D E S I G N /// ck

The Colts and the Cowboys are both in the process of building new stadiums this year. As you can see, they use two very different aesthetic philosophies. Both have retractable booths, huge openings at the end zones, and are laid out so that nearly everyone in the stadium has a good sight line of the field. Is one better architecturally than the other?
For the above mentioned reasons these buildings are "modern" in design- gone are the 1980s hermetically sealed domes that multi-tasked sports and never really satisfied anyone in them- e.g. Pittsburgh's Three Rivers Stadium. These new stadiums place a premium on the user experience, with wider concourses and built in amenities like full sized restaurants.
But stylistically one takes a stride into the 21st century while the other seems to hark back to the 19th. Indianapolis has gone the historicist route with brick, pilasters, and a pitched roof. The Cowboys have updated the venerable football dome with openings at each end of the field that combine the best of playing outside with the versatility of a covered field. The exterior has a cool high tech idea- a jumbotron that serves the inside and also shows anyone outside what's happening in the game. It's silver, shiny and elegant- everything us architects are trained to love. Most of us would look at the first stadium and mutter "McStadium" under our breath.
But is one better than the other? I for one don't think so. Each responds to a different place and culture, and does so with intelligence and sensitivity. That is the hallmark of true Modern (with a capital 'M') design- not an aesthetic style, but a design methodology utilized focused on the quality of the experience of the people who will use it, as well as the harmoniously addressing the unique problems of context- place, people, and culture. While I'm sure that those who love on stadium will dislike the other, I'm glad to see two skillful executions of 21st century design.