Pier 4 Noise Study Boston Harbor


Reason 1 Courageous Public Sailing Community would be disbanded.

Boston Harbor Pier 4 Noise Study

Pier 5 wind speed Averages 10-20 miles per hour (2021)
63 noise decibels can be heard on Pier 4 with 11 mile per hour wind
Boston Municipal Code standards for unreasonable noise levels are:

-louder than 50 decibels from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., or
-louder than 70 decibels at any time, except for permitted construction.

63 decibel level was predominantly from sailing school engineless small sailboat rigs and halyards.

Samples taken late at night to omit significant ambient variables such as Pier 6 outdoor bar-restaurant and marina noise such as automobile, trucks and boat engines. Also excluded are Pier 4 regular operations, outdoor tented group events, racing activities and ferry services. The engineless sailboat fleet was docked with sail covers and booms made fast. Pier 6 marina accommodated large sailboats in the past and may in the future. Although Pier 5 is further from the Pier 4 noise levels, it is likely louder with all of these omitted variables of significant sounds. The point here is that either way, Courageous would not prevail.

East Boston Master Plan

The East Boston Master Plan provides a framework for new growth and development in the community’s commercial districts and waterfront area, while preserving and enhancing the quality of life in the community’s residential neighborhoods.

Many of the recommendations from the April 2000 plan have been implemented including but not limited to the creation of new open space.

Mixed-use development proposals have responded to the framework and the waterfront is dotted with many approved mixed-use developments that are awaiting financing and construction work for final implementation and completion.

The intensive one-year planning process which was completed in April 2000, involved widespread community participation. In addition to citizen involvement, the planning process included extensive coordination among city departments (DND, Parks, BTD, and BHA) and was recognized with an Honorable Mention by the Boston Management Consortium’s Neighborhood Pride Award.

The plan is organized around four focus areas: Reviving the East Boston Waterfront, Enhancing the Neighborhood’s Commercial Centers, Strengthening the Residential Neighborhoods, and Shoring up the Airport Edge. For each focus area, the plan provides recommendations regarding land use, open space and public environment, historic resources and heritage, and transportation and parking. The plan also provides development guidance and addresses regulatory issues for each focus area.

Issued in conjunction with an Implementation Strategy, the plan established a set of goals and objectives that reflect the community’s desire to maintain East Boston’s identity and culture, while looking into its future development.

The plan is available at the East Boston public libraries or by contacting the BPDA.

Documents All Documents »

Heat Study Pier 5 Boston

Benefits of Managing the Heat Island Effect

Benefits of Managing the Heat Island Effect

Heat Study Pier 5 Boston

Urban areas, where structures are highly concentrated and greenery is limited, become Heat Islands of higher temperatures relative to outlying areas.

Heat islands form under a variety of conditions, during the day or night, in small or large cities, in suburban areas, in northern or southern climates, and in any season.

Efforts to reduce the heat island effect, mitigate climate change, and adapt to climate change impacts often interact with each other in complex ways.

What are Heat Islands?

Urban structures such as buildings, roads, and other infrastructure absorb and re-emit the sun’s heat more than natural landscapes such as forests and water bodies.

Most efforts to cool urban heat islands produce many benefits, including lower temperatures, electricity demand, air pollution, greenhouse gases, and harmful health impacts. Efforts to reduce the heat island effect thus also help to address climate change and improve air quality. In addition, these same measures can help communities become more resilient to many of the damaging impacts of climate change.

  • Planting shade trees or installing green or cool roofs can lower surface and air temperatures while reducing the amount of energy needed to cool buildings, resulting in improved reliability of the electric system, particularly during extreme weather events.
  • Green roofs and some types of cool pavements can diminish heat islands while also reducing stormwater runoff, and limiting flooding risks during heavy rainstorms. In the same way, increasing the tree canopy helps protect against high winds, erosion, and flooding.
  • Smart growth can cool urban areas, while also decreasing the need for fossil fuel-powered transportation and improving access to cooling centers.

In some cases, climate change adaptation or mitigation strategies might conflict with heat island reduction efforts. For example, any adaptation effort that results in replacement of vegetative cover with impermeable surfaces, such as hardening coastal infrastructure to protect against rising sea levels, could increase the heat island effect. However, communities can help minimize such negative outcomes by incorporating cooling strategies into overall climate action planning (mitigation and adaptation).


You can view “CRCRiskFootprintDashboardProductSheetFinalV5073020R1.pdf” at: https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:867096bc-afa9-4cd1-ae71-a3cc2d3c8e1c
You can view “CRCRiskFootprintUserGuideFinalDraft110220R2.pdf” at: https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:794c0f6b-39e1-4381-abd1-5f168af06ebd
You can view “CRCFloodBarrierZachCutlerRiskFootprintDashboardSubscrAgreeV303012021.pdf” at: https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:45ff9396-7dfb-4de8-aa33-7b082e6adc7d
You can view “CRCMutualNDAUpdate011520.pdf” at: https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:91e9f6fd-20b9-4624-87be-96ba09559705
You can view “CRCZachCutlerRiskFootprintV497 8th Street, Boston, Massachusetts.pdf” at: https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:42b956f0-ecd6-46d0-b2dd-87dfb99c47ad

NYC’s SPEED environmental mapping tool. https://speed.cityofnewyork.us/?lat=40.72332345541451&lng=-74.00115966796875&zoom=11&themes=%7B%7D

We’d love feedback on your experience.  If you attended the SPEED demo on 11 March, kindly fill out Open Data Week’s Event Participant Survey.

The demo was recorded and will be uploaded in early April to Open Data NYC and BetaNYC’s YouTube channel.

I’ll be doing a similar SPEED demo at GISMO’s monthly meeting on 30 March at 5:30pm.  You may register here.  After registering, you’ll get a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting. Any questions or concerns, please contact gismonyc@gmail.com.

 As always, you can provide comments or ask questions about SPEED through the Contact Us feature (upper right corner of the SPEED interface.)

Happy speeding (?), Lee Ms. Lee Ilan Chief of PlanningMayor’s Office of Environmental Remediation City of New York 100 Gold Street, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10038 Tel. 212-788-2929; Fax 212-312-0984 lilan@cityhall.nyc.gov



Exclusion in Upscaling Institutions: The Reproduction of Neighborhood Segregation in an Urban Church

Erick Berrelleza

Published 2020


City & Community

This paper examines the intersection of neighborhood change and parish reconfiguration in Charlestown, MA. The merger of two Roman Catholic churches has unsettled the congregational cultures, just as gentrification is unsettling broader neighborhood dynamics. Based on findings from 28 in–depth interviews and participant–observation, I examine the spatial reproduction of neighborhood segregation in the sanctuary of St. Mary’s church. Affluent newcomers and “Townies”–stalwart residents who have weathered earlier waves of neighborhood upscaling–form power alliances that result in the exclusion of the poorest residents in the shared space of this urban church. By paying attention to the seating arrangements and other social interactions of churchgoers, I discover that the new parish vision of the merged church–albeit one that purported to celebrate the diverse residents of the neighborhood–resulted in the cultural exclusion of Latinos. Institutional decisions, the desire to maintain ethnic enclaves, and tacit messages of group exclusion reify the race and class divisions of the neighborhood within the walls of the church. I conclude with an exploration of the strategies of resilience to gentrification and merger evident in this case by attending to the actions of the disadvantaged in relation to the changing institution