="OlerudOwned":3kx0dulz]The new Yankees Stadium really does look like a beautiful post office.[/quote:3kx0dulz] Bingo! Later Vic Sage Mar 17 2009 09:12 AM IMO, his point was not that asymmetry = character. To the contrary, i think. His point was that the assymetry of old ballparks were not merely an affectation.... they were the necessary consequence of urban ballparks having to adapt to very different urban landscapes. That those ballparks were integrated and a part of their urban settings made them more individualized, personal experience for their fans, and thus lovingly embraced ("even the ugly ones"), which is a perfectly valid architectural theory. It is one of the uniquey identifying charms of baseball that its outfield dimensions are unlimited, just as the lack of a clock renders the game theoretically unlimited. But his criticism of Citifield is that its asymmetry does NOT equal character; that it is, instead, an affectation that isolates it in its environment, and has been borrowed, instead, from a history that is not its own. Regardless, the stadium is attractive, and I'm still happy to have better sightlines and better amenities. RealityChuck Mar 17 2009 09:13 AM ="Gwreck":2wuna5hi]The gratuitous editorializing in the final sentence undermines the writer's authority by delving too far off topic.[/quote:2wuna5hi] It's a review. That's the point of a review -- to give an opinion. Gwreck Mar 17 2009 09:18 AM The review works when he offers opinions on topics in which he has expertise. Hence my criticism of the way he ended. Edgy DC Mar 17 2009 10:18 AM ="Vic Sage":3h6as05y]IMO, his point was not that asymmetry = character. To the contrary, i think. His point was that the assymetry of old ballparks were not merely an affectation.... they were the necessary consequence of urban ballparks having to adapt to very different urban landscapes. That those ballparks were integrated and a part of their urban settings made them more individualized, personal experience for their fans, and thus lovingly embraced ("even the ugly ones"), which is a perfectly valid architectural theory. It is one of the uniquey identifying charms of baseball that its outfield dimensions are unlimited, just as the lack of a clock renders the game theoretically unlimited. But his criticism of Citifield is that its asymmetry does NOT equal character; that it is, instead, an affectation that isolates it in its environment, and has been borrowed, instead, from a history that is not its own. Regardless, the stadium is attractive, and I'm still happy to have better sightlines and better amenities.[/quote:3h6as05y] Well, if that's his point, I agree with him, but the first sentence of paragraph four seems to suggest that Shea's a-symmetry was some sort of lamentable artistic mission of architects, rather than the natural response to a new reality, the park was built in a huge swath of land cleared for parking. He certainly alludes to the new paradigm two paragraphs down, but he's already made his seeming indictment of Shea '64 on those terms.