archBOSTON ARCHIVE

DarkFenX · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 1111

Sox put the squeeze on
By Scott Van Voorhis
Monday, July 25, 2005

The Red Sox are on track to pump $100 million into a sweeping upgrade of antique Fenway Park.

But does preserving the old ballpark also require maintaining the broad and unobstructed skyline views Fenway has enjoyed for nearly a century?

At least one expert says the city should create a special protective zone around Fenway Park that would limit any development that could diminish the ballpark's charm and views.

Team owners and executives have made it clear that they feel Fenway's broad and open skyline - and the views it offers of downtown Boston and local landmarks like Kenmore Square's Citgo sign - is very much part of the Fenway experience.

And the Sox have made it clear they believe fans, as they watch the Sox on a crystal clear summer's evening, shouldn't have to stare up at a new condo tower looming over the park.

It is a view that is now starting to pick up some support - both from sports business experts and City Hall.

Andrew Zimbalist, a Smith College economist and sports expert, contends City Hall might even need to create a special ``entertainment zone'' around the ballpark to limit possible encroachment by high-rise development.

``Part of Fenway is the environment and the views and the skyline that you see,'' Zimbalist said.

The debate over what should - or shouldn't - be done to protect Fenway from being overshadowed by tower development comes amid a real estate boom transforming the scrappy neighborhood around the ballfield.

Two proposed high-rise developments next door to Fenway have already triggered alarm bells over at Sox headquarters on Yawkey Way.

The team, in back channel negotiations, has weighed in against a proposal for a roughly 30-story residential tower on a deck over the adjacent Massachusetts Turnpike. That tower would have given condo owners a nice view of the action on the field. In response to team pressure, developer John Rosenthal is now dramatically downscaling his plans.

Now the Sage family, which owns a 1950s Howard Johnson motel next door to Fenway, is talking about building a condo and hotel high-rise of its own. Such a project could rise at least 150 feet - putting it over the 110 foot ballpark.

In what may be a veiled warning to developers with hopes of building towers next to Fenway Park, Mayor Thomas M. Menino, at a recent event, warned against ``the Manhattanization of the Fenway.''

But Zimbalist believes City Hall needs to go even further to help the Sox in their battle to preserve Fenway.

The author of several books on sports business, including ``Baseball and Billions: A Probing Look Inside the Big Business of Our National Pastime,''Zimbalist noted that the current Sox owners have not sought any city or state money in their drive to renovate Fenway.

Given this, city officials should help rein in development around the ballpark, he says.

A special entertainment zone might work to limit the height of new development and also regulate traffic flow and parking in the area as well.

``It seems to me you have in Fenway a very special asset that the Red Sox have done everything they can to protect and preserve,'' Zimbalist said. ``The city should be cooperative. The Red Sox have not been looking for any handouts.''

Not everyone is buying into the idea that the area around the ballpark needs special protection.

Marc Laderman, a board member of Fenway Community Development Corp., doesn't see any harm from a smaller Pike tower in the 20-story range, or a high-rise on the Howard Johnson's site that stays in the 15-story range. The nonprofit housing developer has long pushed for new mixed used development around the historic ballpark.

``Does it change the character of the ballpark if you can't see the Citgo sign, or is it just nostalgia?'' Laderman asked.

Vanshnookenraggen · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 364

I agree with the powers that be that the view from Fenway should be preserved, but I think they should not create a zone around the park. Rather, they should judge the heights of buildings on a building-to-building basis. You really only need to be able to see the Citgo sign and the towers of Back Bay so there is plenty of room for taller buildings. That and I have to agree with the Mayor. I think that "Manhattanization" is a stupid buzz word but I do think that Boylston St in the Fenway would do better with 10-20 storie buildings than 30 stories. Not just for looks but for traffic as well.

I like the idea of a building of the Pike but what would the height have to be to justify the cost?

Ron Newman · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 1007

I don't understand how the HoJo's hotel site relates to the issue of views from Fenway Park. It is not between the ballpark and the skyline.

tocoto · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 181

The Red Sox are a private business that owns Fenway Park and that's basically it. I cannot imagine why they should have special rights to other people's property and development rights. They may be beloved by some, but try living within a half mile of the park. Fan induced noise, vanadlism, and stupidity in general are often off the scale. It should actually be the other way around, I would like to see the Red Sox in some sort of profit sharing deal with the Fenway neighborhood paying for street cleaning and underground parking for their fans.

statler · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 825

I agree tocoto. I understand baseball is a religion around here but that's just a turn of phrase. It shouldn't be codified into law.

BostonFaker · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 703

Fenway Park is not just a movie theatre.

It has become a tourist attraction, and historical landmark, that needs to be protected.

The Citgo sign needs to be kept in view....it's protected already.

I think the HoJo's could be developed because it is behind the park, but I have not really seen the design either.

dudeursistershot · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 715

tocoto · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 181

Fenway Park is not really a national treasure. Outside Boston it is not even on the radar of most people, though it is thought of a tourist attraction by some.

My understanding is that the city pays for the Citgo sign. What special rights do the Red sox have to it? Surely they don't support the Prudential building, but they somehow have a right to view it from their park? I wish I had that right as the views from my place are serioulsy lacking.

While I think the Red Sox are an integral part of Boston, the privledges expected by their management are inordinate and undeserved, but are accepted by many as natural.

Ron Newman · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 1007

I'd say Fenway is on the radar screen of most baseball fans. That's obviously not everyone, but it's a lot of people. It is after all one of only two truly old baseball stadiums still in use. (Yankee Stadium doesn't count as it was extensively rebuilt in the 1970s.)

I don't think the city has any ownership interest in the Citgo sign. When Citgo proposed to remove the sign, a popular show of support persuaded them to keep it there and relight it.

statler · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 825

If the view from the park is so sacred to Sox managment why don't take down those ridiculous Coke bottles?

BostonFaker · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 703

http://www.citgo.com/AboutCITGO/BostonSign.jsp

Also from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citgo

The first sign, featuring the Cities Service logo, was built in 1940, and replaced with the trimark in 1965. In 1979 Governor Edward J. King ordered it turned off as a symbol of energy conservation. Four years later, Citgo attempted to disassemble the weatherbeaten sign, and was surprised to be met with widespread public affection for the sign and protest at its threatened removal. The Boston Landmarks Commission ordered its disassembly postponed while the issue was debated. While never formally declared a landmark, it was refurbished and relit by Citgo in 1983 and has remained in operation ever since.

So, no, I guess it still is private.

statler · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 825

Does anybody have any picture of the old sign? I always thought that was the original.

Here is a pic of the old logo. I wonder if the sign was green?

tocoto · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 181

Believe it or not Citgo is a unit of the Venezuelan state oil company.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/03/16/kenmore_sq_sign_gets_high_tech_makeover/

Bowwest · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 616

Merper · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 227

fenway may not be your thing, but by various accounts, its the city's LARGEST tourist attraction

dudeursistershot · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 715

BostonFaker · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 703

How is it a competitive economy?

OPEC sets the price.

dudeursistershot · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 715

justin · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 418

dudeursistershot · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 715

justin · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 418

Don't forget that Milosevic had been democratically elected, several times.

Democratically elected is the lesser part of the equation of democracy; the bigger is governing democratically, which Chavez certainly doesn't: witness the harassment of journalists, packing of the courts and the electoral comission, politicizing of the army etc. Sure, the poor are having some money diverted their way, and that's great; what sucks is that Venezuela's institutions are getting hollowed out in favor of a parallel power structure responsible only to Chavez.

As for the rest of Latin America, name one leader who is not democratically elected (except for Chavez's buddy Fidel).

justin

dudeursistershot · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 715

The point is, I think that my money would be better going to Citgo to help poor people in Venezuela (sp) than some Middle Eastern autocrats doing their best to keep their 13th century theocracy going.

Chrischan · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 32

I think you guys are missing the point forget about the view from fenway it is short sided and wrong. The redsox can' afford to stay in fenway at this park. the park not only is out dated but it was originally built not to be able to sustain the weight of the park on the filled in marsh land. Fenway park is sinking 1 inch per year so the redsox know this and their is no way in hell they will be able to use fenway long term. They have a few options with building a new ball park, but that is not the point here. They do not have the right to dictate this area. fenway park has always been a blight to the development of this neighborhood, and they would dictate how the landowners use this land. let's be real these out of town owners will flip the redsox in a couple of years, hay their businesmen. Those towers and the potential for something grand on the footprint that fenway park, the parking garages and the new property the just brought on Boylston st would fetch them well over 2 billion dollars from a big time developer. this area needs this progression and I hate to think for 82 days in the summer we have to suffer this downtroden neighborhood for another 86 years or whenever the park sinks into the filled in marsh.

BostonFaker · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 703

Whatever. Go Sox!

dudeursistershot · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 715

garbribre · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 459

Why is the Sox organization's demands any different from those at, for example, the RCT? Much talk on this forum concerns how NIMBYs use selfish tactics to hinder or radically alter development. Fenway is just a part of the urban fabric, and if somebody has the zoning nearby that'll 'block' their views, too bad, right?

BTW--Oakland is again mulling over proposals to keep the A's within city limits and will be voting again soon as to where to put the new stadium. Surprisingly, they are floating a capacity the size of Fenway, rather that the 40,000+ of most new MLB stadiums. This is exciting.

DarkFenX · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 1111

Bowwest · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 616

Bowwest · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 616

Btw, half of me likes that proposal alot and the other half wants to keep Fenway. At this point I'd like to keep Fenway rather than have a new park in another neighborhood since Trilogy now sits where the new park was proposed.

dudeursistershot · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 715

A new park would have been a complete disaster, even assuming you completely ignore the historical aspect. Half of the magic of Red Sox games would be just GONE, they'd have to be paying off massive debt to pay for construction, and each ticket would sell for much less. Supply and demand.

Chrischan · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 32

What you fail to realize is that their is a reason no other owner ever tried to expanded fenway. I am sure you know that the back bay (where it gets it's name ) is filled in marsh. I could give you 5 different site's withen the city that could serve an good blue print for a baseball stadium. I would love to see an extrension of back into fenway down to liongwood medical and double the skyscrapper blueprint of the city. Years ago their was planes to build a extension of the financial distrcit into brookline (I guess baseball fans shot that down as well). I like baseball and probubly know more history then any of you for sports, history is my life and my job, so trust me about fenway, oh and as far and the go sox and all that crap, they would have a better stadium with more revenue and more fans could actually go to the game, if they built it in Brighton (along the rail yard with access to the highway, south bay over decrepid warehouses and utility plants, seaport district toward the black falcon terminal, charlestown shiping yard near everett, everett/charlestown border where the keep the T buses, East boston revere line, suffolk down) It is funny I thought this was a progressive site where people wanted to see this city reach it's potential, cuase any real fan does not want to sit at fenway looking out to the bullpen during games. I am surprised this has become a spread about the sox and not the true potential about fenway. I mean building on marsh land is not impossible, see back bay, but adding on to a stucture built before 1920 when the had no real understanding or engineering as aposed to what we know today. People get real this is bigger then the red sox cause in XX amount of years they will need to rethink a stadium plan anyway. Sorry if I am more progressive then some. By the way look at a map of boston before 1880 and see that their was no fenway neighborhood. Back bay and fenway where filled in with land from Beacon Hill, Pemberton hill (now blue hill avenue), framingham, and Quincy.

BOSDevelopment · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 293

Chrischan, I believe I speak for the rest of the forum in telling you that you are a retard.

Merper · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 227

DarkFen, that new ballpark is NOT on the same site as the existing fenway, besides, its moot becuase trilogy is there now.

I think there is plenty you can do to fenway to modernize it. rearrange the seating bowl, add an upper deck.... anything, but IMO, Fenway should be protected and kept at all costs.

Chrischan · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 32

sorry if I want more then just a stadium, but hey that's why boston will always be a small town (at least when it comes to the skyline) I think big and tell me why we shouldn't

Merper · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 227

yes chrischan, i'm sure people can't wait to go to Boston Red Sox games in Chelsea or Everett (ie. not boston). The atmosphere of ample parking will surely be hard to beat!

I'm sure there are plenty of people that would prefer to go to an old Fenway park, even if they have to be facing the bullpens then a brand spanking new mall with a baseball park with ample leg room and cushioned seats. One is an authentic Boston experience, the other, you can do anywhere in the country. And this doesn't even take into account the years, maybe decades that it would take for the team to pay off the debt incurred to build a brand new park. So instead of paying $50 bucks for seats at a historic gem, you'd be paying $50 for seats in a run of the mill stadium. Perhaps you're right, (and you're not) and tickets would be cheaper and more affordable, but my guess is that less people will be interested in going to a brand new comfortable ballpark in a sea of parking.

Besides, bigger isn't always better. Specially in New England, and specially in boston.

Chrischan · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 32

If you are a green monster fan than fine, I am a baseball fan, I think you could have a stadium in south bay (dorchester/Southboston line) that would bring you closer to downtown and their is the I-93 express way. With the possioblity of another t-line extension. Follow me fellas, cause I want you to follow. Out of town investor's buy the red-sox, they have a history of flipping baseball teams (see marlins, orioles, padres). They are the one who spent 700 million because they wanted to keep up with charles dolan who actually agreed to spend 750 million. I have spent 15 hours one day at fenway park and beleive me we would get over the uncomfortable seats, the sticking to the ground whenever we walk, the smell that resonate's fromt he reatrooms. I guess you guys just hate Gillete. Your right let's get the old Foxboro stadium, or bettor yet let's go for the Old garden instead of the new one. It has been done in boston and the red-sox should be more open to giving the fans a nice stadium in dorchester (keep it real for all of you boston residents). Oh and the money they would fetch from the sales of Fenway park and other properties would more then make up for the money spent for the new stadium. When they trime payroll and they will (see exit of Manny) and they actually got he oakland A's route (see Billy Beane-it's not my job to get this team to the world series only my job to get them into the playoffs). By the way the Yankees' are actually building a new ball-park. Sorry I would like boston to be in the same breathe as Philly, New York, DC, San Fransico. Not Oakland, and any other small time team.

Merper · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 227

if the bathrooms smell, then clean it. (people pee in there, maybe thats why it stinks?)
if the floors are sticky, again, clean it (what? new ballparks have special 'non-stick' floors??
if the seats are uncomfortable, change them.
if there aren't enough seats, add more.

Gillette is great, but it didn't replace a historic landmark.

Peronally, i don't care if current ownership flips the team... as long as the sox remain at fenway.

Personally, I'd LOVE to be able to get the old Garden back. A place with history and passion. And thats prolly the BEST example of why to STAY at fenway. Any new ballpark would be as unique as the Shawmut Center/FleetCenter/TDBN Garden/Something Else Garden in the near future.

You have to remember, THIS IS NOT NY. Just because newer, bigger and better works inn NY (and Chicago and Philly) doesn't mean it works in Boston. If that means Boston remains a 'small-town' then so be it. I much prefer that than the tearing down of history and a part of the community for "more revenue".

bosma · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 148

The Prudential is a City landmark and large tourist attraction, should they be allowed to create a special zoning law so no buildings block the view from the observatory?????

What is the actual view from the seats at Fenway?

All I can remember is some billboards, the Citgo Sign, The Hancock, The Prudential, and 111 Huntington Avenue. I mean is that really a great view?

Chrischan · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 32

merper, what you don't realize is they will have to build a new park anyway. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow but they will. I understand you don't want to be new york, but yet this spread / web site is constantly talking about the small time, NIMBY attitude. The attraction for the red sox is not the stadium but the team, rwalize before 1967 nobody gave a damn about this team. Fenway park is the oldest stadium in professional sports. You can't clean an 86 year old ball park they have tried. but it is too old. We neeed to face fact's that this is a very old stadium. Remember when a section of the old veterins stadium fell apart and hurt people or when the cadets fell out of the stands during a army- navy game. People may think I am a fool but if some thing like that every happen I'm sure you would change your minds. History is great but we don't re-live history when time for change comes you can't stop it for nastolgia. But believe me if the sox suck, you wouldn't spen over $100 to see fenway park when a stadium tour on an off day is only like $30. But I conceed that the masses would rather keep fenway park status quo. Cool I just keep my pipe dreams.

Chrischan · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 32

I apologize to everyone I realized how many spelling mistakes that are prevelant.

Merper · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 227

like you stated, it is completely feasible to build a new stadium on the landfill of the fens.

if this is so, it is also feasible to 'modernize' fenway in its current location. Strengthen its foundations, replace beams, enlarge bathrooms, replace seats, add an upper deck. All of this is possible. heck, there are much older structures all over the city that have gotten new life from some simple remodeling.

Fenway Park should be no different. Seems to me the only good reason you've given for a new ballpark is that Philly, New York and DC have new parks (or are planning them). For that matter, Philly has torn down alot more of its old city and neighborhoods for surface parking lots. Should we do that too? Philly's brand new Citizens Bank park sits nicely in the sea of parking lots they call the "sports complex"... should boston tear down most of Dorchester for one of those too? New York tends to build everything at a scale incompatible with Boston; does that mean we should build at that scale too?

I go to Fenway regularly, and yes, my ass hurts by the 7th inning, but for some reason, its worth it.

Chrischan · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 32

Not tear down Dorchester, just build over a part of the neigborhood that is full of abandon wharehouses. I keep hearing we need to preserve the history of the team and the stadium. The building of upper decks calls for them to take land from the city street on landsdown and ipswich in order to be able to due this. This ownership team actually proposed this when they were bidding on the team. I just don't get why they have to be in Fenway. Your ass would hurt more if they didn't win over 68% of their games. I love the sox. I sure some of you don't believe that but I would like a more comfortable experience. Even baltimore has built a new stadium. Every red-sox fan that has ever visited camden yards love's it. Remember when the mayor said he wanted to turn Kenmore square into the next times square. Never will happen with the sox in fenway. Hell most of the development that is proposed for the area is behind fenway park or to the left of landsdown st. This would in no way impede the experience. The owners just don't want people being able to see games for free. They have literally maximized fenway. The have even gutted out the 406 club. I promise you if you had a new stadium you would get over this.

Ron Newman · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 1007

The Boston Garden was beloved, but it also lacked basic necessities such as air conditioning, elevators, and a reliable electrical system. I wish we had gotten a better replacement, but its time had definitely come.

I don't see Fenway the same way, not at all. It can go on for many more decades.

Bowwest · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 616

Chrischan you do make a few good points. However I would only support a new staduim if it were built in one of two places. The park land at the Fens or the South Boston waterfront. Any further away from the city is too far. I remember some proposal from some town in NH to build a new park there. It made me want to vomit.

Chrischan · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 32

bowesst, actually my favorite site is the south bay section of boston, portion of south boston/ dorchester. You would have andrew station and broadway T stops, also you could have a 45,000+ seat stadium, and parking owned by the team, and they could build a new red-sox headquarter (like the padres have done). Also they would have a beautiful skyline of the gateway project to replace the pru.

Ron Newman · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 1007

Chrischan · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 32

Hey Ron, I was waiting for someone to bring up Chicago. The white sox are the poor sisters in the city (the way the braves were here). I agree with you that wrigley is an attraction but do you think they would stop the cubs from building a new stadium, also the baseball environment for the cubs is just entertainment for them, yes they love the cubs but their is nowhere near the media frenzy or hype from the fans. Who is the Cubs rival that brings out the atmosphere that sox - yankees do. That has a lot to do with the natural rivalry that the city of boston and new york have. Also I truly believe once/if the cubs win the world series their interest would die significantly. Also did you hear the rant that their manager gave a few years back ( I think 1998) when he blasted the cub fans. They only had maybe 15,000 people in the stadium. He called all of them bums.

BostonFaker · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 703

Chrischan, I'm sorry, but you are a retard.

First off, I'm really tired of dealing with your misspellings. Read over your post before you submit it. Add a new paragraph some time; I do.

But besides that, Boston is not a "small city." And I don't want it to be just like any other city. If you think the Fens was marsh, why do you think they call it South Bay? That was water more recently than anyplace.

As for NYC, yes, it is a bigger city, with a bigger population. Let the Yankees build a new park in a part of the Bronx no one wants to be in. At least Fenway Park is in the city.

Sounds to me you just want skyscrapers everywhere, with really no balance or planning. Sounds dumb.

Chrischan · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 32

No their is planning, but for some reason we should give the red-sox the right to dictate how the city and a neighborhood grows. BF I have already apologized for the spelling error. The fact is that their is no land for the sox to build on in the fenway area other then the park itself. So big question where do they play in the meantime if they rebuild fenway.

Chrischan · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 32

Just to add a nugget BF, Engineering is bettor today then in 1918, am I correct, so building over marsh land is not my sticking point, more to the fact that either way the stadium as constituted is out dated. It needs to be replaced, I am just saying we can do bettor with a stadium blueprint outside fenway. Would you live in a house that has not been touched or updated structurally in 86 years.