Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can't make up for a seat being in the next zip code like at Citi Field, idc about cup holders or a homerun apple I care about being close enough to the field to see an out, and with that no park is better than Fenway.
I'm not saying citi is great or that Fenway is the worst (Oakland colloseum by far). Maybe the phrase "fenwa6 sucks" is harsh, but honestly I feel it's appropriate given how people think it's some amazing cathedral. Really the distinguishing thing about Fenway is that it survived (only this century did Bostonians really show any type of attachment to it, can't blame them, the history is a century of mostly losing). In fact, the only reason it did survive was because they were so bad, they couldn't make enough money to go elsewhere.
I don't mind going to Fenway, but only so long as I sit in very specific parts. Is pnc better? Yes. Camden yards? Yes. Progressive field is also really fun. Fenway is middle of the pack in my opinion. Benefits from an aggressively pushed mythology, as with many things in boston.
I'm not saying citi is great or that Fenway is the worst (Oakland colloseum by far). Maybe the phrase "fenwa6 sucks" is harsh, but honestly I feel it's appropriate given how people think it's some amazing cathedral. Really the distinguishing thing about Fenway is that it survived (only this century did Bostonians really show any type of attachment to it, can't blame them, the history is a century of mostly losing). In fact, the only reason it did survive was because they were so bad, they couldn't make enough money to go elsewhere.
I don't mind going to Fenway, but only so long as I sit in very specific parts. Is pnc better? Yes. Camden yards? Yes. Progressive field is also really fun. Fenway is middle of the pack in my opinion. Benefits from an aggressively pushed mythology, as with many things in boston.
I would replace mythology with tradition/culture/history (whether the history be good or bad). I took a white Sox fan this past summer and he raved about how much better the experience was than white Sox stadium which I've been to as well. Wrigley would be comparable from game day experience and likely more comfortable seats or so I've heard. If you're a Red Sox fan the green monster is a staple as is the experience of being at the game just for the game - not for the swimming pools, museums, shake shacks. I agree I wouldn't sit in seats with obstructed views. If they built a new fenway they'd have to build a more comfortable exact replica like they did with yankee stadium (in my opinion the old yankee stadium was much better - less luxury boxes and more people into the game). For the Indians or orioles or pirates you can put them in many a stadium. You really can't take the Sox from fenway (or a damn near close replica) and still feel like you're watching the Red Sox.
I'm not saying citi is great or that Fenway is the worst (Oakland colloseum by far). Maybe the phrase "fenwa6 sucks" is harsh, but honestly I feel it's appropriate given how people think it's some amazing cathedral. Really the distinguishing thing about Fenway is that it survived (only this century did Bostonians really show any type of attachment to it, can't blame them, the history is a century of mostly losing). In fact, the only reason it did survive was because they were so bad, they couldn't make enough money to go elsewhere.
I don't mind going to Fenway, but only so long as I sit in very specific parts. Is pnc better? Yes. Camden yards? Yes. Progressive field is also really fun. Fenway is middle of the pack in my opinion. Benefits from an aggressively pushed mythology, as with many things in boston.
There is a reason why ever retro park tried to copy Fenway, like I did a tour of Camden and they said the architects heavily sampled Fenway because it is a great park, but they obviously modernized it. (Ex open concourse)
I'm not saying citi is great or that Fenway is the worst (Oakland colloseum by far). Maybe the phrase "fenwa6 sucks" is harsh, but honestly I feel it's appropriate given how people think it's some amazing cathedral. Really the distinguishing thing about Fenway is that it survived (only this century did Bostonians really show any type of attachment to it, can't blame them, the history is a century of mostly losing). In fact, the only reason it did survive was because they were so bad, they couldn't make enough money to go elsewhere.
I don't mind going to Fenway, but only so long as I sit in very specific parts. Is pnc better? Yes. Camden yards? Yes. Progressive field is also really fun. Fenway is middle of the pack in my opinion. Benefits from an aggressively pushed mythology, as with many things in boston.
Just looking at the records the 20's and 60-65 is really the only time you can say the Red Sox sucked. They didn't win a championship for a long time but during the 86 year drought for the most part they were above average, it's just a lot of that time the Yankee's were great with some other teams like the A's mixed in.
It's sort of public knowledge that if you want a historically authentic baseball experience in real life that you go with either Wrigley or Fenway. They are the best around for that.
Now if you're into a different sort of experience in a more modern, better kept, and new baseball park then there are far superior options to Wrigley and Fenway. I'm like that, I tend to prefer newer ball parks. No way do I want my money to go towards some place with torn up or worn out seats, gritty features, and aesthetics that look anything less than spectacular for a paid-to-enter venue.
However, for just the history, culture, and traditional values alone, both Fenway and Wrigley get high marks. Even if you don't like old places, try to check both of these out at least once while you have the chance. Wont be the most comfortable or newest experience in the United States but will be something worthwhile of your time, especially if you have kids.
I've been more interested in Boston recently, but I think I'd still visit SF first given the option.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
