Quote:
Originally Posted by alex1
Successful architecture is not just about aesthetics. That's where you and I will disagree on to the death.
|
I don't think I ever said that architecture is purely aesthetic. Perhaps utilitarian was the wrong word to use on my part. Things were added without concern for anything but getting more people into seats.
Anyway, Wrigley, even from a non-aesthetic view of architecture, doesn't really work. The concourses are too narrow, there are obstructed views, and the services are poor. Have you ever been there during a rain delay? Hanging out down in the concourse is pretty miserable.
Where Wrigley works best is seating proximity to the field and interaction with the neighborhood. My season tickets are third row of the upper deck on the infield. They are great seats. I would say that there are very few other parks where any seat in the upper deck is as good as those at Wrigley (even all the way in the last row of the 500s). However, somebody who we split the tickets with has bad knees and maybe will have to stop coming to games because the stairs are too steep coming down to the seats. I wouldn't really call that successful architecture (in the modern age). These are the little things that can be remedied by a renovation/restoration or whatever they are calling it now.