The reasons why people want to preserve the grass field are hardly moronic. In addition to the general arguments about grass vs. artificial turf, the Tiger Stadium field also has a historical element that should not be discounted.
There is a benefit to preserving the historic field that goes beyond a purely utilitarian purpose. Of course, it is much harder to put an exact dollar value on the benefits of historic preservation, but that doesn't mean that there are none, nor does it mean that the advocates for preservation are "moronic."
It would really help the debate to know how much extra it would cost to maintain the grass field. Are we talking about a few thousand dollars extra per year, or would it cost tens of thousands extra per year?
If the additional cost to preserve the field can be raised by preservation-minded individuals and organizations, then it is a win-win situation. If the additional cost to preserve the field is so exorbitant that it makes the whole project unfeasible, then we can all agree that it just wasn't realistic, and accept that artificial turf is the only realistic way to go.
As a baseball fan and a historic preservationist, I would absolutely love to see the grass field preserved. It would be a shame to see it lost for want of a few grand per year. On the other hand, if it will cost an extra $100k+ per year to preserve the grass field, then I would have to agree that it is just not realistic, and the artificial turf should be used.
Bookmarks