Connect with us

Lifestyle

Don’t Call It a Gym. It’s a Sporting Club.

Published

on

Don’t Call It a Gym. It’s a Sporting Club.

When the five-star Gleneagles Hotel in Scotland set out to design a fitness center that would appeal to its next generation of guests, its designers didn’t look to the future. Instead, they turned to the past — specifically, a Slim Aarons photograph titled “Tennis in the Bahamas, 1957.” The result is the Gleneagles Sporting Club, a retro, luxurious sports facility with ample courts, equestrian stables and a courtside lounge space.

Inspired by the iconic tennis and sporting clubs of the late 1800s and mid-1900s, spaces that were meant just as much for socializing as they were for exercise, the Gleneagles Sporting Club is part of a new wave of fitness centers that combine aspects of members clubs and gymnasiums under one roof.

Playing on the nostalgia for country clubs and Ivy League-coded preppiness, these athletic spaces are sharply veering away from the sleek aesthetics pioneered by fitness chains like Equinox.

For some, the shift is as subtle as a font change and some new merchandise. Last month, Blink Fitness, a budget gym chain, released a sweatshirt with 1980s-style script and “club” added to the end of its name. Others have gone further, building entire brands meant to evoke a vintage feel and even investing in period-era equipment.

“I wanted to bring in the spirit of the old gymnasiums, because I loved the type of equipment that they had and their focus on the actual design and how intricate it was,” said Lev Glazman, a co-founder of the Maker Gymnasium, a 2,700-square-foot gym attached to the Maker Hotel in Hudson, N.Y.

Advertisement

The gym opened in 2020 with a cork checkerboard floor and European gym equipment from 1920s and ’30s, including a pommel horse and circus rings from Austria.

“When you bring historical elements to a space and there’s an element of curiosity, it makes your experience so much better,” he said. “All of our customers who come to the gym say, ‘I feel like I’m in such a different place.’”

The more recent past has been a source of inspiration for other athletic club owners, as films like “Challengers” and “King Richard” have spurred a renewed interest in tennis and other racket sports.

“We wanted Reserve to be simple, elegant, luxurious clubs that would be the foundation for growth of padel in the U.S.,” said Wayne Boich, the founder of Reserve Padel, referring to the racket sport that is a blend of squash and tennis and is taking off in New York City.

A former college tennis player, he looked to the legacy of racket sports and to the tennis clubs of his childhood in the 1980s to develop the ethos for his venture.

Advertisement

“The Reserve green is a bit of a homage to the Wimbledon look and feel,” he said.

The trend extends beyond the East Coast. In Nashville, Forza Pilates Athletic Co. has a crest and green and navy heritage-inspired merchandise.

“My inspiration for the branding was country clubs, tennis clubs and racket clubs,” said Sydney Dumler, the founder of Forza. “It felt more timeless to me than just leaning into the Pilates aesthetic,” which tends to be more minimalist. She added she was also tired of the “industrial vibe.”

Emily Oberg, the founder of the brand Sporty & Rich, was an early purveyor of this aesthetic resurgence. In 2014, she started an Instagram account where she curated an aspirational moodboard of vintage sport and style imagery. It later grew to include a print magazine and a multimillion-dollar lifestyle and clothing brand with a SoHo flagship store.

“The brand is very much rooted in this aesthetic of country clubs and ’80s sports clubs and gyms,” said Ms. Oberg, noting that the New York Health and Racquet Club, which was founded in 1973, inspired her logo.

Advertisement

She said the nostalgia Sporty & Rich tapped into seemed to be about more than just interior design.

“Over the past 15 to 20 years, gyms have become solely focused on the fitness aspect, rather than the cultural or social aspect they used to have,” she said. “I think there’s a specific culture around them that we’ve lost.”

It is that culture and sense of belonging that this new crop of athletic clubs is hoping to recreate.

“As there is more awareness of the epidemic of loneliness, and especially as we emerge from the pandemic, there’s certainly an emphasis on socializing and coming together in embodied, real ways with other people,” said Natalia Mehlman Petrzela, a professor of history at the New School and the author of “Fit Nation: The Gains and Pains of America’s Exercise Obsession.”

Reserve Padel, Mr. Boich said, has made some strides in creating more of a social space. “People want to come here and hang out,” he added.

Advertisement

The current generation of sports clubs is hardly inexpensive — monthly memberships at Forza run from $140 to $440 per month, a month at Maker Gymnasium costs $140, and Reserve memberships start at $500 at the Hudson Yards location. But with drop-in options and open camps, some have tried to move away from the members-only exclusivity that was once standard.

“The democratization of luxury experiences is something we’ve seen in the consumer marketplace for the last couple of decades,” Ms. Mehlman Petrzela said. “Uber gave you your own private driver. Now, you can join a country club without the $100,000 initiation fee or going through a super complicated board of approval.”

The recent makeover for gyms may also owe to the simple idea that after years of the same look, people are ready to see something else.

“People want to get away from something that is standard,” said Mr. Glazman, the co-founder of Maker Gymnasium. “Particularly in gyms, I think there’s definitely going to be more movement to create environments that are more interesting and not just about functionality.”

Advertisement

Lifestyle

Consider This from NPR

Published

on

Consider This from NPR


The latest disclosure from the U.S. Department of Justice’s investigation of Jeffrey Epstein is threatening the U.K. ruling government.New documents have led Peter Mandelson, a former ambassador to the U.S., to resign from Britain’s House of Lords and from the Labour Party.The fallout has already claimed two key staff members close to Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and some in his own party are calling for him to step down too.Edward Luce, chief U.S. commentator for the Financial Times, helps explain the scandal – and why the reaction in the U.K. differs from the U.S.For sponsor-free episodes of Consider This, sign up for Consider This+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org. Email us at considerthis@npr.org.This episode was produced by Jordan-Marie Smith and Connor Donevan, with audio engineering by Hannah Gluvna. It was edited by Patrick Jarenwattananon and Michael Levitt. Our executive producer is Sami Yenigun.

How the Epstein files are upending U.K. politics

Continue Reading

Lifestyle

Nate Diaz Hoping For UFC Return, Wants White House Card

Published

on

Nate Diaz Hoping For UFC Return, Wants White House Card

Nate Diaz
Ready to Throw Hands for America
… I Want In On White House Card!!!

Published

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Lifestyle

What makes a good book-to-film adaptation? We have thoughts (and favorites)

Published

on

What makes a good book-to-film adaptation? We have thoughts (and favorites)

Saoirse Ronan and Timothée Chalamet in 2019’s Little Women, written and directed by Greta Gerwig.

Moviestore Collection Ltd/Alamy


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Moviestore Collection Ltd/Alamy

“Wuthering Heights” is in theaters, so we’re thinking about the best book to film adaptations of all time.

What’s your favorite movie that started life as a book — and what makes for a great book-to-film adaptation, anyway? Do you want filmmakers to stay as rigorously true to the book as possible? Or are you okay with bold departures, big swings, out-of-left-field choices that evoke the essence of the book, if not every last detail?

Advertisement

“Wuthering Heights,” for example, takes a middle road. Writer/director Emerald Fennell’s film keeps the familiar plot beats firmly in place, and casts actors who embody all the stuff that fans of the book need them to, but steeps them in the delirious hormones of a teenage fever-dream. Thus, Margot Robbie’s Cathy is headstrong, impetuous … and horny, while Jacob Elordi’s Heathcliff is broody, Byronic … and horny. The two spend most of the movie trading lusty looks in the soaking rain as peals of thunder roll over the moors. Every set, every costume is styled to the gods. It’s a breathlessly over-the-top take that’s divided critics and is about to do the same for audiences this weekend.

We’ve got four examples of other beloved books that made the transition to the big screen. Here’s why we think each of them works, and why we believe they’re the best of all time.

Little Women (2019)

YouTube

Advertisement

This movie version of Louisa May Alcott’s 1868 story about the March sisters is adapted and directed by Greta Gerwig. Gerwig does the impossible task of contemporizing the story while staying so faithful to the book. She does two things that haven’t worked in any other Little Women adaptations: She makes me tolerate the love story between Laurie and Amy. (I still have PTSD from the 1994 version.) And Gerwig allows for Jo — the protagonist, a liberated author who is writing her own story along the way — to have her cake and eat it too.

In the 19th century approach to this story, the woman has to have a man at the end. That’s just a given for these kinds of books and for these kinds of adaptations. But Gerwig made a decision that the writing of the book is essential to the plot line, and that within the book, Jo’s character ends up with a man — a scholar named Bhaer. But in reality, the book is the man — getting her first book published is the win — and that is her love. It’s so rich and smart. I just love it. B.A. Parker, host of NPR’s Code Switch podcast

Nickel Boys (2024)

YouTube

Advertisement

Nickel Boys was originally Colson Whitehead’s book about a boy wrongly sent to an abusive boys school in Florida during the Jim Crow era. It becomes a story about his friendship with another boy there. Within five minutes of watching the movie, I was hooked and felt like I was seeing something really new. Not just new in that it was different from the book, which I really respect. But because the whole thing is told from this immersive camera point of view — and because you are in the head, really in the head of the person experiencing it, it is somehow more immersive even than the book. Sometimes, watching narratives that have descriptions of truly awful things — like Boys Don’t Cry and 12 Years a Slave — I find myself covering my eyes. But because of the point of view in Nickel Boys, I couldn’t. It not only showed me what it was, it showed me what it felt.

Director RaMell Ross is saying something about the experience of reading about these two boys being so badly abused in Jim Crow-era Florida. He’s also saying something about the way that we view it. He is saying something about how anyone who wants to see these things on screen should really think about how we have them in our heads, how they are portrayed to us, and how we react to that portrayal. It’s stunning, and I was absolutely jaw dropped about it. — Barrie Hardymon, editor, NPR investigations

Blade Runner (1982)

YouTube

Advertisement

Philip K. Dick’s 1968 novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? became the 1982 film Blade Runner. Both the movie and the book are set in a future where androids are used as slave labor. Six androids escape, and a cop named Rick Deckard — how’s that for a perfect, hard-nosed, noirish name? — has to hunt them down.

Look, there are book people and there are movie people. I’ve visited the Reddit threads; I know that a lot of book people/Philip K. Dick fans hate this movie. But I would argue that the book does what books do well, and the film does what films do well. When you read a book, you live inside it — you’re intellectually and emotionally invested, because you create its world in your mind. And in this book, the author dutifully outfits you with absolutely everything you need to know, and somehow more: You learn about the nuclear war that left big areas of the planet uninhabitable. You learn about this fallout called dust. You learn a lot about how class and status works, and why people are headed to off-world colonies. There is also a tremendous lot about a religion called Mercerism, which is founded on the notion of empathy as the highest human attribute.

The movie carves out the thinnest possible slice of the book — the action, the hunting androids part. And while it pays deference to some of the book’s big ideas, it doesn’t concern itself with all that weighty lore and backstory. It doesn’t need to, that’s not what it’s for. After all, you’re not living in this dystopian future, as you are when you read the book. You’re just visiting it for a couple hours. Androids builds the world, but Blade Runner trots you nimbly through it, doing what films do: Swapping out all those blocks of prose for the fluid visual language of cinematic mood, action and performance. — Glen Weldon, critic and host of NPR’s Pop Culture Happy Hour podcast 

Starship Troopers (1997)

Advertisement

YouTube

My pick is a movie in which the director, Paul Verhoeven, straight up hates the source material, detests it and makes fun of it: 1997’s Starship Troopers. The 1959 book by Robert Heinlein is about space cadets and a guy named Johnny Rico going through cadet school and learning the philosophies of being in the military, and why it’s cool to live in a society in which only people who fight in the military can vote. The movie takes that premise and says — this idea: kind of fascist, right? It’s a hilarious parody of Heinlein’s book.

And yet, if you are a mouth breather, not fully understanding how it’s working on a metatextual level, the movie itself kind of rocks as propaganda, as a piece of action filmmaking. It feels like I’m watching Top Gun. Everybody’s extraordinarily good looking. It came out in the late nineties, but I first watched it on TV, and have always thought of it as a post-9/11 movie, in the context of being in school where people were trying to recruit us to join the military. It feels like an extension of Verhoeven’s RoboCop in a lot of ways, how everybody is acting not quite stiff, but extra. Everybody’s got a little asterisks on all of their lines. — Andrew Limbong, culture reporter and host of NPR’s Book of the Day podcast

This piece also appeared in NPR’s Pop Culture Happy Hour newsletter. Sign up for the newsletter so you don’t miss the next one, plus get weekly recommendations about what’s making us happy.

Listen to Pop Culture Happy Hour on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Trending