New Fenway/Red Sox Stadium

[BarbaricManchurian]

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.

@ant: it's a satiric remark copying czsz's post about how China is surging ahead of Boston. Though, I did agree with him on that point.

 

[AmericanFolkLegend]

^I'm joking Ant. I took CZSZ's quote about the lack of new construction in America being evidence of a decline of the American empire and applied it to the Red Sox. Just venting my frustration with the team this year. I probably should have said "First Beckett, then Pedroia, Youkilis, Cameron . . . "

 

[bbfen]

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 have several real estate agents who'd be happy to show YOU a few places in the suburbs. (Said with a smile.)

As nm88 points out, baseball is a nostalgic sport with a long history, etc, etc. The Sox overdid the nostalgic element for a bit, but there's still something nostalgic for me about Fenway. I can't wait to have a son I can take there and show him where I was when I saw Manny stroll around the bases on a walkoff in the playoffs, or watched young Pedro, or saw Jacoby steal home or the time Ted Williams tossed out a ball.

If you don't like/get baseball, that's ok. Thousands do though. I live 3 blocks away. Those same tourists you loathe, I loathe. They piss and puke on my doorstep every game. It's a fraction of the crowd though. Moving the Sox somewhere will only transfer that problem. It's a retarded people problem, not a baseball problem.

Also, I wonder if you grew up in the Back Bay or Fens. If not, then ???? Even before successes the club's seen since 2003, you had to know what you were in for at least 81 days a year.

Finally, to American Folk Legend, I disagree that Fenway is the status quo. Fenway is not the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The ballpark's changed significantly under this ownership. Look at pictures from 1985-ish to 2000 or so. Very little difference, based on my memories. Then the last 10 years saw huge changes in a spectacularly under-maintained shit hole. Janet Marie Smith did a terrific job in a difficult facility.

EDIT: ....... aaaaaaaand, you just responded also, American FOlk Legend. Still, worthy to give credit where it's due to the Henry partnership.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

so I don't have to deal with a bunch of drunken white people all spring/summer/fall.

So if they were drunken Asian people it's okay?

 

[czsz]

I think it's meant as a reference to the fact that the audience at Sox games is overwhelmingly white?

Which is probably a function of ticket prices rather than the team's actual fan base, which includes lots of (for example) Dominican support.

 

[Justin7]

^ Hell, as long as they're not black.


Why include the color of the fan base in the discussion?

 

[Lurker]

Why is it that Americans' consider 'diversity' purely an exercise in skin color? I keep reading all these condescending remarks online which assume 'diversity' has to go hand in hand with 'brown' people and that Asians are somehow white and those of Spanish descent are somehow not Europeans. How are Italians, English and Irishmen in a crowd not diverse? Or do certain peoples not count?

 

[bosma]

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.

I am sorry my post angered you, my intention was just to share my opinion on a better fenway. I don't believe I am too ____ to figure out how to get decent seats. I wouldn't purchase anything in the blue seats and would prefer seats like the bleachers which it sounds like you prefer too. That is super awesome that you go to 40-50 games a year.

 

[bbfen]

I am sorry my post angered you, my intention was just to share my opinion on a better fenway. I don't believe I am too ____ to figure out how to get decent seats. I wouldn't purchase anything in the blue seats and would prefer seats like the bleachers which it sounds like you prefer too. That is super awesome that you go to 40-50 games a year.

I wasn't angry. Just exhausted hearing hearing aboot seat size, obstructed views and scalper ticket gouging as implicit or explicit reasons to build anew when people actually /can/ pay face ticket value for bleachers, box or SS level.

And yes. Even in the rain yesterday, it's super awesome to be there.

 

[KentXie]

Why is it that Americans' consider 'diversity' purely an exercise in skin color? I keep reading all these condescending remarks online which assume 'diversity' has to go hand in hand with 'brown' people and that Asians are somehow white and those of Spanish descent are somehow not Europeans. How are Italians, English and Irishmen in a crowd not diverse? Or do certain peoples not count?

I think 'diversity' is bastardized into seperating people who are more successful and who are less successful in the US. That's why Asians are normally not part of the discussion in test scores (they tend to score on par or higher than caucasians), and why Hispanics are excluded from being caucasians (they are less successful, average wise and not always true).

 

[bostonbred]

RASICM being OPIATE of the MASTERS who given it to us so DISTRAKTING from this REEL problems of thiefs robbing us BLINDE!!!!
SO ma

 

[blade_bltz]

Why is it that Americans' consider 'diversity' purely an exercise in skin color? I keep reading all these condescending remarks online which assume 'diversity' has to go hand in hand with 'brown' people and that Asians are somehow white and those of Spanish descent are somehow not Europeans. How are Italians, English and Irishmen in a crowd not diverse? Or do certain peoples not count?

Uh, yeah, Italians, English, and Irishmen sitting in the terminal at London Heathrow would constitute a diverse crowd. A group of dudes from the North Shore who happen to have last names like Menino (hah), Sullivan, or Lowell...does not.

But to return to baseball, it's no secret that Fenway has not traditionally been so "friendly" to nonwhite fans as well as players. So this mild uproar over gooseberry's comment comes off as pretty lame...

 

[davem]

Just in case I haven't already riled up enough sports fans reading this thread, this would be an excellent location for New Fenway Park once the city and the Red Sox are forced to confront the harsh reality that - structural integrity be damned - Fenway Park can't survive another 47 years of active use and placing it on the Register of Historic Places has likely precluded any sort of significant further renovations or upgrades. It's time to pull out of Fenway, and preserve what we can of it as a museum.

Being on the National Register does not in any way preclude necessary renovations to keep a structure in use, especially if that use is the same as what it was designed for. The HP standards are not designed to create museums. In fact, a great deal of the community now believes that museums are just about the worst use for a historic structure, since it is typically unsustainable from a financial standpoint, and also insensitive to the buildings genesis: as a working, functioning, occupied space.

The National Register, and the Standards for Historic Preservation that govern how to work with registered properties, are a guide on how to work with them as to not undertake work that would undermine their cohesiveness. It is not meant to place an undue burden on the owner (or steward would be a better term), but ensure that what makes them special in the first place is not destroyed.

A good example is one of Frank Lloyd Wrights houses, where the cantilevered roof had a design flaw and kept bowing every few years. They were able to replace the entire structure with steel, but simply had to make sure that from the exterior the changes were not evident, and that they well documented the work and left indications of what was there prior. That's pretty common: iron or wood being replaced with steel, concrete reinforcement hidden inside a brick wall, etc. Additions are also perfectly acceptable, they just have to be visually distinct and identifiable as a later addition, removable with minimal work, and do as little damage to the original structure as possible. As much as it's hated, the Johnson wing of the BPL is actually a pretty good example of this. You could tear it down and the original structure would be pretty much still there.

On top of not being as much of a hindrance is typically perceived, preservation work that sticks to the standards can get 20% of hard costs back from the state, as well as 20% from the feds in the form of tax credits. So the extra costs associated with the complications in dealing with these properties are mitigated, as long as the work is done correctly. A properly done project can sometimes even be cheaper than building new, and it is by far more sustainable. The notion of a building having a "lifespan" is also new-age BS coined to allow buildings to be built cheap and fast, expecting them to be torn down instead of maintained. Fenway is older than this belief, built to be rehabbed and modified indefinitely, much like the housing stock of the adjacent neighborhood.

The issue is, 99% of architects and contractors have no idea what to do with historic properties. They look at a project and the first instinct is a gut and remodel. Cover it with glass, modernize everything. Make it "better". When they are told they can't it just becomes impossible! Part of it is ego, part of it is lack of knowledge. Many projects don't use tax credits because they don't understand the process, think it won't work for what they are trying to do, or a million other reasons that really boil down to not hiring a good preservation consultant.

Landmarking properties, and by extension the HP standards are guidelines, like building codes. They restrict what you can and can not do for an established greater good, not to straight up block anything from happening. Hardly anything is impossible to do with a registered property, it just takes setting aside personal preference and ego, a healthy dose of cleverness and innovation, and working within the context of the existing building. It always amazes me how working with old buildings is regarded, as if it is some undue burden that must be aggressively dealt with, like mold. Designers are inherently problem solvers: turning site constraints, budget, program and codes into a serviceable (and hopefully aesthetically pleasing) building. I for one love working with the challenges inherent in this work, but to many it seems like the bane of their existence.

Looking at the progression of HP, it's really very similar to how we see urban planning. First they thought it best to tear everything down and start with a clean slate; now it's seen as better to work with, and expand upon the bones of what's already there. Fenway is a serviceable structure, and I think there are several ways they could squeeze more life and amenities out of it.

If it were me, I'd use 1960 as my starting point; after the field dimensions were basically established, light towers, green monster and the organ installed, but before the majority of the roof and upper deck seating was added. From that period, I'd start with a brand new second and third level, extending over the Jeano Building and possibly cantilevering over some of Van Ness. You could get a ton more seating out of that park if you tore off everything above the roof, instead of supplementing the mess that has been cobbled together over the past 50 years. Just about the only thing you couldn't do would be to remove the obstructed view seating. Its technically possible, but it's such a unique and well known part of the park they would have to stay.

For something more dramatic, I'd look at demolishing the Cask 'n Flagon and the garage next door, and reorienting Landsdowne to meet Brookline Ave at a 90° angle over the pike. Use all that space for new retail, amenities, and an expanded third deck in place of the monster seats. You couldn't mess with the facade of the Jeano building , but a triangle-shaped parklet could be created where Lansdowne was for a new entrance gate, with some seating cantilevered above.

The big issue is a project to really bring the current Fenway up to spec by tearing down everything post 1960 would either have to see the Sox play somewhere else for a season, or have a few years with drastically reduced seating while the renovations were underway. There is no way you could pull off something of this magnitude during the winter break.


If the sox were to move, I for one believe they would loose a lot of what makes them who they are. The brick and mortar Fenway Park is just as much a part of the team as the logo. To quote the NPS's page on the park:

Fenway Park has acquired significance beyond its role as the place where the Boston Red Sox play baseball. It is tied to a symbiosis in the relationship between the team and Red Sox fans and an entire region, and Fenway Park has become a place of pilgrimage, a place to experience even when there is no baseball game underway. The crowds of more than 200,000 visitors that tour the ballpark each year do not take into account those who, when the ballpark is closed, walk by, come in tour buses or by car, get out, take pictures of the park, or take their own photo at Fenway Park.

The nature of the experience of Fenway Park derives from the intimacy of the space and the proximity of the fans to the team (as well as to each other,) and from the pleasure of being a part of the continuum in the team's history as well as the past longstanding agony of enduring the team's failures. All are participants in whatever transpires at Fenway. The tradition of attending Red Sox games at Fenway Park (and perhaps the actual tickets to the seats) is passed down through multiple generations, and the shared experience of children attending with their parents or grandparents creates a cherished memory.

That's something you don't get if Fenway is made into a museum while the Sox play in some replica stadium with no tie to why the field is the way it is. You don't get Kenmore Square, the Citgo Sign, Yawkey Way, or every other little quirk that makes seeing a game at Fenway so much more unique than most other ballparks, or hell, sports venues in general.

 

[Equilibria]

That's something you don't get if Fenway is made into a museum while the Sox play in some replica stadium with no tie to why the field is the way it is. You don't get Kenmore Square, the Citgo Sign, Yawkey Way, or every other little quirk that makes seeing a game at Fenway so much more unique than most other ballparks, or hell, sports venues in general.

Having just been there yesterday (for the first time in many years), I can completely confirm this. The Red Sox ARE Fenway Park, and vice-versa. My understanding is that the just-completed round of upgrades was intended to make the stadium stand and function until 2050 or so. Once that date comes, I think the options will revolve around rebuilding one section at a time rather than moving the team to a different site.

This notion that sports teams get new stadia whenever the wind changes is a uniquely American thing. In Europe, it's a point of pride if a team has kept its venue going for 100 years (or more).

 

[fattony]

Next time you are in Fenway, talk to someone wearing the visiting team's hat or jersey. About half of them are transplants and half of them are tourists. Among the tourists, there are a shockingly high number who flew across the country specifically to see their team play IN FENWAY PARK (oh, and they are doing the Freedom Trail if it doesn't rain tomorrow. Might grab a lobster roll too). No one flies to Houston to see their team play in Minute Maid Park. A new Red Sox Park plus a Fenway Stadium would not attract anywhere near as many tourists or more importantly tourists' dollars as an active Fenway Park does. Fenway is a gem for this city - it attracts tourists from near and far, but still works very well for local residents (location, location, location). It is not Disneyfied and that is part of the charm. The minor annoyance that some seats have obstructed views is no deterrent to Fenway's incredible drawing power.

I'm with Davem - steady progress renovating and adding seating while respecting the historic essentials is the key. A new Fenway would be a major loss for the city.

 

[Matthew]

Agreed. While I am not always a fan of the way the ownership has treated the surrounding neighborhoods (seems to be improving) and I have to deal with the overburdened mess that is the Green Line at game time, I wouldn't ever want the Red Sox to move out of Fenway Park. I credit living and working near Fenway Park for reigniting my long dormant interest in baseball.

The HP standards are not designed to create museums. In fact, a great deal of the community now believes that museums are just about the worst use for a historic structure, since it is typically unsustainable from a financial standpoint, and also insensitive to the buildings genesis: as a working, functioning, occupied space.

That is very good to hear. Now let's see them apply that kind of thoughtfulness to neighborhoods like Beacon Hill.

 

[davem]

That is very good to hear. Now let's see them apply that kind of thoughtfulness to neighborhoods like Beacon Hill.

Being on the national register is completely separate from the overbearing Back Bay and Beacon Hill landmarks commissions. Other than prestige and tax credits, the register doesn't do much in terms of protection other than sec106 and delay tactics. Neighborhood commissions however can be all-powerful depending on their charter. BB is slightly more realistic and understanding (although they gave Orchard a hell of a time for their sign... hand painted on metal, more historically accurate than most signage on Newbury IMO). BH folks are just nutty though, and even worse a lot of what they do and advocate for is a lot more paul revere house old-fogyness, and not real preservation tactics. For the record, modern preservation is huge on sensitive infill and adaptive reuse, something with the folks on Beacon Hill seem to have a conniption about.

What I hear about happening on the hill reminds me of a review board hearing I attended in Cambridgeport, where the design commission was busy arguing over the addition of a portico (that could be removed in the future with no change to the house) and whether shutters (plastic, non operable, not even the right size) would be retained, while ignoring the fact that the owner was going to blast open a side of the house for french doors and a deck, substantially altering the character and structure of the house.

The issue is that these boards are typically populated by only one or two actual design professionals, typically none with real preservation training, and mostly "crazy old ladies". So what you get is sterile black wooden signs with paste on gold letters, while a parking lot sits vacant next door and a dude is gutting out his vintage oak library for an open concept kitchen.



Bringing this back to baseball, I never really cared about it despite going to a bunch of Mets and Yankees games as a kid (and living in NY when the Yankees were basically guaranteed to win the series). I started watching when the Sox killed it in 04 (because I found Yankees fans to be obnoxious douches and it was great to see them getting their ass kicked), and then when I moved here in 06 I started watching all the time, and then of course they won the next year. Since then it's the only sport I remotely pay attention to, and a good deal of that is not just the team but the intangible aura that surrounds that park. You see the lights on, people walking around... there is just a buzz that makes you want to watch and pay attention. My first week up here the whole reason I made my first friends was because it was basically demanded I come over to watch a game. Growing up in NY, with two teams, there was nothing even remotely similar.

 

[kingofsheeba]

I think the best that fans can hope for would be for the poles to be removed and the seating bowl will be renovated again. But that would be costly and it sounds like John Henry have other interests that don't involve owning the Red Sox beyond 2020.