MINNEAPOLIS - New Vikings Stadium (65,115)

[JJG]

Originally Posted by KingmanIII

Spot-on with this post but Infocision does employ a good deal of red brick.

Yeah, but it does have some modern design.

[Benn]

Its about the same as TCF in that repect, both have some throw back elements, along with some clean glass elements, kind of the textbook polite postmodernism of the last 15 years. I certainly wouldn't call either Modern or contemporary, both I think are well designed but are decidedly postmodern.
I would expect something a good deal crisper, cleaner and higher minded for the vikings whenever we end up with some an architect and renderings.

[superbigshow1997]

that looked like a cool design but did it ever get built?

[bewilder2]

Originally Posted by superbigshow1997

that looked like a cool design but did it ever get built?

Did what ever get built?

[Avian001]

Originally Posted by JJG

.... rise up in anger? Over a conservative, retro design for a stadium? Then explain this place?

image hosted on flickr


I think you're over reacting a bit.

The University of Minnesota Gopher Stadium is a modernist design. It is not "retro" and I would not call it post-modern either (although I'd give you some wiggle-room on that). The use of brick and a colonnade is not necessarily classical - many modernist buildings use both. If you pay attention to the details of this building it's pretty clear this stadium is utterly modernist.

The distinction is this: The architects chose to reference traditional architecture. But, if you look closely in the photo below, they've done it it a completely modernist way. For example, the columns do not visually support anything (indeed, they intentionally fall short of the upper deck massing). Instead they are used as a screen wall. Glass curtain walls are not "traditional" nor are they "retro." Neither are the cantilevers. The brick is used in simple planar fields with no drip edges, watercourses or reveals normally seen in a retro design. Sure, there are seemingly traditional lintels and sills, but notice that they do not penetrate the form of the columns, which traditional lintels would do. The cornice in a traditional building would likely have been stone or cast stone. Here it's smooth, featureless, zinc panels. And the cross section of that roof is clearly not retro.

So I stand by my assertion. The Twin Cities overwhelmingly prefer modernism to traditional architecture in their public (and major private) buildings. A retro (e.g.Lukas Oil) stadium design would never happen there. OK, I was being dramatic about "rising up in anger." But Twin Citians don't look upon "looking to the past" as being all that worthwhile.

[JJG]

Originally Posted by Avian001

The University of Minnesota Gopher Stadium is a modernist design. It is not "retro" and it certainly is not post-modern. The use of brick and a colonnade is not necessarily classical - many modernist buildings use both. If you pay attention to the details of this building it's pretty clear this stadium is utterly modernist.

The distinction is this: The architects chose to reference traditional architecture. But, if you look closely, they've done it it a completely modernist way. For example, the columns do not visually support anything (indeed, they intentionally fall short of the upper deck massing). Instead they are used as a screen wall. Glass curtain walls are not "traditional" nor are they "retro." Neither are the cantilevers. The brick is used in simple planar fields with no drip edges, watercourses or reveals normally seen in a retro design. The cornice in a traditional building would likely have been stone or cast stone. Here it's smooth, featureless, zinc panels. And the cross section of that roof is clearly not retro.

Well either way, you're STILL overreacting a bit.

You make it seem as if the people will riot if there's a more simple or classic design... which there's nothing wrong with, btw.

[bewilder2]

Originally Posted by Avian001

The University of Minnesota Gopher Stadium is a modernist design. It is not "retro" and I would not call it post-modern either (although I'd give you some wiggle-room on that). The use of brick and a colonnade is not necessarily classical - many modernist buildings use both. If you pay attention to the details of this building it's pretty clear this stadium is utterly modernist.

The distinction is this: The architects chose to reference traditional architecture. But, if you look closely in the photo below, they've done it it a completely modernist way. For example, the columns do not visually support anything (indeed, they intentionally fall short of the upper deck massing). Instead they are used as a screen wall. Glass curtain walls are not "traditional" nor are they "retro." Neither are the cantilevers. The brick is used in simple planar fields with no drip edges, watercourses or reveals normally seen in a retro design. Sure, there are seemingly traditional lintels and sills, but notice that they do not penetrate the form of the columns, which traditional lintels would do. The cornice in a traditional building would likely have been stone or cast stone. Here it's smooth, featureless, zinc panels. And the cross section of that roof is clearly not retro.

So I stand by my assertion. The Twin Cities overwhelmingly prefer modernism to traditional architecture in their public (and major private) buildings. A retro (e.g.Lukas Oil) stadium design would never happen there. OK, I was being dramatic about "rising up in anger." But Twin Citians don't look upon "looking to the past" as being all that worthwhile.

It seems like you know your stuff, so I'll rely on your judgment on calling it Modern. (As long as you call it American Modern, and not Euro Modern. )

Looking at our top 3 'scrapers, IDS, US Bancorp and Wells Fargo, Modern is definitely Minneapolis' style. St. Paul I could see having a retro stadium tho, even if the Xcel is Modern.

[Benn]

Originally Posted by Avian001

The University of Minnesota Gopher Stadium is a modernist design. It is not "retro" and I would not call it post-modern either (although I'd give you some wiggle-room on that). The use of brick and a colonnade is not necessarily classical - many modernist buildings use both. If you pay attention to the details of this building it's pretty clear this stadium is utterly modernist.

The distinction is this: The architects chose to reference traditional architecture. But, if you look closely in the photo below, they've done it it a completely modernist way. For example, the columns do not visually support anything (indeed, they intentionally fall short of the upper deck massing). Instead they are used as a screen wall. Glass curtain walls are not "traditional" nor are they "retro." Neither are the cantilevers. The brick is used in simple planar fields with no drip edges, watercourses or reveals normally seen in a retro design. Sure, there are seemingly traditional lintels and sills, but notice that they do not penetrate the form of the columns, which traditional lintels would do. The cornice in a traditional building would likely have been stone or cast stone. Here it's smooth, featureless, zinc panels. And the cross section of that roof is clearly not retro.

So I stand by my assertion. The Twin Cities overwhelmingly prefer modernism to traditional architecture in their public (and major private) buildings. A retro (e.g.Lukas Oil) stadium design would never happen there. OK, I was being dramatic about "rising up in anger." But Twin Citians don't look upon "looking to the past" as being all that worthwhile.

It is like the spitting image of postmodernism , the archways, the vaulted colonnade, the fake stone (white concrete) cornice ringing the stadium is all very much the postmodern. Its not directly taking neoclassical or classical elements, but the way that it plays with them has nothing to do with the tenants of Modernism (geometric purity, light, material honesty etc) now the press box would be the exception, which does take on a corporate modern vibe. However the rest of the project is decidedly postmodern campus architecture. But I digress, we should be talking about a likely very different stadium.

[GunnerJacket]

Originally Posted by Avian001

The University of Minnesota Gopher Stadium is a modernist design. It is not "retro" and I would not call it post-modern either (although I'd give you some wiggle-room on that). The use of brick and a colonnade is not necessarily classical - many modernist buildings use both. If you pay attention to the details of this building it's pretty clear this stadium is utterly modernist.

Jumping in not to be contrarian but out of appreciation for the earnest architectural discussion.

Like Benn I'm going to disagree and suggest the detailing you mention is more a post-modernist approach. While modernism sometimes incorporated classical elements it's emphasis on dynamic form and playful geometry is not the force driving the details of this building. Instead, the classical references (take your column and cornice discussion, for example) are more deliberately used to mimic classical forms, in distainct call-backs to traditional stadium architecture. They're use is aesthetic for the nostalgic association, not for unique play. Pure modernism would likely have used far less brick (another homage to nostalgia), emphasized more the larger massing of elements, and added splashes of original cuts and dynamic views to the structure as a whole. Some have suggested the unbalanced break of the open end accounts for this but that is far more a compromise of function (appropriate capacity while accommodating the view) than of some architectural statement. Even the University has said they someday hope to have demand enough to fill that in.

To be sure conventional architecture is so maleable that a) most projects aren't pursued with any stylistic purity (they're all mutts!) and b) the lines between modernism and post-modernism is pretty gray and narrow. But I'm among those who'll say if this one gets a singular label then post-modernist seems more appropriate.

One man's thoughts, anyway.

[GunnerJacket]

Originally Posted by JJG

Also, do we really have to have ALL college football stadiums look retro?

No, but in many cases you're trying to build upon the contextual affinity for the campus, which traditionally features many historic structures and a decidedly dated architectural style. Plus the brand of college football itself is built on the lore of major programs touting their storied past as much as their present. Luring those big donors, who are often older folk, means respecting the past. Sometimes almost to literally.

- - - - - - -

Re: The new Vikings stadium designs, I'm expecting a Ford Field feel to it. Clearly there will be a roof of some form and the size will be comparable to the 65k range we're seeing as the new norm. The notion of bundling the luxury suites and premium seating to one side is now seen as a way of maximizing the ability to tailor to those fans, and likewise to make efficient use of treatments for the common fans elsewhere, as well.

What I'm most anxious to see will be incorporation of specific viewsheds (an open/glass end?) and/or any tie ins with other development in the area. Target Field established a great precedent for urban contextual design in Minnesota, though the dome will demand greater parking and tailgating space. This will be a challenge but also an opportunity.

If they do mimic Lucas Oil with regards to roof design I hope they foster something more dynamic and consider a different scale. That structure still looks odd to me because of its size, as if the cap and ends don't quite do justice to the massing of the roof as a whole. Either they need to celebrate the lightness of their resulting design or play up to the weight of something trying to appear heavier.

[Avian001]

Originally Posted by GunnerJacket

Jumping in not to be contrarian but out of appreciation for the earnest architectural discussion.

Like Benn I'm going to disagree and suggest the detailing you mention is more a post-modernist approach. While modernism sometimes incorporated classical elements it's emphasis on dynamic form and playful geometry is not the force driving the details of this building. Instead, the classical references (take your column and cornice discussion, for example) are more deliberately used to mimic classical forms, in distainct call-backs to traditional stadium architecture. They're use is aesthetic for the nostalgic association, not for unique play. Pure modernism would likely have used far less brick (another homage to nostalgia), emphasized more the larger massing of elements, and added splashes of original cuts and dynamic views to the structure as a whole. Some have suggested the unbalanced break of the open end accounts for this but that is far more a compromise of function (appropriate capacity while accommodating the view) than of some architectural statement. Even the University has said they someday hope to have demand enough to fill that in.

To be sure conventional architecture is so maleable that a) most projects aren't pursued with any stylistic purity (they're all mutts!) and b) the lines between modernism and post-modernism is pretty gray and narrow. But I'm among those who'll say if this one gets a singular label then post-modernist seems more appropriate.

One man's thoughts, anyway.

I'll give you that. As I said in my original post, I give the TCF Stadium some wiggle-room (maybe a LOT of wiggle-room ) when describing its design being Modernist vs. Post-Modernist. The essential point is that I don't grant it being a "retro" stadium.

[GunnerJacket]

But it's got brick!! Doesn't that make it retro?!!!

[bewilder2]

Originally Posted by GunnerJacket

But it's got brick!! Doesn't that make it retro?!!!

And it's OUTSIDE!!! How much more retro can you get???

[bewilder2]

STrib has an article about the cost of stadiums being inflated due to increasingly costly amenities.

It mentions the possibility of fitting the retractable roof into the approved budget by sacrificing other amenities, among other things, but stays well away from firming any features.

http://www.startribune.com/local/161698055.html

[Avian001]

Apparently the design of the stadium will change since the Viking's owner family member, Mark Wilf, said today that an architect will be chosen in the next 60 days. According to him there will be 10-12 acre plaza for tailgating. Hopefully this will be integrated into a larger urban design plan for Minneapolis' "Downtown East" neighborhood!

[Topher51]

Originally Posted by Avian001

Apparently the design of the stadium will change since the Viking's owner family member, Mark Wilf, said today that an architect will be chosen in the next 60 days. According to him there will be 10-12 acre plaza for tailgating. Hopefully this will be integrated into a larger urban design plan for Minneapolis' "Downtown East" neighborhood!

The design will not necessarily change. Typically for projects like this, an architecture firm is hired to do a schematic proposal in order to get approval and funding. Once approved, the project is bid out to multiple design teams (including the original one, who has then inside track). If a different team is selected, they can tweak a lot of things, but the scope is pretty much set. In all likelihood, no matter what architect is selected, the finalized renderings will look very similar to the preliminary renderings, just more refined.

[bewilder2]

In Sid's column today, he notes that Vikings officials estimate the option to convert to a retractable roof to be $50-60 million.

He also challenges the governor to find a way to pay for it. Which is, well, Sid being Sid.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/167269785.html

[spectre000]

Bids in on Vikings stadium
Article by: RICHARD MERYHEW , Star Tribune Updated: August 30, 2012

"Five national architectural and engineering firms, including the company that designed new homes for the Minnesota Twins, Wild and University of Minnesota football team, have submitted renderings and plans for a new $975 million Vikings stadium.

Prominent among the firms submitting bids to the Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority by Thursday's deadline is Kansas City-based Populous, formerly known as HOK Sport. Populous designed the Twins' Target Field, which opened to rave reviews in 2010, along with TCF Bank Stadium, home of the football Gophers, and Xcel Energy Center, home to the Wild professional hockey team.

The firm also was the architect on more than a dozen Major League Baseball stadium projects, including Baltimore's Camden Yards and Pittsburgh's PNC Parks.

The other bidders on the Vikings' project are:

• AECOM, a Los Angeles-based firm involved in the design of CenturyLink Field, home of the NFL's Seattle Seahawks.

• Ewing Cole, a Philadelphia-based company that designed the $1.6 billion MetLife Stadium, home of the New York Jets and Giants.

• HKS Inc., of Dallas, architect for the $1.2 billion Cowboys Stadium, which opened in 2009 for the NFL Dallas Cowboys. HKS also designed the $720 million Lucas Oil Stadium, which opened in 2008 for NFL Indianapolis Colts.

• HNTB Corp., of Kansas City, designer of the $1.2 billion Santa Clara, Calif., stadium under construction for the San Francisco 49ers.

"We have plenty of good, qualified bidders," said Ted Mondale, the authority's executive director. "We've got the advantage in timing of a slow market -- not many stadiums are being built right now. So we have the cream of the crop."

Mondale said the authority and the Vikings, which are working together to oversee the construction of the multipurpose downtown Minneapolis stadium, will review the proposals and narrow the list in the coming days.

Finalists will appear at a public forum at the Metrodome at 5 p.m. Sept. 6 to show off their resumés. Stadium renderings and plans won't be unveiled to the public, however, until an architect is picked, Mondale said. That decision is expected to be announced at the authority's Sept. 14 meeting.

The authority and the Vikings hope to break ground on the stadium next summer and open it in time for the 2016 NFL season. The Vikings recently submitted a bid to the NFL to host the 2018 Super Bowl at the site."

[Topher51]

Too bad they aren't going to release the preliminary renderings. One week seems like a really short time to evaluate and decide on a bid. Especially considering how good all these architecture firms are.

[Benn]

Originally Posted by Topher51

Too bad they aren't going to release the preliminary renderings. One week seems like a really short time to evaluate and decide on a bid. Especially considering how good all these architecture firms are.

Its really more like two full weeks to pick a design which is probably sufficient, its a week until they let anyone see the finalists. I would be a bit suprised if much as much attention is given to the HNTB and Ewing Cole bids; as the Vikings seem to have preference for HKS, the Met Council has been working with Aecom and know matter who prefers what Populous seems to get all of the contracts around here anyway. I really can't wait to see what they have in store