re: Some New TS Pics Taken 6/9

quote:

---

Some New TS Pics

---

I though this was going to be a thread about a storm that was headed this way

quote:

---

The rest of the addition looks amazing so I would rather focus on that than the "Legos".

---

design is the kind of thing that is pretty subjective sometimes. clearly this design works for you, and that doesnt make you wrong in my eyes.

the problems i have with this design - just to name a few:
introduces a new "vocabulary" to the stadium (and actually, to the campus). the stadium used to be historic core contrasted with a functional and respectful modern addition. introduced on to this now is something that seems to aim to fake a historic look. i think this fails for a number of reasons: the glass is black (ugh), the thing is clad in something like a stucco (which was not anywhere else on the stadium prior to this), and the arches have circular vents directly above - centered on the arch. in italian renaissance architecture (which LSU campus is based on - even though admittedly the colosseum is an exception) - the only time you see circular elements with arched facade is when they are offset to be centered 1/2 way between arches. typically this is in the form of a relief. as an example, look at the school of music and dramatic arts building.
this version of circular vents over the arches adds too much height and disrupts proper proportioning and doesnt match historical context. also, i find the grid of windows and arches are overall too dense, and too many.

the rim along the top of the stadium pokes out too much and looks overly heavy. the north facade does have a very slight "rim". what we have here in the south is much much more protruding. so much so, it makes me think of the god-awful swaggart bible college concrete shell that was abandoned (it has a top floor which cantilevers out a pretty severe amount - which just looks silly to me).

also, where the new upper deck ties into the existing upper is awkward. it looks like an afterthought. i understand if there were a different set of needs that dictated cross sections that couldn't merge - but it could have been handled better.

also, the vertical tower element is yet a confusing and additional awkward mass. the "faux historic" south facade doesnt work well with anything there now, and then added to the faux historic south upper is a confusing rectangle of black glass. it again looks like an afterthought. or in this case, and afterthought to an afterthought. and it by itself doesnt match anything either.

the concession stand/bathroom/whatever blocks, of course, have been discussed to death but for good reason. they are terrible. they look like a poorly thought out afterthought. this entire stadium addition is new. its not as if they had this upper deck that then needed bathrooms and concessions added to it. there are countless number of other solutions to the need for concessions and whatever else those are that would have worked.

believe me, i could go on, but whats the point. LSU/TAF/whoever dropped the ball on this project.

made more confusing because HKS (firm that i understand to be designer) is a huge national firm with some really well thought out designs. in fact, they are such a globally prominent design firm that i kind of am forced to think that these design problems are a result of LSU/TAF/whoever meddling too much.

quote:

---

made more confusing because HKS (firm that i understand to be designer) is a huge national firm with some really well thought out designs. in fact, they are such a globally prominent design firm that i kind of am forced to think that these design problems are a result of LSU/TAF/whoever meddling too much.

---

to my earlier point. link below is to the stadium design studio at HKS. HKS is the architecture firm that designed this addition. they are a very very good design firm. i find it extremely hard to believe they would have arrived at this design independently. it feels to me like the powers that be interfered a bit too much, but that is complete speculation.

it is curious though that their stadium design portfolio excludes LSU. i also find it interesting that when the renderings for this came out, they were pretty old fashioned hand drawn type things. a nice art form for sure - but not in keeping with the type of renderings these mega design firms are doing. something about all this just seems off.

HKS architects

quote:

---

the concession stand/bathroom/whatever blocks, of course, have been discussed to death but for good reason. they are terrible. they look like a poorly thought out afterthought.

---

interesting thought

quote:

---

LSU/TAF/whoever dropped the ball on this project.

---

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Not only did LSU & TAF get this expansion right, they set the bar for how future expansions will be designed.



The first rule about architecture is that "form follows function." The new seating was designed so it stacks vertically. None of the new seats are any further from the field than the first few rows in the sideline upper decks. The fans are just steps away from amenities. No where else are the fans as close to elevators/stairs/restrooms/concessions.

Now compare the seating in the old school designed end zone upper decks at Kyle Field...



...those fans are literally hanging out over the sidewalks outside the stadium. Compared to Tiger Stadium's SEZ addition, Aggie and visiting fans are far, far away from exits and access to amenities. There's really no comparison. The fans at the top of the Kyle Field end zone upper deck are further away from the field than anyone seated in Tiger Stadium, much less the SEZ addition.

Also, the SEZ expansion provides room for future game day condos. See the areas on the second and third floors marked "FUTURE"...



...when LSU & TAF get around to adding those condos to the stadium, this is where they will add them first. There's no problems with plumbing and electrical, nor any abatement of asbestos standing in the way. They can add those condos at any time they wish to.

Saying this expansion is anything but a triumph for LSU & TAF misses the mark completely. I get that people don't like the way the restrooms and concessions were added up top. But to dismiss the many advantages of the addition is to throw out the baby with the bath water.

quote:

---

Now compare the seating in the old school designed end zone upper decks at Kyle Field..

---

How does the capacity of each compare? Looks like a lot more seats in A&M's upper deck

From the field looking out, the new South EZ looks pretty good. I don't know why the decision was made to have a plaza along the top of the upper deck rather than seating up to the top and over the concessions/plaza area, but from inside the stadium it doesn't look that bad. Now, the choice to have no openings on those concession blocks facing the field seems pretty ludicrous, and a missed opportunity, especially considering there is no upper deck structure to interfere with their function, but whatever, as I said, from the field side, overall its pretty good.

BUT, once you look at the outside...yeah...this expansion is a complete cluster. It's ugly, out of proportion, out of balance, and display's for the world some of the worst 'arches' in stadium design to date. And that's before even talking about the glass tower, the boxes on top, the new materials, the relationship with the rest of the stadium, etc...its just bad bottom to top, left to right.

Will it be a good fan experience? Most likely. Will it make the TAF money? Most likely.

But make no mistake, this design isn't setting the bar for anything from a design perspective, and no, the first rule of architecture is not 'form follows function'.

quote:

---

...so obviously they couldn't get the seats as close as LSU.

---

Nor could they get the fans as close to amenities as LSU did.

The other SEC fans I've shown the SEZ to have all agreed about how good the seats are in our new SEZ and how good the access to amenities are.

That's the bottom line right there. Which design improves the fan experience more? Where would you rather sit?

If you're honest, it's in the seats in the new SEZ addition, over any other end zone upper deck.

My only problem is with the design of the concession/restroom blocks (i know, I know). I'm obviously the only one here who is not an architect. But, from this 'Non-Architect's" perspective they could have done a number of things . I wish someone with some computer animated/drawing designs (or whatever you call it) could help me out here.

1) Space the blocks out at equal distances. And/or
2) Make the blocks all the same height. And/or
3) Push the blocks together (all the same height) with no spaces in between.
4) Build the blocks on the very back of the concourse with any of the above mentioned aspects.
5) Put uniform openings on the blocks
6) Incorporate the blocks into the facade/design of the structure itself .

For those that say it's trivial/people love to bitch etc. Just STFU . I love this university & want a first rate facility (yes even asthetically). Its an iconic structure that we all identify with, that thousands and thousands of visitors see every year. Not to mention, we will all be looking at this addition the rest of our lives.