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
#64 · (Edited)
Some more photos


photos of "old" Soldier Field.

Soldier Field 1964

via kalracing.com


circa 1927

via nationalcowboymuseum.org



via www.museum.state.il.us/



via ultimatebearsfan.com

1933

via Flickr - Marquette University Archives

1956 - Soldier Field ski jump

via gilcoscaffolding.com


Soldiers' Field - Chicago by Mark 2400, on Flickr
 
#66 ·

(Flickr - mason.flickr's


Flickr - joseph a


Flickr - Ray Devlin


photobucket - Jadeddreams87


photobucket - summerdeforest


Flickr - Cathy and Greg Rafanelli's


Flickr - greg.walter9's


Flickr - Fixie&Boxie's


Visting locker room

photobucket - smoker68x
 
#67 ·
I love this stadium, i suppose the only slight down side is the capacity but the architects were working within the constraints of the previous footprint i assume? Its not a surprise that a stadium in Chicago really stands out from most other modern stadia in the US.
 
#69 ·
There are few stadiums I dislike more than this one. It ruined the design of old Soldier Field and as a result, lost its historical landmark status. It looks awful now, like a spaceship landed on top of the old stadium and it's far too small. There's no reason that the smallest stadium in a US hosted World Cup would be in the city of Chicago. This stadium is a mega-fail.
 
#78 ·
I really love this stadium it's one of my favorites in the US certainly in my top 3. I appreciate the way they have made the interior non-symmetrical, and have incorporated both the original features of the stadium and added a 21st century design. Does anybody have any pictures of other designs that were put forward before they chose this design?
 
#89 · (Edited)
It seems the more unique the design the greater the probability of some kind of sightline issues, whether they be major eg blocked vision of the field/pitch or minor eg blocked views of the rest of the stadium. On the other side of the coin if you want perfect views from everywhere stadiums tend to end up looking the same ie simple bowls like the 30k cookie cutters that are all over Europe.
 
#91 ·
Had they built this stadium from scratch to look like this, I'd be saying it looks awesome. But seeing the old pictures of soldier field with its Lambeau/Rosebowl-esque classic style, I'm really scratching my head as to why they chose to renovate it in this way. Were they intentionally trying to avoid looking like lambeau because of the rivalry? Perhaps they could have ringed the more luxury boxes around the south end, and kept the roman comlumns theme of the other "guard towers"? Who knows. 9/10 for a new stadium, 5/10 for reverence for the former stadium, we'll say 7.5/10 average
 
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