Fenway

[skeletor]

I've heard from other 'experts' that Fenway park, ain't in the best
shape..suffering from all sorts of wear and tear..moisture damage
and more..And yeah, John Henry the Sox owner, is doing research
on whether or not it can be retro fitted...But I bet eventually,
down the line..it too..will suffer the same fate of Tiger stadium,
and a new RED SOX park will be built...I hope Fenway lives on
but progress at times, is a bitter pill to swallow..

[efin98]

Despite the rosey picture the Red Sox try to paint it is a losing battle. The Stadium won't last past 2015 or 2020. There is alot of water damage, alot of problems with wear and tear through out the park. It needed a new drainage system on the field and through, newer concourses, new bathrooms. It's being slowly upgraded to modern standards year by year but it lags far behind other stadiums. It can't handle heavy construction so each year only a few minor additions can be made to the stadium. I don't know how the team will ever manage to fit in the planned "upper deck" in the area in and around the .406 club(glassed in area above the grand stand), but that should enable the team to finally meet the 40,000 seat mark and put it on parr with the rest of the league.

Also the research into upgrades to Fenway Park preceeds the current ownership group, it was actually started back when the plans for a new ballpark were first announced.

Also if not for the lack of land in the surrounding cities of Everett, Revere, and Somerville(where the stadium would have gone, with the front being just within Boston). Also if Frank McCourt group had not ended up coming in second in the race to buy the Red Sox the team would be moving into a new facility sometime in the next two years.

It's only amount of time though until the Red Sox HAVE TO move to a new facility. Fenway park simply can't handle the year in and year out wear and tear of 40,000 fans for 81 games a year. There WILL be a new stadium at some point, where it will be is anyone's guess though.

[abolishthedh]

Hopefully, it won't take falling pieces of concrete to get things going, but it will be a sad day. At least the park saw a 2nd Series victory!

lets face it...can any ballpark opened in 1912 survive forever???

some day...sadly...Fenway and Wrigley will HAVE to go!!!

[KingNothing13]

Originally Posted by abolishthedh

At least the park saw a 2nd Series victory!

umm.....technically it is the 4th....

1912, 1914 the Braves played their Series games in Fenway, (1915-1916 Sox played in Braves Field for the Series), 1918 and 2004.

[efin98]

Originally Posted by abolishthedh

Hopefully, it won't take falling pieces of concrete to get things going, but it will be a sad day. At least the park saw a 2nd Series victory!

Actually, that would have happened a few years ago if not for the rebuilding of the concourses. Some of the concrete had worn away enough to cause concern.

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

Originally Posted by skeletor

I've heard from other 'experts' that Fenway park, ain't in the best
shape..suffering from all sorts of wear and tear..moisture damage
and more..And yeah, John Henry the Sox owner, is doing research
on whether or not it can be retro fitted...But I bet eventually,
down the line..it too..will suffer the same fate of Tiger stadium,
and a new RED SOX park will be built...I hope Fenway lives on
but progress at times, is a bitter pill to swallow..

Are there any reports from engineers saying that there are problems with fenway park. i recall the city of detroit trying to say that tiger stadium was falling down so members of the tiger stadium fan club who are engineers checked the ballpark out and said that there was nothing wrong with tiger stadium.the city of detroit lied about tiger stadium. i have been to fenway park and it looked great to me. one stadium that did have problems was old comiskey park and that was because of the owners thru the years not maintaining comiskey park. but comiskey could have lasted with renovations. i loved going to old comiskey park and miss it. i have not seen a game at the new park and wont be going to it either. Donald

[efin98]

Originally Posted by POLO GROUNDS 1957

Are there any reports from engineers saying that there are problems with fenway park.

There are reports, but they are none of the public's business since the stadium is private property. There were engineers and architects examining the stadium each of the past three years before any construction started that included city engineers and private engineers hired by the team. However you don't need to be an engineer to know that there are problems with the stadium just by looking at it. Rust on all metal surfaces, concrete crumbling in the concourses and in the stands, rebar starting to show through supports- all that isn't supposed to be showing. I don't care how old a stadium is, none of that is supposed to be showing unless there is a problem with the stadium.

[westsidegrounds]

Originally Posted by efin98

There are reports, but they are none of the public's business since the stadium is private property. <...>

Considering said private property hosted 2,320,422 members of the public last season, it might almost seem that the public has a right to know how safe said private property is.

Hope it doesn't make me a communist to think that!

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

Originally Posted by westsidegrounds

Considering said private property hosted 2,320,422 members of the public last season, it might almost seem that the public has a right to know how safe said private property is.

Hope it doesn't make me a communist to think that!

Good point westsidegrounds i dont know how he can think that its no ones business about fenway. Donald

[efin98]

Originally Posted by westsidegrounds

Considering said private property hosted 2,320,422 members of the public last season, it might almost seem that the public has a right to know how safe said private property is.

Hope it doesn't make me a communist to think that!

Actually, the public has a right to know via another means: building permits and public hearings. Both of which in the city of Boston and Commonwealth of Massachusetts are open to the public for review.

[efin98]

Originally Posted by POLO GROUNDS 1957

Good point westsidegrounds i dont know how he can think that its no ones business about fenway. Donald

You want to make this personal, fine.

It is no one's business what is being done to Fenway Park when it comes to plans for demolition and upgrades. It's private property, something here in New England take very seriously. Jerks like you who cry foul any time someone does something that they don't like or whines when something is changed that doesn't meet your expectations have no bearing on what goes on and never have. It's a courtesy to directly inform the public about changes, not a right.

[ElHalo]

Here's the thing, though...

The Roman Collusseum (that's one of the few words I know of with NO standard spelling... weird) was in heavy, heavy use for 500 years... the only problem it had in its first century was that the arena floor was no longer watertight, so they couldn't stage the naval battles in the arena that they had before.

If, 2000 years ago, they could build a stadium that could last for half a millenium... why can't we build stadiums today that will last a century?

[efin98]

Originally Posted by ElHalo

Here's the thing, though...

The Roman Collusseum (that's one of the few words I know of with NO standard spelling... weird) was in heavy, heavy use for 500 years... the only problem it had in its first century was that the arena floor was no longer watertight, so they couldn't stage the naval battles in the arena that they had before.

If, 2000 years ago, they could build a stadium that could last for half a millenium... why can't we build stadiums today that will last a century?

You are comparing two different stadiums designed in completely different styles using completely different materials...no comparison other than longevity and even that is misleading.

Simply won't be economically viable any more. You can dress it up all you want but it won't help the stadium. It is going to need a thorough overhaul just to keep it up to near modern(10 years ago) standards. You guys bash Yankee Stadium for it's renovations, yet it will take a renovation even more challenging and controversial to keep Fenway open. It's borderline hypocritical.

It'll last 100 years, only has 7 more to reach the century mark. Odds are it will last up to 110 years but I don't believe it will hold out for much longer.

[ElHalo]

Originally Posted by efin98

You are comparing two different stadiums designed in completely different styles using completely different materials...no comparison other than longevity and even that is misleading.

Well, sure, completely different styles and materials... but if two thousand years ago they could build a stadium with working plumbing and concessions that could last for 500 years as a stadium (and much, much longer as a monument), it just kind of bothers me that we can't do the same in our modern world.

Simply won't be economically viable any more. You can dress it up all you want but it won't help the stadium. It is going to need a thorough overhaul just to keep it up to near modern(10 years ago) standards. You guys bash Yankee Stadium for it's renovations, yet it will take a renovation even more challenging and controversial to keep Fenway open. It's borderline hypocritical.

Hypocritical? What on Earth are you talking about? I quite literally have no idea where you're going with that. People "bash" the 70's Yankee Stadium renovations for two reasons... they got rid of the support beams in an effort to create better sight lines (but just ended up making the place lose character), and they got rid of the facade. What on Earth do those two things have to do with any potential renovation of Fenway?

And, just as an aside... chill. Nobody was jumping down your throat about anything before. I don't see one iota of a hostile remark that would lead you to get all defensive and "make things personal." Nobody said anything that would require you to call them "jerks."

[efin98]

Originally Posted by ElHalo

Hypocritical? What on Earth are you talking about? I quite literally have no idea where you're going with that. People "bash" the 70's Yankee Stadium renovations for two reasons... they got rid of the support beams in an effort to create better sight lines (but just ended up making the place lose character), and they got rid of the facade. What on Earth do those two things have to do with any potential renovation of Fenway?

That's exactly what whould have to happen to bring the stadium up to modern standards. They would have to tear apart most of the grand stands, the roof level just to shore up the two levels of seating which in turn remove the familar right field roof, grand stand sight lines, and most of the odd orientation of the park on the 1st Base side.

And, just as an aside... chill. Nobody was jumping down your throat about anything before. I don't see one iota of a hostile remark that would lead you to get all defensive and "make things personal." Nobody said anything that would require you to call them "jerks."

Reread the last statement made by "Pologrounds 1957". That was a personal remark meant to be an insult.

[ElHalo]

Originally Posted by efin98

Reread the last statement made by "Pologrounds 1957". That was a personal remark meant to be an insult.

I read that, multiple times. I don't see how it's an insult at all. He was just saying that he didn't understand your point of view (i.e., that it's private property and therefore not a matter of concern for the public). I, too, disagree with your point of view on that. It's in no way insulting to disagree with someone. I mean, look at the words.

"I don't know how he can think that it's no one's business about Fenway."

That's not insulting in the slightest. He's just saying that he doesn't understand why you hold that opinion. I don't understand it either, to be quite frank. The mere fact that something is owned privately doesn't mean that the owner can do with it whatever they want... if someone bought the Empire State Building, and decided to level it to build a Wal-Mart, there would, rightly, be a public outcry, because it's a historic landmark. Just like you can't buy a house on the waterfront and build a hundred foot high fence around it (because you would be destroying the sight lines of your neighbors), you can't just buy a historic landmark and tear it down for no good reason... the rights of ownership are not, and should not be, absolute.

[efin98]

Originally Posted by ElHalo

The mere fact that something is owned privately doesn't mean that the owner can do with it whatever they want... if someone bought the Empire State Building, and decided to level it to build a Wal-Mart, there would, rightly, be a public outcry, because it's a historic landmark.

It's also public property(the State in "Empire State Building", being that it's owned by New York State...) so that's a bad point. Of course the public will be outraged, it's a public piece of land going to be used for private gains. That is different from a private piece of land being used for a private venture. The owners have every right to do whatever they want with it regardless of what the public demands. Just as you have have every right to tear down your house and rebuild it in a manner you see fit so long as it doesn't interfere with your neighbors' rights.

Just like you can't buy a house on the waterfront and build a hundred foot high fence around it (because you would be destroying the sight lines of your neighbors),

You can't infringe on others peoples rights, but others can't infringe on your rights. Conversely, they can't infringe on your rights to improve your home and business. If that means your building must be torn down, so be it. Just cause can be shown and just cause wins out in the courts- despite outcries.

you can't just buy a historic landmark and tear it down for no good reason...

Actually, you can. You have to show cause, and with Fenway(which isn't a historic landmark, I just checked) they can if it's in the public interest to do so. Public safety is highly regarded in Boston, it will always outweigh public sentiment. And with Fenway, public safety is a concern as was pointed out earlier in this thread.

the rights of ownership are not, and should not be, absolute.

They are abosolute when it's in the public's interest and not the interest of a select few. This isn't communism, private property and private ownership is not to be infringed upon by the public sector.

[ElHalo]

Originally Posted by efin98

You can't infringe on others peoples rights, but others can't infringe on your rights. Conversely, they can't infringe on your rights to improve your home and business. If that means your building must be torn down, so be it. Just cause can be shown and just cause wins out in the courts- despite outcries.

Except that they really can. In order to put an addition on your house, you need to get town approval. If you own a house from the 1700's, and wish to tear it down to build a modern residence, the public has every right to lobby to have it designated a historic landmark so that you can't do that. You can't just do whatever you want because you own something.

Actually, you can. You have to show cause, and with Fenway(which isn't a historic landmark, I just checked) they can if it's in the public interest to do so. Public safety is highly regarded in Boston, it will always outweigh public sentiment. And with Fenway, public safety is a concern as was pointed out earlier in this thread.

Hence the part of my statement that said "for no good reason." If the structure is a safety hazard, that would constitute a "good reason."

They are abosolute when it's in the public's interest and not the interest of a select few. This isn't communism, private property and private ownership is not to be infringed upon by the public sector.

Private ownership is most assuredly infringed upon by the public sector, every single day. Part of the social contract you live under as a member of society is that you have to submit yourself to certain laws and rules. Some of these rules say that you can't attach swords to front of your car, you can't build a porno shop in a residential neighborhood, you can't raze your house and build a new one without town approval, you can't shoot trespassers, and, of course... you can't destroy historical landmarks without a good reason. I obviously place much less stock in the concept of private property than you do; from where I sit, an individual can only gain ownership of private property through benefits ceded to him by way of the society. As such, society should have some kind of claim on (though not, of course, total control over) said property.

Now, as you say, Fenway's not a historical landmark, so there's no absolute duty to preserve it. However, if Fenway were about to be razed, it wouldn't surprise me at all if there was enough of a popular groundswell of support to have it designated as such. Because of this, and because of the fact that just doing things by fiat would allienate enough people to potentially cause a loss in revenue for the team, it would more than make sense for the owners of the stadium to involve the public every step of the way in their efforts to renovate or, failing that, replace the stadium. It's just good business sense.

[efin98]

Originally Posted by ElHalo

Except that they really can. In order to put an addition on your house, you need to get town approval. If you own a house from the 1700's, and wish to tear it down to build a modern residence, the public has every right to lobby to have it designated a historic landmark so that you can't do that. You can't just do whatever you want because you own something.

And it's within your rights to show just cause in tearing it down, as is often the case when your house is the only one in it's era to even still exist in the area- which for Fenway it is.

There is a way around that, just saving the facade of the structure while gutting the interior will be enough to get around "landmark" status- as was done in Lambeau Field and Soldier Field when those stadiums were remodelled a few years ago.

Hence the part of my statement that said "for no good reason." If the structure is a safety hazard, that would constitute a "good reason."

Which for Fenway, can be easily demonstrated by deteriorating concrete and rusting supports that eventually will prove too costly to maintain.

Private ownership is most assuredly infringed upon by the public sector, every single day. Part of the social contract you live under as a member of society is that you have to submit yourself to certain laws and rules. Some of these rules say that you can't attach swords to front of your car, you can't build a porno shop in a residential neighborhood, you can't raze your house and build a new one without town approval, you can't shoot trespassers, and, of course... you can't destroy historical landmarks without a good reason.

For the good of the public when it is generally agreed upon is one thing, for the "good of the public" when it's the opinion of a select minority inflicting their views on the majority is another.

I obviously place much less stock in the concept of private property than you do; from where I sit, an individual can only gain ownership of private property through benefits ceded to him by way of the society. As such, society should have some kind of claim on (though not, of course, total control over) said property.

That same way of thinking has been used to keep those "unwanted by society" from obtaining property.

Now, as you say, Fenway's not a historical landmark, so there's no absolute duty to preserve it. However, if Fenway were about to be razed, it wouldn't surprise me at all if there was enough of a popular groundswell of support to have it designated as such. Because of this, and because of the fact that just doing things by fiat would allienate enough people to potentially cause a loss in revenue for the team, it would more than make sense for the owners of the stadium to involve the public every step of the way in their efforts to renovate or, failing that, replace the stadium. It's just good business sense.

The team has always intended to do so from the start and they have never tried to hide that, and by rule of law in the city and commonwealth the public is going to be involved right from the start be it by hearings, permits, legislation, or funding issues.

[westsidegrounds]

Originally Posted by ElHalo

two thousand years ago they could build a stadium with working plumbing and concessions that could last for 500 years as a stadium (and much, much longer as a monument

I always assumed the Colosseum was where Fenway got those urinals from ...

[efin98]

Originally Posted by westsidegrounds

I always assumed the Colosseum was where Fenway got those urinals from ...

Mercifully those have been gone for at least 11 years, now in the 20th century when it comes to bathrooms.

[ElHalo]

Originally Posted by efin98

That same way of thinking has been used to keep those "unwanted by society" from obtaining property.

There's obviously a difference of opinion here as to whether or not expansion of private property rights is an inherently good or inherently bad idea.

[efin98]

Originally Posted by ElHalo

There's obviously a difference of opinion here as to whether or not expansion of private property rights is an inherently good or inherently bad idea.

Two schools of thought on it, we are both right and we are both wrong. Let's leave it at that.

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

Originally Posted by efin98

Despite the rosey picture the Red Sox try to paint it is a losing battle. The Stadium won't last past 2015 or 2020. There is alot of water damage, alot of problems with wear and tear through out the park. It needed a new drainage system on the field and through, newer concourses, new bathrooms. It's being slowly upgraded to modern standards year by year but it lags far behind other stadiums. It can't handle heavy construction so each year only a few minor additions can be made to the stadium. I don't know how the team will ever manage to fit in the planned "upper deck" in the area in and around the .406 club(glassed in area above the grand stand), but that should enable the team to finally meet the 40,000 seat mark and put it on parr with the rest of the league.

Also the research into upgrades to Fenway Park preceeds the current ownership group, it was actually started back when the plans for a new ballpark were first announced.

Also if not for the lack of land in the surrounding cities of Everett, Revere, and Somerville(where the stadium would have gone, with the front being just within Boston). Also if Frank McCourt group had not ended up coming in second in the race to buy the Red Sox the team would be moving into a new facility sometime in the next two years.

It's only amount of time though until the Red Sox HAVE TO move to a new facility. Fenway park simply can't handle the year in and year out wear and tear of 40,000 fans for 81 games a year. There WILL be a new stadium at some point, where it will be is anyone's guess though.

Again there is nothing wrong with fenway park that cannot be renovated. tiger stadium here in detroit is still standing and still is in good shape considering it has not been used for a couple years. both of these ballparks also opened on the same day in 1912.fenway will be around for along time.and i have been to fenway park a couple years ago. it looked great. Donald