New Fenway/Red Sox Stadium

I said to bring the field forward, though, so it's just the same. ;o It's only so the stands can't be brought out even more.
Click to expand...

Any changes of this kind can change the playing characteristics in unpredictable ways, due to wind.
 
Ron Newman said:
But that much renovation of the Old Garden would likely require closing it for an extended period, and I don't think we had any suitable place to relocate the Celtics and Bruins to during that time. The New Garden could be built while the Old Garden was still standing and in use.
QUOTE]

Agganis.

There is precedent for major league teams moving to smaller college venues for stadium building.



As for Fenway....no.


-Probably the majority of the "fans" at any given game are there to see fenway, not to see the red sox. Stay after the end of the game and see how many people are walking around taking pictures from every possible angle. Fenway is the destination, the actual baseball game is just background noise for these people. Put the sox in new baseball park #7 and these people stop caring unless the team is number 1.

-If the red sox try to move, youll get double the NIMBYS, those in the new area and those who would consider it treason to have fenway get knocked down. I wouldnt put it past the government to designate fenway a landmark and force the red sox to maintain it forever.

-If the 2,000 year old Arena in Verona can keep holding events, than fenway sure as hell can.
Click to expand...
 
Agganis has 6150 seats, vs. 19,600 in the New Garden. Also, Agganis opened in 2005, ten years after the New Garden.

In the 1990s, the only suitable temporary home for the Celtics and Bruins would have been Matthews Arena at Northeastern University, which has hosted both teams earlier in its history. But its seating capacity is even smaller than Agganis.
 
mass88 said:
If the Sox continue to change things about Fenway, it will lose its identity and charm. Replacing the Blue Grandstand seats with modern , wider seats would only decrease capacity and lose the character of being squished into your seat.
Click to expand...

Your joking right???, Being squished in a seat until your legs fall aspleep and your knees hurt looses its "character" after 1 inning. Definetely cant reduce capacity, you would have to create more space for seats then replace the migit seats with normal seats.
 
Ron Newman said:
Agganis has 6150 seats, vs. 19,600 in the New Garden. Also, Agganis opened in 2005, ten years after the New Garden.

In the 1990s, the only suitable temporary home for the Celtics and Bruins would have been Matthews Arena at Northeastern University, which has hosted both teams earlier in its history. But its seating capacity is even smaller than Agganis.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I was referring to future construction of a NEWER garden.

Although capacity wise, DCU center would be a better temporary fit.
 
bosma said:
Your joking right???, Being squished in a seat until your legs fall aspleep and your knees hurt looses its "character" after 1 inning. Definetely cant reduce capacity, you would have to create more space for seats then replace the migit seats with normal seats.
Click to expand...

Where are they going to get said space to fit the modern and larger seats?
 
Cantilever over Lansdowne and Van Ness Streets turning them into covered arcades. Since most of the businesses are either bars, nightclubs, or RedSox related, the eternal shade wouldn't be so much of an issue.
 
^ I like your idea, Lurker. I thought of something similar a while back. The issue is that if they decided to add a dozen rows to the Monster Seats, the people up top would have diminished view of the outfield.

As I recall, the plans to replace Fenway ca. 1998 included an upper deck over the bleachers. I wonder if that could be done; the structure below is reinforced concrete. This would necessitate relocating the JumboTron, possibly to left-center, over the Monster.
 
bosma said:
Your joking right???, Being squished in a seat until your legs fall aspleep and your knees hurt looses its "character" after 1 inning. Definetely cant reduce capacity, you would have to create more space for seats then replace the migit seats with normal seats.
Click to expand...

If you're sitting in those seats, you're too _____ to figure out how to get decent seats. Sorry, no pity. I go to 40-50 games a year, never pay above the marked value, and never sit facing the jumbotron.
 
BBFen is Wally at home games. How can't everyone know that by now?
 
AmericanFolkLegend said:
Multiple choice:
A. Retired.
B. A student.
C. Unemployed.
Click to expand...

D. Wally?
E. None of the above.

Correct answer: E.

I work 60-70 hour weeks (sort of working right now!), thanks! A little effort during winter presale gets me Sox tix packs. Everything else is by calling the ticket office, going to no scalp zone or from redsox.com.
 
I'll admit nothing is more boring to me than sitting around and watching sports, but 40-50 games a year??! WTF?! Why? I wish they would tear down Fenway and move into into the suburbs so I don't have to deal with a bunch of drunken white people all spring/summer/fall.
 
I think fenway will be around for a very long time. Considering you have to cut off your left nut to build a 200 foot stump in boston, I'm assuming it would take years and years for any kind of stadium to get going.

Having said that, i also believe fenway is in for a major change of some sort, not the typical yearly "OMG check out our new metal bleachers that increase capacity by 5!". I actually think they could do a massive renovation modernizing several aspects of the stadium and people wouldn't even care as long as they do so properly.

Firstly, they could make a significant increase in capacity by adding a third deck of seats on top of the pavilion club/EMC suites. Basically the big green part where Jerry and Don sit, don't really know what you'd call it. Fenway is pretty short compared to some other major league parks, so the view from a third deck up there would be comparable to views in a lot of other ballparks. This would require moving the lighting up and possibly just getting new lighting all together but the capacity increases would allow for all kinds of improvements elsewhere.

With that capacity increase, they can get bigger more comfortable seating out in the bleachers and that area of the park, as well as convert some seating into suites to draw in some big money, so that they don't have an excuse for not paying beltre this offseason.

These changes would increase capacity as well as suites, allow them to fix up the outfield area abit, and maintain the atmosphere and charm of the ballpark.
 
I never understand why any of these proposals are really necessary. Are you people aching to attend more Sox games? Or just see the Sox' owners' profits increase? The chief argument always seems to be "well, other teams have X, so the Sox should too..."

Other teams don't have a 98 year old ballpark, and never will. Boston should quit diluting the historical significance of its.
 
Some parts of Fenway are genuinely uncomfortable and bad seating, such as sections 5 and 6 (right field grandstand). But even after having sat there several times, I don't think Fenway should be replaced or drastically modified.
 
Visit some of the new parks around the league and one's interest in something new for the Sox may diminish. San Francisco and Arizona are the only exceptions to this in my mind. All the others - Yankee Stadium included - feel corporate and unwelcoming.

In Fenway we have what every other city would kill for, an historical monument that is a mecca for tourists and an ever-evolving source of pride or anger (depending on your mood) for the local faithful. In Boston, Sox fan or not, you have an opinion.

But there is something else to consider in all this that people lose sight of in these build-better-and-make-more-money times.

Shared memory.

I remember going to a Sox game as a kid and complaining to my dad that I couldn't see around the girder. He smiled. It's all part of the Fenway experience, he said. He got us better seats next time.

How important is that memory to me? How many times have I told my own son that story? (Confession: I spared him his own girder experience, though I showed him the offending hunk of metal on our first visit.)

How many other sons who grew up here have similar memories? This is part of what makes urban living so rich, the shared history. Love or hate it, it's ours.

I like what the Sox ownership have done since they took control - tinkering every year, improving the experience for the next season - but honoring the history. This would not have happened under Harrington, the forner owner. (Just like a World Series was never going to happen under that owernship.)

I say let everyone else have their corporate, generic money stadiums. We have a ball park full of memories, good and bad, and no one can take that from us.
 
^Couldn't have put it better myself. Alot of people don't think of it this way. Another thought is the home field advantage that Fenway has. The old Yankee stadium had that intimidation factor and now it's gone. I'm mostly happy it's gone for competitive reasons and because I'm a spiteful bastard.

Once it's gone, it's gone forever. I think there's plenty of New Yorkers sad to see their stadium gone and we would feel even stronger if it disappears.
 
czsz said:
I never understand why any of these proposals are really necessary. Are you people aching to attend more Sox games? Or just see the Sox' owners' profits increase? The chief argument always seems to be "well, other teams have X, so the Sox should too..."

Other teams don't have a 98 year old ballpark, and never will. Boston should quit diluting the historical significance of its.
Click to expand...

The immortal words of a dying baseball team. They're dynamic, but we're sophisticated. They're powerful, but we're graceful. First Cleveland, then Cincinnatti, Pittsburgh, Kansas City. The denial of decline.
 
AmericanFolkLegend said:
The immortal words of a dying baseball team. They're dynamic, but we're sophisticated. They're powerful, but we're graceful. First Cleveland, then Cincinnatti, Pittsburgh, Kansas City. The denial of decline.
Click to expand...

How does keeping a historical stadium means we're in a denial of a decline? Also how does making a new stadium means that the team is on the rise? Hell, the past decade have been a great decade where previous one was years of struggle and all in the same stadium.

I can understand that people have used similar words to indicate a denial of reality. For a thing to survive, dynamism and flexibility is one of the best qualities, but how does that apply to a baseball stadium and it future success or failure? The survival of the team and the stadium are separate matters. What did change recently is the ownership, that matters alot more than the stadium as the past decade shows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top