Why Wrigley and Fenway exist and Tiger Stadium is Gone

[zahavasdad]

I realize in the 60's there was a movement to destroy old ballparks and make multi-purpose parks (ie Shibe Park - Veterans Stadium , forbes Field - Three river stadium etc)

But of the 4 parks that survived that destructive era

Comiskey , Wrigley , Fenway and Tiger Stadium only Wrigley and fenway still exist.

Why has Wrigley and Fenway survived and Comiskey and specifically tiger stadium not.

Forget about what you think of Wrigley and fenway, the OWNERS of the team no matter who they are or will be (The Cubs are up for sale) would never even think anymore of destroying those parks

Yet Tiger stadium is gone.

[Gylmar]

You're right when you say OWNERS, that is the problem! Both of the pizza men who took over the Tigers wanted nothing to do with the renovation of TS, they ALWAYS wanted a new ballpark. :crazy

There could of been a real classic in Detroit! :hissyfit:

[Anubis2051]

I realize in the 60's there was a movement to destroy old ballparks and make multi-purpose parks (ie Shibe Park - Veterans Stadium , forbes Field - Three river stadium etc)

But of the 5 parks that survived that destructive era

Comiskey , Wrigley , Fenway, Yankee Stadium and Tiger Stadium only Wrigley and Fenway still remain active

Why has Wrigley and Fenway remain active and Comiskey and specifically tiger stadium not.

Forget about what you think of Wrigley and fenway, the OWNERS of the team no matter who they are or will be (The Cubs are up for sale) would never even think anymore of destroying those parks.

Yet Tiger stadium is gone.

Fixed it for you. How could you leave baseball's most historic stadium off that list? And for the record, the idea of replacing Fenway has come up in the past. Odds are, it will be put on the fast track after the 2012 anniversary. The idea of a new Wrigley is also being heavily explored, and some of the players are really pushing for one.

[zahavasdad]

Because its not the REAL Yankee Stadium

The REAL Yankee stadium was destroyed in 1973

[efin98]

Because its not the REAL Yankee Stadium

The REAL Yankee stadium was destroyed in 1973

Why let facts get in the way of your opinions.

[efin98]

Fenway is only around because of money.

History has nothing to do with it. Neither does "love" of the place. It's money.

[curb my enthusiasm]

Fenway is only around because of money.

History has nothing to do with it. Neither does "love" of the place. It's money.

That doesn't make sense. The Red Sox could make more money with a brand new ballpark.

[mattygnym]

Fixed it for you. How could you leave baseball's most historic stadium off that list? And for the record, the idea of replacing Fenway has come up in the past. Odds are, it will be put on the fast track after the 2012 anniversary. The idea of a new Wrigley is also being heavily explored, and some of the players are really pushing for one.
Are Yankee fans really in denial THAT much??? Yankee Stadium is being torn down as we speak.

[Transic]

That doesn't make sense. The Red Sox could make more money with a brand new ballpark.

The previous owners tried to get a new stadium. Cost and politics helped to stop that. One could argue whether they pushed hard enough for the stadium. However, northeastern politics are very hard-knuckle and you would have to have a perfect alignment of money, politicians and grassroots support to pull it off. The Krafts had to dig into their own pockets to build their football stadium, way out in the suburbs.

Boston is not Chicago...nor New York. It is the Los Angeles of the East Coast, just without palm trees or celebrities.

[toefer]

Are Yankee fans really in denial THAT much??? Yankee Stadium is being torn down as we speak.

He didn't say Yankee Stadium is still active, he just said it was one of the old stadiums that survived the "let's replace _______ " attitude of the 60's, which is true, isn't it?

If you want to argue Yankee Stadium shouldn't be counted because it was later renovated, then Fenway wouldn't count either, due to the renovations it's had over the years (and had as recently as this past off-season, and will have more done after the '09 season).

[Yankees12]

Are Yankee fans really in denial THAT much??? Yankee Stadium is being torn down as we speak.

And Comiskey is a parking lot, and Tiger Stadium has been reduced to a little area behind the infield. OYS made it further than either one of those parks did.

Those are the FIVE parks that survived the cookie-cutter era.

Of the ones that didn't, here's why they didnt make it:
Ebbets Field, Polo Grounds, and Braves Field all fell victim to relocation.
Griffith Stadium, Shibe Park, Sportsmans Park, Crosley Field, and Forbes Field were all replaced by cookie-cutters within the same city.

Why did some make it and others not? It just happened that way I suppose - there were plans drawn up to replace Fenway, desires to get rid of Yankee Stadium if a renovation didn't occur, and as for the other 3 - I know there were talks of replacing Wrigley, don't know about Comiskey or Tiger though. So it's not like the 5 that made it were untouchable or that no one wanted to replace them.

I suppose it's the same as the next stadium wave that we're currently in today. Why did Fenway and Wrigley make it while Yankee, Tiger, and Comiskey didn't? Why did Angel Stadium make it and not Candlestick or any of the other multipurpose stadiums? Why did County Stadium not make it?

I almost want to say it comes up to luck of the draw - there's overtures to replace every old stadium, even Fenway, even Kauffman (there were some plans to move to downtown KC), even at times, Wrigley (and that seems to be starting up again). Of course, certain stadiums are just more "beloved," and some teams can't get favorable land deals (*cough*Boston*cough*). Some have tons of bureaucracy in their cities slowing things down, and their cities aren't desperate to hang onto their teams by giving them sweetheart stadium deals because they know those teams wouldn't dare move anywhere else (again Boston, and to a lesser extent the 2 NYC teams - why do you think it took so long for them to get new stadiums?), while other cities will gladly fund a new ballpark in its entirety if it means holding onto the team. The same factors were at play in the 60's and 70's.

[jimmyjimjimz]

Because its not the REAL Yankee Stadium

The REAL Yankee stadium was destroyed in 1973

um dude?

for a LARGE group of fans who were born after 1976, including myself, the renovated Yankee Stadium IS the real Yankee Stadium. And technically, Yankee Stadium is still active. Isn't the new stadium called Yankee Stadium? Drive by the stadium, and what does the sign say? YANKEE STADIUM. It may not be the same building in 1923 that got RENOVATED in 1973-1976, not demolished and re-built, but it's STILL Yankee Stadium. Tomorrow, I'm going to my first game @ Yankee Stadium since the Yankees last home game last year. Once again, it may not be the same building, but it's still Yankee Stadium.

[mattygnym]

Gotchya. My bad. I thought you were saying Yankee Stadium was still active, although it is across the street.

[efin98]

That doesn't make sense. The Red Sox could make more money with a brand new ballpark.

Not when the owners spent a hell of a lot of money to buy the team back in 2002...and the cost to build a new one is probably going to cost them about $800 million...and they can't find any land that won't cost them an arm and a leg and a decade long battle.

They could make more money in a large park...but it will be decades before they ever see that profit. Their owners have deep pockets but they aren't deep enough to pay for a new ballpark out of hand in Boston or around Boston. It's too damned expensive.

[Anubis2051]

Are Yankee fans really in denial THAT much??? Yankee Stadium is being torn down as we speak.

I was saying that, as mentioned above, it survived the cookie cutter era. The "Remains Active" line was my way of saying that while they are no longer home to an MLB team, Tiger Stadium and Yankee Stadium are still, for the time being, still technically standing.

[scooterfan]

New Englanders have a greater appreciation for history. They wouldn't tolerate the destruction of Fenway Park. There were active save Fenway movements ten years ago. Save Yankee Stadium movements never picked up ANY steam. Furthermore New England politicians bit ch about everything and when people complain projects take a long time. Plans for a new Boston Garden began in the late 70s and it didn't close until 1995. The Big Dig took over a decade to build and it took 13 years to build the new bridge to Newport, RI and was completed in 1992.

[efin98]

New Englanders have a greater appreciation for history.

As long as it isn't something that is needed by the people doing the "appreciation". There's a long list of things that contradict that statement over the decades.

They wouldn't tolerate the destruction of Fenway Park. There were active save Fenway movements ten years ago.


After the team announced their plans for a new stadium including site plans, models, neighborhood improvements and amounted to a whole lot of nothing but screen time on the TV when things went forward despite "protests" and whatever they claim.

The plan was still active a full three years AFTER the team was sold and had all the initial start up work ready to go before the owners ended the plans.



Here's some math that people either don't know about or just seem to ignore:

Team was bought for $660 million in 2001/2002

New Stadium was estimated to cost $415 million to buy land and build, with city and state kicking in $130 million for parking garages and road improvements. No way in hell they get $130 million from either the city or the state so that cost goes onto the total bill bringing it up to $545 million.

That's $1.25 billion that the new owners would have had to pay for the team and the new park. That's IF it was on time and on budget and probably didn't take into account the required studies and hearings that would have inflated the budget higher nor does it look like it included the cost of demolition and renovations to the old stadium site as was originally planned.

$1.25 billion. Too much too soon for them. Makes financial sense to renovate the existing stadium and cram in more seats for a decade or so and get a profit from the initial purchase and then build the stadium on their own terms to their own specifications- which is what they are doing. They have never really said the plans were dead, they just put them on hold while they renovate.

[zahavasdad]

Just because somewhere some stadium is called Yankee stadium doesnt mean its the REAL Yankee Stadium.

IE in the REAL Yankee Stadium Monument park was on the field and theoritically a ball could get lost there

[applenut]

Because its not the REAL Yankee Stadium

The REAL Yankee stadium was destroyed in 1973

Well, now I know to take any thing you say with a grain of salt.

[mandrake]

Why has Wrigley and Fenway survived and Comiskey and specifically tiger stadium not.

Forget about what you think of Wrigley and fenway, the OWNERS of the team no matter who they are or will be (The Cubs are up for sale) would never even think anymore of destroying those parks

Yet Tiger stadium is gone.


For all intents and purposes, DETROIT itself is practically gone. Literally, most of it is gone. Yes, it has lost over half of its population that it had in 1950. It is really the only once-great American city to experience this depopulation. NYC,Chi,Philly all have at least maintained the status quo.
Detroit's nearly 2 million (1950 census) is now closer to 800,000. There are wide swaths of that city that are vacant. Parts of the place look like they were nuked ! The amazing thing to me is why the Lions moved back to the inner city. And why do the Red Wings play in downtown while the Pistons are out in Auburn Hills?
If Chrysler folds as expected, and GM heads to Chapter 11, Detroit will just fall further. :(

[ol' aches and pains]

um dude?

for a LARGE group of fans who were born after 1976, including myself, the renovated Yankee Stadium IS the real Yankee Stadium. And technically, Yankee Stadium is still active. Isn't the new stadium called Yankee Stadium? Drive by the stadium, and what does the sign say? YANKEE STADIUM. It may not be the same building in 1923 that got RENOVATED in 1973-1976, not demolished and re-built, but it's STILL Yankee Stadium. Tomorrow, I'm going to my first game @ Yankee Stadium since the Yankees last home game last year. Once again, it may not be the same building, but it's still Yankee Stadium.

I don't care what the sign says, it's not Yankee Stadium. Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Joe Dimaggio, Mickey Mantle, Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, never set foot in that stadium. When it suits the suits, they will tear down Wrigley and Fenway too. If Yankee Stadium is gone, the others will follow, it's just a matter of when. :(

[JAD7]

In my opinion the Red Sox should do this if it were possible. These stadiums & ballparks wont stand & last forever. The park would be brand new & modernized. It would be built right next to the old park just like the new Yankee Stadium & would even be in the same position & facing the same way as the old ballpark with even more seats.

http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/american/bosbpk.htm

[Sean O]

In my opinion the Red Sox should do this if it were possible. These stadiums & ballparks wont stand & last forever. The park would be brand new & modernized. It would be built right next to the old park just like the new Yankee Stadium & would even be in the same position & facing the same way as the old ballpark with even more seats.

http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/american/bosbpk.htm

Even more seats, dramatically farther away than the current ones. Why bother? Why should taxpayers spend $1,000,000,000 in a depression to build an ugly new monstrosity of a park like NY?

[JAD7]

Because Fenway is a crumbling old dump of a sardine can just like any other old ballpark. These old parks couldnt touch these new state of the art places. I'm not saying to build exactly right this minute in the state this country is in but eventually the economy will be back on its feet. Eventually time is going to get the best of all these places & they will all be gone.

[mandrake]

Even more seats, dramatically farther away than the current ones. Why bother? Why should taxpayers spend $1,000,000,000 in a depression to build an ugly new monstrosity of a park like NY?

A depression ????? You gotta be joking !!!!!! You see millions of people on breadlines? You see a drought creating a dustbowl and wiping out all crops for 5 years? You see unemployment at 25%? You see the military attacking US vets living in tent cities in DC?
You are on the internet, right? Most of the country did not have radios in the depression, and large parts of the USA had no electricity in the 1930's. Ever hear of the TVA ???
Depression, what a joke. If you have any relatives alive that went through1929-1945 and all those hardships, talk to them. If not, go to the library and look it up.
This country has no idea what tough times are.

[ol' aches and pains]

A depression ????? You gotta be joking !!!!!! You see millions of people on breadlines? You see a drought creating a dustbowl and wiping out all crops for 5 years? You see unemployment at 25%? You see the military attacking US vets living in tent cities in DC?
You are on the internet, right? Most of the country did not have radios in the depression, and large parts of the USA had no electricity in the 1930's. Ever hear of the TVA ???
Depression, what a joke. If you have any relatives alive that went through1929-1945 and all those hardships, talk to them. If not, go to the library and look it up.
This country has no idea what tough times are.

If your neighbor is out of work, it's a recession. If you're out of work, it's a depression. I'm assuming you still have a job. I don't, as far as I'm concerned it's a depression. My financial advisor doesn't foresee a significant recovery for at least three years. GM and Chrysler are both talking bankruptcy, don't tell me this isn't a depression. Just because it hasn't reached the scope of the last one (yet) doesn't mean it's not for real.

[efin98]

Even more seats, dramatically farther away than the current ones. Why bother?

That is assuming that the seats would actually be farther away.

I'd take a farther away seat at the better slope than the closer seat and the "gentle" slope making me look at the back of a bunch of heads for most of the game(as I've had to do multiple times!).

Why should taxpayers spend $1,000,000,000 in a depression to build an ugly new monstrosity of a park like NY?

No taxpayer money is/was to be spent on the construction of the ballpark :rolleyes:

Any public money was for the crappy parking garages and rebuilding the sidewalks and repaving the streets- the sidewalks and streets are their job anyway, it was needed regardless of whether the park was built or not.

The garages were never going to get built by the city or state. The team would have had to build them.

[DaBigMotor]

And Comiskey is a parking lot, and Tiger Stadium has been reduced to a little area behind the infield. OYS made it further than either one of those parks did.

Those are the FIVE parks that survived the cookie-cutter era.

Of the ones that didn't, here's why they didnt make it:
Ebbets Field, Polo Grounds, and Braves Field all fell victim to relocation.
Griffith Stadium, Shibe Park, Sportsmans Park, Crosley Field, and Forbes Field were all replaced by cookie-cutters within the same city.

Why did some make it and others not? It just happened that way I suppose - there were plans drawn up to replace Fenway, desires to get rid of Yankee Stadium if a renovation didn't occur, and as for the other 3 - I know there were talks of replacing Wrigley, don't know about Comiskey or Tiger though.... Soon after buying the Lions in 1963, William Clay Ford (who still owns the team) wanted out of Tiger Stadium. He'd started looking to build his own stadium as far back as 1968.

Around 1970, there were plans drawn up to build a dual-purpose dome on the Detroit riverfront for both teams, but lawsuits prevailed, and the Lions balked. They began construction of the Pontiac Silverdome in 1973, playing their last ever game at Tiger Stadium - a 31-27 loss to Denver - on Thanksgiving Day 1974.

Also, when the Tigers hosted the MLB All Star Game in 1971, there was a prophetic quote in the Detroit Free press the following day, something along the lines of 'this should be the last All Star Game we'll see at Tiger Stadium since there'll be a new stadium in another 20 years or so.'

The Tigers moved into Comerica Park in 2000.

So there WOULD have been a cookie cutter in Detroit back then if the politicos had their way. The plus of it not happening was that Tiger Stadium lasted long enough for many Detroiters like myself, who would have never seen it if it had closed back in 1970, to have our own memories there. The drawback is that the Lions left for the 'burbs, not returning to the city where they belong, until Ford Field opened in 2002.

[mandrake]

If your neighbor is out of work, it's a recession. If you're out of work, it's a depression. I'm assuming you still have a job. I don't, as far as I'm concerned it's a depression. My financial advisor doesn't foresee a significant recovery for at least three years. GM and Chrysler are both talking bankruptcy, don't tell me this isn't a depression. Just because it hasn't reached the scope of the last one (yet) doesn't mean it's not for real.

Hey, I did not mean anything personal. If anybody ever loses their job, it is horrible. It happened to me in 2004 and I know how it feels.

Just that I did not go to bed hungry every night, I did not get kicked out on the street, I did not have shoes to wear to school, I did not get the family radio taken away (leased from electric co) and it was my only means of escapism listening to the Yanks, Dodgers, and Giants.......this all happened to my father. Every time I tell them about the 2009 economy they unload more stories on me.

Seriously, good luck and hope things get better.:crossfingers:

[sturg1dj]

i am not sure if this was mentioned, but the city of Detroit has very little interest in historical buildings (until more recently that is).


take a look at this site
http://www.forgottendetroit.com/


there are many classic, historical buildings that were just abandoned and left to rot due to the Detroit economy of the 70's, 80's (along with damage done in riots). Today's economy wouldn't seem to help either.

the fact that the stadium was knocked down was even a little shocking since so many buildings were just left due to the lack of interest in new businesses in the area.

At least a few of the classic hotels (which for a long time were some of the largest abandoned buildings you could ever find) they were bought out by people who renovated and either made luxury hotels or high end apartments out of them.

I am only 26, and looking at the info on these buildings I just can't imagine Detroit in the 20's-50's. I have been going there for various events since I was 10 and it has always been a dead city to me....which is sad. And nobody, not Republican mayors, Democrat mayors (crooked or honest) have been able to fix it.

losing the auto industry will most likely spell doom for the city (along with the entire state) but at the same time it could maybe force the people to diversify when it comes to jobs and business.

Another thing to add is that unlike (new) Yankee Stadium, Comerica Park is absolutely nothing like Tiger Stadium (even the flagpole which was originally put in fair territory is now behind the fence when they brought them in). This is sad, especially since you can imagine that when/if they build new stadiums for the Red Sox and Cubs they will have a green monster and Ivy covered walls.


I have to admit I do like Comerica...but I really do miss Tiger Stadium.

[DaBigMotor]

i am not sure if this was mentioned, but the city of Detroit has very little interest in historical buildings (until more recently that is).


take a look at this site
http://www.forgottendetroit.com/


there are many classic, historical buildings that were just abandoned and left to rot due to the Detroit economy of the 70's, 80's (along with damage done in riots). Today's economy wouldn't seem to help either.

the fact that the stadium was knocked down was even a little shocking since so many buildings were just left due to the lack of interest in new businesses in the area.

At least a few of the classic hotels (which for a long time were some of the largest abandoned buildings you could ever find) they were bought out by people who renovated and either made luxury hotels or high end apartments out of them.

I am only 26, and looking at the info on these buildings I just can't imagine Detroit in the 20's-50's. I have been going there for various events since I was 10 and it has always been a dead city to me....which is sad. And nobody, not Republican mayors, Democrat mayors (crooked or honest) have been able to fix it.

losing the auto industry will most likely spell doom for the city (along with the entire state) but at the same time it could maybe force the people to diversify when it comes to jobs and business.

Another thing to add is that unlike (new) Yankee Stadium, Comerica Park is absolutely nothing like Tiger Stadium (even the flagpole which was originally put in fair territory is now behind the fence when they brought them in). This is sad, especially since you can imagine that when/if they build new stadiums for the Red Sox and Cubs they will have a green monster and Ivy covered walls.


I have to admit I do like Comerica...but I really do miss Tiger Stadium.And for all the talk about how bad Detroit is now...I remember how bad the downtown area was in the 1970s. It's come a LOONG way since then. Downtown is now actually a pretty decent place.

[sturg1dj]

And for all the talk about how bad Detroit is now...I remember how bad the downtown area was in the 1970s. It's come a LOONG way since then. Downtown is now actually a pretty decent place.

yeah, I have only heard about it in the 70's and 80's...but the difference between the 90's and 00's is pretty amazing too. I know people from the area always had places they were comfortable going in the city...but for my family and other small town Michigan people the city of the 90's was scary and uninviting. Today I have no problem strolling around downtown.

[ol' aches and pains]

Hey, I did not mean anything personal. If anybody ever loses their job, it is horrible. It happened to me in 2004 and I know how it feels.

Just that I did not go to bed hungry every night, I did not get kicked out on the street, I did not have shoes to wear to school, I did not get the family radio taken away (leased from electric co) and it was my only means of escapism listening to the Yanks, Dodgers, and Giants.......this all happened to my father. Every time I tell them about the 2009 economy they unload more stories on me.

Seriously, good luck and hope things get better.:crossfingers:

No worries, I didn't take it personally; obviously you don't know me or my situation. But the law of averages would indicate there are more members here in the same situation. The tone of your post #25 comes across as condescending and insensitive to anyone who is affected by the current crisis. Please, a little premeditation before posting, that's all I'm asking. Thanks.

[sturg1dj]

No worries, I didn't take it personally; obviously you don't know me or my situation. But the law of averages would indicate there are more members here in the same situation. The tone of your post #25 comes across as condescending and insensitive to anyone who is affected by the current crisis. Please, a little premeditation before posting, that's all I'm asking. Thanks.

agreed...when I went home for christmas this year you wouldn't know it was a recession since most of the men in my family were unemployed. Of course that is the way it is when you live in the city with the highest unemployment (Muskegon) in the state with then highest unemployment (Michigan).

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

And for all the talk about how bad Detroit is now...I remember how bad the downtown area was in the 1970s. It's come a LOONG way since then. Downtown is now actually a pretty decent place.

You are joking about how good downtown Detroit is. i have lived in Detroit since 1969.There is nothing down Town.

[jimmyjimjimz]

I don't care what the sign says, it's not Yankee Stadium. Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Joe Dimaggio, Mickey Mantle, Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, never set foot in that stadium. When it suits the suits, they will tear down Wrigley and Fenway too. If Yankee Stadium is gone, the others will follow, it's just a matter of when. :(


Actually dude, yes Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig and Ted Williams and Mickey Mantle and Joe DiMaggio and Ty Cobb and Phil Rizzutto and Bobby Murcer and Thurman Munson DID play in Yankee Stadium. It may not be the same Stadium they played in, but you get my point, dont ya?

[The House That Ruth Built]

I was at Fenway last night and coincedentally, my friend and I were having a similar conversation. It's a rather complex topic. Certain things like necessity, charm and functionabilty come into play. As an aside, it was my first game at Fenway. I was blown away by how great it was.

[jimmyjimjimz]

I was at Fenway last night and coincedentally, my friend and I were having a similar conversation. It's a rather complex topic. Certain things like necessity, charm and functionabilty come into play. As an aside, it was my first game at Fenway. I was blown away by how great it was.

I was only at Fenway once, and it looked like a dump to me. I'd rather not have a huge piece of metal in front of me when I'm trying to watch a baseball game. I don't get how my grandfather did it and how my dad did it as a young kid. Oh yeah, and just to let you know. my grandfather was only at the renovated Yankee Stadium once, and I was with him when he went. I was a little kid then, though. I wish I could remember it better, and I wish he was still alive to see the new stadium.

[zahavasdad]

I have never been to fenway, but I have to wrigley and it IS a dump

But thats part of the charm, No Stupid Jumbo trons, no stupid contests etc

After the cubs won the game it took me almost an hour to get out to the street (few exits there and the walkways are narrow) and the bathroom were a trough.

But Ive never had as much fun at a baseball as I had at wrigley, it was all about the game.

[Sean O]

That is assuming that the seats would actually be farther away.

I'd take a farther away seat at the better slope than the closer seat and the "gentle" slope making me look at the back of a bunch of heads for most of the game(as I've had to do multiple times!).


Thing is, the right field line is for suckers, and we all know that. Apart from the ubiquitous poles, there isn't a bad seat between GS 11 and 33, and even the bleachers/GS 1-3 are generally fine.


No taxpayer money is/was to be spent on the construction of the ballpark :rolleyes:


We'll have to agree to disagree on this front. I think it's been proven without a shadow of a doubt that the tax benefits NYY received from the city/state far outstrip simple infrastructure improvements to the surrounding area, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

We know that Henry et al aren't going to pay the $800m for the park, and there's already the precedent of Kraft largely building the razor on his own. What is wrong with Fenway isn't worth hundreds of millions of dollars in public financing to me, and I bet i'm not alone.

[64Cards]

I saw in a collection of headline articles from one of the defunct Chicagp papers, back in 1959 Mayor Richard Daley proposed building a 100K seat dome on the lakefront [the Dick Dome?] to be the home of the Cubs, Sox, Bears and Cardinals [who moved to STL in 1960] Evidently their was little interest by the teams, although I seem to remember the idea would periodically pop up throughout the 60's.

I don't know much about the Detroit situation, although I made one enjoyable trip to Tiger during the final season of 1999. Still, it seems rather absurd, that in a state and city with some of the highest unemployment, foreclosure and tax rates in the country, they've manage to spend a bundle on a new baseball stadium, a new football dome to replace one that was only about 30 years old, plus having separate basketball and hockey arenas. Of course, the pols, developers, unions and media will all describe the wonderful economic benefits new sports facilities have in bringing dollars to region.

All I know is over the last 40 years or so, their has been no city that has hosted more big sports events, such as Super Bowls, Final Fours, college bowl games, than New Orleans. And I think we saw how well off that area is.

[sturg1dj]

I saw in a collection of headline articles from one of the defunct Chicagp papers, back in 1959 Mayor Richard Daley proposed building a 100K seat dome on the lakefront [the Dick Dome?] to be the home of the Cubs, Sox, Bears and Cardinals [who moved to STL in 1960] Evidently their was little interest by the teams, although I seem to remember the idea would periodically pop up throughout the 60's.

I don't know much about the Detroit situation, although I made one enjoyable trip to Tiger during the final season of 1999. Still, it seems rather absurd, that in a state and city with some of the highest unemployment, foreclosure and tax rates in the country, they've manage to spend a bundle on a new baseball stadium, a new football dome to replace one that was only about 30 years old, plus having separate basketball and hockey arenas. Of course, the pols, developers, unions and media will all describe the wonderful economic benefits new sports facilities have in bringing dollars to region.

All I know is over the last 40 years or so, their has been no city that has hosted more big sports events, such as Super Bowls, Final Fours, college bowl games, than New Orleans. And I think we saw how well off that area is.

having all of the teams play in one stadium would be problematic. During April there are usually three teams still playing, two in the playoffs. As it is I usually miss a handful of Tiger games on TV during this time, can't imagine what would happen if they all had home games on the same day (even at different times).

But I do agree that taxing Detroit to build a stadium was crazy as well as the line that these stadiums create jobs (I have read works that refute that claim).

Detroit may be different though. I have been in Detroit on days when there were no games and the city is dead. If all of the teams moved to the burbs it really could have a negative effect on the city. At least for New Orleans they have tourism for a small part of the city. Detroit has very little.

-----------------------------------

the whole idea of using tax money to at least partially fund a stadium to me is basically thievery. If you buy a team you should have to show that you can build a new stadium (if necessary) on your own without the help of city. Thats what an owner should do.

[efin98]

Thing is, the right field line is for suckers, and we all know that. Apart from the ubiquitous poles, there isn't a bad seat between GS 11 and 33, and even the bleachers/GS 1-3 are generally fine.

If you don't mind the crushed knees and brusied hips- and that's on a thin person.

Left field corner isn't any better with a couple of sections, the side wall impedes your view of any action down below- especially with a game with lots of wall balls.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this front. I think it's been proven without a shadow of a doubt that the tax benefits NYY received from the city/state far outstrip simple infrastructure improvements to the surrounding area, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Those same tax leniency isn't given in this area, everyone pays up for their land- even the state and colleges pay up to the cities for land owned("payment in lieu of taxes", but still pay up)

We know that Henry et al aren't going to pay the $800m for the park, and there's already the precedent of Kraft largely building the razor on his own. What is wrong with Fenway isn't worth hundreds of millions of dollars in public financing to me, and I bet i'm not alone.

It isn't worth hundreds of millions is because it isn't getting it. Kraft had control over the stadium land already, built it on the cheap uninterrupted by traffic or resident or team needs for $325 million- half the cost of Fenway. Public won't pay a dime for stadiums, arenas. They won't pay for things they will have to pay to use while someone else profits off of them.

[sturg1dj]

one thing that the Red Sox owners do not have that other owners use to get public money is the threat of moving the team. The owners in Boston are not going to find a better market. I wish all teams had this because I think its despicable to use that as a bargaining chip.

[SJLT252]

The reason I believe that Fenway still exists is because it is impossible to get public financing for stadiums in Massachusetts. For example, the Boston Garden was rumored to be demolished for about 30 years. Also, I remember the Patriots trying to get public financing for a stadium on the Harbor in Boston during the 90's, but after getting a tenative deal from Hartford, Kraft
decided to build a stadium in Foxboro with his own money. For the people from Chicago on this board, as I live in the New York Area, I would like to know if it is historically impossble to get public financing for stadiums under the Daley Machine. I know the White Sox got state, not city funding AFTER announcing a tenative deal with St. Petersburg.

[Twins91871977]

I don't care what the sign says, it's not Yankee Stadium. Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Joe Dimaggio, Mickey Mantle, Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, never set foot in that stadium. When it suits the suits, they will tear down Wrigley and Fenway too. If Yankee Stadium is gone, the others will follow, it's just a matter of when. :(

BUZZ! Wrong! Northern Chicago and Boston will never make the same mistake Swinebrenner did.

[efin98]

The reason I believe that Fenway still exists is because it is impossible to get public financing for stadiums in Massachusetts. For example, the Boston Garden was rumored to be demolished for about 30 years. Also, I remember the Patriots trying to get public financing for a stadium on the Harbor in Boston during the 90's, but after getting a tenative deal from Hartford, Kraft
decided to build a stadium in Foxboro with his own money. For the people from Chicago on this board, as I live in the New York Area, I would like to know if it is historically impossble to get public financing for stadiums under the Daley Machine. I know the White Sox got state, not city funding AFTER announcing a tenative deal with St. Petersburg.

Boston Garden had a problem that no other stadium has or had: a working railroad hub below it.

They couldn't just up and close it or demolish it without working with the Commonwealth and the Boston and Maine Railroad(former owner, later contract operator) to provide a brand new railroad terminal from all of the northside commuter rail trains.

[efin98]

BUZZ! Wrong! Northern Chicago and Boston will never make the same mistake Swinebrenner did.

Keep believing that, it might come true some decade :rolleyes:

[pudgie_child]

um dude?

for a LARGE group of fans who were born after 1976, including myself, the renovated Yankee Stadium IS the real Yankee Stadium. And technically, Yankee Stadium is still active. Isn't the new stadium called Yankee Stadium? Drive by the stadium, and what does the sign say? YANKEE STADIUM. It may not be the same building in 1923 that got RENOVATED in 1973-1976, not demolished and re-built, but it's STILL Yankee Stadium. Tomorrow, I'm going to my first game @ Yankee Stadium since the Yankees last home game last year. Once again, it may not be the same building, but it's still Yankee Stadium.

That's pretty illogical. That would be like claiming new Comiskey Park and old Comiskey Park were equivalent structures (prior to the name change, of course). We're talking about the building here, not the name of the building.

[jimmyjimjimz]

That's pretty illogical. That would be like claiming new Comiskey Park and old Comiskey Park were equivalent structures (prior to the name change, of course). We're talking about the building here, not the name of the building.

ok, then isn't it illogical to say the renovated Yankee Stadium isn't really Yankee Stadium? I mean, it's the same building.

[ccicchet]

New Englanders have a greater appreciation for history.

foolishness

[Save MUIDATS REGIT]

Whatever Jimyjimjimz is on...I want some.

[Bazookadale]

Actually dude, yes Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig and Ted Williams and Mickey Mantle and Joe DiMaggio and Ty Cobb and Phil Rizzutto and Bobby Murcer and Thurman Munson DID play in Yankee Stadium. It may not be the same Stadium they played in, but you get my point, dont ya?

Is your point that you are a kid who is not too bright? - That's what I get from your posts

[jimmyjimjimz]

Whatever Jimyjimjimz is on...I want some.

so you don't think the original Yankee Stadium and the renovated Yankee Stadium are the same building?



Is your point that you are a kid who is not too bright? - That's what I get from your posts


Actually, no. My point is that they played in a building called Yankee Stadium. The new building is called Yankee Stadium. Even though it's not the same building, the memories live on. It's still Yankee Stadium, and it will always be Yankee Stadium whatever side of the street you're on.

[Bazookadale]

um dude?

for a LARGE group of fans who were born after 1976, including myself, the renovated Yankee Stadium IS the real Yankee Stadium. And technically, Yankee Stadium is still active. Isn't the new stadium called Yankee Stadium? Drive by the stadium, and what does the sign say? YANKEE STADIUM. It may not be the same building in 1923 that got RENOVATED in 1973-1976, not demolished and re-built, but it's STILL Yankee Stadium. Tomorrow, I'm going to my first game @ Yankee Stadium since the Yankees last home game last year. Once again, it may not be the same building, but it's still Yankee Stadium.

Impeccable logic - I'll put a sign on my house that says YANKEE STADIUM, it will save me tons of money on tickets

[SJLT252]

Boston Garden had a problem that no other stadium has or had: a working railroad hub below it.

They couldn't just up and close it or demolish it without working with the Commonwealth and the Boston and Maine Railroad(former owner, later contract operator) to provide a brand new railroad terminal from all of the northside commuter rail trains.

Madison Square Garden here in New York is pretty much stuck in the same dilemma. Because MSG had been procastinating about whether to stay or move across 8th avenue and finally decided to renovate last year, the Moynahan station project has been indefenitly delayed for several years.

P.S. Boston Garden was the definition of being both the best of things and worst of things. The best was the home-court/ice advantage being the best in America and the worst was that Boston lost its share of events to "megapolises" such as Worchester and Providence because the Garden was so substandard.

[jimmyjimjimz]

Impeccable logic - I'll put a sign on my house that says YANKEE STADIUM, it will save me tons of money on tickets

Once again, if that's illogical, then is it logical to say that the 1923 version of Yankee Stadium and the 1976 version of Yankee Stadium are different buldings?

[pudgie_child]

ok, then isn't it illogical to say the renovated Yankee Stadium isn't really Yankee Stadium? I mean, it's the same building.

I agree with you on this point. I think it's absolute bullcrap when people claim that the renovated Yankee Stadium and the pre-renovation Yankee Stadium were two different buildings.

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

Madison Square Garden here in New York is pretty much stuck in the same dilemma. Because MSG had been procastinating about whether to stay or move across 8th avenue and finally decided to renovate last year, the Moynahan station project has been indefenitly delayed for several years.

P.S. Boston Garden was the definition of being both the best of things and worst of things. The best was the home-court/ice advantage being the best in America and the worst was that Boston lost its share of events to "megapolises" such as Worchester and Providence because the Garden was so substandard.

There was nothing wrong with Boston Garden that a little renovation would have fixed any problems including electrical. i saw 9 Hockey games at the old Garden and i will never go to the new arena.i am sure that Fenway Park will not be going anywhere anytime soon.

[efin98]

There was nothing wrong with Boston Garden that a little renovation would have fixed any problems including electrical. i saw 9 Hockey games at the old Garden and i will never go to the new arena.i am sure that Fenway Park will not be going anywhere anytime soon.

Donald did a thorough investigation before he came up with the "little renovation" claims I'm sure :rolleyes:

[SJLT252]

There was nothing wrong with Boston Garden that a little renovation would have fixed any problems including electrical. i saw 9 Hockey games at the old Garden and i will never go to the new arena.i am sure that Fenway Park will not be going anywhere anytime soon.

I was recently looking at old newspaper articles from the early to mid 80's where there were 2 proposals in Boston build a new arena or renovate the garden. I absolutley agree that a good matinence, such as updating the electrical grid and MAYBE adding A/C due to the fact that the NBA and NHL season now extend well into June, would have gone a long way at keeping the building standing today without major renovations if there wasn't a MAJOR emphasis on club the people who can't watch a game without eating quiche and drinking Merlot. I would not go out of my way to see a game at the TD Garden, unlike I would at the Boston Garden. When the owners start to skimp on maitnence, I see that with suspicion as the owners are probably cutting back on purpose so that they have a easier case to build a new stadium for the wine and cheese crowd.

[metfan13]

I was recently looking at old newspaper articles from the early to mid 80's where there were 2 proposals in Boston build a new arena or renovate the garden. I absolutley agree that a good matinence, such as updating the electrical grid and MAYBE adding A/C due to the fact that the NBA and NHL season now extend well into June, would have gone a long way at keeping the building standing today without major renovations if there wasn't a MAJOR emphasis on club the people who can't watch a game without eating quiche and drinking Merlot. I would not go out of my way to see a game at the TD Garden, unlike I would at the Boston Garden. When the owners start to skimp on maitnence, I see that with suspicion as the owners are probably cutting back on purpose so that they have a easier case to build a new stadium for the wine and cheese crowd.

Wasn't the Garden known for poor maintenence and lack of facilities going back further than the 80's?

[SJLT252]

Wasn't the Garden known for poor maintenence and lack of facilities going back further than the 80's?

Yes, but I going to safely guess that they did not invest that much in the infastructure part. I know Chicago Stadium did add a modern A/C system in the 70's and from reading an insider type article on Ballparks.com, they did do a nice job of cleaning up the Stadium.

[jimmyjimjimz]

There was nothing wrong with Boston Garden that a little renovation would have fixed any problems including electrical. i saw 9 Hockey games at the old Garden and i will never go to the new arena.i am sure that Fenway Park will not be going anywhere anytime soon.

wasn't there something wrong with the basketball court at one point @ The Boston Garden?

and why was it called The Boston Garden? They had to steal Madison Square Garden's name cause they couldn't come up with anything original? More fuel to add to the NY vs Boston rivalry fire.

[SJLT252]

wasn't there something wrong with the basketball court at one point @ The Boston Garden?

and why was it called The Boston Garden? They had to steal Madison Square Garden's name cause they couldn't come up with anything original? More fuel to add to the NY vs Boston rivalry fire.

The Boston Garden was one of Tex Rickard's six gardens that he was supposed to build right after MSG III was constructed. As a matter of fact the arena was originaly called Boston Madison Square Garden, however the name was shortend to Boston Garden.

[jimmyjimjimz]

The Boston Garden was one of Tex Rickard's six gardens that he was supposed to build right after MSG III was constructed. As a matter of fact the arena was originaly called Boston Madison Square Garden, however the name was shortend to Boston Garden.

wow, they really couldn't come up with a more original name.

[AMDG]

There was nothing wrong with Boston Garden that a little renovation would have fixed any problems including electrical. i saw 9 Hockey games at the old Garden and i will never go to the new arena.i am sure that Fenway Park will not be going anywhere anytime soon.

Problems with the Boston Garden:

1. Capacity – Less than 15,000 for hockey. This could not be fixed
2. Cramped Concourses. Could not be fixed
3. Small rink (185’ by 83 ft’). Could not be fixed
4. Vermin
5. No Air conditioning

The Garden was a dump.

[six4three]

Forget about what you think of Wrigley and fenway, the OWNERS of the team no matter who they are or will be (The Cubs are up for sale) would never even think anymore of destroying those parks


You're flat-out wrong with this premise - the Cubs have fought tooth and nail every historical protection given to Wrigley because they want to keep their options open, and the Red Sox actuallytried to replace Fenway (http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/american/bosbpk.htm) just ten years ago.

There might not be a lot of interest to replace their parks from the clubs at the moment, but there has been in the past and likely will in the future. It's not like these clubs are somehow seeing themselves as protectors of the architectural heritage - as soon as the parks themselves cease to be a net financial gain, they're gone.

[Paul W]

the sox management had the good sense not to try to create the mess (political & economic) that eminent domain seizure of the land they wanted would have caused. it was too expensive to handle by themselves, so they are working within the the space that they have - not forcing a new place. no taxpayer subsidized ballpark.

[Sean O]

Problems with the Boston Garden:

1. Capacity – Less than 15,000 for hockey. This could not be fixed
2. Cramped Concourses. Could not be fixed
3. Small rink (185’ by 83 ft’). Could not be fixed
4. Vermin
5. No Air conditioning

The Garden was a dump.

The Garden was a dump, but any place would be better than the Fleet Center to see a game. When you're in the upper deck you can't see anything going on because of the total lack of cantilevers, the color scheme is bizarrely ill-fitting (green would've made much more sense than predominantly yellow), the entrance design is a massive bottleneck, and it's just about the most boring sports venue you can find.

There's nothing Boston about the Fleet. The best thing about that building is the newly expanded North Station circa 2006.

[efin98]

The Garden was a dump, but any place would be better than the Fleet Center to see a game. When you're in the upper deck you can't see anything going on because of the total lack of cantilevers

I have had the exact opposite- seen every bit of action on all parts of the ice and court from the worst back row corner seats.

the color scheme is bizarrely ill-fitting (green would've made much more sense than predominantly yellow),

There's a shock- the owners(Deleware North) put the primary colors as Black and Gold...the same people who also own the Bruins. Also happened to be the same color as the old garden's decks.

the entrance design is a massive bottleneck, and it's just about the most boring sports venue you can find.

Entrance is incomplete, the Jacobs family never got around to building on top of the old garden site to move the transit waiting room out from under the garden to free up that space to allow better access into and out of the building for Bruins/Celtics fans.

There's nothing Boston about the Fleet. The best thing about that building is the newly expanded North Station circa 2006.

That is, if you ignore the New England Sports Museum that has been inside the arena for over a decade. There isn't anything more Boston they could add than the museum dedicated to Boston sports history.

[Sean O]

I have had the exact opposite- seen every bit of action on all parts of the ice and court from the worst back row corner seats.


Oh you can see the action, but it's a mile and a half away. I'm happy to get upper deck Celtics tickets, but I go in with the realization that there is zero intimacy and the seats will effectively suck.


There's a shock- the owners(Deleware North) put the primary colors as Black and Gold...the same people who also own the Bruins. Also happened to be the same color as the old garden's decks.


I understand it, just think it looks terrible. Especially since the Bruins are (until a few weeks ago) totally a second-class team in the city, while the Celtics are the most successful team in the league.


Entrance is incomplete, the Jacobs family never got around to building on top of the old garden site to move the transit waiting room out from under the garden to free up that space to allow better access into and out of the building for Bruins/Celtics fans.


That's fine, but one of the Celts games this season we were completely stuck by the escalators because they had to close off the entrance due to traffic. It's a nightmare.


That is, if you ignore the New England Sports Museum that has been inside the arena for over a decade. There isn't anything more Boston they could add than the museum dedicated to Boston sports history.

Well, they could have made it architecturally valid and/or unique. It's nearly impossible to distinguish it from the U Center or Wachovia or anything other than MSG. It's a boring venue.

If a company (HOK, namely) could actually build something worthwhile and unique to replace Fenway I'd find it acceptable, but it'd either be a generic retro clone or an exact copy of the original. Why would I want my tax dollars going to a park with increased ticket prices and seats farther away just to experience a bloated facsimile of what we already had?

[tugger]

There was nothing wrong with Boston Garden that a little renovation would have fixed any problems including electrical. i saw 9 Hockey games at the old Garden and i will never go to the new arena.

I always marvel at the way Donald can access the internet with his telegraph transmitter/receiver.

[efin98]

Oh you can see the action, but it's a mile and a half away. I'm happy to get upper deck Celtics tickets, but I go in with the realization that there is zero intimacy and the seats will effectively suck.

I understand it, just think it looks terrible. Especially since the Bruins are (until a few weeks ago) totally a second-class team in the city, while the Celtics are the most successful team in the league.

That's fine, but one of the Celts games this season we were completely stuck by the escalators because they had to close off the entrance due to traffic. It's a nightmare.

The Celtics looked at possibly building their own arena a couple of years ago during a lease dispute, green would have been primary in that arena. But since the Jacobs and Deleware North built the new Garden they painted it to match their team's primary colors.

Don't get me wrong, I hate the alternating black/gold seats at ice level, but the rest you hardly notice especially with the flashing lights, lasers, and action on the floor during Celtics games.

Feelings will change over time. If/when the Bruins get on a hot streak and win a couple of Stanley Cups(hoping it starts this year!) and the Celtics win another couple the place will feel like home.

Well, they could have made it architecturally valid and/or unique. It's nearly impossible to distinguish it from the U Center or Wachovia or anything other than MSG. It's a boring venue.

Exterior is different than the other ones especially with what was built up around it after it had been open for a few years.
Interior it does look similar to other venues but the exposed rafters and angular roof distinguish it. The club seats in the back of the ice level and expensive suites overhead(worst seats in the house!) it's also distinguished from the others.

If a company (HOK, namely) could actually build something worthwhile and unique to replace Fenway I'd find it acceptable, but it'd either be a generic retro clone or an exact copy of the original. Why would I want my tax dollars going to a park with increased ticket prices and seats farther away just to experience a bloated facsimile of what we already had?

Getting it back to baseball from this two day tangent before it's closed ;)

They did have a unique look to the proposed model compared with the ballparks that were built afterwards and would have tweaked it to fit the players' wishes- Pedro Martinez was actually pissed at the model as were a few others. They would have lowered the left field wall, moved the right field foul pole back but probably kept the triangle and bullpens jutting into the field. And unlike the other parks built before and after exteriors would have been homage to the old place not a phony "just because we can" brick facade.

I think Frank McCourt would have built the park had he been awarded the franchise instead of the lower bidding Henry/Werner group. He owns land on the waterfront already and being an actual local could have had it built with less of a fuss as long as he kept the land as a park for Fenway area residents and local high school, college, and amateur teams.

By the way, his waterfront property would have needed next to nothing in public funding for infrastructure due to the already planned and constructing Silver Line bus subway and the fact that it's a stone's throw away from South Station and the highway and Summer and Congress Streets were in the process of getting funds for their own rebuilding which would have been done regardless of the project.

[80SHOCK]

The Celtics looked at possibly building their own arena a couple of years ago during a lease dispute, green would have been primary in that arena. But since the Jacobs and Deleware North built the new Garden they painted it to match their team's primary colors.

Don't get me wrong, I hate the alternating black/gold seats at ice level, but the rest you hardly notice especially with the flashing lights, lasers, and action on the floor during Celtics games.

Feelings will change over time. If/when the Bruins get on a hot streak and win a couple of Stanley Cups(hoping it starts this year!) and the Celtics win another couple the place will feel like home.



Exterior is different than the other ones especially with what was built up around it after it had been open for a few years.
Interior it does look similar to other venues but the exposed rafters and angular roof distinguish it. The club seats in the back of the ice level and expensive suites overhead(worst seats in the house!) it's also distinguished from the others.



Getting it back to baseball from this two day tangent before it's closed ;)

They did have a unique look to the proposed model compared with the ballparks that were built afterwards and would have tweaked it to fit the players' wishes- Pedro Martinez was actually pissed at the model as were a few others. They would have lowered the left field wall, moved the right field foul pole back but probably kept the triangle and bullpens jutting into the field. And unlike the other parks built before and after exteriors would have been homage to the old place not a phony "just because we can" brick facade.

I think Frank McCourt would have built the park had he been awarded the franchise instead of the lower bidding Henry/Werner group. He owns land on the waterfront already and being an actual local could have had it built with less of a fuss as long as he kept the land as a park for Fenway area residents and local high school, college, and amateur teams.

By the way, his waterfront property would have needed next to nothing in public funding for infrastructure due to the already planned and constructing Silver Line bus subway and the fact that it's a stone's throw away from South Station and the highway and Summer and Congress Streets were in the process of getting funds for their own rebuilding which would have been done regardless of the project.

You got any old renderings of the proposed new Fenway?

[Sean O]

Don't get me wrong, I hate the alternating black/gold seats at ice level, but the rest you hardly notice especially with the flashing lights, lasers, and action on the floor during Celtics games.


Another reason it doesn't feel like home to me (apart from the gigantic size of the place, of course). I can understand the frivolity when the Celts were bottom feeders, but now that we're back to being the capital-c Celtics again, I wish we'd be a little bit more abstemious with the crap.


Feelings will change over time. If/when the Bruins get on a hot streak and win a couple of Stanley Cups(hoping it starts this year!) and the Celtics win another couple the place will feel like home.


I don't know man, I've been waiting an awfully long time. As I've mentioned here before, I absolutely love that the Blazers are back, but even though I've been there so often this year I don't feel anything for the venue. And that's 10 rows from the turf / 1 row down from the club level, not just in the nosebleeds. There's just nothing for me in the new place; it's too generic for a city with such fantastic architecture.


Exterior is different than the other ones especially with what was built up around it after it had been open for a few years.

The exterior has to be the worst in all of North American sports. The side facing the tunnel is basically acceptable, but the 150' tall faceless concrete:

http://cdn-2-service.phanfare.com/images/5406850_2414469_38729389_WebSmall_3/Image-5406850-38729389-2-WebSmall_0_7eb9f8a6d429e3cfe3c26e6b709bebe0_1

http://cdn-2-service.phanfare.com/images/5406850_2414469_38729380_WebSmall_3/Image-5406850-38729380-2-WebSmall_0_606e9c3c245a13e524b4044c3e3b76d2_1

I mean, it's a joke. Easily as overpowering and offensive as the oft-maligned Boston City Hall.


Getting it back to baseball from this two day tangent before it's closed ;)


Yeah, had to do something to forestall the inevitable, plus I think it's a worthy parallel considering my displeasure with the Fleet.


And unlike the other parks built before and after exteriors would have been homage to the old place not a phony "just because we can" brick facade.


We're almost exactly considering what they did with Yankee Stadium: copying the exterior of the original version with slightly tweaked modern dimensions. We are all aware of Fenway's worst design aspects, and as someone who has modeled Fenway enough to play with some options, the crazed RF corner and triangle are what hurt the bad seats that exist at Fenway. New or old, you need to total reprofiling of everything from canvas alley over to the monster to fix the problem.


By the way, his waterfront property would have needed next to nothing in public funding for infrastructure due to the already planned and constructing Silver Line bus subway and the fact that it's a stone's throw away from South Station and the highway and Summer and Congress Streets were in the process of getting funds for their own rebuilding which would have been done regardless of the project.

Oh man, have you been on the silver line recently? I mean, it's a pleasant enough ride (if utterly bizarre), but I've seen the buses slammed with basic airport traffic on a Saturday afternoon. I can't imagine what they would have to do for it to handle an extra 42k people.

Also, per something you said in an earlier post about the left field seats obscuring much of the action by the monster: agreed, but that would only be maintained in a normal HOK park.

Fenway:
http://seatdata.com/images/mlb_red_sox/800x600/gs33.jpg

Texas:
http://seatdata.com/images/mlb_rangers/800x600/42.jpg

Washington:
http://seatdata.com/images/mlb_nationals/800x600/137.jpg

C'est la vie.

[efin98]

We're almost exactly considering what they did with Yankee Stadium: copying the exterior of the original version with slightly tweaked modern dimensions. We are all aware of Fenway's worst design aspects, and as someone who has modeled Fenway enough to play with some options, the crazed RF corner and triangle are what hurt the bad seats that exist at Fenway. New or old, you need to total reprofiling of everything from canvas alley over to the monster to fix the problem.

I don't mind a total retooling of a new ballpark as long as they keep a manual scoreboard and put the numbers in right field and add the pennants behind home plate- the rest is their choice and as long as it's within reason.

[QUOTE]Oh man, have you been on the silver line recently? I mean, it's a pleasant enough ride (if utterly bizarre), but I've seen the buses slammed with basic airport traffic on a Saturday afternoon. I can't imagine what they would have to do for it to handle an extra 42k people.

Don't forget it's still only halfway done, stops at South STation awaiting the tunnel to connect with the Washington Street portion and hopefully the Back Bay Hotels.

They have huge handled crowds for the concerts at Bank of America Pavillion and for the cruise ships, they could easily handle the baseball ballpark crowds. Plus with South Station and the whole of downtown within walking distance a good chunk will just walk. That also doesn't take into account those who will use the water shuttle(s) from the Moakley Court House or drive into the lots that are around there.

It could be done, the area can handle it.

Also, per something you said in an earlier post about the left field seats obscuring much of the action by the monster: agreed, but that would only be maintained in a normal HOK park.

Fenway:

Texas:

Washington:

C'est la vie.

Texas wasn't an HOK park.

What I meant was the ones directly on concrete wall on the left field line and those in that corner...you can't see any plays below you or along the line unless you are almost leaning over, and it gets worse as you move in a few seats. That's also not counting those more facing first base than home plate...but those extreme corner seats at all ballparks are there regardless of age.

It's one of the problems with sitting in a corner, you lose some vision at the expense of comfort and a vast majority of the action.