This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article. Comments on this page are closed. To find the current version of the article with updated comments, click here.
April 01, 2008
Take me out to the mall game
The new Washington Nationals stadium - called, eponymously enough, Nationals Park, though a corporate naming-rights deal is no doubt inevitable, leaves a lot to be desired, according to Washington Post architecture critic Philip Kennicott, noting that concessions stands and bathrooms block most of the external views. But that's to be expected, writes Kennicott, given that it's less a building than "a machine for baseball and for sucking the money out of the pockets of people who like baseball":
The ballpark -- like most shopping malls, airports, sports facilities and, alas, many new museums -- belongs to what we might call the architecture of distraction. We don't tend to think of these buildings in architectural terms, as having form or line, balance or symmetry, shape or presence. Rather, it's all about program, circulation and keeping boredom at bay. The public judges these structures in terms of their amenities, their bathrooms, their cleanliness and their overall convenience.
So it was no surprise to stand in the crowd, at an exhibition game Saturday evening, and hear several variations on this verdict: "It's a much better experience than RFK." The old and much-maligned RFK Stadium, where the Nationals played the past three seasons, might be a better building -- more visual interest, more presence on its prominent site, and a better mix of modern style with the city's vernacular gravitas -- but it was a lousy experience. Today, we have a great experience but, alas, a lousy building.
Having only caught a few glimpses of Nationals Park on the season-opening telecast, I'm inclined to say it doesn't look like a great experience, either, if by experience you mean watching the ballgame and not buying nachos. All decks but the lowest are set very far back from the field, and have a notable curve to them as well - which is good for having all seats point toward the infield, but not so good for having them all be in the same zip code as the infield. RFK Stadium was no beauty, but it did have outstanding views from the upper deck. I'd be interested in hearing reports from D.C. fans on how the cheap seats in the new place match up.
Neil,
I remain amazed at your review of the Nationals Stadium. You have never attended an event or even toured the facility at the public open-house yet once again pass judgment as that of an expert or worse yet a journalist.
The right of free speech appears to have served you well. As the rest of us are required to take state exams to perform our professional services (architect, engineers, etc, etc.,) without any license at all you are an expert. Our founding fathers noted the "conflict of interest" issue attached with demanding the license of the likes of you and thus you skate free.
We will continue to follow your column but let it be said while you are spoken about in our professional circles you are dismissed for your lack of credibility.
Regards,
Posted by Pat Thomas on April 19, 2008 09:51 PM
Um, that's not my review - it's that of the Post's Philip Kennicott, who did tour the stadium. My only comment was that it looks bad on TV (I live in New York, which made it hard to pop over for the open house), and asked readers to report on how it looks in person.
Incidentally, while you don't say, I'm guessing you're not Pat Thomas the linebacker or Pat Thomas the Florida state senator, but more likely Pat Thomas the director of the Baltimore Regional Green Building Council. I know that Nationals Stadium is LEED-certified and so presumably scores well by you on those grounds (though other environmental experts, like Chris Weiss of D.C. Friends of the Earth, have disagreed); that aside, though, what did you think of the view from the upper deck?
Posted by Neil on April 20, 2008 07:55 AM