More Fenway Park Renovations

I get that people are like this. I don't get why they'd bother coming here, then. For the scrod at Legal? They can have all the chain burgers their hearts desire in Minneapolis or Dallas, and it's probably a cheaper flight from whatever Bumblefuck they're from.

It would at least be nice if the Seaport were at least half built for locals, and not just given over to Convention City.
 
That's why we should't buy-in to horseshit panacea thinking like convention districts. We should build a city where people desire to live, work and do business in, not schlocky tourist "destinations".

I couldn't give a fat rat's ass about the average conventioner's Boston experience. It seems idiotic to build a city around it.
 
I don't understand the hate for Legal. It may have expanded to other cities, but it's still mostly seen as a Boston restaurant. I wouldn't begrudge a tourist for wanting to eat there any more than I would for them visiting pretend Cheers. It's what tourists do and the food is decent.
 
Lots of locals eat at Legal, too. I'd argue it is an authentic attraction that is also tourist safe. People come to conventions in Boston so that they can ride the tourist trolleys, catch a game at Fenway Park, and have a lobster at Legals. All of that is enough to distinguish the experience from Indianapolis even though the rest of the time they'll be in the Seaport eating at the corporate chain flavor of the week.
 
Is Regina's franchised now or are they all still under the same owner?
 
I think something like a yardhouse or buffalo wild wings.

Haven't been to either though.


or a hooters....

I went to the Yardhouse in LA and the manager told me they are planning to open a location near Fenway.
 
I don't understand the hate for Legal. It may have expanded to other cities, but it's still mostly seen as a Boston restaurant. I wouldn't begrudge a tourist for wanting to eat there any more than I would for them visiting pretend Cheers. It's what tourists do and the food is decent.

Personally? It smells like fish----and not in a good way---when you walk in. The seafood itself is mediocre. NOt terrible but not worth the prices. Add in poor service from waiters trying to learn to be waiters and we've concluded it's better to go elsewhere.

It is a great place for tourists though!
 
Yup. I've been to seafood restaurants hundreds of miles from the nearest ocean that are better than Legal. Just because it's next to the water and headquartered here doesn't mean it's got better food or that it's special. It feels ridiculously generic, actually - possibly the most bland and generic restaurant concept I've ever experienced. That's why they had to open LTK - the original brand was watered-down (no pun intended) and tired.

It's a lot like eating at Pizzeria Uno in Chicago - not the original location (original locations are usually always interesting), but some branch that's just like all the other Uno locations that just happens to be within the Chicago city limits.
 
Addendum re: convention people: I see quite a few academic conferences pass through Harvard Square and they're somehow able to navigate a neighborhood that's not all chains. Some even enjoy (!) browsing the menus outside buildings. Rarely do I see these groups at the square's chains, like Quizno's or Bertucci's; those places are more often filled with jaded locals.
 
I get that people are like this. I don't get why they'd bother coming here, then. For the scrod at Legal? They can have all the chain burgers their hearts desire in Minneapolis or Dallas, and it's probably a cheaper flight from whatever Bumblefuck they're from.

Well, they come to see Quincy Market, Paul Revere's House, and get out of town for a bit. Many of these people come see the sights but don't really "absorb" the city. So many tourists want to snap a photo of cheers on their iphone and send it to their friends. Then go get dinner at Hard Rock. It doesn't make sense to me either, but lots of people are that way.

It would at least be nice if the Seaport were at least half built for locals, and not just given over to Convention City.

I agree. But even real urban areas can support chains (see Harvard Square). There's no reason both can't be accommodated.


I don't understand the hate for Legal.

It's the epitome of Mediocrity. I don't care if there was one of them or one million. The food is just OK (on a good day) unless it's the chowder which is pretty good. The atmosphere is dull and the service is generally terrible (though I have had one outstanding service experience at the Legal at Prudential). It's just a very mediocre restaurant. I've had better seafood non-Boston based (and non-seafood oriented) chains.
 
Avoid the Koolhaas Kool-aid and say NO to generic cities.
 
Last edited:
Legal is terrible now. Even a couple of years ago it was very good, but my last 2 experiences there will be my last. The food is now comparable to Long John Silver's.

I am actually embarrassed for them because I really liked the food, and thought it gave Boston a good name. They've gone way downhill.
 
To those bashing Legal, can you please give us the names of a few other better downtown fish restaurants that can accommodate groups of various sizes. I know of a couple of smaller fish places (Neptune Oyster in the North End immediately comes to mind) that far surpass Legal but they don't take reservations and are impossible to enjoy with a party larger than 4. So I would love to hear some better options for downtown fresh seafood.
 
To those bashing Legal, can you please give us the names of a few other better downtown fish restaurants that can accommodate groups of various sizes. I know of a couple of smaller fish places (Neptune Oyster in the North End immediately comes to mind) that far surpass Legal but they don't take reservations and are impossible to enjoy with a party larger than 4. So I would love to hear some better options for downtown fresh seafood.

Diagonally across the street from Legal is Atlantic Fish Company. I've booked groups up to 8 upstairs and upwards of 12 in the downstairs dining room. Fresher fish, better service, and the prices match the quality.
 
How much exactly? Sound like a place a few friends and I can go something in the future.
 
Yup. I've been to seafood restaurants hundreds of miles from the nearest ocean that are better than Legal. Just because it's next to the water and headquartered here doesn't mean it's got better food or that it's special. It feels ridiculously generic, actually - possibly the most bland and generic restaurant concept I've ever experienced. That's why they had to open LTK - the original brand was watered-down (no pun intended) and tired.

It's a lot like eating at Pizzeria Uno in Chicago - not the original location (original locations are usually always interesting), but some branch that's just like all the other Uno locations that just happens to be within the Chicago city limits.

It's also tough because once something turns into a chain, even if the quality stays the same, some of the intangible that comes with uniqueness is lost. I had dinner at Giordano's last night and, objectively it was fine, but subjectively, seeing everything branded "famous" this and "famous" that is a turn off.
 
Diagonally across the street from Legal is Atlantic Fish Company. I've booked groups up to 8 upstairs and upwards of 12 in the downstairs dining room. Fresher fish, better service, and the prices match the quality.

I'm not a legal basher, but Atlantic Fish is definitely my favorite in Boston. A huge and varied menu, everything is fresh, priced reasonably, and a fun, vibrant atmosphere.
 
Good story, though I wish every paragraph didn't end with "in baseball".

The Green Monster Goes It Alone

By MARK YOST

Boston

Baseball fans will be tuning in for Tuesday's All Star Game, but as taxpayers they should be fuming. Nearly every one of the teams represented has gone to its local government and asked for hundreds of millions of dollars to build a gleaming new stadium.

One of the few exceptions: the Boston Red Sox, who have taken Fenway Park, which turns 100 in 2012, and transformed it into one of the most fan-friendly ballparks in the country. Moreover, they've mostly done it within the historic confines of the original ballpark, kept ticket prices affordable and haven't taken a dime of taxpayer money. The net result is that the Red Sox still play in the smallest ballpark in baseball, have capped season-ticket sales at 20,000 seats out of about 40,000, and yet, according to Forbes magazine, remain the team with the third-highest revenue in all of baseball.

What the Red Sox have done with Fenway Park should be a lesson for every sports franchise and municipality in the country. The argument from pro sports teams is always the same: We need a new billion-dollar stadium (paid for with your tax dollars) to remain "economically competitive." The Red Sox have not only turned that argument on its head, but shown how truly disingenuous it is.

The credit for what I'd call the Tax-Free Miracle of Yawkey Way goes to the Red Sox ownership group, which bought the team in 2002 and pledged to stay in Fenway. "We knew the perils of asking for public money," Red Sox CEO Larry Lucchino said. Namely, that fans get annoyed when teams ask taxpayers to build a stadium, and then raise ticket and concession prices on the very people who paid for it.

The key to transforming Fenway, a hemmed-in urban ballpark last renovated in 1934, was to build out as well as up. "What we perceived to be constraints were more elastic than we thought," Mr. Lucchino said.

The result is wider concourses, more concession stands, more club and patio seating, picnic areas and an atmosphere on the streets around Fenway unlike any in baseball. All without alienating the average fan.

The renovations began in 2002-03, when dugout seats were added to both the first and third base lines and seats were built atop the famed Green Monster in left field. The Red Sox could have asked almost anything for the Green Monster seats, but instead they kept them remarkably democratic. There are no season tickets. Instead, tickets are awarded through an annual random drawing?and cost about $100, making them one of the best bargains in baseball.

The Red Sox also took an area behind right field where the dumpsters used to be and added what they call "the Big Concourse." It doubled the size of the walkways, and now features picnic tables and concession stands instead of garbage.

"The right-field bleachers used to be notorious for rowdy behavior," said John Giluia, executive vice president for business affairs. "But we've found that open concourses equal better behavior."

In 2004, the Red Sox added the Budweiser Right Field Roof Deck, an upper-deck patio area that features small cocktail tables for four that cost $460. Standing-room tickets for the deck are $30.

In 2006 the team created the State Street Pavilion, a $170-per-person upper-deck club level that has a buffet with lobster rolls, crab cakes and a raw bar. A year later, the team renovated the EMC Club, its $320-a-seat sit-down restaurant (food not included).

In 2008 the club added a left-field upper-deck pavilion and a year later another right-field terrace box.

All of this has increased seating to slightly more than 36,000 today from about 34,000 in 2001 (and attendance to 39,900 from 37,400, if you include standing-room tickets, the Red Sox said). Revenue has grown to $266 million today from about $180 million in 2002. The team's market value has also risen, to $870 million from $617 million in 2005. All without building a new stadium or asking for a dime of taxpayer money.

So far, the Red Sox have spent "north of two hundred million" on the renovations, Mr. Lucchino said. The team has one more year of renovations to complete before Fenway's 100th anniversary. More important, designers and engineers have told the Red Sox that with proper maintenance the stadium can last 30 or 40 more years.

So the next time a sports franchise goes begging for taxpayer funding for a new stadium, politicians should have the guts to tell them: "Pay for it yourself." The Red Sox did, and increased their revenue and market value along the way.

Mr. Yost is a writer in Chicago.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703426004575338773305482494.html

Only 30 to 40 more years? Tell it to the Colosseum!
 

Back
Top