What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

  1. Here to make you sad, BJ. I like this design better than the other two. But I still don’t want public money and eminent domain used to build it. And, to correctly quote Architect66, that is not the right spot for a stadium.

  2. bxgirl – I like how SHoP is focused on the process of design, fabrication, and construction. In a product oriented world, that is not so typical. Agree about the effect of the cheese-grater like renderings for the “arena” – but they’ve done some really fine non-cheese-grater-like in the city, (porter house, mulberry street apartment building).

  3. @Pigeon – Um, no, I’m not “incorrect”

    I agree with your interpretation that most folks in the city hear/assume/read “Bloomberg” as a reference to the mayor, but the point remains that it is also common to cite ‘Bloomberg’ News articles that way.

    Don’t assume it was an editorial decision to be provocative just because you’re not familiar with the convention.

  4. Well, he’s a well paid architectural critic despite being “supremely irrelevant>”

    Architect66- I’ll grant they are interesting but overall their work leaves me cold.But I’m not a fan of building exteriors that look like cheese graters. There are others I like much better- including much of Gehry’s work, actually.

  5. It’s not that I (and thousands of others) don’t like the building lalaland. It’s that I don’t like paying for it. Gehry wasn’t the issue. The $2 billion we were giving Ratner to, ahem, build affordable housing was.

    If I’m being robbed I’d rather I get robbed for a lower amount. Even if it gets spent on something that looks like this.

  6. I think the arena design is very interesting and fresh. Shop’s work is usually pretty good stuff. But architectural critics are in the business of not liking much of anything. It is one of the reasons they are so supremely irrelevent.