Ghery Officially Off Barclay Center Designs

The Barclay Center, which is to be the Nets new basketball arena had originally intended to be the main focal point and anchor of Frank Ghery's sprawling 22-acre Atlantic Yards complex located in central Brooklyn. Now it seems that though Ghery will be master planner for the site, the "starchitects" firm had been replaced by Ellerbe Becket as designer of the arena itself.

One reason that seems very likely is that Ghery's proposal as usual would end up being way to pricey and indeed Forest City Ratner, the developers said in the statement. “The current economic climate is not right for this design, and with Frank’s understanding, the arena is undergoing a redesign that will make it more limited in scope.” So what happened to his magic "Digital Project" software? According to the Times, the arena is now expected to cost $800 million, down from a projected $1 billion.

So as the situation stands right now, Ghery's initial design (topmost) will be replaced with the Ellerbe Becket design (below) which bears a close resemblance to their Conseco Fieldhouse, arena of the Indiana Pacers.

I am a little disappointed that in light of the current economy, Mr Ghery was not able to find a way to create a design that is a little more affordable to the city.I guess he hasn't been using his own software he tauted could help him come in under budget for any project.
Still, I know as architects we don't particularly like to downgrade a design to make it cheaper but what was a no-no a few years ago is workable today if you want to have work.




Images obtained from: archpaper.com/e-board
For more info check: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/nyregion/05gehry.html?_r=1&hp

The Olympics and Urban Planning

Now that the Beijing Olympics are over, future host nations especially England, which will host the 2012 games are faced with the task of how to compete with the grandiose scale of what we saw in China especially in terms of stadium design. If hosting the games was a way for China to shore up its strength on a visible international stage, then the architecture was the component that brought together politics and aesthetics into a seemingly cohesive whole.

The organizers of the London 2012 Olympics would like to duplicate such accomplishments but for many such cities who lack the adequate space for expansion or the necessary funds, this could be a tall order. HOK sports has unveiled a temporary solution for the 2012 games by creating a "convertible" structure in the London arena(top left) which would increase the seats from 25,000 to 80,000 for the games' commencements and back down to 25,000 seats when the games are concluded(left). Also, these expansion components will have the ability to be dismantled, boxed up and shipped to another country needing an expansion to their main stadium.

This tactic of "recycling" the Olympic stadium has been lauded as a first step in a new approach to preparations for the games which could become more like a traveling circus to keep costs down and allow poorer countries to play host for the Olympics. A spokesman for London's Olympic Delivery Authority stated that the plan would also help to offset the rising cost of the London games which now stand at 9.3 billion pounds. The cost of the main stadium has already risen from 280 million pounds to 496 million pounds. Taking these costs into consideration, the ODA spokesman went on to say: "it is right that we should explore any opportunities that would recoup some of the costs incurred by the lottery and the public purse."

David Higgins, the CEO of the London ODA began talks with officials in Chicago (bidding for the 2016 games alongside Tokyo, Madrid, Prague and Rio de Janeiro) in June for a deal that would see the shipping of the London stadium's expansions (55,000 seats) to Chicago's Washington Park expanding a planned 7,500 capacity community arena into the city's main stadium.

I don't know, this might be a good way to keep costs down in times when the economy is struggling as it is today but I love to see "permanent" landmark stadiums that are not only aesthetically appealing, but add to the overall infrastructure of the city and enrich its architecture. The convenience of the "travelling" stadium will see a drop in stadium construction.

Images obtained from www.guardian.co.uk

HKS Selected for New Liverpool FC Stadium

After battling with Manchester based AFL, HKS has finally been chosen to design the new Liverpool FC soccer stadium in Liverpool, England set to open in time for the 2011 Premier League season. The two firms' original proposals were rejected by the American owners, Tom Hicks (also owner of the Texas Rangers) and George Gillett as they felt that AFL's design was outdated and HKS' way too expensive. The cost had risen from $600 million when it was announced in the summer of 2007 to almost $900 million by the end of the year.

The new design by HKS which increases the current seating capacity from 42,000 to 60,000 will feature a stone base on the north, west and east exposures with glass facades above. The south will be metal clad with south east and south west corners open but the main selling point of the design is the world famous "Kop" (similar to the Oakland Raider's "Black Hole" but filled with fewer Hooligans) behind the home goal. This all-seater stand will be set at the higher point of the site and will contain over 20,000 seats and was designed very expressively to intensify the setting and sense of drama. The asymmetrical building as a whole was designed to break from the bowl-like shapes of most soccer stadiums and announce itself as Liverpool FC's stadium only and none other.

I think that there were some good intentions with this design especially with the "KOP" but HKS has created quite an ugly project but I guess that's what one could expect if the design team came up with their proposal after attending only one game in the original stadium. That's just like the Manchester based AFL proposing a design for say the Pittsburgh Steelers after attending one regular season game. I think that a lot more time should have been spent trying to get a feel for the culture of the club, the game of soccer and the fans.

Also, the street level view is not as interesting as aerial perspectives, just like the SF Transbay Terminal and this leads me to think that many firms seem to fall in love with how their projects look in aerial perspective and overlook how most people will view it-from the street level. Another thing that seems odd to me is that the images of the stadium are shown without a scrap of context around them so one doesn't even get a sense of how it will fit in with it's surrounding environment. I remember doing something like that with one of my fourth year school projects and was ripped into cause my building was "floating in space" but I guess when you become successful in this field you can do whatever you want with your renderings.

Well, the design has been selected already and the only people I feel for are the Liverpool fans cause they have joined the list of franchises that have been screwed by American owners cause we don't understand the culture of soccer in Europe even though we like to pretend we do.


Images obtained from www.liverpoolft.tv/news