Brian Baute (of Relentless Grace) said:

I’d have rather had input into the new stadium & operations, but I’m interested in the fate of War Memorial as well. I grew up attending games at an old ballpark (Bush Stadium in Indianapolis) that has now been converted for use as a dirt track for midget auto racing, and I hate that it’s fallen to such a fate. It deserves much better, as does War Memorial.

Two areas where historic preservation should trump all else: the ballpark façade and the sight lines. Seating for 5000+ isn’t essential, and removing a few sections of seats to replace those with a family picnic area or kids play area (not a playground, which is abominable in any ballpark, just a patch of grass for kids to run around and play ball together).

Modernization can take place in less visible ways – concession stands, locker rooms, scoreboard, plumbing, etc. can all be updated in relatively unobtrusive ways to achieve modernization without making the ballpark into a spaceship.

Landscape is hugely important, and an area where the aesthetics of the ballpark can actually be improved. Some parking area can be sacrificed, and replacing it with some greenspace (again, place for kids to play before/after a game, which may encourage tailgating, would be great). What about incorporating some sort of activities or something that may become a “commons” for gathering before/after a game, much like the streets around Fenway and Wrigley or Eutaw Street in Baltimore? The remaining on-site parking and the existing streetside parking would be more than sufficient. DBAP in Durham has little dedicated parking and much larger crowds and does fine with mostly on-street parking.

This is an important topic to me given that the stadium is the focal point when I look out in my back yard. Anyway, to keep it short, here are some ideas:

Historic Preservation- It seems to me that the most important aspect that we should focus on is the facade. This is how the stadium is defined, and truly a part of history not only in Greensboro, but also nationwide. Other than that, I don't think there is any other aspect that would warrant preservation.

Modernization - To comment on this topic I think you need to first pose a question; How aggressive do the tenants and city plan on being to promote this stadium? Greensboro is rapidly becoming a youth sports hotbed with the soccer complex at Bryan Park, and the new softball complex out on Horsepen Creek road, and there should be no reason why we do not put forth the same effort to recruiting the upper eschelon of baseball tournaments. I see no reason why we can not secure some college championships or regions events, high school tournaments, etc. If we are indeed going after these types of events then we need to have proper locker rooms, cages, etc. Concessions is also an area that would need to be addressed as well. As for the field itself, upgrading the drainage would be imperative as we there have been longstanding flooding issues and given that baseball is weather dependent, the faster that the field can be dried, the more enticing our facility becomes.

Appearance and Relation to Environment - Depending on how many seats are retained with the historic facade structure I would envision rasied hills on both sides of the foul lines that allows for watching from the grassy knoll. It would also be a good idea to open up the outfield fences and maintain that area as well for youngsters to chase down home run balls. The current side lot can be greatly reduced and utilized in a different way (suggestions include a memorial mall, playgrounds, picnic areas, etc. as the parking issue will not be that much of an issue in most cases.

Parking - As mentioned previously parking would only become a major concern in the event of the larger tournaments taking place at War Memorial. I would suggest that we work closely with the VFW to ensure that they can maintain their parking lot as this will allow them to still have a revenue stream. The additional parking requirements should easily be covered by the on-street spaces that would be available.

An Anonymous Greensboro Resident said:

I'd like to put in my two cents on this issue. First of all it seems important to me to say that I'm not much of a sports fan. I've lived in Greensboro since 1982 but the last time I was in WMS was when the Hornetswere there. I don't imagine I'll go to the stadium downtown either. I've never attended a sporting event at the Coliseum. That said,

I think there must be some way to have the best of everything. I think preservation is important. I think years from now, for instance, the Depot will be a bustling place and we'll be very glad we saved it--for use and for its architecture. So can we do the same for the ballpark? Preserve some of it, yes, but not be so hide-bound that we make a monument out of it it, that we save it by making it unusable.

The best memorial we can make (as our forefathers wanted) was a place to be used. I think the irony of dedicating a place for young people to play to the memory of those who were killed in war is too perfect to lose. So, for instance, save that grand entrance but make it a facility that can and is used--for college games or tournaments. I think that altering the interior for success is vital. I confess I have been to both the Padres and Blue Jays parks in the last 5 years and in both instances I can see that people are attracted by not just what goes on on the field. Can we do that in a limited way at WMS? People go for the game and the experience.

And part of making it usable, unfortunately, is to make it beautiful and accessible. To have parking nearby seems to be an absolute must in modern America. Downtown Greensboro is finally learning that. Surely it is possible to retain a reasonable amount of parking and have something that looks good too. Friendly Center has done that.

So, having had my say, good luck.

Roch Smith Jr. said:

I don't have a stake as much as those who live in the neighborhood, those who will be using the stadium for sports or those whose relatives the stadium memorializes. So, I offer my two cents only as a citizen at-large.

Historic Preservation: I think this is important, but it strikes me that the most architecturally significant part of the stadium is the facade. Updating the seating doesn't have to jeopardize the "feel" of the stadium if it's done in harmony with the facade.

Modernization: If the stadium is not updated to standards necessary to accommodate baseball tournaments, then the whole thing is in jeopardy of failing. "Preserving" the bathrooms and locker rooms at the expense of making the stadium useful would be counter productive, IMHO.

Appearance & relation to environment. Important? Yes. Crucial? No. But some landscaping would be very nice.

Parking. I'll leave that to those who can better predict the demand, but don't sacrifice beautification or preservation just so you can pack as many cars as close as possible. Walking a block or two won't deter visitors, especially if the facility is worth it.

An Anonymous Greensboro resident said:

To begin with we have an artichect,Philip Bess,this country's leading authority on stadiums.We don't need any more. The city was duped by the elected council and commissioners who were somehow influenced by the country club mob led by one Jim Melvin,perhaps the most destructive force in this community for at least 30 years.

Mr. Hammer is never wrong and predicted the destruction of WWM over 2 years ago.He predicted correctly that Action Greensboro was only a front and cheerleader for the unnecessary and ill suited cheap cookie cutter ultimately built.Proof is their desire to meld into the CC with all the conflicts of interest and the rest of their plans were smoke. The skids were greased for years befor the announcement of the bait and switch on location.There have always been solutions to the dissconnected notion that the county needed AG to supply their cheap social service alternative. The county had free(paid for)land downtown and a budget of $30,000.00 to build their new facility where it belonged.

New stadii,especially cheap cookie cutters like the one just built do nothing for the rejuvination of center cities and if anything have a negative economic impact. I'd say the Brookings Institute study(on point) and others of equal veracity are sufficient evidence. Melvin knew all that as his own urbanist admitted in a private conversation.So if the new stadium can't help downtown why build it?

Philip Bess's study showed WWM should cost only $15million to put into a class AA standard with other residual benefits in the area.A real feather in the hat of GBO.There were/are individuals prepared to get the ball rolling at WWM for renovation to Bess's standard(the result being the best minor league stadium in America).They would have found a true A and probably a AA team happy to play there. Melvin's mob could have taken $15,000.00 of the $20,000.00 they blew on Bellmeade Village property and done it by themselves. Besides other investors with the loot and desire to spend on the stadium and a team the city would have been way ahead with such a feather and bragging rights.Here's why.

To begin with what we have now is cheap and can't succeed financially .SO the right thing to do would be to bring in an impeccable(we just happen to have one)developer to implode the piece of junk and build Bellmeade Mixed Use Housing as origonally planned for the sight before the bait and switch.The city wins three ways,a world class stadium with an infinitly superior brand of ball,the much higher tax revenues from the mixed use development,and the absence of having to pay off the junk on Eugene which they meaning us will have to do when it fails. AG's plan all along was to sell the team for a big profit after a couple of years and stick us with having to pay it off. That plan has been in place for years.So only a for profit business wins at taxpayer expense(no evidence to suggest that it's a free stadium)and now the city looses 3 ways.

Worst case scenario is the Mob has to eat most of their mistake save what they could net from a developer of Bellbeade Village.They blew enough additional of their not so hard earned money,better suited to the core of their mission statements,on the promotion alone.

Cut to the chase.It's the only sane solution,the rest is smoke and mirrors. Hammer is always right and we've known for years that WWM effectively is coming down,One more example of melvin's madness with unlimited examples of the harm he's perpetrated on this community and several groups of investors.

An Anonymous Aycock neighborhood resident said:

My thoughts are that we need to preserve as much of this stadium as possible - I think removing any seats would be an enormous mistake and would shorten the possibilities for the future. I'm not saying I expect Greensboro college baseball to fill 7000 seats but I don't want to limit our options in the future and tearing seats out instead of spending money on the locker rooms would be a huge waste - In my opinion of course.

I also have a huge reservation about using this for concerts. That will bring an element to our neighborhood that we don't need. Every concert this stadium has had has disturbed me and family in some way. Music is always heard quite clearly because the band is facing our direction. The concert goers are rude, loud and leave an enormous amount of trash. The VFW has been vandalized the last two September concerts and I really don't like to have my children hear the "seven deadly words you can't say on television" loud and clear.

I'm still hoping for a miracle and someone try to develop this property. Our vision of the Veterans Square was pretty straight forward and I think it would be perfect with the rest of what will be happening on Summit.

I would love to see a museum in the building. Also a place where touring baseball teams could come and play. NCAA Baseball playoffs, exhibition games for "A" teams and get listed as a place to visit in the NBHF brochure. We could become a tourist stop on the way to the mountains or beach if we can play it right.

I know Durham is working on the same thing with the same ideas. We have a nicer "prettier" facility and we could really have something great. I really want to hear about the discussion!

Benjamin Briggs of Preservation Greensboro, Inc., said:

I'm a bit late to the draw, but would like to throw my hat in the ring for ideas for WMS...

Having just gotten back from Spain, and being an admitted Europhile, I continue to be challenged by European models of historic preservation that stray from our American ideas of conservation. It strikes me that American preservation still remains heavily influenced by the Williamsburg model, that is...historic sites remain static over time in museum-like quality, portraying a specific point in time, or what we preservationists call "Period of Significance." Any changes beyond what was "original" are considered out of order and wrong.

In Greensboro, the best example of this is Blandwood, which has a period of significance of 1846-1865...the years between construction of the Davis facade and the death of ex-Gov. John Motley Morehead. In fact, PGI supporters went as far in the 1960s to remove later additions to the site, and then in the 1980s reconstructed what had been lost in the early twentieth century, all in keeping with this Williamsburg ideal of preservation. I doubt if Blandwood ever will (or should) change in appearance from here on out. It is to be frozen in time.

And that is appropriate for this kind of place, or the Alhambra in Granada, of the cathedral in Sevilla. They should remain as monuments to their time. But not all buildings warrant this kind of protection.

In contrast, some buildings continue their useful lives beyond being frozen monuments. Take, for example, residences in College Hill, Fisher Park, or Aycock...which continue to have new kitchens, new wings, new bathrooms...with respect and care to the important (or contributing) elements of the house. Romantically speaking, these old houses continue to see Thanksgiving dinners, Easter dinners, and Fourth of July celebrations because they are allowed to change with the needs of their users. They don't remain static stuffy museums, to the extent that many houses might be foreign to the eyes of their first inhabitants (a good thing if the dead rise again), but the touchstone remains, and the living feel the connection to the past.

This second model is most often used in Europe today, in ways that go far beyond new bathrooms and kitchens. Look sat the new plans for Paternoster Square, a one million square foot mixed-use project at the very feet of England's most historic cathedral. Look at redevelopment in Sevilla in which historic buildings are totally gutted, the facades saved, and a new building erected inside the shell of the old. Or, look at the British Museum, in which a modern addition was inserted inside the courtyard of the classic nineteenth century building. The Victoria and Albert plan a similar addition in the near future.

Radical changes can sometimes be good for historic buildings, if the most important elements of the site can be identified and careful preserved. In my opinion, WMS could shrink in size next year, then expand again when the ballfield formerly known as Burlington Industries is deemed unsuitable and is abandoned, then shrink again, then grow again...and that is fine - if each of these projects respects the heart of the stadium, whatever that is found to be.

I think it would be fine to see some seating removed, and new elements constructed that looked very 2006...lots of glass and steel, in a marriage of old and new architecture...if the facade is retained and no "irreversible damage" is done to the remarkable contributing elements of the site. Change can sometimes be good, and if it good enough for the capitals of Europe, I hope we can find a place for it in Greensboro.