CHICAGO | The 78 Site

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Yeah that St Louis stadium is *excellent*.

I just spent several minutes Google streetviewing around that STL stadium.

It's by no means a bad looking stadium.

But I absolutely love all the imagery we're seeing from The Firehouse proposal WAY more. It looks so much more substantial and grand and permanent.

Plus, that roof.......

[Jstange059]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I just spent several minutes Google streetviewing around that STL stadium.

It's by no means a bad looking stadium.

Originally Posted by ardecila

Yeah that St Louis stadium is *excellent*. Part of it is context - it sits in a warehouse district of gorgeous old brick buildings, so they went clean and white to draw a contrast. They made the stadium permeable, with gates and peekaboo views to the pitch on all four sides. Even the loading dock was cleverly concealed underground, with an access ramp on the neighboring block so there really is no "bad side" or "back side". It's not Renzo Piano or BIG, but it's extremely thoughtful and elegant in its context.

I actually currently live in St. Louis and have visited the stadium several times, and it really is quite nice in person. A main objective of the design was to make the stadium feel open and connected to the surroundings. This is achieved by having the canopy all be held up by thin columns, having all of the corners of the building be open and without the seating risers, having all the entrances being thin metal gateways rather than proper doors, and having the field be buried so it feels like you can nearly see the field from the outside of the stadium. It’s really works quite incredibly with it’s urban context

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by ardecila

For Chicago, I don't know why a self-proclaimed "capital of architecture" is going so conservative and making this look like a boring West Loop midrise. I respect Gensler's work, so I assume this direction comes from the client, maybe even Joe himself. A stadium should be a civic centerpiece and should have bold, dynamic architecture - it should not look like a generic infill building.

Wholeheartedly agree. The design is simply a disappointment when appropriately high standards are applied. It reads as if a guiding part of the remit here was 'Be Inoffensive'. Typically not the ticket to an important piece of design, which this is not.

[swipyfox]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Wholeheartedly agree. The design is simply a disappointment when appropriately high standards are applied. It reads as if a guiding part of the remit here was 'Be Inoffensive'. Typically not the ticket to an important piece of design, which this is not.

We should be grateful developers are even interested in building in this area, lets not do too much

[nomarandlee]

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/..._content=alert


Edward Keegan: Chicago Fire stadium plans cry out for a bit of quirkiness

As shown, the new stadium is simple, unimposing and not unattractive. The developers explain that Gensler has designed in the “‘Chicago School’ of architecture,” but it’s more of a generalized warehouse aesthetic that you might find at a contemporary shopping mall anywhere in America. It cries out for a bit of quirkiness that would make the structure more distinctive and genuinely grounded in Chicago’s unique architectural culture.....

..

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

..

I thought big box retailer, but shopping mall is probably closer. Or one of a collection of buildings in a shopping plaza with each sporting its own reproduction asthetic. Some of that stems from the walls/flatness and boxiness. But a food court could be behind those windows...

[Randomguy34]

My brain has been insisting that the stadium facade looks exactly like another development by the Ricketts and I couldn't figure out why.....I just realized it was Gallagher Way next to Wrigly Field they totally have the same facade. The stadium is going to look like a suburban Chipotle


https://www.ontheboom.com/gallagher-...ding-and-plaza

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

My brain has been insisting that the stadium facade looks exactly like another development by the Ricketts and I couldn't figure out why.....I just realized it was Gallagher Way next to Wrigly Field they totally have the same facade. The stadium is going to look like a suburban Chipotle

Did that also try to draw inspiration from a warehouse aesthetic? I feel this would work well if hemmed in on all sides by other buildings where it can simply anchor its space well. Not so ideal with all that open river frontage

[Jstange059]

If they want to go for a warehouse aesthetic, there are so many wonderful brick warehouses in Chicago to look to for inspiration.

——

They could take from the wonderfully imposing facades of the Central Manufacturing District.



They could look to a monumental tower like atop the American Book Company Building



They could look to the wonderful detailing like seen on the Hoyt Building

——
If they want to claim that they’re taking inspiration from a Chicago brick warehouse, then they actually need to look at the Chicago brick warehouses. There is so much potential from such a inspiration, and their generic brick box isn’t cutting it

[r18tdi]

It was always going to be a more contemporary design. That's just how it goes these days.

There are nods to Chicago warehouses through the choice of materials and palette and the bays/piers, but no one in their right mind would try to copy an actual warehouse. If they were trying to incorporate faux historic ornamentation and bell towers and such, the result would come across as a cheap Disney knock-off of a Chicago building.

The current design is fine, just a little bit too safe IMO.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by Jstange059

If they want to go for a warehouse aesthetic, there are so many wonderful brick warehouses in Chicago to look to for inspiration.

——

They could take from the wonderfully imposing facades of the Central Manufacturing District.



They could look to a monumental tower like atop the American Book Company Building



They could look to the wonderful detailing like seen on the Hoyt Building

——
If they want to claim that they’re taking inspiration from a Chicago brick warehouse, then they actually need to look at the Chicago brick warehouses. There is so much potential from such a inspiration, and their generic brick box isn’t cutting it

But why even replicate that? What is the point of replicating details from 100+ year old warehouses?? Make it make sense.

[optimusREIM]

They're nice to look at, they create a sense of place, and they have timeless design.

I don't understand why architects and self-titled connoiseurs are allergic to timeless and actually nice design. Not everything has to be a glass box or be some sort of weird avant-garde post modern crap.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

They're nice to look at, they create a sense of place, and they have timeless design.

I don't understand why architects and self-titled connoiseurs are allergic to timeless and actually nice design. Not everything has to be a glass box or be some sort of weird avant-garde post modern crap.

That's not what is being discussed or advocated for.

Architecture that is 'nice to look at, creates a sense of place and have timeless design' can be anything. And none of that addresses the criticism that warehouse architecture proposed for the Chicago Fire stadium is out of place, dated, lacks any design innovation, and is overly generic to the point that it doesn't even represent anything relevant to the football club, nor does it actually provide a sense of purpose; why can't a stadium look like a new stadium? Why should it look like a repurposed, 100+ year old factory or armory?

"..self-titled connoiseurs.."

[Jstange059]

I don’t want them to directly recreate a classic warehouse. What I was more trying to say is if they want to claim they are getting inspiration from the brick warehouses, there are lots of elements of them which really establish a unique identity which the architects could gain inspiration from and implement on the building

Trust me, I am not a traditionalist who wants all buildings to look like buildings of 100 years ago, I just want the stadium to have a proper identity

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

My brain has been insisting that the stadium facade looks exactly like another development by the Ricketts and I couldn't figure out why.....I just realized it was Gallagher Way next to Wrigly Field they totally have the same facade. The stadium is going to look like a suburban Chipotle

Someone is going to have to seriously explain to me why a stadium that is a BUILDING, built out of brick and glass, is worse than something that looks like a circus tent or a 5 year olds imagination.

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by aaron38

Someone is going to have to seriously explain to me why a stadium that is a BUILDING, built out of brick and glass, is worse than something that looks like a circus tent or a 5 year olds imagination.

One reason is that it is likely not to be built with high-quality brick materials, with the idea that this is a stadium meant to last 50-plus years. The Fire tried to push the faux-historic look at Toyota Stadium twenty years ago, and it looked comically bad. Not to say this ownership will be doomed to make the same mistakes, but the same incentives (hope for rapid future growth) that likely had the Fire cheap out then are probably still at play.

Perhaps MLS owners have been designing their stadium specs with the idea in mind that there will not be sufficient growth in 20-30 years to warrant building 35-45,000-seat stadiums, but I would think they still hold some optimism or expectations that stadiums twice the current sizes may happen in a generation due to future growth and popularity of the league.

I could be wrong, and they may forecast that the popularity of MLB will remain relatively stagnant in the next 10-20 years, but that would surprise me, even if due to no reason but irrational wish-casting by owners.

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

One reason is that it is likely not to be built with high-quality brick materials, with the idea that this is a stadium meant to last 50-plus years.

The average age of any modern stadium is not more than 50 years, before the owners tear it down for something better. So I don't see that as a valid argument.

Would any of you swear today that if we spend $10 billion on some architectcs's wet dream of some circus tent, it will still be standing in the 22rd century?

[Jstange059]

Originally Posted by aaron38

The average age of any modern stadium is not more than 50 years, before the owners tear it down for something better. So I don't see that as a valid argument.

Would any of you swear today that if we spend $10 billion on some architectcs's wet dream of some circus tent, it will still be standing in the 22rd century?

Something they were mentioning quite a bit in the meeting was how they wanted the stadium to be “timeless” and still look good decades in the future, so it sounds like they are intending to make it last 50+ years.

Unfortunately, in their attempt for making it timeless, they may have instead of ended up creating something generic, which is why I think they could really improve the stadium with creating something that really gives the stadium identity. And with them mentioning a warehouse inspiration, there are so many small things they could implement that could give it an really good identity

[aaron38]

I'm not debating unique design flourishes. But Timeless and Generic are basically the same thing. An Arch is timeless, and generic. You can put little decorations on it, but the arch is a parabola, a mathematical equation. And you can't change that.

So you can build a structure using math. And it's going to look boring and I don't care. Or you can spend 10x fighting physics cause it "looks cool" and in 30 years we have to tear it down because gravity.

[cloudbod]

This argument is extremely interesting and pretty damn funny hahaha. Good points on either side honestly. I can understand why people might want more of a "statement piece" Zaha Hadid-type stadium here, like how the 78 casino site was proposed. If it were well-executed, I'd probably love it.

That said, I personally really dig the current design-- I think it's got a quiet power and fits the South Loop vibe imo. It's a really nice spin on the Lakeside Center, sorta like how NEMA is a spin on Sears. Part of the joy of architecture is walking around noticing the connections and references between every building ever built haha

I also don't think the conditions are right for a big shiny futuristic stadium, between economic wackiness, the Fire's comparatively small market/budget, and the inherent grime of being sandwiched between a bunch of major arterial roads and a massive diesel railyard. I think this design has a better chance of being built properly and looking good IRL, vs something flashier (which I can't imagine surviving the Architect of Record VE)