new nationals stadium

(Joshua Masayoshi Huff)

My complaints with the Washington Post article on the Nationals' new stadium came quick, came early and came often. First up is the Kennicott's complaint that "Despite its location, the stadium fades into the landscape".. this is a personal taste sort of thing. Gehry gets derided for having his buildings stand-out.

I think the stadium has a good conversation with the city and its surroundings without taking away from the city. There is a discourse between the city and the stadium

Baseball is part of America--it's not meant to stand out. It's ingrained in all of our American DNA. And, let's get real--you can see the Capitol building in the background. If the stadium was ostentatious, it would be derided for stealing the thunder of one of (if not) the most picturesque cities our nation has to offer.

The best stadiums are built into the cities that they represent through sport. Fenway Park is built into Boston and is inauspicious. Orioles Park at Camden Yards is built into (and incorporates) Baltimore's shipyards. One of Highbury's (Arsenal's old ground) most endearing traits was that it was a small stadium because it was built into northeast London. During games, one could often see pictures of brownstones peeking from behind the stands.

These three stadiums are (and, in Highbury's case, was) regarded as among the best in their respective leagues for their charm and interplay between the city. Sure, we could build behemoth stadiums in the suburbs, but then we take the team out of the cities full of metropolitans that love and support them.

(a note on Allianz--I adore this stadium. My point is that it's not within Munich proper itself and takes away from the idea that teams represent cities)

----
"It is a machine for baseball and for sucking the money out of the pockets of people who like baseball, and it makes no apologies about its purely functional design."

Give me a break.

"Today, we have a great experience but, alas, a lousy building"

Was RFK a great building? No. And, with teams all going retro-modern, it would have been cliche to go in the same direction with Nationals Park.

It's one thing to have a pretty stadium. I think it's absolutely absurd to say "the experience is better, but I just don't like it as much". The Pirates play in a great stadium with the best view in baseball, but as this Slate article points out, they're absolutely terrible. When a team is downright dour, it's hard to get a great crowd, regardless of how great a stadium looks. Give me experience over looks anyday.

Function over form. Function over form. Function over form.

---

In my opinion, this was a lose-lose situation for the architects. If they made a gem of a modern stadium, cutting edge like Allianz, the masses would have said that they were alienating the past that made Washington..well, Washington. If they made a retro modern park, it would have been written off as trite--"It's so obvious to put an old-timey ballpark into Washington...couldn't they have thought of something new? *yawn*".

They made a functional park that complements its historical setting. The writer even found a way to knock the fact that, from the cheap seats, you can see the Capitol.

"Washington is a city where people can stare straight at the most powerful symbol of their democratic enfranchisement, and still feel absolutely powerless to change the course of our winner-takes-all society."

BARF!

Who wrote this? A disenfranchised gothic high school junior in Kansas?
---

" It passes, barely. But as sports lovers know, sports is never just sports. And architecture, especially in a world capital, is never just architecture. Nationals Park might be a better experience than RFK, but it fails to say anything larger to the city, or the world."

We at the Collective view the world in the same way. However, I believe the stadium says everything about the city--"no one monument is any more important than any other, and no one person is more important than any other". I think the park is spot on

BASEBALL!!!1!11!!!!

ME: "Don't you realize? It's opening day! Don't you see what that means? It's flowers on the street, blue skies and warm mornings, it's Spring!"

MY DAD: "You're crazy. There's snow on the ground here. Nobody should be playing baseball in Chicago in March."

Well, whatever. I still look to opening day as one of the greatest days of the year (alongside the last final of the Spring semester, Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve, and Talk Like A Pirate Day?).

And yes, baseball is the most anti-climactic sport in the world because there's literally thousands of games a season--how can anyone get excited about a single one? I mean, really, is there any other sport where a commenter can get away with saying what Orel Hershiser said during the Cubs game today? That no matter what happens today the players, fans, and media shouldn't get too excited, there's still a trillion games left? Talk about pumping us up for the season.

But everyone knows that's a foolish perspective because baseball isn't about being super energetic. It's about short bursts of action and therefore short bursts of attention. Its most characteristic food is the shelled peanut, which takes serious effort to extricate, has more inedible than edible parts, and all for so little satisfaction--but it's just something to do while sitting outside and besides, it tastes good.

Such is baseball, the sport for the long winded and rarely gratified attention span.

I won't pretend to be some kind of baseball expert and give predictions past this one: the hype surrounding the Cubs this year will have worn off by the 1st of June. It always happens, and it's almost sad the way an entire fanbase can be so foolishly forgetful. Last week, in a Chicago Tribune online poll, more than half the voters said that the Cubs would win the World Series. Yeesh.

There's no doubt the Cubs have a good team, but their key players WILL get injured, as they did last year, because that's the kind of good players the Cubs have--oft-injured ones. And when the Cubs get in a rut at some point in the season, which every team eventually does, they WILL find it relatively harder to get over because of the hype and the pressure that comes with 100 years of French-military-type futility. We WILL hear about how the Wrigley Field day games suck from a player's perspective.

But you know what? I'm excited for it all.

__________

In other opening day news, the Nats blew up their new stadium last night with a walk off homer in the bottom of the ninth by Ryan Zimmerman.

The most interesting thing I've read about the stadium is not the plentiful positive reviews of the fan experience at new Nationals Park. It's this harsh harsh harsh review of the stadium from the Post Style section.

I have to say, I'm torn. I just think about the new Soldier Field and, though from the outside it looks like a randomly dropped toilet bowl from outer space, on the inside everything is well laid out and beautiful. I feel this article does a good job explaining the current architectural problems in designing new stadiums, namely, building one that is as appealing from the outside as within.

Not the Idea of the Post but the Post Itself

Somehow, I don't know, March is over? Man.

First things first. Has anyone heard this song and not liked it? I think it took two bass hits before I was taken. It's "American Boy" by Estelle ft. Kanye West:



For the record, "WAG" stands for "wives and girlfriends." As in, "hey look at all the Yankee WAGs. Is that Guy George sitting next to Jeter's chick?"

And what a show by Arsenal, a truly gutsy (and a bit lucky, it should be said) performance that reminds us (a) that 2-0 is the WORST lead to have in soccer, and (b) to never, never, leave a sports event early.



The way Arsenal kept their cool was probably due in part to their coach Arsene Wenger, who might well be the only person alive I'd give a limb just to have tea with.

And in NCAA women's swimming, Stanford coach Lea Maurer managed to keep the team's head in the competition despite a ridiculous gaffe on behalf of the NCAA judges that cost Stanford 32 points and, consequently second place. But the girls came through in classy fashion and finished third, ahead of blasted Cal. Here's a vid of the start.

Much credit goes out to Arizona, who put the meet away on the second day. They just dominated the meet with their freestylers, and became only the second team in history to win all the relays.

Anyway, off to April.

from hiroshima, with love.

(Joshua Masayoshi Huff)

I was recently reading a Slate article, called "Has Hiroshima Become Too Normal?" The writer, Ron Rosenbaum, does not seem to know which direction in which he wants to progress. I understand this approach--sort of a "I just don't know what to think" feeling--but I just can't agree with it.

Rosenbaum notes the hotels and touristy stalls at the memorials as well as the KFCs and Starbucks in Hiroshima and asks just how the city could be re-built in such a fashion. He then complains that there are too many memorials and that all of the memorials are filled with too many knick-knacks, but then he goes on to say that the 9/11 memorial creators are getting it wrong because there is no one way to mourn so many losses of human lives, since people grieve and remember and mourn in different ways.

Then, he goes on to ask just who gets to be remembered--the Japanese memorials are for those killed in Hiroshima, but they make no mention, Rosenbaum says, of the millions of Chinese that the Japanese war machine killed via twisted experiments and conventional as well as biological and chemical warfare.

To this point, the response is simple: we don't really want to announce our wrongs, and the Japanese are no different. They don't like talking about Pearl Harbor at all--it's a sensitive topic we were told not to ask Japanese exchange students about when they came to visit our high school. Additionally, how out-of-place would a wing a museum for Japanese war atrocities be in the memorial of those lost in the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima? The two events are not intertwined in any fashion other than the fact that they were by-products of World War II.

And to Mr. Rosenbaum's first point--what? You complain that the city isn't exactly the way it was, yet you detest the memorials? What is going to make you happy? In my eyes, the biggest testament to the people who perished is the fact that Hiroshima is a modern, productive city that was rebuilt--and, incorporated in this new city, there are reminders of the city's past.

The piece is worth reading, but it feels little more than an essay done by a high school student who does nothing more than sit on the fence. It's a lot of writing that actually produces very little--the writer's feeling on the city seems to be one of "damned if it does, damned if it doesn't". This piece does not push the conversation forward in any way--which is quite disappointing.

"late night tales" (electroslow II)

(Joshua Masayoshi Huff)

"late night tales" (electroslow II) is my latest mix.

In case you haven't heard of the "late night tales" series, here's some info on it. My theme for this one is songs I'd put on late at night--so the title is pretty obvious, simple...and lame. I think the song selection and mixing is my best to this point, but I'd like your opinions on it (my transitions still need work, but I really like the transition from "weird fishes" to "all my friends")

jhuff "late night tales" electroslow II

mstrkrft "the looks
janet jackson "rock with u"
sally shapiro "hold me so tight"
m83 "unrecorded"
air "playground love"
annie "the greatest hit"
kanye west "celebration"
j dilla "nothing like this"
rjd2 "the proxy"
dj shadow "what does your soul look like part 4"
stardust "music sounds better with you"
nana katase "a.i.o."
alan braxe "penthouse serenade"
css "let's make love and listen to death from above" (spank rock remix)
casino vs. japan "over island"
radiohead "weird fishes"
lcd soundsystem "all my friends"
manitoba "218 beverly"
utada hikaru "sunglasses"
junior boys "so this is goodbye"

the stardust-nana interplay was just to prove that the songs are exactly the same (something i pointed out in a post a while back). the mix could be a bit shorter, but i think it works well to put on while you're working late at night and getting ready for bed.

your thoughts, as always, are not only welcome--they are requested.

---

my bracket is already ruined--i had georgetown winning it all. i hope western kentucky pulls it out over ucla tonight--not only to ruin everyone else's bracket, but because, yes, i am a trojan. let's go hilltoppers!

the birds and the bees.

(Joshua Masayoshi Huff)

The latest flap in Hawaii--a relatively liberal state socially--is about "outlandish" sex education.

The first happened at Kahuku High School--some students and teachers walked out of a sex education play. It is worth noting that Kahuku is home to a majority of Hawaii's Mormon community.

Then, on Monday, at Kalani High School, a parent was very disgusted.

From the article:

"But he said he thought the first part about HIV promoted sexual promiscuity and he and his son didn't stay for the second part about transgender lifestyle.

"We sat there for five minutes listening to a young man tell us how he used his finger to have sex with his girlfriend," Iervolino said."

It becomes fairly obvious that the parent is clearly anti-transgendered people--he does not want his son taught by transgendered counselors.

Heaven forbid he uses his finger--because we all know that's how most of America's children are conceived.

Here's my problem: we complain about teen pregnancy, and when we teach kids how to prevent pregnancy, parents freak out. If we don't educate the young, kids will learn from other mediums--mediums that may not be the best sources (like their friends).

Abstinence-only sex education simply does not work. Clearly, many parents have religious qualms with pre-marital sex, and this is completely understandable. However, I do not think that they should be naive and think that abstinence only sex education solves any problem. Telling children "no" does not make them want to avoid something--it only makes it more interesting because it is seen as a taboo. By having things like honest, frank discussions about sex on the table, we can avoid many problems--unwanted pregnancy, stds...the list is endless.

I clearly remember my parents having to sign off on sex education in the fifth grade. I also remember some kids not being allowed to attend sex education. If parents don't want their children to be taught about sex in school, they should politely decline and have their children go to a different classroom for the duration. I see no harm in this whatsoever. But, saying it's "inappropriate" is childish and selfish.

I just don't understand how people can be so shy about it all. Clearly, we're all created from this very process--in a sense, by not talking about it, we make children feel as if they're too dirty to even talk about since their creation seems so offensive and despicable.

Mr. Dave Goes To Washington

Since I’ve been home for Spring Break, I’ve been doing a little covert election research. My father is a conservative Catholic and an avid Rush Limbaugh fan. He’s not so articulate when it comes to talking about politics (nor am I, to be honest) and he’s incredibly susceptible to Republican conspiracy theories. Basically, he’s my political opposite. However, he’s also a registered democrat (local elections in Pittsburgh are determined by the Democratic primaries, Republicans have no chance in this former steel town), and he plans to vote for Obama.

While there’s been a lot of discussion surrounding Black female democrats and whether they will vote with their sex or their ethnicity, little has been said about white male democrats who face the same dilemma. Of course, we agree that voting decisions should be based on the issues, but we must also face the reality that this is often not the case. My father, like myself, seems to be captivated by the fresh young face of Senator Obama. Good for him.

My question, though, is whether we should be concerned by the motives behind the votes gained by our favorite candidates? My father has also stated that he plans to vote for Obama because he doesn’t think the Clinton family has good values. I rolled my eyes. Should we be happy for these seemingly arbitrary votes, whatever our persuasion, or worried that voters on the “other side” might have similarly misguided reasons?

Or am I just distrustful of my father’s political opinions? He also told me that he’s 100% positive that if Clinton wins and makes Obama her running mate, she will be assassinated by a militant Black Panther group that wants a Black president. Of course, I rolled my eyes to this as well.