Do you think the Sawx need a new ballpark?

[RPMCanes]

I know that is bordering on blasphemy, but I think they need one. Didn't they have plans for a new one while preserving Fenway a few years ago?

 

[sdaniels7114]

I don't think they need one now, with all the new seating its not even the smallest with respect to capacity anymore and they have plenty of revenue to field a consistently good team. Ted Williams put some of those dents in the Green Monster and Cy Young himself stood on that very same mound. You shouldn't just dump that kind of connection to the past just for the next best thing that will be junk in a couple of decades anyway. Look at what the Yankees are doing. Sure they'll have a big new place in just over a season; but the newness will go away and whatever revenue bump they get will dry up while the house that Ruth built will still be gone. Ideally they'd do a total rebuild at Fenway ala Soldier Field in Chicago.

 

[RPMCanes]

The Soldier Field model would work fine with me. They need 55,000 or so seats, to be able to compete with the Stanks, and because I'm getting tired of being shut out whenever I go home 'cuz there ain't any tickets left!

 

[pheenix11]

Of course they do, the place is an uncomfortable dump.

The only reason they don't have a new ballpark is that the sheisters who bought the team had to max out their credit cards just to do that so they can't afford a new ballpark. They will tell you how they love the history and all this other BS, but the truth is they don't have the scratch.

Fenway was built for 5'2 90 lb midgets from 1912 to sit in. They also apparently had swivel necks and x ray vision which would explain the seats in right field facing center field and the obstruction views.

 

[Omega Supreme]

I agree with the sentiment about doing a rebuild like what they did with Soldier Field. Fenway is the oldest ballpark in the majors, as well as easily the most recognizable. The seating does suck, but there are ways around fixing that without having to wipe the park off the planet.

 

[scout]

You have got to be kidding me mimicking Soldiers Field. After I saw that stadium for the first time, I mentioned to someone, that would be like putting a glass structure on top of Fenway Park. In the past, one would look to Lake Michigan and see Roman type structures with the columns of Soldiers' Field and Shipp Museum, and it was something to behold. Now, you eyes are pulled to this structure resembling a coliseum which has 2001 space odyssey flying saucer perched on top. Its a freakin' joke and most of the Chicago natives are not happy about it.

 

[AStack75]

They'd be stupid if they built a new one.

Fenway is obviously totally outdated, but without even taking into account the historic aspects of the ballpark, the supply/demand is reason alone for them not to expand.

 

[scout]

They do not need a new stadium. There is no problem to finance and build one if that was a choice. The surrounding neighborhood is good, as opposed to Yankee Stadium, tho, they are wrong to move. Fenway can be re-built from the field outwards one section at a time. When I was in 7th grade (a long long long time ago), another student stated that there was no more room for seats. I disagreed and said they could put seats on the monster. If you look at Fenway from above, there's plenty of areas to add seats and improve sight lines at the same time. The biggest problem is the restrooms. Deal with it! Truman didn't tear down the White House when he had it gutted and that structure turned out ok. Fenway should remain, just continue to renovate.

 

[patsfanofNC12]

It is history, if we built a new one we would become to much like the skanks, because we would be not caring about anything but money.

 

[Foley]

If they built a new park it would be for the fans, not for money. A new park would allow for cheaper seats and would make buying tickets not such a painful and time consuming process. That would mean that more people would be able to attend more games, which should be more important than nostalgia.

Would you rather attend more games, or know that Fenway Park is old and has character?

 

[AStack75]

If they built a new park it would be for the fans, not for money. A new park would allow for cheaper seats and would make buying tickets not such a painful and time consuming process. That would mean that more people would be able to attend more games, which should be more important than nostalgia.

Would you rather attend more games, or know that Fenway Park is old and has character?

I'm all for a new ballpark. It ain't gonna happen though. They're making too much money with the existing ballpark. Team owners all care about making money first. It is always a business.

If they build a new ballpark with an increased capacity, then tickets won't be so scarce and people would also be less inclined to buy tickets in advance knowing that there will be tickets available on gameday.

 

[RPMCanes]

I think they'd be able to fill 50-55,000 pretty consistently.

 

[scout]

I think they'd be able to fill 50-55,000 pretty consistently.

They could get to 50,000 at Fenway, so why build a new park.

 

[Foley]

They could get to 50,000 at Fenway, so why build a new park.

Even if they could do that (which they couldn't), what good is it? They'd eventually reach a point where the changes are so enormous that they no longer classify as renovations but rather a complete overhaul. Increasing the capacity by 30% would barely make it recognizable. If the character and history of Fenway is so important then why change it by doing massive amounts of alterations?

 

[scout]

Even if they could do that (which they couldn't), what good is it? They'd eventually reach a point where the changes are so enormous that they no longer classify as renovations but rather a complete overhaul. Increasing the capacity by 30% would barely make it recognizable. If the character and history of Fenway is so important then why change it by doing massive amounts of alterations?

Adding 10,000 is not improbable, nor would it change the classic look. It might be more profitable to start from scratch, but then you do not have the original. What have all the stadiums done that have been built in the last ten years? They have tried to mimic all the old ball parks. Are you telling me that, a great architect cannot design Fenway park which creates better seating and keeps the classic look. So maybe there is an upper deck that starts in center and continues to the press box (the upper deck along the first base line gets demolished as do all the seating). The other reason you tear down the existing seating is to renovate the plumbing and bathrooms. What you don't do is put a glass saucer Alcatraz on your roof and call it progress. Grand Central Station supports many more people then Fenway and is as functional as any new transportation center.

 

[IcyPatriot]

Gawd no the Sawx don't need a gnu ballpahk. Fenway Pahk is the best pahk in all of bazeball. Though pahking the cah is expensiv, the experience of going to duh game at Fenway is wort the price ... I mean it's only dollahs that could nevah be spent betta.

Seriously ... I think another level or 2 should be added. As it is the old wind blown homeruns have disappeared ... I'd rather give up our World Series title than to see the Sox leave Fenway.

 

[420jim]

I live in Las Vegas now, and I talk to a lot of people from around the country and a large portion of the sports fans (90%) say they would like to go to Boston and see Fenway Park. Fenway Park has evolved from a baseball stadium to a cramped uncomfortable experience to National Sports Icon.

Every sports fans around the baseball world, including international fans knows Fenway Park at a glance, also the Citco sign. I and a lot of people from all over consider Fenway to be a monument that should be perserved. In sports, it has the most history than any other park, stadium, or areana in the world (Skankee stadium is now closed for business). Taking down Fenway Park is akin to taking down the Statue of Liberty, well, when we're talking about sports complexes that is.

 

[scout]

I live in Las Vegas now, and I talk to a lot of people from around the country and a large portion of the sports fans (90%) say they would like to go to Boston and see Fenway Park. Fenway Park has evolved from a baseball stadium to a cramped uncomfortable experience to National Sports Icon.

Every sports fans around the baseball world, including international fans knows Fenway Park at a glance, also the Citco sign. I and a lot of people from all over consider Fenway to be a monument that should be perserved. In sports, it has the most history than any other park, stadium, or areana in the world (Skankee stadium is now closed for business). Taking down Fenway Park is akin to taking down the Statue of Liberty, well, when we're talking about sports complexes that is.

Your exactly right. Boston is known for its history. Walk Freedom Trail and see Paul Revere's house, North Church, Faneui Hall, Old Ironside, etc, etc. Whats wrong with having an active sports stadium built in 1912 to go along with those treasures. Kind of like seeing the Rome Colisseum, well almost.

 

[Foley]

Adding 10,000 is not improbable, nor would it change the classic look. It might be more profitable to start from scratch, but then you do not have the original. What have all the stadiums done that have been built in the last ten years? They have tried to mimic all the old ball parks. Are you telling me that, a great architect cannot design Fenway park which creates better seating and keeps the classic look. So maybe there is an upper deck that starts in center and continues to the press box (the upper deck along the first base line gets demolished as do all the seating). The other reason you tear down the existing seating is to renovate the plumbing and bathrooms. What you don't do is put a glass saucer Alcatraz on your roof and call it progress. Grand Central Station supports many more people then Fenway and is as functional as any new transportation center.

They've had a great architect in to do the renovations, and shes been able to add about 4,000 seats. Adding in an additional 10,000+ would be a close to impossible task.

I'm not an architect, but I'm fairly sure that the bleacher section would not be able to support an entire upper deck without being taken apart, reinforced, and then completely rebuilt. And that is something they would not be able to do in a single offseason. It took them the entire offseason (and into spring training) to change the .406 club and the roof deck seats, so doing something like this would take a whole lot longer.

 

[VJCPatriot]

If they built a new park it would be for the fans, not for money. A new park would allow for cheaper seats and would make buying tickets not such a painful and time consuming process. That would mean that more people would be able to attend more games, which should be more important than nostalgia.

Would you rather attend more games, or know that Fenway Park is old and has character?

From what I've read, Fenway can reach 39,900 seats without major modifications and it can reach up to 45,000 seats with an expansion of the upper decks. So I don't think they'll need a new ballpark anytime soon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenway_Park