Comments on: Fenway Park: Venerable or Just Old?

By: E

Fri, 06 May 2011 22:40:42 +0000

I’ve never been to Fenway, but I have been to Wrigley Field. The older, historic stadiums are a draw for me – I’d love to visit Fenway, but don’t feel a burning desire to visit Petco Park. I planned my trip to Chicago specifically to go to a game at Wrigley. While the stadium was literally falling down in some places (the ceiling actually fell on some woman shortly after I was there), I really enjoyed attending a game at it. I’m not much for stadium food and I try not to spend much time on concourses, so I’m all about the field and the experience of watching the game. And I have to say, I enjoyed Wrigley immensely. The stadium was packed and everyone was into the game despite the Cubs being out of any kind of playoff contention. Clearly, something other than the teams on the field brought all those people out to the game. I’d say that just as it was for me, the stadium was the draw. It was a beautiful day for baseball.

Also, I seem to be one of the few people who doesn’t think that Target Field is the greatest place ever. It’s a hell of a lot better than the Dome, but I guess in my mind it was over-hyped and maybe that led to my disappointment in the stadium.

By: frightwig

frightwig — Fri, 06 May 2011 19:59:38 +0000

I visited Fenway 10-11 years ago, before the renovations. It’s still my favorite ballpark where I’ve ever seen a game. I particularly like that it’s old, small, doesn’t have much of a 2nd deck, and only held about 33K fans when I visited. It has a certain intimacy and charged atmosphere that would be gone if they replaced it with a new mallpark that could hold 50-60K. There’s just something about seeing a game in a park that’s been there for generations, especially when you can tell by both the looks and *smells* of the place. Some of the newer parks are great, sure, but I really like a ballpark to feel lived-in, like a home, and even to be a bit of a dump.

Milwaukee County also used to be great in that way. That was a fantastic old dump. Tearing it down to build that monstrosity called Miller Park was a mistake, the act of a man who of course has no soul.

By: Jim Crikket

Jim Crikket — Fri, 06 May 2011 19:34:20 +0000

AW, not only would people still come, but probably MORE people! Fenway seats just about the same 40K that Target Field does (perhaps somewhat due to similar limited “footprint” issues) and the New England market would almost certainly be sufficient to consistently fill 50-60K seats/game. But that does perhaps bring up a point of difference between Fenway and Wrigley. In Chicago, I believe a lot of people do go to Cub games specifically because they’re played at Wrigley Field. Unlike in Boston, I’m not sure the Cubs would draw as many fans to games at a new stadium as they do at Wrigley, once the “newness” factor wore off. Of course, we may soon find out whether the Twins have a similar issue.

By: AW

AW — Fri, 06 May 2011 19:08:45 +0000

I’ve been to Fenway a few times. I think about it in two different ways: the playing field itself; and everything else. When I walked to my seat the very first time I went there, the playing field felt historic to me, and I was amazed at how small it was (except to center field, of course). That part of it was pretty neat. Definitely different from the “feeling” one got when seeing, say, the inside of the Metrodome.
Then, there’s everything else: the concourse is small, can be cramped and hot during a rain delay or just a warm day, and the food isn’t very good there. I was also amazed at how small the footprint of the ballpark is. I’m guessing you could walk all the way around the stadium in 15 minutes or so.
I would like to see Fenway replaced someday with a new, quaint ballpark. You’re right – they have sunk hundreds of millions into it recently, but it doesn’t solve the larger problem that it’s just no longer a good facility for watching a ballgame. If they build it, people will still come . . . .