena (home of the Capitol, Eagle, Bell, and Flag and where yours truly took in his first ever concert - Aerosmith on the Get a Grip tour in 1993), and all we think is how obsolete that arena is. We look at the upper picture of the new U.S. Airways Arena and we think how cutting edge and new it is. How much time will it take for the glass and modern architecture of stadiums to be viewed as obsolete? I suppose this is more an architectural question than a question to pose on a sports blog, but it makes me wonder if all of the stadiums built during the latest MLB Stadium craze will soon be perceived by the public in the same way as the public ten years ago perceived Riverfront, Municipal, Three Rivers, Veterans, and all the other MLB stadiums built during the 70s stadium craze.
Further, this has to be the only time that a stadium's namesake has seen their arena imploded (U.S. Air Arena blown up in 1999 to make way for the Largo Town Center where three people were shot to death on Super Bowl Sunday... ahh... Prince George's County), only to place their name on another arena not even ten years later. If it was going to happen in any industry, it'd certainly be the airline industry. I'm not sensing that 3Com or Monster or Fleet will be putting their names on any arenas anytime soon.
Your random stadium thoughts for the day.
6 Responses:
What will be really interesting is to see how all the "retro" ball parks like Camden Yards will be received in 20 years. If a Retro Ball park is trying to replicate 1950 in 20 years it will be 70 years old (looking).
It will be interesting to see what ultramodern, corporate type places will be viewed as too (like Fedex, M&T;)
I mean M&T; doesn't have much soul and it doesn't feel like Wrigley, but it does have a mega-awesome jumbotron...
...will jumbotron's just get progressively bigger over the years...will there be a jumbotron backlash b/c people want to actually see the action on the field and not TV?...will global warming mandate domes in all areas south of the Mason Dixon?
time will tell...cool post
Um...
First of all, the retro parks are trying to replicate stadiums built between 1900-1930.
And in 20 years, Camden Yards will look about 37 years old, because that's how old it will be. It wasn't built to resemble the decrepit, falling down parts of Fenway and Wrigley with the old concourse that date the stadiums and show its age.
Some of the new stadiums are sprinkling in modern "wonders" like Arizona's stadium (whatever it's called) and I don't believe there's anything particularly retro about Safeco.
So, I think the beautiful stadiums like Camden Yards and The Ballpark in Arlington will be always be viewed as cool stadiums.
The STYLE of Camden Yards etc. will be 120 years old. Thats what I'm saying. It won't be Wrigley or Fenway it will be an impersonation of Wrigley and Fenway.
just like neoclassicism isn't the same as classisim in art. It will be interesting to see how these stadiums are viewed in the future.
It indeed will be an impersonation of Wrigley and Fenway. And like most impersonations, it will be nowhere close to as cool as the real thing.
Shazam!
Okay, Jeff V, now I get it.
I still think the good retro parks will stand the test of time.
I know lots of things go in cycles, but the consensus on stadium aesthetics have not really ever changed.
The Astrodome was built out of necessity, but never called beautiful, to my knowledge. The 1970 monolithic, multi-sport structures like Three Rivers and Veterans Stadium were always ugly. The new Comiskey (now U.S. Celluar) was a mistake from the start, and never received as a good park...just clean and new.
And through all those years of tragicly awful stadiums being built, Fenway/Tiger Stadium/Old Comiskey/Wrigley/Forbes/Connie Mack etc. never lost their charm.
As for football stadiums, the criteria for judgment always will be the view of the game itself. It's a linear game, in that you can be sure that the action will begin on one of an infinite array of parallel lines between the goal lines. In baseball, as the other premiere outdoor sport, atmosphere and layout are key because the point of focus is always initially going to be the area around the strike zone.
In that regard, I think M&T;, Cleveland Browns Stadium, Paul Brown Stadium (Bengals), Heinz Field and others will stand the test of time. They are built for viewing football with nice screens to view replays. I don't include FedEx Field because it is a total disaster that they're already planning to replace.
Post a Comment