Field of Schemes: Rumors of Fenway's death greatly exaggerated

This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article. Comments on this page are closed. To find the current version of the article with updated comments, click here.

March 24, 2005

Rumors of Fenway's death greatly exaggerated

In May of 1999, two days after the citizen action group Save Fenway Park! unveiled its proposal to renovate the Boston Red Sox home field, team execs released their own plans: To raze baseball's oldest ballpark, and replace it with a new, larger one with all the trimmings - and a $545 million price tag. The next day, the Boston Globe followed with a special section on the imminent demise of the historic park; as I described it in an investigation into media coverage of sports issues I wrote at the time for Extra! magazine:

The lead headline on the paper's special "Fenway: A New Pitch" section was "Proposed $545m ballpark to retain cherished details." The plans for the new park, enthused reporters Gregg Krupa and Meg Vaillancourt, "mimics so many characteristic details of the beloved current stadium that the team even plans to dig up some of the old turf and play on it in the new facility."

In an accompanying story, staff reporters Lynnley Browning and Steven Wilmsen described neighborhood response to the new ballpark proposal as "quiet admiration for the proposal's aesthetic dimension but voiced fresh questions over how ordinary life in the area would be affected." (Those who argued in favor of keeping the old ballpark, as is often the case in such stories, were dismissed as expressing "nostalgic melancholy that a legendary institution would be irreparably altered.") The headline, meanwhile, accentuated the positive: "Park's design impresses many."

Baseball columnist Dan Shaughnessy ñ co-author of a new "biography" of Fenway Park - wrote, "Leaving Fenway isn't going to be easy for a lot of us, but if the Sox can do what they say they'll do, it'll be their best move since they brought Babe Ruth to the old ballpark when the old ballpark was the new ballpark in 1914." Veteran sportswriter Bob Ryan chimed in that "there is nothing contradictory about loving Fenway and pining for something new and efficient. Put me down with the progressives. I'm looking forward to sitting in Son of Fenway, and sooner, rather than later." So sure was the Globe of the certainty of a new ballpark that they ran a special "Thanks for the memories" section featuring staffers' memories of Fenway.

In July of the following year, I Amtraked up to Boston to testify at a Massachusetts legislative hearing on whether the state would provide $100 million in public funds toward the now $664 million stadium project. After I and other witnesses waited through an entire day of city, state and Red Sox officials testifying on the "blight"-curing wonders of a new stadium (when one legislator questioned how the rapidly gentrifying Fenway neighborhood could be considered blighted, Mayor Tom Menino explained, "We don't mean 'blight' in the real sense of the word 'blight'"), I finally got to read my statement, which concluded with these lines:

The White Sox ten years ago bulldozed friendly old Comiskey Park, built in 1910 by Charles Comiskey himself, because their owners thought a modern, concrete monolith would better equip them for the 21st century. But after the initial excitement wore off, fans stayed away in droves from the sterile food courts and the steeply pitched upper deck. The White Sox now draw fewer fans to new Comiskey than they did to the old, despite the best record in the American League.

Two years ago, as the disaster in Chicago became apparent, Chicago Tribune columnist John McCarron wrote that "We now know, though certain suits will never admit it, that old Comiskey should have been saved and rehabbed; that the old neighborhood around it should have been renewed, not removed. But it's never too late to use your imagination. Just close your eyes and remember how it used to be."

It's too late for the city of Chicago to unmake that decision. It's not too late for Boston not to make it in the first place.

State Sen. Dianne Wilkerson, who was chairing the hearing, listened intently, and strongly criticized the stadium plan. Barely 24 hours later, she and a majority of the legislature voted in favor of the Red Sox subsidy. As one of the few no voters remarked at the time: "It looks like a deal in progress."

Yet looks were deceiving, and so it came to pass that yesterday, Red Sox execs gathered in the .406 Club behind home plate to announce that "the Red Sox will remain at Fenway Park for the long term." Declared principal owner John Henry:

There will continue to be squabbles over future renovations, no doubt (some of the Sox' recent additions, like the Green Monster seats atop the left-field wall, have been cheered by fans; others, like increased ad signage, not so much), and of desired "improvements" to the neighborhood, like a new parking garage that Sox execs hinted might be paid for with city money. But with team president Larry Lucchino proclaiming that "this is a no-strings-attached commitment" to stay at Fenway indefinitely, the future of baseball's most historic park looks more secure than it has in decades.

Looking back, many factors conspired to save Fenway from what once looked like a near-certain wrecking ball. The $100 million in state funds were approved, but an additional $212 million in city money became stalled when city councillors questioned what if anything the public would be getting out of the deal. Bankers balked at lending the Sox $352 million for their private share of the stadium, reasoning that the team was making money hand over fist at a perennially sold-out Fenway, so it would be hard-pressed to improve on that much at a new park. And finally, when Henry bought the team from its former owners in late 2000, the Sox front office became markedly more interested in preserving what it had rather than lusting over what it didn't; one of Henry's first moves was to bring in architect Janet Marie Smith to see how the team could make the most of its current park.

It's hard to say if any of this would have mattered, though, were it not for the folks from Save Fenway Park! This thrown-together assemblage of preservationists, good-government advocates, and Fenway bleacherites lobbied the city council, held design symposiums for upgrading Fenway without doing damage to its historic character, and simultaneously pressured and encouraged Henry to find ways to cheaply improve upon the old, rather than take the usual route of demanding that taxpayers build anew. (The latter, incidentally, being a tack that Henry had tried, and failed, when he owned the Florida Marlins in the late 1990s.) Drawing from prior grassroots campaigns - I think it's fair to say that Detroit's Tiger Stadium Fan Club provided a major inspiration - SFP volunteers were a ubiquitous presence at Sox games, handing out newsletters, proffering petitions, and relentlessly asking the question: Isn't there a better way to do this?

When the news broke of yesterday's Red Sox announcement, I asked Dan Wilson, Save Fenway's longtime president, for a comment. He wrote back:

There should be celebrating across the country as well. Not only has a great ballpark - a great historic building - been saved for future generations, and the people of Massachusetts been saved $312 million. But also, it's been shown that with the combination of foresighted management, a handful of elected officials who won't roll over for a public-stadium steamroller, and organized community activists, the tide of history can be turned. In a world full of tragic tales - many of which appear in our book and on this website - it's inspiring to see a happy ending once in a while.

Isn't it amazing how essential a "do-nothing" strategy can be such a news item? The Boston Globe (also a part-owner of the Red Sox) is also singing a new tune these days...

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2005/03/23/faithful_to_fenway/

Posted by Jonathan Judd on March 24, 2005 04:26 PM

Thanks Neil. As one of the lead community organizers for Fenway Community Development Corporation at the time it was great to have incredible partners at Save Fenway Park! I got to recoonnect with them (I now live in Philly) Wednesday night in Boston after the big news was shared by Sox owners and it was an amazing celebration that will continue for some time. The forsight of Save Fenway Park to allign with community residents and groups made this effort successful along with their unflinching commitment to the fan experience. More fan groups should be so smart in their efforts and partner with the residents and citizens most impacted by new stadiums. No one should be mistaken, the success in saving Fenway was that we developed and implemented effective strategies for people to get directly involved in the struggle. Thanks for your support of these efforts over the years.

Posted by Jethro Heiko on March 25, 2005 11:17 AM