SkyscraperCity Forum banner

Rate It

  • 10.0

    Votes: 68 19.6%
  • 9.5

    Votes: 27 7.8%
  • 9.0

    Votes: 58 16.7%
  • 8.5

    Votes: 36 10.4%
  • 8.0

    Votes: 24 6.9%
  • 7.5

    Votes: 22 6.3%
  • 7.0

    Votes: 13 3.7%
  • 6.5

    Votes: 12 3.5%
  • 6.0

    Votes: 15 4.3%
  • 5.5

    Votes: 4 1.2%
  • 5.0

    Votes: 13 3.7%
  • 4.5

    Votes: 7 2.0%
  • 4.0

    Votes: 4 1.2%
  • 3.5

    Votes: 2 0.6%
  • 3.0

    Votes: 42 12.1%

CHICAGO - Soldier Field (61,500)

Tags
chicago
221K views 532 replies 169 participants last post by  nyrmetros 
#1 · (Edited by Moderator)

Chicago Bears

9x Champion:
1921, 1932, 1933, 1940, 1941,
1943, 1946, 1963, 1985



Home of the NFL's Chicago Bears

Can you fit a new modern stadium inside of an old one? One complete with hundred of luxury suites, club seating and put fans close to the action? Yes. There are bigger stadiums out there, with fancy awnings, retractable roofs, etc. They all try to be the most modern, yet most are big repeats of the same thing. Then you have Soldier Field, that shows there is innovation in design.

Pre-renovation Soldier Field



New Soldier Field






Atriums, concourses and walkways






Gameday football




Gameday football



 
See less See more
20
#5 ·
The best stadium in the US, imo. I love everything about it. It's huge, yet feels nice (from the pictures, I'd love to go there), combines old and new perfectly imo, has a sweet asymmetrical architecture, the use of materials is class, not the concrete look you see all the time, and the cantilevered scoreboards are just jawdropping.

10/10
 
#7 ·
No offense , but this is one of the ugliest stadiums I have EVER seen. It is one thing for a stadium to have some unique and non-symnetrical features but what the??? It's as if the designers had two different ideas for the stadium , and instead of combining those two ideas.......they built two different stadiums . The old one was sooo much better IMO.
 
#10 ·
There are many more thing to this stadium than meets the eye. One won't be able to realize Soldier Field's value until they experience it from the inside. This stadium has the best sight lines, and is the most up to date stadium, in the NFL. Plus, there are no parking lots! Just lots and lots of trees and a gigantic sledding hill for the children. Underneath this stadium is a massive parking garage. Which makes the ability to respect the past and preserve it at the same time that much more impressive.
 
#11 ·
The addition to Soldier Field is a monument to architectural ineptitude. Just a few days ago, as I was exiting the Field Museum on my way to the parking structure, I was able to see closeup just how bad it looks. The extension of the seating--often said to resemble a flying saucer--and the old colonnade make for disastrous bedfellows. The U.S. government is considering the revocation of Soldier Field's status as a National Landmark as a result of its perversion.

Having said that, I agree with KingShizznit that the interior of the stadium is very attractive and innovative. The views of the field are impeccable and overall there is a feeling of coziness that many NFL stadiums are lacking.
 
#12 ·
my spin on Soldier Field (from an undeniably biased and partisan home-town guy and Bear fan):

nothing in the NFL can compare with the assemetrical layout of this dramatic beauty.

the exterior: people criticize the architecture of Soldier Field's exterior. What a joke; the vast majority of NFL stadiums don't even have architetcure; their shells for what is inside, little more.

to appreciate Soldier Field, you must understand one key concept: nobody would ever have designed a structgure like this from scratch. The design is an attempt to link the classical history of the stadium with a statment that looks to the future.

Others think it was a marriage made in hell. I see a tour de force instead. I love it. This is not an attempt to create a awkward connection between old and new by having the new design mimic the original statement, creating something that would have looked tacked on. It is the contrast between ol and new that make this thing work.

Sure you can't see the collonades from the field, but they're still there, not torn down by a totally new structure. And you can walk through them when you want, something impossible in the old configuration.

Even issues of "scale" are not what some people say (IMHO). The fear that this structure overpowers the lakefront is absurd when you consider that immediately south of Soldier Field, McCormick Place sprawls on the lakefront and Stevenson Expressway ramps over Lk Sh Dr. Meanwhile, directly to the west, Museum Park's new towering structures are practically at the stadium's doorstep.

This location isn't Lincoln Park, where beach and park width buffer the lakefront from the city. Soldier Field does not overpower the lakefront here the way that it would have been in a location such as the Lincoln Park lakefront, east of the zoo.
 
#13 ·
edsg25 said:
my spin on Soldier Field (from an undeniably biased and partisan home-town guy and Bear fan):

nothing in the NFL can compare with the assemetrical layout of this dramatic beauty.

the exterior: people criticize the architecture of Soldier Field's exterior. What a joke; the vast majority of NFL stadiums don't even have architetcure; their shells for what is inside, little more.

to appreciate Soldier Field, you must understand one key concept: nobody would ever have designed a structgure like this from scratch. The design is an attempt to link the classical history of the stadium with a statment that looks to the future.

Others think it was a marriage made in hell. I see a tour de force instead. I love it. This is not an attempt to create a awkward connection between old and new by having the new design mimic the original statement, creating something that would have looked tacked on. It is the contrast between ol and new that make this thing work.
I think Soldier Field is the one real chance taker inside and out in the entire world. The NFL is a leader at this for bowl layouts, while New Arizona Cardinals, Quoduoung(sp?) and Allainz are the others that take chances on the exterior. Soldier combines both, while creating a super intimate atmosphere without even a roof or straight sideline seating on the side(thank goodness the NFL knows better). Inside and out, if I were choosing a world #1, this would be it. Even over Reliant. I had a great aerial from the north that really showed off the genious of the bowl design and how a lot of the bowl is in the ground on that side. As highly as it is ranked in people's mind, I think it is still vastly underrated because it doesn't have a roof or retractable roof.
 
#16 ·
I am not sure about the exterior, but the interior looks pretty nifty (despite some unecessary non-symmetrical features).
 
#19 ·
As a season ticket holder to both old and new solider field. From a game standpoint the new stadium is amazing. I loved the old solider field ... it looked like a sea of people in a roman classical bowl. But the new stadium is far better game experience. Better bathroom... concessions...sight lines...and that place really gets roaring on third down ...
 
#20 ·
.::G!oRgOs::. said:
Is it meant to have an Olympian Feel? Something from Ancient greek times?
Yes, the doric columns and granite-textured cast stone were meant to give it an ancient Greek and Roman feel.

It really gives you a sense of how large the original Soldier Field was, that architects literally were able to build a brand new stadium inside the walls of the old stands! :)

I actually LOVE both the renovations of Soldier Field and Lambeau Field in Green Bay. With Lambeau, the interior bowl of the stadium was the only part worth preserving, while the exterior was the only part worth saving at Soldier.

The city of Chicago did a magnificent job with this stadium, including its surroundings. Before the renovation the stadium was surrounded by a barren parking lot. Now they've got an underground garage, and the lot's been replaced by park. Re-routing Lakeshore Dr. so it doesn't encircle the stadium was a great move too.

Bravo Chicago! :cheers:
 
#22 ·
Soldier Field loses landmark status
By Noreen S. Ahmed-Ullah
Tribune staff reporter
Published April 22, 2006


Soldier Field's controversial renovation, which critics dubbed a "flying saucer" and "a fish bowl," has stripped the stadium of its national historic landmark designation.

The National Park Service said Friday that former Interior Secretary Gale Norton had signed the order removing the stadium from the list of historic landmarks. The order followed an advisory board's finding that the glass bowl-shaped stadium set inside the colonnades of the old Soldier Field had destroyed the stadium's historic character.

"For national landmarks, we look more for restoration," said David Barna, spokesman for the National Park Service. "This one crossed the line in terms of too much renovation."

The city has maintained that the $660 million Soldier Field makeover, promoted by Mayor Richard Daley, added modern amenities without hurting the stadium's classic architecture. Officials argued that the stadium received its designation in 1987 not only because of its architecture, but also because of its historic significance in major 20th Century events.

But many historic preservationists said the loss of the building's original architectural style merited removal of the historic designation.

"The `Independence Day' flying saucer that dropped on top of Soldier Field" destroyed the building's historic architecture, said David Bahlman, president of the Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois.

Loss of the designation will make city officials across the nation think twice before major renovations of landmark sites, he said.

Officials at the Chicago Park District, which owns Soldier Field, were disappointed by the news. Parks spokeswoman Jessica Maxey-Faulkner said 90 percent of the stadium's architectural design was preserved.

Ben Wood, one of the lead architects on the renovation that was completed in 2003, blamed the media, especially Tribune architecture critic Blair Kamin, saying a barrage of unfavorable commentary influenced the federal decision.


and some incredible new shots




 
#23 ·
I'm interested, how did the renovation take place? And by that I really mean, where did the Bears play when Soldier Field was being torn up and rebuilt (since the entire seatingbowl as well as pressboxes etc, were rebuilt). I'm assuming they weren't able to do this in one off-season, if so that would be very very impressive. What nearby venue had the capacity to facilitate the Bears?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top