A pretty interesting read about designing hockey rinks, focusing on Ingalls and Thompson.
http://www.uscho.com/news/2004/12/04_009312.php
[Q]CowbellGuy Wrote:
A pretty interesting read about designing hockey rinks, focusing on Ingalls and Thompson.[/q]
This link inspired me to do a search for pictures of Ingalls Rink. I found a site (chtg.net) that has pictures and a little bit of text about each school/rink. What I noticed browsing through the pictures is that the ceilings are too damn high in some of these rinks. Lynah's noise benefits from having a smaller volume to absorb the sound. If Cornell ever builds a new rink, they'd damn well better keep the volume of the rink down or install some kind of sound-reflective material in the roof if they are forced to put in real seats (as opposed to space-saving bleachers) due to ridiculous building codes. The last thing I'd want is a rink as sterile as the FleetCenter. ::yark::
Kyle
In general, I agree with Kyle about roof height.
That having been said, I gotta say I really like the Whale (Ingalls), both architecturally and for watching a hockey game. Just don't try to use the men's rooms and be sure to eat before you get to the rink.
Ironically, of all the ECAC barns I been to (all but UVM, CCT & SLU), my memory of Thompson is that it was very nice and modern in terms of facilities, sightlines and pedestrian flow, but completely unremarkable with regard to the architecture itself. Either I was uttely oblivious on that cold sunny Sunday afternoon or it is testament to the utility that the form itself did not leave an any impression whatsoever.
[Q]jeh25 Wrote:
In general, I agree with Kyle about roof height.
That having been said, I gotta say I really like the Whale (Ingalls), both architecturally and for watching a hockey game. Just don't try to use the men's rooms and be sure to eat before you get to the rink.
Ironically, of all the ECAC barns I been to (all but UVM, CCT & SLU), my memory of Thompson is that it was very nice and modern in terms of facilities, sightlines and pedestrian flow, but completely unremarkable with regard to the architecture itself. Either I was uttely oblivious on that cold sunny Sunday afternoon or it is testament to the utility that the form itself did not leave an any impression whatsoever.[/q]
What John said about both Ingalls and Thompson.
While not always practical, Ingalls is just a stunning design, IMHO. It looks as contemporary today as it did in 1958, when I was the usher for aisle 9. Interesting that the stands on each side of the rink are sort of "mini-Crescents." And, despite the high ceiling, it can get pretty noisy when the crowd gets into the game.
By comparison, Thompson, while bigger and more practical, is utterly bland--John's word "unremarkable" is perfect.
The author nailed the story on the head. Ingall (do people still call it the Yale Whale?) continues to look contemporary from outside and have significant creature comfort issues inside. I hate that in architecture: the designer did a great building except for the fact that people have to use it.
Dartmouth's Thompson I always recall as being physically cold (brrrr cold) and somewhat sterile, but nice sight lines and kind of a sunny place to watch the game, a contrast to what Dartmouth seems like in winter.
Lynah benefitted immensely from the connector to Bartels Hall so you can stretch your legs between periods, stroll with your date, or shop for souvenirs if you've got kids in tow.