|
|
|
|
 |
| ||
|
Scores Schedules Standings Statistics Transactions Injuries: AL | NL Players Weekly Lineup Message Board Minor Leagues MLB Stat Search MLB en espaņol Clubhouses | ||
| Sport Sections | ||
|
| ||
| Friday, November 10 | |||||
| National landmark status could help Red Sox ESPN.com | |||||
| BOSTON -- The Boston Common and Bunker Hill Monument have it. So do such less illustrious sites as the Brook Farm, Massachusetts General Hospital and the Tremont Street Subway. In the city alone, there are at least 11 residences that have achieved National Historic Landmark status, including the (mark your tourist map) Pierce-Hichborn House.
Among sports facilities, Harvard Stadium was designated as an official landmark in 1987 in recognition of the fact that eight decades earlier it became a prototype for the design of college stadiums.
Fenway Studios, an art galley, is on the list of landmarks.
Fenway Park, the oldest ballpark in baseball, is not.
The Boston Red Sox want it that way. Despite the ballpark's obvious place in the game's history, the owners of the club have fought attempts to have the National Parks Service recognize Fenway as an important structure in the cultural development of the nation. The last effort was made in 1987 when the Red Sox successfully quashed a recommendation by a NPS advisory board to add Fenway to a list that includes, among other sports venues, Chicago's Soldier Field and the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum.
The Red Sox declined to return phone calls from ESPN.com seeking comment on the subject. But in 1987, a Red Sox lawyer, John Donovan, said the team's ownership - then led by Jean Yawkey who has since passed away and put her interest into a trust that now runs the club - was concerned that a landmark label could prevent further alteration or expansion of the 33,871-seat ballpark.
Those fears are unfounded, said Jeffrey Harris, a historic preservationist and advocate of saving Fenway Park.
"National Historic Landmark status does not prevent landowners from making any changes to the building," said Harris, a staff member in the Boston office of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. "A lot of people think that if you're listed, you can't do anything to the property and that's just not the case."
On the contrary, getting that shiny plaque can help fund upgrades to the ballpark, Harris said. If Fenway were to be designated as a landmark, the team could qualify for tax credits through the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives program, which could reduce the cost of any effort to rehabilitate Fenway by 20 percent.
The tax credits are considered in the so-called Preservation Proposal advanced by Save Fenway Park, a fan-based group. Designed by historic preservationist Howard Decker, the proposal calls for better use of the existing seating bowl and concourses so that the ballpark would offer more luxury boxes, concessions and bathrooms. Seats would widened and in some cases, leg room would be added, Decker said.
The plan would add few new seats to the ballpark - a longtime concern of the Red Sox. The club's current owners, who have said no plan on the current site can meet their needs, are proposing a $665 million, 44,000-seat stadium down the street to replace Fenway. But compared to the current ballpark, the Decker plan would feature more of the creature comforts that modern stadiums feature, and hence improve revenues.
"Preservation is not about putting Fenway Park in a plastic bag," said Decker, whose Chicago company has handled the restoration of 250 historic buildings in the past 30 years. "Preservation can and will adapt to change over time, absolutely."
As with estimates for new stadiums, costs on renovation proposals are difficult to determine. But the Preservation Proposal is estimated by Save Fenway Park to cost $160 million, in which $32 million of that amount could be returned in federal tax credits. The group is hopeful the project also could raise $7 million from a state grant for restoration of cultural and sports facilities, plus $8 million for a preservation easement.
Mark Webster, a structural engineer working with the Save Fenway group, said that a preliminary examination of the ballpark's foundation shows that it can support any of the proposed improvements. Unlike the more aggressive Renovation Proposal advanced by Save Fenway Park and Miami architect Rolando Llanes, the Preservation Proposal makes use of the current seating columns.
The Renovation Proposal would likely qualify for fewer tax advantages - or none at all - because the changes in that plan probably would be too radical to qualify under the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, Harris said. The Renovation Proposal calls for the demolition of the main seating bowl and the addition of a new upper deck.
The Red Sox are not the first club to fight a historic designation for their ballpark. Along with Fenway, Chicago's Wrigley Field and the old Comiskey Park were among 38 sports-related landmarks designated by the Department of the Interior for consideration in the mid-1980s. But the White Sox and Cubs thwarted the effort for their respective ballparks, citing the same concerns as the Red Sox.
The White Sox went on take a wrecking ball to Comiskey, replacing it with a modern stadium (new Comiskey) that has had trouble attracting fans. Last week, with an eye on the machinations in Boston, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley asked Commission on Chicago Landmarks to consider official landmark status for Wrigley, which opened two years after Fenway, in 1914.
The Cubs, who object to the mayor's maneuver, would be free to relocate elsewhere at any time because landmark protection does not apply to use. But the local landmark designation would require the club to win special city approval for any remodeling of Wrigley. Just as important, it would prohibit demolition, something that presumably would tie the Cubs to the North Side stadium far into the future.
No such restrictions exist under the national landmark program. A federal review of any plans to demolish or renovate Fenway would only be triggered if the club wants to use public funds for such a project, Harris said. Rather than a straitjacket, the National Historic Landmark status is more of a carrot to encourage a company to restore its building in a way that respects its tradition.
Harris suspects the Red Sox have no interest in landmark designation because it would further endear the ballpark to fans.
"From a political standpoint, it's easier for the Red Sox to prepare to demolish the park if it's not a National Historic Landmark," he said. "Such a designation might make it more difficult for city and state leaders to support that kind of effort."
Many fans who have gotten behind the Red Sox effort to dispatch Fenway note the dilapidated state of the facility. Weeds grow along the wall behind the Green Monster. Torn bags of trash sit in corners of the concourse, in plain view of customers. The lettering on signs is faded or missing. The cement floor beneath the grandstand is old and scruffy.
But those are merely issues of neglect, Decker said. Cosmetic issues that can be addressed with a preservation effort that would make Fenway viable for at least another 50 years.
"You have to have the will and spirit to treat Fenway Park with the respect it deserves," Decker said. "If you do that, miracles can happen."
ESPN.com Senior Writer Tom Farrey can be reached at tom.farrey@espn.com.
| ALSO SEE Crosshairs: Red Sox proposed ballpark down the street Fenway: Classic or Clunker? Part I Fenway: Classic or Clunker? Part III Pick the Best Ballpark Quotes about Fenway Park  | ||||