Philip Bess: First, we’d like to review the parameters we set for ourselves in this project. They are:
· To stay within the confines of the current Red Sox property.
· Don’t touch key features of the ballpark: the playing field, bleachers, Yawkey façade
· The quantity of seats, boxes, etc., are SITE rather that PROGRAM generated.
· Demolish the grandstand, but rebuild it in a way that reflects the ballpark’s historic character.
· Maximize the Red Sox revenues within the constraints of the existing site

Rolando Llanes: The key issues we identified for reconstruction where: 
· Increase Points of Entry
· Capitalize on opportunities for On-Site Development
· Improve public circulation (vertical and horizontal)
· Increase “back of the house” services, such as the commissary

This proposal differs from the Preservation Proposal presented by Howard Decker on Wednesday (Aug. 10) in that it is “a more aggressive intervention.” But there are similarities in the sense that, despite the more extensive changes, in the end “it’s still Fenway Park” and both plans “work within the very strict geometry of the existing site.”

The changes this plan makes to existing Fenway Park include:
· Increasing the tread depth (chairback-to-chairback) to a minimum of 33”
· Increasing seat width from an average of 18” to 19-21”
· All the grandstand seats facing towards the infield
· Adding an upper deck, including a cross-isle, above the entire grandstand.
· Adding new quirks, such as an “overhang” in right field, which puts fans above the actual in-play area of the field.
· New, and more, luxury boxes – 64 total (vs. 44 in existing Fenway Park).
· A wider (48’), more interesting concourse, with plenty of space for concessions.
· A team store
· 400 seats on top of the Green Monster
· 3,500-3,800 club seats (vs. 606 in existing Fenway).

The fundamental feature of a ballpark is what architects call the “cross-section.” Philip Bess and I have developed a different approach to the “industry standard.” For instance, in most new stadiums, suites are added in a way that tends to push upper decks higher and farther away from the field than was true in traditional parks. This design is more utilitarian: the ballpark is no more than a ballpark, but it is a qualitatively better ballpark for fans. The idiosyncratic elements in our design are legitimate, in the sense that they arise out of the struggle to make the most of the existing space, just as the most famous historic elements of Fenway Park did (like the Green Monster and Duffy’s Cliff before it).

One request from fans is for seats on top of the Green Monster. This plan creates four rows of seats (400 total, plus 100 standing room) by extending a truss between the light towers. These seats would be among the most sought after in baseball. As $100 single-game seats, they could generate $3.5 million a year.

We identified the building behind right field as being under-utilized. We came up with a plan for developing it for the Red Sox, with a range of facilities, including:
· Player training area
· Team offices
· 200 Parking Spaces for players and team employees
· A commissary with 18-25,000 square feet 
(With additional satellite commissaries in the ballpark proper)
· A public plaza at the intersection of Lansdowne and Ipswich, with trees, tables, a statue of Ted Williams, a giant TV for watching games, and the front doors to team offices. (Naming rights to this space could be sold.)
· The building includes a year-round Ballpark Club with a panoramic view of the playing field. An open-air terrace on the roof includes 400 or more additional seats.