THE FENWAY FAITHFUL
Norine Bacigalupo bemoans the changes in the Fenway experience from her first childhood visit about 60 years ago (Perspective, June 3). I’m not much younger than she, and I can bark about societal changes with the best of them — doesn’t anyone hold a door anymore? — but, as for Fenway, it’s not the only venue where you can witness a change in length of patron attention span or where advertising, a part of ballparks since the beginning, mars the view. Had Fenway’s owners listened to their wallets instead of their hearts, you’d be watching our Sox play in a sterile, half-empty, nondescript, taxpayer-funded, soulless stadium. Instead, we have Fenway, where, because you are so close to the game, you can focus on baseball and the beauty of the place in which it’s played. Fenway hasn’t been robbed of anything.
Erika Tarlin / Member, Board of Directors Save Fenway Park
I so agree with Bacigalupo’s comments. Although some of the physical improvements are good for everyone, it’s harder and harder for some of us to afford the games. When I go, however, a Fenway Frank satisfies my hunger (in spite of the price), and I save money by bringing my own water. Who needs all the fancy food? Not the real baseball fans.
Carol Flynn / Lexington
Fenway is the fourth smallest of the Major League Baseball stadiums, leaving the owners with fewer seats to cover the rising costs of running an MLB franchise. There are cost-effective alternatives for families that go for the love of the game and the Red Sox connection, such as the PawSox and the Lowell Spinners. These games may not be played at Fenway, but Fenway cannot stay frozen in time as a picturesque museum piece.
Patrick Preston / East FalmouthCOMMENTS? Write to email@example.com or The Boston Globe Magazine/Letters, PO Box 55819, Boston, MA 02205-5819. Letters are subject to editing.