How did we get here? A short architectural history. It all started with the Greeks (Classical Architecture), and then the Romans (Classical with arches), and then the French (Gothic-Roman with pointed arches). All this was upended by the Germans (The Bauhaus and Mies van der Rohe) and the French (Le Corbusier), the early modernists. So then, crossing the Atlantic to America (for those Architects who were not lost on the Titanic). we have H.H. Richardson in Boston, who revived Romanesque (masonry or stone arches), Danial Burnham in Chicago who practiced the Beaux Art style, which was a kind of classical mixed with Romanesque with early modernism, followed by Louis Sullivan, sometimes called the father of modernism because of the evolution of the Chicago style (more on that shortly). He pioneered the steel frame (very important, as that was the basis for skyscrapers). Skip back to the east coast, there was Paul Phillipe Cret (French) who practiced (and taught) the Beaux Art style in Philadelphia (this is about the same time as these other guys in the late 19th and early 20th centuries), and was the teacher of Louis Kahn (who some say was the father of post modernism, and was my teacher and who practiced in kind of a Brutalist style, but transcended that). Back to Chicago and Mies--he popularized the curtain wall (from Sullivan and the steel frame). The curtain wall is basically an exterior wall hung on the outside of a steel frame, and was the basis for the architecture of the IIT (Chicago) school, of highly rational rectangular, rigid steel frame, curtain wall architecture (Mies). There was of course FLWright who created his own thing and somehow plays into this. The architecture of Richardson, Burnham, and to an extent Sullivan and Wright (and then of course Kahn) was based on a solid exterior masonry and/or concrete wall which supported itself and also a part of the building itself. Mies and IIT developed the curtain wall, in which that was not the case. Then came Post modernism, which is another story, which combines whatever the heck you want to combine, much or most of it bad (Graves, Philip Johnson to a degree) and some good (Kahn, Venturi, Moore, Gehry). Also, in the mid-twentieth Century, out of classicism and modernism evolved Brutalism (or new Brutalism), which was a rational exposed concrete or concrete and masonry exterior, which we see a lot of in this country in the late 1960's and 1970's .
So, what about stadiums? I like to look at Franklin Field in Philadelphia as one of the best examples of late 19th-early 20th century Romanesque stadium architecture, and was the model for many of the early football stadiums around the country. Thick exterior walls and mostly masonry and concrete construction. Dyche kind of evolved from this, but has a post-modern eclecticism, for when it was built. Certainly not modern, but not classical either, and not much to do with the Chicago Style (keep in mind historically, there is both the rational, technological and then FLW and where he came from). Still mostly reinforced concrete construction. Stadiums have been evolving into mostly steel frame construction, with concrete floors. Camden Yards, which someone mentioned, is somewhere in the middle between past and now. Steel frame with concrete construction, but and exterior facade that is separate from this, Post-Modern facade for sure, a bit of classical, a bit of Brutalist, a bit fake post-modern detailing, but separate outside of the stadium structure itself. Then there is the Huntington Bank Stadium in Minneapolis, which is sort of a compressed, condensed version of Camden Yards, very functional and user friendly, but looks like much suburban commercial architecture (if you can call it that) today.
Let's go to Asia and the Chinese National Stadium. Beautiful, simple (yet complex) architecture, which some liken to a ball of yarn, apparently held up by an elaborate exterior steel frame structure, which is in part curtain wall, and which hearkens back to Matthew Nowicki's Dortan Arena in Raleigh, N.C. (whose wife and partner was also one of my teachers).
So, what are the roots of the new proposed NU stadium? Steel frame and simple modified/partial curtain wall construction (Sullivan and Mies). Exterior facade, apparently applied brick, with a nod to Sullivan and Wright, a touch of Art-Deco and Nowicki and his hyperbolic-paraboloid roof, even though this isn't). No fake Brutalism, classicisism or post-modern affectations. It is what it is, very straight forward. The interior appears to be condensed, with intense fan focus on the field. I believe these guys know what they are doing.
So, what about stadiums? I like to look at Franklin Field in Philadelphia as one of the best examples of late 19th-early 20th century Romanesque stadium architecture, and was the model for many of the early football stadiums around the country. Thick exterior walls and mostly masonry and concrete construction. Dyche kind of evolved from this, but has a post-modern eclecticism, for when it was built. Certainly not modern, but not classical either, and not much to do with the Chicago Style (keep in mind historically, there is both the rational, technological and then FLW and where he came from). Still mostly reinforced concrete construction. Stadiums have been evolving into mostly steel frame construction, with concrete floors. Camden Yards, which someone mentioned, is somewhere in the middle between past and now. Steel frame with concrete construction, but and exterior facade that is separate from this, Post-Modern facade for sure, a bit of classical, a bit of Brutalist, a bit fake post-modern detailing, but separate outside of the stadium structure itself. Then there is the Huntington Bank Stadium in Minneapolis, which is sort of a compressed, condensed version of Camden Yards, very functional and user friendly, but looks like much suburban commercial architecture (if you can call it that) today.
Let's go to Asia and the Chinese National Stadium. Beautiful, simple (yet complex) architecture, which some liken to a ball of yarn, apparently held up by an elaborate exterior steel frame structure, which is in part curtain wall, and which hearkens back to Matthew Nowicki's Dortan Arena in Raleigh, N.C. (whose wife and partner was also one of my teachers).
So, what are the roots of the new proposed NU stadium? Steel frame and simple modified/partial curtain wall construction (Sullivan and Mies). Exterior facade, apparently applied brick, with a nod to Sullivan and Wright, a touch of Art-Deco and Nowicki and his hyperbolic-paraboloid roof, even though this isn't). No fake Brutalism, classicisism or post-modern affectations. It is what it is, very straight forward. The interior appears to be condensed, with intense fan focus on the field. I believe these guys know what they are doing.
Last edited:
