RPMCanes
On the Roster
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2007
- Messages
- 99
- Reaction score
- 0
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.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 think they'd be able to fill 50-55,000 pretty consistently.
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?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?
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.
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.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.
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?