New OSU Arena to Replace St John Arena
November 21, 2012 7:18 pm at 7:18 pm #521013
This building reminds me of University of New Mexico’s The Pit
Here’s it before it was renovated:
Here’s after it had been renovated:
For all of you who don’t know, The Pit is a sunken arena 37 feet below the ground. This new Conelli center reminds me of it.
I was thinking the exact same thing. It also reminds me of a uglier version of the newly built strohs center in bowling green. I think it cost 30 million and has a seating capacity of 4700.November 21, 2012 7:25 pm at 7:25 pm #521014
Just as a comparison here’s what 30 million bought for bgsu.November 21, 2012 7:31 pm at 7:31 pm #521015
GraybeakParticipantLogin to Send PM
Apparently all the bad architects came out to play today:
November 21, 2012 7:37 pm at 7:37 pm #521016
DTownParticipantLogin to Send PM
Wonder where Skull Session will be, once St. John’s is gone?November 21, 2012 7:49 pm at 7:49 pm #521017
jbcmh81ParticipantLogin to Send PM
It reminded me a flattened Ohio Historical Center building. Awful.November 21, 2012 7:53 pm at 7:53 pm #521018
RBloodworthParticipantLogin to Send PM
I’m glad I’m not the only one who hates the look of this thing. That design looks like a God-awful rec center built in some place like Erie, PA (no offense to any natives) in 1974. Seriously; the university needs to go back to the drawing board on that one.November 21, 2012 8:44 pm at 8:44 pm #521019November 21, 2012 9:34 pm at 9:34 pm #521020
JPowellParticipantLogin to Send PM
The article mentioned another sports facility with some student housing/academic buildings.
The old site is to eventually become the core of the science and technology program with some student housing near the river.November 21, 2012 9:46 pm at 9:46 pm #521021
brothermarcusMemberLogin to Send PM
I remember arriving at Campus as a freshman so many years ago and looking to sign up for intramural tennis… and asking where the tennis courts were that you played on… and being told how long the bus ride was to those courts… and then deciding not to play intramural tennis. Putting this facility that far North is basically showing a commitment to alienating the kids who live in the dorms where they currently stand- not sure how many of them were attending the sporting events at St. Johns anyways, but yeah.
On the bright side, however, if they decide to abandon this building down the road they can always turn it into a Costco… the design is generic garbage, not a fan.November 22, 2012 12:06 am at 12:06 am #521022
pezParticipantLogin to Send PM
Covellis commit $10 million to Ohio State for new arena
Nice gift. But when you charge $9 for half a turkey sandwich, a cup of soup and an apple, I guess you’ve got this kind of money to throw around.November 22, 2012 12:44 am at 12:44 am #521023
Nice gift. But when you charge $9 for half a turkey sandwich, a cup of soup and an apple, I guess you’ve got this kind of money to throw around.
Apparently somebody’s paying it. There are cheaper and better options and panera keeps growing.November 22, 2012 1:41 am at 1:41 am #521024
ricospazParticipantLogin to Send PM
Eh it’s not $9, quit being so pissyNovember 23, 2012 4:46 am at 4:46 am #521025
Scott TeresiMemberLogin to Send PM
Whenever I see bad architecture, I think of this excellent article:
The authors describe research showing that the architecture profession is wildly out of touch with how their buildings are used and perceived by regular (un-architecturally-educated) people.
It’s a long article, so here’s some of the points that hit me:
“Instead of a contextual world of harmonious geometric relationships and connectedness, architects tend to see a world of objects set apart from their contexts, with distinctive, attention-getting qualities…. Gifford et al. (2002)… noted that ‘architects did not merely disagree with laypersons about the aesthetic qualities of buildings, they were unable to predict how laypersons would assess buildings, even when they were explicitly asked to do so.’ The researchers traced this disagreement to well-known cognitive differences in the two populations…. Architects do not see how certain designs disconnect and isolate people and create hostile environments that cannot be shared”!
“We hasten to add that we do not use this observation to criticize architects as a group. Rather, we raise it as a cautionary alert. Every profession suffers from its own narrow perspective–its tendency to behave like the carpenter with a hammer, who sees every problem as a nail. Architects may only have a particularly strong variety of this narrowed view.”
After the German Bauhaus school in the 1920′s and 1930′s, which emphasized cheap, functional, and minimalist designs, architecture students began to be praised for taking apart a space or an object and reconstructing it using its foundational parts (cubes, planes, cylinders, repeated rectangles, etc.). “Anything that resembles the complexity of traditional architecture is automatically judged negatively (its meaning is supposedly associated with reactionary or philistine culture) and it is rejected without any reflection.” Architects now dismiss natural human responses to their work as being “unsophisticated” or uneducated.
Sad that they look on old ornate artistic designs as “philistine.”November 23, 2012 12:47 pm at 12:47 pm #521026
Alex SilbajorisParticipantLogin to Send PM
I call it chic non-functionality. For example, buildings with elaborate projecting frameworks that support nothing.November 23, 2012 4:25 pm at 4:25 pm #521027
columbusmikeParticipantLogin to Send PM
These architects make up all sorts of words and reasoning for crappy design. It’s just plain ugly.