Fenway Park worth preserving, not dismantling

Fans got a view of a Red Sox game from left field at Fenway Park last season.
Fans got a view of a Red Sox game from left field at Fenway Park last season.

Kevin Paul Dupont’s shows an unfortunate lack of understanding in his “On Second Thought” column “At least 101 reasons to replace Fenway Park” (Sports, March 31).

To drag out the “pearls-on-a-pig” trope in arguing for the demolition of Fenway Park is an insult to the hundreds of construction workers, neighbors, engineers, preservation professionals, architects, and fans who worked for more than a decade to rehabilitate the Fenway Park we know today.

Not only was it a painstaking and exacting process to replace steel, repair and protect concrete, restore brick and mortar, and create breathing space within the ballpark, it was done while following stringent rules as required by the Massachusetts Historical Commission and the National Park Service.


Further, replacing the park would be an insult to the ownership group that opted to ignore the sports talk radio hyenas and unimaginative so-called experts and decided instead that saving Fenway was the best option for the team’s interest, for the game of baseball, and for the city of Boston.

Get Arguable in your inbox:
Jeff Jacoby on everything from politics to pet peeves to the passions of the day.
Thank you for signing up! Sign up for more newsletters here

May we all take a deep breath, and give thanks that spring is here. We know this not because the crocuses are finally daring to open up to the sun, but because it’s April and we Bostonians have the good fortune to return to Fenway Park.

Erika Tarlin


The writer is a member of the board of directors of Save Fenway Park.