Flood Preparedness requires a wide array of considerations, resources, products and services. Flood Barrier America offers the full spectrum of know-how, experience, services and preparedness products including Flood Barriers.

Pier 5 Association Petition

Missions and visions of the future of Boston Harbor Waterfront vary widely. Resilient, public values are challenged by privatization of public assets.

Pier 5 Request for Proposals | Boston Planning & Development Agency

In accordance with the Charlestown Navy Yard Master Plan, the BPDA released an Request for Proposals (RFP) in September 2020 for the ground lease and redevelopment of Pier 5 in the Charlestown Navy Yard. We received three proposals that we are currently evaluating. Update: The comment period closed on April 5, 2021. The BPDA is currently reviewing the comments received. Materials from February 8, 2021 Proposal Presentations Pier 5 RFP Context 6M: Presentation slides | Video rendering | Response to Q&A New Pier 5: Presentation slides | Video rendering | Response to Q&A Navy Blue: Presentation slides | Video rendering | Response to Q&A Meeting recording Reference Materials Navy Yard Master Plan Implementation Website Pier 5 Request for Proposals Submission: New Pier 5 Submission: Navy Blue Submission: 6M Development BPDA FAQ on the Pier 5 RFP process Documents All Documents »

Pier 5 Request for Proposals | Boston Planning & Development Agency

Boston Redevelopment Authority Survey for PLAN: Charlestown Process

BPDA Seeks Online Input for PLAN: Charlestown Process by Patriot-Bridge Staff • November 17, 2021 • 0 Comments

By Adam Swift

The PLAN: Charlestown process is continuing with the Boston Planning and Development Agency (BPDA) asking neighborhood residents to take part in a survey to provide feedback on a draft vision statement, goals, and principles for the process. PLAN: Charlestown is a community-driven neighborhood-wide planning initiative that BPDA officials state will create a vision that will help the community thrive over the next 10 to 20 years. “This survey is informed from the many engagement events and opportunities we’ve had so far, and is just a first draft of each item,” an email from the PLAN: Charlestown team stated.  The PLAN: Charlestown process has been bumpy at times. At an online forum to help tighten the visioning process on Oct. 21, BPDA and PLAN: Charlestown team members were peppered with questions about the scope of the project, about the BPDA’s relationship to developers, and about a sometimes foggy view of what qualifies as historic land within the neighborhood.

Questions about the PLAN: Charlestown process were also raised by several Charlestown Neighborhood Council (CNC) members and residents at a Nov. 4 CNC meeting. “At the meeting I asked why Plan: Charlestown did not follow the description entered on the BPDA web site. I received no answer of substance but rather was personally attacked,” stated Charlestown resident Gerald Angoff. “ I read from their website: ‘PLAN: Charlestown will establish a comprehensive and coordinated plan to ensure the equitable provision of infrastructure to support future land uses and development, mobility connections into and within Charlestown, parks and open space, climate resiliency, affordable housing, as well as strategies to enhance the existing community and preserve its historic assets.

The PLAN: Charlestown team is also in close coordination with an interdepartmental working group across city departments and state transportation agencies.’”  But at the meeting, BPDA community engagement manager Jason Ruggiero said that the PLAN: Charlestown process does comprise the entire community. Anyone interested in taking part in the survey who has not received an email from the BPDA can visit the PLAN:

Charlestown website at or email Ruggiero at

The survey itself covers some of the same ground as the Oct. 21 online meeting and seeks to garner input from those who were not able to attend. The survey is open until Nov. 22. Questions range from the background of the individuals taking the survey and their familiarity with the PLAN: Charlestown process to feedback on the draft vision statement and draft goals and principle. The draft vision statement reads, “In 2040, Charlestown is a thriving, diverse, accessible, and resilient neighborhood that unites an enhanced historic residential fabric with new affordable homes, jobs, and public parks along Rutherford Avenue and in Sullivan Square.” The draft goals touch upon transportation, housing, climate and the environment, and jobs and businesses. The next phase of the PLAN: Charlestown process, in addition to the feedback on goals, will include a deeper dive into issues such as infrastructure, land use scenarios, and preservation tools as outside consultants are brought on board.

BPDA Seeks Online Input for PLAN: Charlestown Process

What Don’t You Understand BRA?

To the Editor: A letter to the editor in a recent Vineyard Gazette newspaper, caught my attention and seemed to resonate with me as we are facing monumental development proposals in our one square mile of 20,000 people. The writer stated, “It’s time to allow open meetings on huge controversial plans, wearing a mask of course, but we need to attend open meetings. These virtual meetings may be alright for trying to remove a tree or add a dormer, but huge plans need input from the public. The Vineyard is in trouble.”  We in Charlestown are in trouble.

There are monumental building proposals. There will be huge impacts on our infrastructure, green and open space. There will be thousands of new residents added to our one square mile. Surrounded by water we will be severely impacted by climate change and flooding. There are only three ways in and out of Charlestown. The Boston Planning and Development Agency throws out snippets of the upcoming proposals that are currently undergoing via the development process. My challenge to the reader, can you name all the proposals, the height of the buildings, where they are located and the projected number of new residents?  My question to the BPDA is, how many citizens / residents take advantage of one Zoom meeting after another? Are there a sufficient number of respondents to adequately access what people in the community are thinking? Could you please give us a snapshot of how many people respond to your never -ending surveys? There are over 15,000 adults living in Charlestown. Is your response rate acceptable? Can more be done to communicate the proposals and feel comfortable that all in Charlestown are aware of the future building and the impacts on this community? Last week in the Patriot Bridge, “BPDA updates CNC on neighborhood development plans,” I felt that it was hard to digest one proposal after another, where these would be located, how many units, how the Impact Advisory Group is chosen? Most importantly, what land encompasses Plan Charlestown? This question was raised by a resident at this meeting, Is the entire Charlestown, developed and undeveloped land included in Plan Charlestown? Clearly Plan Charlestown does not include the Bunker Hill Housing development, the Navy Yard, Schrafft’s Center, Mystic River area, Sullivan Square, Hood and Rise development, Rutherford Corridor, and the two Bunker Hill Parking Lot sites. What does Plan Charlestown include and exclude?   At this meeting, the facilitator stated that the BPDA does not have the last say in deciding a project as the Zoning Board has to approve or disapprove. As I recall, when concerned citizens went before the Zoning Board regarding the Hood development due to the height and density, the Hood Project was approved. The citizens ultimately are not listened to. As an aside, while attending a Hood Plant meeting years ago, the developer was asked if the building height would set a precedent for future building proposals. The developer stated, “That would not be a bad precedent to set.” Here we are years later and now experiencing that precedent. There are 2,700 signatures for a Master Plan for Charlestown that were collected in 2019 and rejected by the BPDA. Major cities all over the nation have a Master Plan. Boston needs to step up and realize business as usual is not working and not fair, this is the 21st century. Listen up BPDA, your time is up. It’s time to reset and engage the community in a meaningful way so that we all understand what’s at stake. A picture is worth a thousand words. Take out a full- page ad in the Patriot Bridge, provide a map, and show the reader just what Plan Charlestown entails. Where the new proposals are located, the height of the buildings, the number of potential residents, the amount of open and green space for all the new residents, as well as all the current development that has taken place over the last few years. Do the right thing for Charlestown and reset your strategy and include all of Charlestown. Stop with your nebulous on -line surveys. Step up to the plate and listen. Charlestown wants a better quality of life, clean air, transportation, schools, more open and green space, and more affordable housing for themselves, the community and for future residents. What don’t you understand in this picture?  Ann Kelleher

Letters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor – to the CNC

Presentation to the CNC: Less Than Half the Story To the Editor: The article in the November 11, edition of the Patriot-Bridge by Adam Swift grossly underrepresented the content and impact of the BPDA presentation to the Charlestown Neighborhood Council on November 4.

The presentation was an embarrassment for the BPDA and a frustrating disappointment for Charlestown. Residents should know that the BPDA’s single focus is on disjointed and disconnected development projects unguided by any overall plan or vision for Charlestown. The agency is still the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA), its legal name. Both by name and by action, development is its business. Planning is not involved.

The BPDA (BRA) team at the CNC meeting gave as their presentation a list of the development projects currently submitted for their review and included little detail, analysis or perspective. Only at the end of their comments and in response to questions did they address planning and “Plan: Charlestown”. They admitted planning has been stalled allegedly in part by COVID for at least 3 or more years. Questions followed that were not covered by your reporter.

One Council member asked why development could not await the finish of the Plan. Another asked why the waterfront was not included and why planning did not include impact on schools, parking, transportation, traffic, fire, police. The reply was that these are “social services”. At the meeting I asked why Plan: Charlestown did not follow the description entered on the BPDA web site for which electronic links were distributed. I received no answer of substance but rather was personally attacked.

I read from their website: “PLAN: Charlestown will establish a comprehensive and coordinated plan to ensure the equitable provision of infrastructure to support future land uses and development, mobility connections into and within Charlestown, parks and open space, climate resiliency, affordable housing, as well as strategies to enhance the existing community and preserve its historic assets. The PLAN: Charlestown team is also in close coordination with an interdepartmental working group across city departments and state transportation agencies.”

( Further search of the BPDA website reveals that Plan: Charlestown does not include the Navy Yard and Bunker Hill Housing as specified in the outsourced RFP granted by the BPDA for Plan: Charlestown consulting services:

(  As further evidence of the absence of planning is the list of old planning efforts that are out of date to include the update of the 1990 Navy Yard Master plan from 2007, Sullivan Square Disposition Plan from 2013, Coastal resilience Solutions For Charlestown 2017 and Revitalizing Older Houses in Charlestown from 1973. All Charlestown residents should understand that BPDA actions for Charlestown focus solely on individual development projects and not on planning. During public discussion I maintained that approval of development projects should only follow completion of planning. Why should the BPDA be acting without a plan? Incoming Mayor Wu in 2019 published a devastating critique of the BPDA, “Fixing Boston’s Broken Development Process” ( The BPDA presentation at the CNC meeting was evidence that she was correct and that profound, fundamental change should come to the BPDA. Gerald H. Angoff, MD MBA Past Time for a Reset

Letters to the Editor

Coastal Zoning Overlay District in Effect

Coastal Zoning Overlay District in Effect by John Lynds • November 10, 2021 • 0 Comments Late last month, Acting Mayor Kim Janey signed a new Coastal Zoning Overlay District into effect requiring new development in Charlestown and other Boston coastal neighborhoods to take additional steps to limit the damage and displacement related to the impacts of coastal storms and sea level rise. Based upon climate modeling, 40-inches of sea level rise in Charlestown so the new Zoning Overlay (Article 25A of the Boston Zoning Code) will provide new definitions and standards for building dimensions and uses to facilitate flood resilient design for new projects and building retrofits. In Charlestown the areas subjected to the new zoning include the neighborhood’s waterfront along the Mystic River, the area around the Schraft’s City Center wrapping around to Rutherford Avenue area and Mishawam as well as the Navy Yard along the Boston Harbor. Janey said the new zoning goes beyond the areas identified in FEMA flood maps, applying to areas of Charlestown and the City that could be inundated during a major coastal storm event, known as a 1 percent chance flood event with 40-inches of sea level rise and promotes resilient planning and design, provides consistent standards for the review of projects, and maximizes the benefits of investments in coastal resilience. “We must take the steps that will better protect our neighborhoods from the increasing threat of coastal storms and sea level rise,” said Janey. “By requiring developers to do more in vulnerable areas, we are protecting our infrastructure, our jobs, and our homes.” Boston Planning and Development Agency Director Brian Golden said for Boston to grow and thrive for generations to come, the city must ensure that buildings constructed today are resilient and protected from the impacts of climate change. “By updating our zoning code to go above and beyond the FEMA flood maps, Boston is leading the way in not only preparing for the storms of today, but the storms of tomorrow,” said Golden. All development projects subject to BPDA’s Article 80 Large and Small Project review will be required to undergo Resilience Review, and comply with the Coastal Flood Resilience Design Guidelines. In 2019, the BPDA adopted Coastal Flood Resilience Design Guidelines to provide clear strategies and best practices for developers, business owners, and residents to respond to climate change. The new guidelines are Intended to prevent flood damage by elevating building occupiable space, flood proofing areas beneath flood elevations, and promoting health and safety by preventing uses such as living space below the flood elevation. “In Boston, we know that our most vulnerable communities are disproportionately bearing the burden of the climate crisis,” said Chief of Environment, Energy and Open SpaceReverend Mariama White-Hammond. “As a City, we must work together to take the crucial steps to protect all of our residents from the effects of climate change. I am grateful to Mayor Janey and the BPDA for updating zoning measures to enhance our collective resilience.” The new zoning regulations include: Building Height: Projects undergoing Resilience Review will have their height measured from two feet above the Sea Level Rise Base Flood Elevation (SLR-BFE), rather than at grade, which is what current zoning requires. Building Setbacks: Projects will have allowances to extend into side yard, rear yard, and front yard setbacks for structures needed for vertical circulation, such as stairs or ramps to get from surrounding grade to a higher first floor elevation. There are also allowances for side yard and rear yard encroachments for new structures to house mechanical systems to ensure they are not located in basements or beneath the Sea Level Rise Design Flood Elevation (SLR-DFE), which consists of the SLR-BFE plus one to two feet based on type of use. Lot Coverage and Required Open Space: The structures needed for vertical circulation and mechanical systems referenced above will be excluded from measurement of lot coverage and open space Gross Square Floor Area: Will exclude structures needed for vertical circulation and areas devoted to flood protection measures. Limitations on Use Below the Sea Level Rise Design Flood Elevation: For health and safety purposes, uses beneath the SLR DFE are limited to access for vertical circulation structures; flood prevention measures, storage, and parking.

Coastal Zoning Overlay District in Effect

PLAN: Charlestown Requests for Proposals of Privatization of Pier 5

Request for Proposals (“RFP”)
PLAN: Charlestown
Contact Information

The Boston Redevelopment Authority d/b/a Boston Planning & Development Agency (“BPDA”) by its Interim Chief Procurement Officer is pleased to issue this Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for the PLAN: Charlestown planning study (hereinafter, “PLAN: Charlestown”) for consulting services to assist in the development of a neighborhood plan for the Charlestown neighborhood of Boston.

Flooded with lessons: Martha’s Vineyard

Flooded with lessons: Will we listen? By The Martha’s Vineyard Times -November 3, 20211 Five Corners flooded on Sunday morning, forcing Tisbury Police to close the intersection and divert traffic. Get used to seeing this, because all that Beach Road work includes no long-term repairs to drainage. — Eunki Seonwoo That Oct. 25-26 nor’easter sure did pack a wallop. Trees were uprooted, massive limbs detached, and some up-Island roads looked more like a slalom course than a roadway — a very dangerous, wire-laden slalom course. As a result, there were massive power outages all across the Island, which lasted for as many as five days for some individuals. So what did we learn from all of this, and how do we move forward? Let’s hope that emergency managers on the Island are holding a debriefing to determine what went right and what needs fixing. We have some ideas. In August, we were impressed by the planning ahead of Tropical Storm Henri.

Of course, that storm fizzled before it got here, and was thankfully a non-factor, but it was reassuring to see a parking lot filled with utility trucks ahead of the storm — ready in case we needed them. We feel like there was plenty of warning about the recent nor’easter, too, and the predictions by the National Weather Service days ahead of the storm were pretty spot-on. Have we all become too complacent about the punch that a nor’easter can pack? We shouldn’t. The National Weather Service predicted powerful winds with gusts to hurricane force. They also predicted that the soaking rain and leaf cover still on trees would contribute to damage. They were right. It seemed like the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) and Eversource, the state’s largest electricity provider, were caught by surprise. We didn’t see many utility trucks coming to the Island ahead of the storm.

And once the storm hit and ferries were shut down, there was no way to get them over here for a full day and a half. That meant lots of people being without power for extended periods of time. Food lost, work hours missed, and schools forced to close for two days. Never mind enough frustration to fill the Island Home’s freight deck. This isn’t about the highway departments that cleared the roads, and the actual line crews who restored power — some of them coming from as far away as Georgia and Canada. From what we heard and witnessed, they did yeomen’s work.  No, this is about the people in a position to plan ahead. This storm also has us thinking about the Island’s infrastructure as we work toward the goals set all across the Vineyard during town meetings. Those goals include reducing fossil fuel use on the Island to 50 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2040, as well as increasing the use of renewable energy sources to 50 percent by 2030 and 100 percent by 2040. Meanwhile, we have a project going on right now on Beach Road that does little to meet those goals. The project features newly installed utility poles for aboveground wires. By the way, some of those poles were already tilting after the strong winds from that nor’easter.

There is zero effort to repair the drainage issues that plague Beach Road and Five Corners, illustrated by Sunday morning’s massive flooding by a relatively minor storm compared with the one we had a few days earlier. “The flooding that occurred at Five Corners in Vineyard Haven was a result of heavy rains in conjunction with a high tide and debris from the nor’easter which occurred last week that blocked outlets and clogged catch basin grates. The district worked with the town and cleared the debris and removed any blockages, [which] allowed the flooding to subside when the tide receded,” Judith Reardon Riley, a spokeswoman for MassDOT, wrote in an email to The Times. “Drainage reconstruction is not part of the Beach Road reconstruction project. However, any existing drainage structures within the project limits that were damaged were reconstructed, and the system overall was cleaned out.”

Members of the select board should be screaming from the rooftops, which is where they’ll need to be if the issue with drainage on Beach Road and around Five Corners isn’t fixed. But the board and town leadership are partly to blame. They fought attempts to move sewer lines and other underground utilities, because it would be too costly. So here we are. Is it too soon to call the Beach Road project a complete failure? Probably. But is it on that path? Absolutely. This is the main access route for ambulances to our hospital, and for Islanders to get to and from the Steamship Authority ferries. Yet we don’t treat it with that kind of importance. The groundwork has been laid for underground wiring, but it won’t be installed because town voters rejected the funding twice. So we’re headed toward 2040 with the goal of being all-electric (something we support) with a wiring infrastructure that cripples the Island when winds reach hurricane force.  The town owes us a plan and a resolution for how this will be fixed.

Flooded with lessons: Will we listen? – The Martha’s Vineyard Times

Navy Yard Plan RFP

think the documentation and the available BPDA online resources are summarized and linked below. It has take some time to find these links. I think we can use and reuse these links and documentation. We should consider collecting these links and documents in our association library AND including the essence in our presentations.   The place to find past RFP’s and decisions and awards of the BPDA is on their “Procurement” page. Link to the old Activation RFP: Activation of the Charlestown Navy Yard Waterfront & Water’s Edge ( Note that no award or decision is referenced or linked. We don’t know what the Anthem/Anchor award actually entailed that I’m award. I see know new RFP Link to the procurement page: Procurement | Boston Planning & Development Agency ( RFP for Plan: Charlestown page reference: PLANCharlestown ( Link to the RFP is included if you scroll down. The RFP which I’ve also attached specifically EXCLUDES the Navy Yard and Bunker Hill Housing. The Plan for the Navy Yard referenced in the BPDA page on Plan: Charlestown is the 1990 Navy Yard Master Plan for the Yard’s End “updated” in 2007. Links: PLAN: Charlestown | Boston Planning & Development Agency ( and Navy Yard Master Plan Implementation | Boston Planning & Development Agency ( See Page 7 and Exhibit J on page 68 Exhibit J: Note the comment at the bottom. This image should repeatedly be sent with comments and letters and articles proving the BPDA is misrepresenting and lying.  

The Independent Newspaper Group | Business Details | Better Business Bureau® Profile

The Independent Newspaper Group View full profile This is a multi-location business.Need to find a different location? Location of This Business 385 Broadway, Revere, MA 02151-3033 BBB File Opened: 12/31/2001 Years in Business: 20 Business Started: 12/22/2000 Type of Entity: Sole Proprietorship Number of Employees: 1 Alternate Business Name Lynn Journal The Independent Newspaper Callery Press Read More Business Management Mr. Stephen Quigley, President Contact Information Principal Mr. Stephen Quigley, President Customer Contact Ms. Deb DiGregorio, Manager Additional Contact Information Phone Numbers (781) 593-1991Other Phone (781) 485-1403Other Phone (617) 523-9490Other Phone (617) 567-9600Other Phone (617) 387-9600Other Phone Website Addresses http://Eastietimes.Com http://Everettindependent.Com Social Media Wikipedia Business Categories Newspaper

The Independent Newspaper Group | Business Details | Better Business Bureau® Profile