Seats on the Green Monster?

February 10, 2003 10:23 AM

Seats...On the Green Monster? It seems that the Boston Red Sox have finalized the plan to make changes to one of Major League Baseball's most famous curiosities, the Green Monster - if not *the* most famous, as this article suggests. The stadium has the lowest amount of available seating, and is definitely, in the realm of the other stadiums in major markets, out of date. But it has a classic sort of feel to it. Here are some of the proposed plans for this and other changes to the stadium. I can't wait to see if someone falls off the back of the 'Monster trying to catch a homerun ball.
posted by djspicerack (21 comments total)

My comment on SportsFilter about the subject:

1. Build new stadium.
2. Go condo with Fenway structure. Money from the sale of the condos goes directly to the development cost of the new park.
3. Field and Green Monster become public park and, why not, host the occasional baseball game.

Stadiums have become housing before. Stadiums have become public spaces before. (I'm having trouble finding the imagery/support for this but the Piazza Navona in Rome was a Roman Circus at one time, and many Roman arenas became housing space, squatted during the middle ages after the fall of the Roman Empire.)

I would like to add that when I was in grad school, I and eight other friends "dressed" as the Green Monster for a Beaux Arts Ball. We won a prize for the costume -- maybe multiple prizes. The details are a wee bit fuzzy.
posted by Dick Paris at 10:39 AM on February 10, 2003

That's pretty unfortunate.
posted by xmutex at 10:39 AM on February 10, 2003

hey, i'm all for razing the stadium and putting in whatever they want - but then again, i'm a yankees fan. new york has its polo grounds housing. boston can get its own, too. but i think the seats on the top of the wall are a bit much.
posted by djspicerack at 10:42 AM on February 10, 2003

The slide show has better pictures.

Save Fenway!
posted by silusGROK at 10:49 AM on February 10, 2003

Time to tear down that relic. Now that I'm tall AND pushing thirty, grandstand seats are almost too much to bear for the eight or so times a year I find myself sitting in them. Even if they can't keep the new park on the Fenway, we need a new park.

Ted Williams wanted it raized. If we defy his wishes, his frozen corpse will reanimate and strangle folks on Lansdowne Street.
posted by Mayor Curley at 10:58 AM on February 10, 2003

Isn't that an episode of Futurama, Mr. Mayor?
posted by 10sball at 11:01 AM on February 10, 2003

...but then again, i'm a yankees fan.

Don't worry I believe you deserve all the same rights as normal people.

Lets Go Mets!
posted by jonmc at 11:13 AM on February 10, 2003

10s, are you joking or did that really happen on Futurama? I haven't watched it in years, but I'd track that episode down!
posted by Mayor Curley at 11:18 AM on February 10, 2003

Mets ?!? HA...they're a bunch of creamsicles. (nice unis)

Nothing beats the Yankees unis.
posted by msacheson at 11:24 AM on February 10, 2003

I have so many memories in Fenway Park, I'll be sorely disappointed if/when they finally tear it down. I think that seats on top of the green monster are a great idea. Moreover, continued renovations would be much better than building a brand new park. Fenway has so many quirks that fans have come to love.
posted by TurkishGolds at 12:20 PM on February 10, 2003

(joking... but it would work)
posted by 10sball at 12:54 PM on February 10, 2003

Hopefully the new statium won't cause deaths, be sold as the reason to see the sports team (Come and see teh old statium b4 we demo it then Come see the new home of the Brewers...nothing aobut come see a good game of baseball) and be a home to a loosing team, all the time burdening the tax role like Miller park in Milwaukee.

Or, as then Gov. Tommy Thompson said: Stick it to 'em!
posted by rough ashlar at 1:00 PM on February 10, 2003

Could we call these the Bucky Dent Seats?
posted by horsewithnoname at 1:08 PM on February 10, 2003

I've always thought wall seats would be a great idea. I'll gladly trade my seats in right field for a night.
I suspect the new ownership will eventually decide that a renovation is the way to go. Fenway Park and Wrigley Field are the only venues I can think of that are capable of bringing in fans, regardless of the quality of product on the field.
posted by reidfleming at 1:30 PM on February 10, 2003

Fenway has so many quirks that fans have come to love.

Yeah, like the ass-breaking seats. Not to rehash things, but renovation is an awful idea. Give us a new stadium that can support a winning team and make ticket prices reasonable for real fans (which is complete idealism and would never happen in any venue with fewer than 100,000 seats).
posted by yerfatma at 1:39 PM on February 10, 2003

My reasons for wanting to keep Fenway are purely selfish: I like being able to walk 3 blocks to the game.

Why do we get attached to these charming dumps?
posted by McBain at 1:44 PM on February 10, 2003

Keeping the old Fenway as a park is a great idea. Host some Little League games there and have a blast. Imagine being 12 and having a chance to hit at Fenway Park. Sure, the scale is off, but that type of thrill would never be forgotten.

Many adults would probably also pay serious cash to have their local team play a game there, etc., etc. This may sound like a silly proposal but I think it would really be successful.
posted by Tystnaden at 4:41 PM on February 10, 2003

I wonder how Fenway would go down? Piece by piece brought home by the fans? Sold on Ebay? or higher some explosion crews to implode the facility. Maybe they will find Jimmy Hoffa after all. Ha and everyone thought he was in the Jersey swamps. These seats will have no impact on the AL. Just look at how the division has finished the past couple of years. Little has changed in the division. Talk about overpaid underachievers? Red Sox are first on the list.
posted by brent at 5:21 PM on February 10, 2003

The Wall delights in making left-fielders look like bumbling fools... Some outfielders have had a batted ball roll through their legs twice - once on the way toward The Wall and another on the way back after hitting The Wall.

Well, at least the ball is still subject to Euclidean geometry. I've seen balls bounce into the ivy at Wrigley, never to be seen again.

Scary.
posted by groundhog at 5:49 PM on February 10, 2003

Fenway is the oldest ballpark in the country, and should be preserved if for no other reason than its historical significance. Further, there's a world of difference between a ballpark and a stadium. Stadiums are for football. Baseball should be played in a ballpark. That means not holding a 75,000-strong crowd, but the truth is, the team's revenues from network franchising is far, far greater than the cash it gets from filling seats. And I'd rather have a 35,000 seat ballpark filled to capacity than a 75,000 megaplex with empty seats. It's just demoralizing.

How can a fan of baseball possibly appreciate the game when they're seats are closer to the moon than the players? How can you realistically boo an umpire's bad call when you're a thousand feet from the diamond?

And anyway, where do you suggest putting the new stadium? Out in the boondocks for the suburbanites? To hell with that. Baseball is a sport created in and for cities. Let's keep it that way.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:40 PM on February 10, 2003

Civil_

You've reminded me of my proposal for the Boston City Hall Plaza. They had an ideas competition a while back. My proposal was a new ball park for the Sox (never did submit but did scribble a few sketches. I meant to check the acreage but never got around to it.)

You're absolutely right about the urban nature of baseball and it is that urbanism which makes the great parks great.
posted by Dick Paris at 2:01 AM on February 11, 2003