What do you think of the new ballpark design?

[stymied]

You all need to relax a little and wait and see.  This is a curvilinear structure, which is impossible to transpose to a 2D elevation perspective.  Flattening a curvilinear structure exagerates the horizontal lines, which you don't perceive when viewing in 3D.  Furthermore those elevations do not show the field lights, foul ball poles, backstop nets, green space, and other ballpark-specific elements.  There will be no mistake this is a ballpark.  There is a 3D google sketchup model of this design that you can "fly" around and view from 244, Archer, Elgin, and even Greenwood, and it can not be mistaken for an "airport terminal".  The field will be permeable from surrounding views with an open concourse.  You will actually be able to see portions of the playing field from every surrounding street/freeway perspective.  And art deco will influence the final details of this design.  Just be patient.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

A friend e-mailed to take me to task for suggesting the use of a classic style for the ballpark, for wanting the ballpark to look like it had been there for a hundred years. He said that it's dishonest to recreate historic styles.

What matters to me more than anything about this ballpark is that it should be a good urban building. What it looks like from the outside to the pedestrian and the driver matters more to the health of downtown than what it's like on the inside for the fan. We are using it (or should be using it) to fill a gap in our downtown. We are trying to reweave a urban fabric tattered by 50 years of bad decisions, both public and private.

Build it in a modern style if you must, but make it "legible" -- easy to tell what it is and how you get in -- and build it to the street and make the building front permeable -- no blank walls, no mirrored surfaces.

It ought to be possible to build a good urban building with modern materials, but modern architects seem to have a problem with it. (Case in point, the BOK Center.)

That's one reason to insist on a classic style. If you find an architect who isn't offended to his artistic core by your desire to borrow from Plains Commercial or Richardsonian Romanesque or Art Deco, he might be self-effacing enough to be willing to make the ballpark look like a ballpark instead of turning it into his personal artistic statement.

Dont get me wrong, I actually dont mind the use of a classic style at all (with some caviats lol). I love Philbrook for instance but have heard others poo poo it as "Pastiche". Same thing with the Philtower, Holy Family, etc. which I see as important and cherished examples of architecture in our  city. Though, modern, reproductions of or using past styles.

I can show you plenty of examples of contemporary architecture that are pedestrian friendly. Now this ballpark design... I would say is "so so" in that respect. But I dont think its as bad as it may appear at first glance. Firstly half of the street facing facade is glass. Thats not bad. A quarter of whats left has windows and the last quarter, from what I can tell, will be made up of some interesting materials. Not to mention there may be some light fixtures added to the walls and likely some signage,et. Or we could always add some art, or those deco pieces they have mentioned may go there.

One of the things about contemporary architecture is that though it often has chunks of unadorned surfaces, and we like "adornment" to add interest for a good pedestrian friendly street scape,,, with contemporary architecture the corollary of adornment is its use of interesting materials. Materials can be boring, like plain cement, flat stuccoe, plain siding,,(and the streetscape "chunk" too large to be pedestrian friendly and uninteresting but I do not believe that is the case here), or quite interesting and textural like large, chiseled blocks of stone, exotic wood, steel, etc. Have you ever been to that one contemporary home on Cherry Street that has the curved, rusty, steel wall on one part of it? You cant help but be attracted to it and want to go up and touch it. Thats why I was adamant about the materials on this building being of a particular type.  Thats the modern equivalent of "interest and adornment". The right materials equal the right adornment for an interesting, pedestrian friendly streetscape.

Another thing too. This isnt a huge building on the west, street facing side. Its quite small actually. The largest chunk of that block is open space/railing looking into the ballpark. THAT has more potential to be harmful to the pedestrian friendly nature of the area, to be dead space, than that small building segment. THATS the area I keep going back to as being really important.  Also the chunk of the block thats along the street North of the building looks to be parking lot, not good either, but perhaps not as important. It seems we are all fixated on this tiny chunk of the building, which is half permeable glass/doors/windows.. and ignoring the largest swath on the whole block, which is open space. Most people arent going to go across the street just to walk past that segment of building lol. Pedestrian friendly or not.

The question I keep wondering about when people say they want the design changed, is... Do you want there to be structure all along that side of the block? Or do you not mind the open space and think its just the building segment that will either harm or help the street? It seems kind of absurd on the one hand to be so worried about the pedestrian friendlieness of that one small segment of building when basically what you have is,, even if it were the most perfect, pedestrian friendly, building ever, its sitting in between a parking lot and a huge open space. NOT pedestrian friendly anyway unless you want it to be the "pedestrian friendly view".

Whats important in this type of situation is the pedestrian friendly nature of whats across the street. You only really need one side to have "stuff", the other side can be "view". The Riverwalk is an example. Most walk on the shop side and opposite that is the view/park space, iconic building, river, etc. IF they were to ever get pedestrian friendly stuff around the arena that could work the same way. Parks, plazas, a pond, etc. in cities do the same kind of thing. Most walk on the one side. The Eiffel Tower doesnt have lots of windows and doors and street level decorative elements. Nobody complains that its not pedestrian friendly as they stroll along the cafes and streets opposite it. A building, structure, river, or open space can act as the "view". They dont have to be pedestrian friendly in and of themselves. Truly, thats pretty much what we are going to be getting here at best. Lots of pedestrian friendly stuff on one side, (pleeeease) a plaza/open space looking into the ballpark and the building, on the other.  The other alternative is to wrap the rest of the ballpark in some sort of buildings and or structure. Which doesnt seem to be the plan. People will, empty out of the ballpark and head into the pedestrian friendly areas around it to eat, shop, etc.  Other times they will be walking on the other side of the street and be looking at and into the ballpark. Even if it were perfectly pedestrian friendly, there wouldnt be much reason to be walking along that side of the street anyway. Make it nice to look at. Some nice, park like landscaping, a fountain, some wonderful sculptures, etc. can make that area more interesting and inviting to walk past, even more so imo than some fake building facade if you were to try and wrap that around the whole area.

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist


I can show you plenty of examples of contemporary architecture that are pedestrian friendly.

Could you show us one example?

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist


Have you ever been to that one contemporary home on Cherry Street that has the curved, rusty, steel wall on one part of it? You cant help but be attracted to it and want to go up and touch it.

That doesn't ring a bell. Where, exactly?

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist


Another thing too. This isnt a huge building on the west, street facing side. Its quite small actually. The largest chunk of that block is open space/railing looking into the ballpark. THAT has more potential to be harmful to the pedestrian friendly nature of the area, to be dead space, than that small building segment.

If it's actually a view into the ballpark, that's not pedestrian unfriendly. A blank wall would be a problem.

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist


Also the chunk of the block thats along the street North of the building looks to be parking lot, not good either, but perhaps not as important.

The main pedestrian pathways will be along Elgin Ave (the west side) and Archer Street (the south side). The north side is along the elevated expressway.

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist


Whats important in this type of situation is the pedestrian friendly nature of whats across the street. You only really need one side to have "stuff", the other side can be "view". The Riverwalk is an example. Most walk on the shop side and opposite that is the view/park space, iconic building, river, etc. IF they were to ever get pedestrian friendly stuff around the arena that could work the same way. Parks, plazas, a pond, etc. in cities do the same kind of thing. Most walk on the one side. The Eiffel Tower doesnt have lots of windows and doors and street level decorative elements. Nobody complains that its not pedestrian friendly as they stroll along the cafes and streets opposite it. A building, structure, river, or open space can act as the "view". They dont have to be pedestrian friendly in and of themselves. Truly, thats pretty much what we are going to be getting here at best. Lots of pedestrian friendly stuff on one side, (pleeeease) a plaza/open space looking into the ballpark and the building, on the other.  The other alternative is to wrap the rest of the ballpark in some sort of buildings and or structure. Which doesnt seem to be the plan. People will, empty out of the ballpark and head into the pedestrian friendly areas around it to eat, shop, etc.  Other times they will be walking on the other side of the street and be looking at and into the ballpark. Even if it were perfectly pedestrian friendly, there wouldnt be much reason to be walking along that side of the street anyway. Make it nice to look at. Some nice, park like landscaping, a fountain, some wonderful sculptures, etc. can make that area more interesting and inviting to walk past, even more so imo than some fake building facade if you were to try and wrap that around the whole area.

It's far better placemaking to have a good "street wall" on both sides of the street, as continuous as possible, to create a sense of enclosure in a "public room." But I agree that a false front isn't what's wanted here.

I'm not sure that landscaping is, either. We don't want to end up with what Jim Kunstler calls "a nature band-aid."

[cannon_fodder]

For the record, I read Artists entire post.  []

[SXSW]

quote:Originally posted by stymied

You all need to relax a little and wait and see.  This is a curvilinear structure, which is impossible to transpose to a 2D elevation perspective.  Flattening a curvilinear structure exagerates the horizontal lines, which you don't perceive when viewing in 3D.  Furthermore those elevations do not show the field lights, foul ball poles, backstop nets, green space, and other ballpark-specific elements.  There will be no mistake this is a ballpark.  There is a 3D google sketchup model of this design that you can "fly" around and view from 244, Archer, Elgin, and even Greenwood, and it can not be mistaken for an "airport terminal".  The field will be permeable from surrounding views with an open concourse.  You will actually be able to see portions of the playing field from every surrounding street/freeway perspective.  And art deco will influence the final details of this design.  Just be patient.

You've seen this 3D model?  I think seeing a 3D rendering/perspective would give us a LOT more info.

[azbadpuppy]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

+1 Bates.  I'm whole heatedly on board with what you have written on this issue.  


Artist:

NYC is a much better city today than it was 10 or 20 years ago.  Crime is (way, way) down.  Construction is up.  There are more sky scrappers than ever.  Tourism is back.  Their arts are as impressive as ever, their new planetarium (whatever they call it) is certainly an impressive cultural asset.  Urban living is in vogue and young people have returned to Manhattan.  

If you are worried that they are too "corporate" then you miss the entire point of New York City.  It was founded AS a corporation by the Dutch.  The English took it over and operated it as a for-profit venture.  5th Avenue, Wall Street, Times Square, the Empire State Building, Rockefeller Center, the World Trade Center...  this is a city built on commerce, for commerce, and by commerce.  Too say NYC is too corporate is to say San Francisco would be pretty without all that water, the hills, and that damn orange bridge.

And finally, the World Trade Center was a stark and modern as it could be when first built.  It was criticized as being bland and out of touch.  The city HATED IT for years during and after the construction.   The design isn't my favorite either, but NYC has a better architectural track record than I do and time will tell.  

Maybe I'm just kind of slack jawed because we are sitting in the "Oil Capital of the World" accusing NYC of living in the past.  Nothing personal, just touched a nerve for some reason.

I have to disagree with you about NYC. Whether NYC is a better city than it was 20 years ago could be debated. IMO, it is not. New York has lost its soul, having sold it to the highest bidder. I knew the end was near when Disney took over Times Square, and places like Applebees, Starbucks and a bazillion other chains started cropping up everywhere. 20 years ago, corporate chains were not nearly as prevalent, and Mom and Pop shops outnumbered huge conglomerates because they could still afford to do business in Manhattan.

You are correct that crime is down, and that's about the only positive change since the Giuliani administration. No, young people are not moving into Manhattan anymore- they are moving out to places like New Jersey because Manhattan and even Brooklyn have become so astronomically expensive. Cities like Portland, Baltimore, Providence, Denver and Phoenix are much more enticing these days for young, creative types. Tulsa could be one of those enticing cities as well if it plays its cards right.

Yes, New York has always been about commerce and making money, but it used to be much more diverse and opportunistic. Night life is bland and generic compared to what it was 20 years ago. Much of Manhattan has turned into suburban-style shopping and dining, and the arts scene is really catering to the staunch elite these days. As far as architecture, New York's innovative and creative heyday is long over. There will always be skyscrapers being built in NY, but the quality and the innovation has changed greatly. Now it's all about money and posturing. Bigger is not necessarily better by any stretch. Turn to cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, London, Berlin, or cities in Spain and China for cutting edge designs.

New York will always have a draw for visitors, but now it's very sterile and contrived, being tourist and money driven and reminds me more of Las Vegas or Orlando. It is a caricature of its former self.

Unfortunately it is not the forward thinking, edgy city it was 20+ years ago. New York has definitely 'jumped the shark'.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

For the record, I read Artists entire post.  []

Daaang. You need to get a life. []

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

For the record, I read Artists entire post.  []

Daaang. You need to get a life. []

Scanned it.[]

These cities you guys mention as being cutting edge, progressive and attractive to young people: Phoenix, Baltimore, Portland, Providence, Denver, Los Angeles, Chicago, London, Berlin.....Have no business in a sentence with Tulsa unless that sentence is about visiting family on the holidays.

We don't have the same profile of population, the same vibe, even a major point of interest like the coasts or the mountains. Just seem to be poor comparisons when deciding what style a baseball stadium in podunk Ok should look like.

Perhaps as Stymied notes, the rendition doesn't do it justice.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist


I can show you plenty of examples of contemporary architecture that are pedestrian friendly.

Could you show us one example?

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist


Have you ever been to that one contemporary home on Cherry Street that has the curved, rusty, steel wall on one part of it? You cant help but be attracted to it and want to go up and touch it.

That doesn't ring a bell. Where, exactly?

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist


Another thing too. This isnt a huge building on the west, street facing side. Its quite small actually. The largest chunk of that block is open space/railing looking into the ballpark. THAT has more potential to be harmful to the pedestrian friendly nature of the area, to be dead space, than that small building segment.

If it's actually a view into the ballpark, that's not pedestrian unfriendly. A blank wall would be a problem.

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist


Also the chunk of the block thats along the street North of the building looks to be parking lot, not good either, but perhaps not as important.

The main pedestrian pathways will be along Elgin Ave (the west side) and Archer Street (the south side). The north side is along the elevated expressway.

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist


Whats important in this type of situation is the pedestrian friendly nature of whats across the street. You only really need one side to have "stuff", the other side can be "view". The Riverwalk is an example. Most walk on the shop side and opposite that is the view/park space, iconic building, river, etc. IF they were to ever get pedestrian friendly stuff around the arena that could work the same way. Parks, plazas, a pond, etc. in cities do the same kind of thing. Most walk on the one side. The Eiffel Tower doesnt have lots of windows and doors and street level decorative elements. Nobody complains that its not pedestrian friendly as they stroll along the cafes and streets opposite it. A building, structure, river, or open space can act as the "view". They dont have to be pedestrian friendly in and of themselves. Truly, thats pretty much what we are going to be getting here at best. Lots of pedestrian friendly stuff on one side, (pleeeease) a plaza/open space looking into the ballpark and the building, on the other.  The other alternative is to wrap the rest of the ballpark in some sort of buildings and or structure. Which doesnt seem to be the plan. People will, empty out of the ballpark and head into the pedestrian friendly areas around it to eat, shop, etc.  Other times they will be walking on the other side of the street and be looking at and into the ballpark. Even if it were perfectly pedestrian friendly, there wouldnt be much reason to be walking along that side of the street anyway. Make it nice to look at. Some nice, park like landscaping, a fountain, some wonderful sculptures, etc. can make that area more interesting and inviting to walk past, even more so imo than some fake building facade if you were to try and wrap that around the whole area.

It's far better placemaking to have a good "street wall" on both sides of the street, as continuous as possible, to create a sense of enclosure in a "public room." But I agree that a false front isn't what's wanted here.

I'm not sure that landscaping is, either. We don't want to end up with what Jim Kunstler calls "a nature band-aid."

First off here is that house I was talking about. An old pic while it was still under construction.


Just north of the ballpark structure is a parking lot that will run along Elgin thats as large as the street facing side of the ballpark building. If it had been possible, would have rather them place more of the building they used in back, along Elgin with a drive on the far north side to access the parking lot between the ballpark and the highway. That way more of the street along Elgin would have some sort of building along it. But, no terribly big deal at this point.

This is the kind of development I would like to see around the ballpark. Contemporary, but with a good amount of brick, mixed use, and very pedestrian friendly.



As for greenspace and "a nature band-aid" lol. Like I have mentioned before, I think something thats a mixture of greenery (trees, planters, trellis) water feature of some sort, and sculpture, some benches, nice lighting, etc. Turn the large open space on the SW corner into a nice "entrance/park" and have some of the design go along the S and W side.

To kind of give you a feel, I like what they have done here, though in the middle of a street, and the pic in the lower left with the trees and planters. Course there are all kinds of variations of such things. Hardly a "nature bandaid" imo. Can be very attractive and inviting.


Not perfect, but has a couple good ideas.


Ok, now to the "Contemporary and pedestrian friendly" deal lol. Wanted to get on Skyscraper page and snag some stuff I had seen from London, Austin and Dallas, but either their website is acting up or my computer is. I think its my computer so had to use what I already had but found some decent examples.

  These are contemporary and pedestrian friendly.


How bout this... Neither are shopping/dining areas where you really want your best pedestrian friendly features, but I think the contemporary example would be just as nice to walk past as the typical older example.



Top is a typical, classic building on an average street, and I frankly think the contemporary one on the bottom is just as pedestrian friendly.


Classical and fairly elaborate older building and a wild contemporary one. Either equally pedestrian friendly. Actually the oder ones at street level have a lot of blank space. Doors and window up high. Though the stone is interesting, but can be just as interesting on a contemporary building.


In older cities with classic architecture there are areas that are filled with lots of little shops and cafes, etc, which are amenable to lots of street level openings and activities. But there are also many streets with large buildings that have large surfaces, Churches, libraries, all kinds of government buildings, apartment buildings, civic and entertainment venues, theater, opera, etc. Contemporary architecture can equally be both intricate and "permeable" or not.

This contemporary museum is just as interesting to walk past/pedestrian friendly as the old church its...growing out of lol.


The contemporary building in the middle is just as pedestrian friendly to me as those on either side.


Building on the left just as enjoyable to walk by as the one on the right.


Though not super contemporary, is just as pedestrian friendly as its older neighbors.


There are dozens and dozens more examples, but I have things to do lol. And you did just want one. []

Finally got on Skyscraper page so snagged a few more examples of some taller contemporary/pedestrian friendly/mixed-use developments. There are numerous examples in both Austin and Denver currently going up.

The Austonian


Under Construction


Denver Spire. Often these buildings have parking underground and then starting again on the second floor, and retail on the ground level. This one has a garage access that looks to be on a main street. Not the best, but not bad.


Under Construction


The Claredon.



The Claridon has parking access on a side street. Not every street can be or should try to be pedestrian friendly. Those streets "B streets or alleys" are good to have your parking access on, leaving the "A Streets" to concentrate your more pedestrian friendly stuff on.


Maple Leaf, Mixed use, will have one of the cities largest grocery stores, will also have, restaurants, retail, office and living, interior access to the rail and the "A streets" are very pedestrian friendly.


Again, just a few examples

There are also many that I personally would call pedestrian friendly, but that would not readily fit the normal "listed criteria". Like this one currently underway in London. Often the environment, the setting itself can make a difference. A building that may work wonderfully in one place, may have just the opposite effect in another.

Pedestrian friendly or not?

Bishopsgate Tower




Bishopsgate in London Skyline

[Gaspar]

Been about 2 years now.  Have they been able to sell this yet?



Last I heard the developer was living in it.

[JoeMommaBlake]

That house off of Cherry Street was done by Shelby Navarro. It's platinum LEED certified and is as nice on the inside as it is on the outside.

If we're going to do contemporary design on the ballpark, something like that house, which is made of recycled and environmentally friendly materials, would be awesome.

Whatever the case....I can't wait for it to be done. It's going to be huge for downtown and a real boost to the progress in that neck of the woods.