Future Fenway - 8/9 Open Session Q&A


Future Fenway Design Symposium							Work-In-Progress: Open Session Notes from the Design Symposium Fenway Park Preservation Working Group Open Session #3 Notes Wednesday, August 9, 2000 Presentation by Howard Decker Questions, Answers, and Comments When you stated "half the cost of the Red Sox proposed ballpark", is that half the full cost or half the cost minus land acquisition? We are shooting for half of the $352 million -- around $175 million. We call it a cost assessment, not a cost estimate, because we have not yet gotten far enough for an estimate. [SFP note: that makes it 25% of the full $672 million cost of the Red Sox proposal, when land-taking is included.] Will it meet the Red Sox revenue expectations? We have substantially increased points of sale, we've added luxury seats to get to 72, we've added three party suites, we've gotten rid of the 600 club, but created a new club that will have a year round restaurant that will let you visit and view the park. Have I put 44,000 people in the stadium? -- No, and I will not get there. But we can meet many of the needs. The Grandstand Reconstruction Proposal will probably meet even more of those sorts of needs. Of course, net revenue will look better than gross, because the costs are so much lower. How much of this is new, and how much of this is what is already existing? The vast majority of the work is rehabilitation, and new construction inside the park to meet their goals. There are three areas we can redo without compromising the historic resource. corner of Brookline and Yawkey Way corner of Van Ness and Yawkey Way Under and around the infamous bad view right field seats It removes elements currently in three areas, and allows for reconstruction including a new point of entry at each corner, with ramps, stairs and elevators. We will start by replacing the existing garage behind the park with a new building, including: team parking team support truck docks service areas concession areas parking for front office and a whole bunch of new stuff Assuming for some reason this program is unacceptable, is there any way to get landmark status and do more construction, like the [Reconstrucion] proposal? There is a balancing point. The rules of what constitutes a landmark are based on a dialogue about the elements. At the level of a national landmark, saving a few facades would probably be insufficient for getting the landmark status. If it is a landmark will the Sox still own it? Yes Can it be designated a landmark without the Red Sox permission? To be designated, they would need to be active participants in the conversation. In the late 1980’s the National Park Service undertook a study of athletic facilities across the US, with plans of developing a thematic district. The NPS looked at Fenway Park, and said that they thought that the park was eligible for status as a landmark. They have therefore stated that the park is important, and it could get landmark status. Could the Red Sox tear Fenway Park down if it is designated a landmark? Well, they can theoretically still do it. But the process I am proposing could, and should, hold them from tearing it down. If we succeed in bringing the Red Sox to the table, the first rule would be that it cannot be torn down. They may think I’m crazy when they first hear the suggestion about designation, but there are some advantages in cost, predictability, financial benefits, etc. I can’t speak for the Red Sox, but this proposal can get them a whole lot closer to their goals and objectives than Fenway Park is today. How long will construction take? That depends. We can do sequencing and phasing of work. I've identified eight phases, some that can be overlapped. Much of the work can be done in the off-season periods. It will be a step by step improvement in the program. The service building would come first. This will allow the Brookline/Yawkey work to be done, because facilities there will be in the new building. Nothing says it has to be done all at once. This assumes that city and state will go along with phasing and sequencing because the building is indeed out of compliance with ADA and codes, but phased compliance is allowed with support from government as long as there is a plan. What about doing work in summer morning shifts or road trip dates? I’m proposing phasing that is discrete, and does not require putting away and picking up work over time. The work could all be done in off-seasons, except the large building in the back triangle that would not impact the play, and the current park. What is your thought on the structural stability of the stadium? I am a licensed architect, not a structural engineer. I’ve seen and rehabilitated buildings that were in a lot worse shape than Fenway. I didn’t see anything that appears life threatening, although I expected to because of some of the materials that I read. It may be there, but I didn’t see it. I have also studied the Red Sox reports from their consultants, and have conferred with two strtuctural engineers working with our team. There has been comments that people wouldn’t work there because it so dangerous, but it gets 2 million visitors per year. I don’t see a problem. What about the concrete? Restoring historic concrete is difficult, but it can be done. There are worse problems in many places. Bridges for example have desperately damaged structural concrete, and I don’t see anything as bad here. Would you be shoring it up so that it will last much longer? Of course. How deep are the piles, what are they made of, what is the settling, etc? I don’t know. I can’t answer all those questions. The building sits at least in part on wood pile. The water table is about four feet below the field. It has sunk in general. Has their been settlement, I don’t know. In 1990, they drove new piles. I assumed it worked out OK, because the 600 club is still up there. They offset columns and shifted loads. I would love to answer these questions, but I would need a lot more than ten days to answer. Why are we doing this event? Save Fenway Park and the Fenway CDC and other sponsoring organizations brought seven of us here to provide additional alternatives to the Red Sox proposal. We are looking at ways to think about urban baseball stadiums, to show that the Red Sox goals and objectives can be met without causing the loss of the stadium, without the loss of additional land, and without heavy impact on the Fenway neighborhood. Saturday we will report out our final result. Do we get club seats and suites? We have 75 suites, and the opportunity in the top level of the new building for a different type of club that provides revenue all year round. What about seat count? We will be higher than the existing count. Can we do more? Well, we could put a new deck over the bleachers, or stick more seats behind the bleachers. Why didn’t we do that? They are bleachers, and they would be horrible seats, although no worse than the bleachers in the new park . We could gratuitously add capacity but we decided not to do it. What about seats above the green monster? I'm not crazy about it for the preservation proposal,but am intrigued and would like to study this further. We have considered it, and we have drawn it, and it would be 400 seats that would sell for a lot of money. It is in one of the schemes, but I personally am not sure about it yet. It is part of the reconstruction scheme, however. What about the Citgo sign? Preserving the view corridor is important. We don’t control it, but it is an important part of the experience. We will not design anything that would block that view. Work-In-Progress: Open Session Notes from the Design Symposium





Future Fenway Design Symposium


What do you mean, "half the cost"? Meet Sox revenue expectations? How much is new vs. existing? If Fenway Park is a landmark: How much construction is possible? Would the Sox still own it? Be designated if Sox object Could it be torn down? How long would construction take? How good is Fenway Park's structure? Why are you looking at this? How many club seats and suites? What would be the seating capacity? Any Green Monster seats? What about the Citgo sign?

Copyright © 2000, Save Fenway, Inc. Please send email to webmaster@savefenwaypark.com. Webmastering by Cymatium Web Designs and Randy Divinski